Jump to content


Dirt Lot 0'
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

73 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This sounds like a really great project. It's great that we are starting to see some of the development that used to be centered around UC spilling out into other neighborhoods on the east side. That's becoming a nice little strip, and with some additional residents, it will become even nicer.
  2. I live in the area, and I've found that sign (and others like it) to be particularly distasteful. Basically a statement that different kinds of people aren't welcome in a neighborhood. You see signs like that in suburban areas any time multi-family housing is proposed.
  3. Another nice development for a Cleveland area company: https://www.crainscleveland.com/manufacturing/polyone-corp-agrees-buy-clariants-color-and-additive-masterbatch-business-145-billion PolyOne is currently 681 in the Fortune listings, so I wonder if this could be enough to push it into the top 500.
  4. We have been doing a similar experiment and YouTubeTV has been pretty good on sports coverage. The coverage is tied to the local market, so if a game is on local TV, it will be on there. I was worried about buffering speed and lagging, but so far it has been fine. It is $49 a month, so cheaper than cable.
  5. Bummer. I liked to stop in there whenever I was in Little Italy. Always seemed busy too.
  6. I think that's accurate. There are a small number of cities where displacement through gentrification is a real problem (e.g., San Francisco, NYC, DC) and work needs to be done in those cities to try to ensure that existing residents aren't totally pushed out. In most other places where it is talked about, people use the term gentrification largely to oppose change to neighborhoods, development, or an influx of new people. The use of the term gentrification to oppose new people moving into an area is the most pernicious in that it's fundamentally exclusionary in nature and is little better than saying certain groups of people aren't allowed to live in certain areas. All that said, I think there would be way less inappropriate uses of the term "gentrification" to express these other ideas if greater public dollars were being spent ensuring that affordable and well-located public and/or affordable housing options are available.
  7. The builder is planning other houses in this area, but I don't think another one is going directly against the end one to continue the row.
  8. There are plenty of buildings on Public Square that aren't skyscrapers that don't think stick out like a sore thumb. I also think that filling in the skyline with a bunch of medium sized buildings (not to mention the gaping hole in downtown at street level) is better than sitting around forever for a huge skyscraper that probably will never be built.
  9. I don't mind the lack of a huge tower. Of course I'd love one, but I'm just happy to see those lots filled. One other benefit to smaller buildings over a supertall -- they will likely get built faster, meaning more employees and economic impact downtown on a faster timeframe.
  10. That could be. I'm surprised they haven't sold. Other single-family home properties in that area have been selling quickly and at high prices.
  11. Why would that be? Have people purchased these properties and now can't build on them?
  12. It doesn't appear there was a vote today -- just additional hearings with witnesses testifying in favor of the bill. Hopefully this comes up for a vote soon, or else they may run out of time again.
  13. That's great for him -- location is close to a lot of fun stuff around Gordon Square.
  • Create New...