Send your letters to: Letters@CoolCleveland.com
On Jonathan Sheffer's "Cleveland Low Life" shirt (See Cool Cleveland Interview here) i want jonathan sheffer's tshirt really bad!!!!! where can i buy it?
from Cool Cleveland reader julie dornback julieATsandvickarchitects.com
Ed: You can get Johnathan's shirt at: Revival, 822 West Market Street, Akron, 330-762-4845, http://www.bctzcleveland.com
On the Summit smoking ban (See Summit County bans smoking here, and Yr Turn here) I couldn't agree more. I am big on socializing. However, I typically go to events at museums, plays, etc..., where smoking is prohibited. Having a cancer scare myself, I feel that it is my right not to breath other people's cancer sticks. It's nice eating a meal without having to breath smoke, and the food smells and tastes a lot better without the stench of cigagrette or cigars. I won't even date anyone who smokes; it's like kissing an ash tray. Do you have a visual? I hope Cuyahoga County follows suit.
from Cool Cleveland reader Linda Zajac lzajac2001ATyahoo.com
Oh, for pity's sake, is this really all that difficult? Polluter pays. Let the state license smoking in bars and restaurants as it licenses alcohol service, and require top-notch ventilation equipment in licensed facilities. Owners who insist that their livelihood depends on creating a carcinogenic preserve for addicts can pay for the privilege, passing the cost on to their customers - and those funds can be diverted to prevention and treatment.
from Cool Cleveland reader Mati Senerchia senerchiaATsbcglobal.net
Thank you for addressing the smoking in restaurants issue. After happily returning to live in Cleveland after seven years, I was unhappy to hear the words when visiting local restaurants, "smoking or Non-smoking." Uggggh. I smell like I've walked out of a bar after eating brunch every Sunday after church. I make sure I wear washables, because the clothes go in the wash as soon as I get home! Call me "sensitive" to cigarettes. A good thing, too. It's cigarettes that killed a very close friend. I'm all for Cleveland joining most US cities in being smoke-free in restaurants. Non-smoking in restaurants is COOL! I'll be writing the PD and our state officials. Please join me!
from Cool Cleveland reader Janet Gaydosh janetgaydoshATadelphia.net
Dear ODOT: (See ODOT still doesn't get it here) [ed: The following are letters sent to Ohio Department of Transportation Deputy Director David Coyle (david.coyle@dot.state.oh.us), and/or ODOT Project manager Craig Hebebrand, and Cc:'ed to Cool Cleveland] Mr. Coyle, Please take the necessary time to ensure that the bridge which will be erected in Cleveland is one that will impact the region positively. We have a great town here and a signature bridge could do wonders for the region. We've had too many public projects that were rushed into in this town that we are still trying to work ourselves out of. Please try to alleviate and not contribute to our problems. I'd be happy to discuss this with you if you have the time.
from Cool Cleveland reader Kevin Patrick Murphy
Mr. Coyle, I am new to the city, having just moved to Tremont in August, and am very interested in the inner belt bridge project. My bus takes me across the I-90 Bridge to work every day. From what I have read ODOT has done a good deal of research into the best alternative for a new bridge. However, it is somewhat distressing to hear that local businesses and residents still have misgivings about the project. It also concerns me to read that Mr. Alsenas’ proposal, which appears to provide a great alternative to the ODOT proposal while avoiding any negative impacts on my neighborhood (and which also has the support of a large contingent of Clevelanders), hasn’t really received a serious second look. (Has it?). I am no expert, but one lesson I learned from military and business experiences is that you never move forward with a plan without doing two things: 1) thoroughly consider the input of those involved, and 2) evaluate all available alternatives before executing your plan. If citizens are still raising the same concerns after your meetings, and agencies are claiming that certain proposals have not been given a full and fair evaluation, then my conclusion is that the above criteria have not been met. Please correct me if I am wrong. I would welcome your feedback. P.S. Do you have any documents available (besides your web page) that provide a comprehensive look at each alternative (I.e. positives/negatives of each) and outline your criteria for selecting the current proposal?
