This paper uses the ongoing attempts to redevelop the Cleveland waterfront to reveal the relational comparative geographies that are present in a number of contemporary urban revalorization strategies. It draws on archival papers, semistructured interviews, and the local grey literature to make three contributions to the existing urban-global studies literature. First, the paper argues that many contemporary waterfront and other similar redevelopment schemes are inherently comparative, with a significant amount of seemingly territorial politics and urban policy making characterized by actors' engagements with places elsewhere. Second, it shows that the framing of urban policy through relational comparisons is an established practice in many cities and that current redevelopment plans should be understood as informed by previous rounds of relational and territorial policy making. Third, it points to the importance of consultants in the current era -as examples of actors of transference -in shaping not only redevelopment plans but also the framing of the city in relation to other cities.
---No one public improvement is more important to the City of Cleveland than the development of her lake front in accordance with the best possible plan (Hopkins, 1927, p. 21) What we do with our great assets … will reshape Cleveland for decades to come (Jackson, 2010, quoted in Breckenridge, 2010 2
IUFThe regeneration of urban waterfronts is one of the key urban design and planning stories of the late twentieth century (Dovey, 2005, p. 9)