Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=eschaton;62114166]They all have their positives and negatives. Going through each.
Cleveland:
Pros - Many impressive "monumental" style buildings remain in Downtown area. Some real beauties in University Circle as well.
Cons -Ugliest residential vernacular overall, with most city neighborhoods full of detached 1-2 unit frame boxes.
[QUOTE/]
A bit of a generalization. First, ugliness is in the eyes of the beholder; you are of course entitled to your opinion and, yes, the bulk of Cleveland's residential housing is wood frame, detached often deeply set back (but not always) with side driveways and tree lawns. Are houses always or mainly boxes or boxy? As an overall statement, I say: no. The neighborhoods, esp those that are popular now: Ohio City (many pre-20th century Victorians with several brick versions), Tremont, roughly similar but with tons of infill apts and brick flat-style houses, Detroit-Shoreway, lots of turn-of-the-20th Century architect-built houses, often with decorations such as turrets, dormers and other features; many row-house style terrace apartments -- which pop up all over older sections of town, including Glenville, Ohio City, Edgewater, Cudell, Lorain Station and others... And then there are also many, many quads or 6-unit (or larger) brick walk-up apts (occasionally some are wood frame, too) sprinkled all over town.
And yes, a bread 'n butter style that sprang up largely around and after World War I are the famed (to some non-Clevelanders: infamous) Cleveland doubles -- those ubiquitous -- several are sheathed in brick. Cleveland doubles came about during Cleveland's period of early 20th-century industrial growth when factory workers flocked to the city from the South and Eastern Europe. The style was fixed and apparently these houses, though often substantial, were quick to build -- and because Cleveland is historically the 'Forest City' lumber for construction was readily available.
I know Colonial-style rowhouses or similar brick homes in places like Philly, Baltimore and small sections or Pittsburgh are most attractive to posters. Brick always beats out wood frame -- except for those grand and intricate Victorians in New Orleans (Cleveland has plenty of these, too) or the famed Painted Ladies of SF's Haight-Ashbury. ... but Cleveland is such a hodge-podge of residential types it is really unfair to singularly typecast it, as this random old beauty reveals:
Skyscrapers...Cleveland by far...none has a tower as tall as Key Tower or as beautiful as Terminal Tower
Both are great buildings, but it's not a ranking of height. Also, while Terminal Tower is great looking, all of these cities have great looking buildings. Terminal stands out for its footprint though.
The igloo was demolished 10 years ago, Penguins play in the PPG Paints arena now, Palace of Auburn Hills was demolished last year, Pistons play in the Little Caesar’s arena now.
The igloo was demolished 10 years ago, Penguins play in the PPG Paints arena now, Palace of Auburn Hills was demolished last year, Pistons play in the Little Caesar’s arena now.
And the Civic Arena was by far the worst of the three. It wasn't even designed or intended for hockey in the first place. In fact, it is the singular reason why the Penguins almost relocated. (Tangentially, riddle me this, Philadelphians and Detroiters: If the Penguins threatening relocation had anything whatsoever to do with fan support, then why did they wait until attendance was surging? If Pittsburgh really was not a viable hockey market, then why did the Penguins go through all the trouble they did to stay, especially when other cities had state-of-the-art arenas waiting for them?) Here it is, straight from Mario Lemieux:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Lemieux
As you know, the long-term future of the Penguins in Pittsburgh is dependent on a new arena. That has been our stance since we purchased the team out of bankruptcy in 1999. When our group bought the team more than seven years ago, I never could have imagined that we would be standing here today, still without a new arena. But that is the reality.
We were told repeatedly during the first six years of our ownership that there would be no public money available to pay for an arena. We were told repeatedly that we would have to somehow come up with private funding for a project that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Against all odds, and thanks to Isle of Capri Casinos, we did that. We brought the Isle of Capri to the table with an offer to privately fund construction of a $290 million arena as part of a $1 billion-plus development plan in the Lower Hill.
Mellon Arena was an albatross, and the oldest arena in the NHL by 1995. Even worse, the dumb former owner of the Penguins agreed to the most expensive lease terms in the NHL, among other dumb decisions he made during the 1994-1995 NHL lockout that ultimately drove the team into bankruptcy in 1998. Moving out of the Civic Arena was the best thing that ever happened to the Penguins.
The civic center was built in 1961 years before the Penguins existed, it was part of a slum clearance project. 1995 was the year that the old Boston Garden (built in 1928) was replaced by the Fleet Center, now the TD Garden.
It's all good. The other cities are quite a bit behind.
Pittsburgh has impressive transportation infrastructure. If you consider the busways (East West South) would make Pittsburgh comparable to both cities. Don't sleep the busways. The busways are faster than light rail and run on dedicated lanes with stations similar to light rail.
Pittsburgh's inclines are transportation related and operated by the Port Authority.
Pittsburgh has impressive transportation infrastructure. If you consider the busways (East West South) would make Pittsburgh comparable to both cities. Don't sleep the busways. The busways are faster than light rail and run on dedicated lanes with stations similar to light rail.
Pittsburgh's inclines are transportation related and operated by the Port Authority.
Yes, Pittsburgh does have great transit infrastructure. It would have been even greater had they just built rail and not done all that failed Skybus experimentation in the 1970s. Skybus was a tremendous distraction, not to mention being a tremendous waste of money. Of the cities listed, Pittsburgh, with its hilly topography and pockets of high density is the most suitable for rail transit. It is surprising the City has yet to fully capitalize on this leaving densely populated/trafficked neighborhoods such as Oakland stuck with only buses (now BRT).
Cleveland has slightly more rail transit milage than Pittsburgh: 32 miles/Cleveland vs. 26.2 miles/Pittsburgh, but Pittsburgh has a higher overall transit usage rate, esp with Martin Luther King East Busway which is very heavily used -- but I still would rather it be converted into LRT rail and connected to the T rail network which would be much more effective esp in directly connecting T riders with the densest, most popular Pittsburgh neighborhoods: esp Shadyside and East Liberty.
Last edited by TheProf; 10-16-2021 at 11:53 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