from Cool Cleveland reader Marty Barnes marty.barnesATnationalcity.com
Mr. Hebebrand, I urge you and the Ohio Department of Transportation to fully consider all alternatives to the rerouting of the innerbelt. As ODOT’s position now stands, the recommended solution will a) impact economic growth in core areas of downtown Cleveland, including the new development zones created by the Euclid Corridor project; and b) deprive the city of a truly beautiful signature bridge known worldwide. I am a frequent visitor to Charleston SC, and their new Cooper River bridge is something to behold. If they can make neighborhood adjustments in the cause of beauty and development, so can we.
from Cool Cleveland reader Steve Hunder shunderATstrategylogic.com
Dear Mr. Coyle: Please support Paul Alsenas's idea for a new innerbelt bridge. A new bridge would create more room for development, improve the flow of traffic and create a more beautiful approach to the city. The Greek Orthodox Church would NOT need to be damaged. ODOT’s plans to rehabilitate and maintain the existing bridge is a mediocre compromise that will not achieve the highest potential in either beauty or economic development. Cleveland needs to stop being mediocre. Let's think outside of our sense of safety and do something wonderful for once. Let's build a amazing new bridge that would be a landmark and a piece of architectural beauty.
from Cool Cleveland reader Tom Lewis skysightATaol.com
Dear David: I am a lifetime resident of Cleveland and a saleperson who is always on the road. I live on the East Side of Cleveland and travel all over the city and to my office in Brecksville. I cannot imagine your Department making the kind of changes you are proposing (closing 4 exits off and seven entrances onto the Innerbelt) without taking into account how it will effect the residents, businesses and overall welfare of the City of Cleveland. How can you call yourself a responsible overseer of public roadways and implement such a drastic and detrimental change to a highly-traveled and depended upon roadway into and out of the heart of our City? There is nothing positive or beneficial about your proposal as respects the residents, businesses and business people who travel on, or are located near, the Innerbelt exits or entrances you are proposing doing away with. I implore you to reexamine your plan, in its current form. Please do some economic development and impact studies before you make these devastating changes.
from Cool Cleveland reader Karin M. Lash kmlashATcore.com
Dear Mr. Coyle & Hebebrand. As a tax paying citizen of the state of Ohio I am appalled by ODOT's attitude towards the largest city in Ohio. It is very obvious that our region is held in utter disdain by those in power in Columbus. The current slap in our collective faces by the state government and ODOT regarding the inner-belt bridge reeks of payback for not being a Republican stronghold. We in Cleveland and Northeast Ohio deserve and demand that ODOT do what is right for the city, county and state not by just considering all options for the inner belt bridge, the associated on and off ramps and associated connections, but by selecting a design and location and access that best serves the region. We want and have a right to have a bridge that complements our skyline and enhances the image of both the region and state. More importantly, we expect ODOT not to pat us on our heads and tell us to shut up and take whatever ugly structure and substandard product they decide is suitable. We may not be Cowtown, but a big chunk of fuel tax revenue comes from this region and we deserve the spoils. I for one would want to see the economic impact study that ODOT has prepared that justifies the blatant attempt to cripple our community. Has such a study even been done? Did it look at the impact of fewer on and off ramps? The economic advantages of a more southern route for the bridge? Does it take into consideration what will happen to businesses large and small in the region when there is decreased access to the city? If it hasn't, and I'm willing to bet it hasn't, when will it be done. Private industry is forced to do such studies when they plan a major change to infrastructure. Is ODOT not required to do the same? Are there budget or political constraints that preclude ODOT from doing such a study? Or is it that we are not Columbus so it doesn't matter? I urge you to do the economic impact study, present it to us and then actually listen to those of us in the Cleveland area about what we want and need. By shutting us out you are not only going to hurt the economy of Ohio, but jeopardize the advantages of our region that have the potential to attract new business to this portion of the state.
from Cool Cleveland reader Keith Keller
Mr. Hebebrand & Mr. Coyle: Downtown businesses and residents require better access to the innerbelt than the current plan provides. I further strongly support a signature bridge and urge you to consider the proposal by Cuyahoga County Planning Director Paul Alsenas. Respectfully, our tax dollars will pay for this project and the City deserves a voice in this project.
from Cool Cleveland reader Amy E. Marquit Renwald, Assistant Director of Law, City of Cleveland Department of Law AMarquitRenwaldATcity.cleveland.oh.us
Dear Mr. Coyle and Mr. Hebebrand, I am writing to express my opposition to ODOT's current plans for Cleveland's Innerbelt. As a City of Cleveland resident whose place of residence will be directly affected by ODOT's current plan, I demand the following measures be undertaken before a final plan is recommended: 1) Completion of an economic impact study examining not only the effects of removing four exit ramps and seven entrances to the Innerbelt, but also the demolition of a significant number of downtown buildings that are currently home to viable, job-providing businesses; and 2) Cooperation with the County in examining the viability of a southern alignment for the new Innerbelt Bridge. ODOT has thus far failed to persuade city residents that its plans for the Innerbelt are necessary or justifiable. By undertaking the above measures, the agency stands a better chance of galvanizing public support for this project.
from Cool Cleveland reader Justin Glanville jgvilleATgmail.com
Hi Craig, Just to drop a note, I am a life long Clevelander and I am a bit concerned about some of the planning going on with the Bridge. From what I understand, you are decreasing the number of exits (!). Have you done an impact study on this? We are trying hard to revive downtown. Also, while I appreciate your concern for the Tremont area, I think we should consider the benefits of having the bridge be replaced going farther south. This would free up some space downtown and could truly spark a renaissance. Finally, I don't think I have to emphasize how beneficial it would be to the community to have some stellar structure rather than a plain looking bridge. Cleveland has so many unique bridges in that area. Why relegate the new innerbelt to has been status? Thanks for allowing me to give my input.
from Cool Cleveland reader Jim Simler jimsimlerAThotmail.com
Mr. Coyle & Mr. Hebebrand: In response to Cool Cleveland's call for us all to voice our thoughts on the future of the Innerbelt, I am attaching below a letter I sent to Steve Litt (unpublished) some months ago. Thanks for listening. We can figure this out together... In my 6th floor office overlooking the CSU campus, shared with the executive director of the Quadrangle, there is no end to the variety of plans that adorn the walls, easels, and often the floors surrounding my desk. Dated improvement schemes for Chinatown, College Town Block, and St. Vincent’s, among others, capture my focus much as my model trains and Legos did as a child. One large map – indeed, an 8 by 4 foot map mounted on foam core - hangs at eye-level facing me from across my desk. The simple, glossy, black-and-white map stretches from West 41st and Interstate 90 in the lower-left hand corner to Lakeview Cemetery in the upper-right. Like the indispensable, red “Commercial Survey” atlases for Northeast Ohio counties, the map depicts exact edges of streets and then goes on to outline existing buildings with incredible accuracy. When I lift my eyes from the screen of my laptop, patterns invariably emerge among the variegated grids and clusters of 210 years of Cleveland’s development. Neighborhoods like Ohio City and Slavic Village present themselves as darker patches on the map while downtown is defined by large, rigid blocks. 1930s housing projects look almost like cuneiform next to the hulking, L-shaped factories common through much of the city. The lattice of roads, meanwhile, I read as a system of veins and arteries – a dense grouping like in Midtown can suggest current and connectivity; smaller side streets look like the microscopic veins on the sugar maple trees that line them in real life. One such artery, which until recently I thought immutable, is the Cleveland Innerbelt, snaking its way onto my map from the North, through a tangle of ramps and interchanges where it splits into two directions, both carving through neighborhoods on their paths to I-490 and beyond. This pattern of the Innerbelt has become increasingly more striking against the backdrop of ODOT’s continuing discourse on its future. In this polemic over new highway construction, and despite my appreciation for Mr. Litt’s plea for an architecturally significant replacement for the aging Innerbelt Bridge, I feel that the existing solutions lack both the longevity and élan needed for such a project to be truly meaningful. I-90, as it pushes southward from Dead-Man’s Curve (which, as evidenced by its name, we all agree has its own set of problems), and I-77, as it drives north past I -490, are both coursing directly towards each other. Almost mysteriously, both highways bank west to meet at the foot of the overburdened Central Viaduct Bridge. The combined effect of the 40-year-old Innerbelt system is a no-mans- land of looping and repressive ramps in the heart of the city, historic Tremont severed by an elevated expressway and the neighborhood and institutions of Central cut off from downtown. The characters of the different approaches to the Innerbelt Plan have heretofore amounted to mere adjustments of a failed roadway system. An alternative to simply tinkering with the current design is to create a better, less invasive and sturdier Innerbelt. To begin, the Innerbelt Bridge is groaning under the weight of too much traffic and is at risk of sliding into the Cuyahoga. Plans call for more capacity, obligating a new bridge. Still squinting at my map, I counter with a recommendation of fewer cars. Rather than slicing through Tremont, traffic from I-71 North and I-90 West can flow through a “directional T” into I-490. The length of highway from the I-490 interchange to the Central Viaduct would cede to new housing and, perhaps, a Berlin-style reunion of lost Clevelanders. The Innerbelt Bridge, in its old age, could relax a bit: West 14th and Abbey would be it’s new onramps as we convert it into something like the Detroit-Superior Bridge, with less car lanes, more pedestrian areas and bike paths along the sides, and landscaped intersections at either end. I-490, in turn, and both of its interchanges can accommodate more capacity with much less impact on neighborhoods. But the truly dramatic element comes at the I-77/I-490 interchange. Without further need to swerve west towards the Innerbelt Bridge, the remaining stretches of highway between the Shoreway and I-490 could continue towards each other in their natural north-south directions. In this vision, the new, straightened highway would pass over the train tracks of Kingsbury Run and duck below street-level. Along this widened, straightened and submerged highway there would be three Single Point Urban Interchanges (read: very streamlined highway access) at Woodland and Chester Avenues and the Shoreway. This is not an effort to diminish the car dealership, office buildings and CMHA housing through which this new Innerbelt plan would be built. Rather, the focus of such a grand approach is the opportunity to at once solve longstanding traffic concerns and create entire new districts for development. The Gateway and Quadrangle neighborhoods would gain over one hundred acres to the south and east of Jacobs Field to develop into housing, offices and retail. The Innerbelt, now submerged, would have less of a defining presence in the Central neighborhood, where it would be lined with mixed-income housing like the Riverview designs for West 25th. Tremont, still accessible to downtown, would be its old self again. All this and improved flow of traffic. This, anyway, is the pattern that emerges for me, when I look at the map, as I’m certain that others would recognize different possibilities when allowed to imagine the future of Cleveland. But that is exactly what we should all be doing. We have inherited a set of urban predicaments – poverty, troubled schools, waning population and, now, a dubious traffic problem. Instead of looking at our failures and glacially working away from them, let us imagine what wholesale change would look like and then set about finding our way there.
from Cool Cleveland reader W. Michael Fleming mflemingATheartlanddevelopers.com
David and Craig, Please consider an economic impact study for the Interbelt bridge in Cleveland. Antoher ecenomic impact study was already forgone in the same area (Steelyard Common) and the potential to discover that we've possibly made two extremely large, expensive, and important mistakes in the same area could be devastating. A mistake with this bridge can be detrimental to the already fragile Cleveland economy. I am a Law and Urban Planning student who plans to make a living in Cleveland. I am trying in my own work to encourage people to have a greater sense of vision and forethought in making planning decisions. Cleveland does not need a new bridge. Cleveland needs a new VIABLE bridge. Moreover, an architecturally notable bridge can be a further boone to the economies of Cleveland and NE Ohio.
from Cool Cleveland reader Adam Saurwein fotomadaATyahoo.com
Dear David Coyle: I know you-are-probably-an-innocent-man-caught-up-in bureaucracy... But, do you know how important it is to achieve an aesthetic/architectural resolution to the Cleveland:. Innerbelt/Bridge issue? Of course, you do. Please opt-for the world-class, beautiful, people-friendly way. Please create something that your children's children can be proud of... Thank you for you consideration.
from Cool Cleveland reader David A. Szynal daszynalATsbcglobal.net
After reading the recent letter to the editor in the PD, I'm getting very annoyed with ODOT's "we've been listening" stance. It appears that you are not listening, or at least you're not hearing what is being said. We know that the Southern alignment option for the Innerbelt was considered and then removed. What is upsetting to people who are actively following this debate is that fact that getting ODOT to get a second opinion (after B&N's rejection of the southern alignment) has been so difficult. Try poking around the transportation forum at http://www.urbanohio.com if you want to see what people who really care about Cleveland are saying about ODOT's performance.
from Cool Cleveland reader Paul J. Heney PHeney@penton.com
It is imperative that Cleveland along with ODOT jumps at the chance of making the skyline of this city more independent than that of other midwest cities. I believe that Cleveland has (or used to have) the tallest building between Chicago and New York City. The potential of having a great bridge, whether in terms of design or technical achievement, would not only infuse pride into Cleveland, but also provide this city with face time (people would talk about "that new bridge Cleveland is building.") As reference, please consider the bridge in downtown Milwaukee and downtown Boston (Charles River). These bridges are examples of what can happen in Cleveland. These seemingly small attributes, contribute greatly to conversations in business settings. A well thought out bridge design and route through the city is the only option that this town deserves, nothing less. I strongly suggest the managers of the current inter-belt bridge project reconsider current plans and give more time to hear out the people of Cleveland.
from Cool Cleveland reader Maciej "Mac" G. Zborowski maciej.zborowski@gmail.com
Having just read that "In 1888 Charles F. Brush designed and erected the world's first wind-powered electric generator in Cleveland, Ohio..." is both thought-provoking and exulting. (See http://www.brushwind.org/main.html). Please envision an assemblage of white windmills nested on the Gordon Park Landfill, linked to the nearby power plants, perhaps in an arc that extends-out into-the-lake, continuing perhaps connected-in-a-scenic-drive by a San Diego/Coronado Bridge-like structure over the Cuyahoga shipping lanes, that connects to Edgewater Park and provides, not only power but also recreation and beauty...
from Cool Cleveland reader David A. Szynal daszynalATsbcglobal.net
I got this form letter back today; you can read the whole thing, but notice the key portion: "However, based upon public comments received to date, ODOT commits to reviewing our alignment recommendation [to cut north of Tremont]. Also, please be advised that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will conduct an independent review of the bridge alignment recommendation as a part of their review of the Alternatives Report. Independent of the bridge alignment, ODOT is committed to building a signature bridge that will enhance the City of Cleveland's reputation as a city of bridges." Sounds like a step toward victory to me.
from Cool Cleveland reader George Carr
from Ohio Department of Transportation:Thank you for taking the time to contact us with your concerns. We truly appreciate your input. The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) initiated the study of the Cleveland Innerbelt Corridor in 2000. The first Advisory Committee Meeting was held on November 2, 2000. The first public meeting was held on January 10, 2001. Throughout the study process ODOT has met frequently with City Officials, Local Stakeholders and the General to develop goals and objectives for the study, to identify and evaluate alternatives and to discuss comments and concerns. On November 17th and 18th, 2005 after five years of study, ODOT presented to the Cleveland Urban Core Projects Advisory Committee and the City Planning Commission, for their review and comment, recommendations for the reconstruction of the Cleveland Innerbelt Corridor. The recommendations and the rationale behind those recommendations will be documented in the Alternatives Report that will be released for review and comment early in 2006. The Alternatives Report will be made available at ODOT District 12 headquarters Cleveland City Hall, via the internet at www.innerbelt.org and at branches of the Cleveland Public Library. We encourage you to read the report and offer your feedback to us via the internet at www.innerbelt.org or through the U.S. Postal Service at: The Ohio Department of Transportation District 12, 5500 Transportation Blvd., Garfield Heights, Ohio 44125 ATTN: Innerbelt Project Manager. ODOT understands that there are concerns with the recommendations that have been put forth for public comment. ODOT remains committed to continuing to work with stakeholders to address those concerns. Throughout the study process ODOT has worked closely with the City of Cleveland. In August 2004, the City of Cleveland and the Ohio Department of Transportation signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU established the Cleveland Urban Core Projects Advisory Committee which is co-chaired by Craig Hebebrand, Project Manager for the Ohio Department of Transportation and Mark Ricchiuto, Public Service Director for the City of Cleveland. The MOU established an Interagency Working Group that has met throughout the process to discuss issues and concerns. The MOU also established the responsibility of the Cleveland City Planning Commission to review ODOT's recommendations on behalf the City of Cleveland. ODOT will continue to partner with the City of Cleveland to address the concerns that have been raised. ODOT has already begun steps to better understand specific concerns that have been raised. In response to the concerns regarding the impact that the recommended changes to the access points could have on businesses in the Quadrangle, MidTown and St. Clair-Superior areas, ODOT has hired Economic Development Research Group to conduct an Economic Impact Analysis. This firm has already met with the Community Development Corporations (CDCs) and interviewed numerous businesses. In addition they have developed a survey that will be distributed to 3,000 businesses located within the service areas of the three CDCs. This Economic Impact Analysis is expected to be completed in February 2006. At that time, ODOT will meet with the City of Cleveland and representatives of the CDCs to discuss the findings. The Ohio Department of Transportation developed and considered bridge alignments to both the north (downstream) and south (upstream) of the existing Central Viaduct prior to recommending the northern alignment in June 2005. However, based upon public comments received to date, ODOT commits to reviewing our alignment recommendation. Also, please be advised that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will conduct an independent review of the bridge alignment recommendation as a part of their review of the Alternatives Report. Independent of the bridge alignment, ODOT is committed to building a signature bridge that will enhance the City of Cleveland?s reputation as a city of bridges. ODOT received six statements of qualifications from firms interested in conducting the bridge type study. Based on those qualifications, three firms: Michael Baker, HNTB and URS, were selected to make presentations to the selection committee. The three firms selected to make presentations have assemble impressive teams and all three firms have proven experience in the design of signature bridges for the State of Ohio. Michael Baker recently designed the Ironton-Russell Bridge. HNTB recently designed the US Grant Bridge and URS recently designed the Pomeroy-Mason Bridge. All three of these river crossings are cable stayed structures. The selection committee, which includes representatives from the Ohio Department of Transportation; Cuyahoga County Engineer, Robert Klaiber; Cleveland City Planning Director, Robert Brown and Cleveland Public Service Director, Mark Ricchiuto, will meet on December 12, 2005 to hear the presentations, conduct interviews and select a team to conduct the bridge type study. During the upcoming year, ODOT will continue to solicit public comments, work with our partners at the City of Cleveland to address concerns and revise the recommendations. ODOT will bring the revised recommendations back to the Cleveland Urban Core Projects Advisory Committee, the City Planning Commission and the General Public prior to submitting them to the FHWA for their review and approval near the end of 2006.
Respectfully, Craig Hebebrand, Innerbelt Project Manager, ODOT District 12 & Dave Coyle, District Deputy Director, ODOT District 12
On Cool Cleveland << ...spend your gift dollars in Cleveland on area artists and entrepreneurs, and let's stimulate our own economy... >> Amen, brother! And to that end, thanks for your patronage of Kalliope's Opal, and for helping to spread the good word.
from Cool Cleveland reader Halle Barnett wordsATmedia-schmedia.com (:divend:)