NapsFan

The city doesn't really seem to understand the market. I have no idea how the new lot is supposed to function. Hopefully it's just the learning curve, but there seems to be a bottle neck at the T intersection right where a steady flow of pedestrians exit the produce run at the Northeasterly corner. I think charging to park was inevitable, but from what I understand the city didn't listen to the vendors much during the process. The vendors are a complicated group I'm sure, but they have an institutional knowledge that shouldn't be discounted. If you know your vendors, it's clear they are all having a bad year and it's a direct result of the squeeze on parking. A couple of the stalls that shut down were planning on getting out before the bad year, but two just couldn't make it financially. Typically you try to sell your stall, not just walk away. Four in quick succession is unprecedented in the dozen years I've shopped there routinely. In other news, the parcel at the corner of Fulton and Lorain was sold recently. It appears that the controversial McDonalds with double drive-thru will not be built.

Great info. Love that 1827 map. I always thought SO #1 was on the Tremont Peninsula. Thanks for the clarification. I've seen the river just a couple feet from the top of the bulkhead recently. It's said that the 1913 flood was a 500 year flood, but there's no reason to think that it won't happen for 400 more years. The fact that the CVSR is replete with wetlands and less agriculture should help a bit. However, the amount of forest along the top of the valley has been largely replaced with well draining subdivisions. That flood was the result of a weather system stalling over Ohio and dropping an unprecedented amount of rain. Whoever builds down there needs to realize the risk that exists. Wood frames and OSB sheeting should be nowhere near the ground. Not saying they shouldn't build there, but no one should buy a finished property without knowing at bit about the history of that area. I wasn't around in 1913 and that flood gets more notoriety for what it did to Dayton, but it did clear out a lot of structures that were not yet built in 1827.

The views and the bends are special. There was residential--but mostly industrial--prior to 1913. That's an important year. I encourage development and would love to see residential down there, but anyone that buys or lives there needs to understand that that is a flood plain. Elevation is key. I think developers can build to mitigate the issue, but will they? The lowest parcels should be greenspace. If/when there is another flood, those classic bends will be ignored.

I think the FEB needs to cycle through the idea that it's exclusively an entertainment district first and foremost. Those spots have a great location and have the potential to be a great draw, but if you live down there, there are very little services or everyday businesses. The amount the owners want to lease per square foot needs to come down so some actual small business can move in. Willeyville sounds like it was great, but it clearly needed people from outside downtown eating there to keep it afloat. I live a mile away and have to pass lots of cheaper and/or more attractive places to spend money. When I have gone to FEB, the lack of an identity for the neighborhood strikes me. Aspects of the clientele remind me of the old 90s flats (which I was part of) and not in a good way. The river & city views are great, the streets are clean and the atmosphere is...I don't know..not there. It's a ghost town on a Tuesday afternoon.

I recommend we all read up on the 1913 flood before investing to heavily in this area. I'd love to live down there, but history tells me to stay up on the hill. There were homes and neighborhoods down there and other parts of the flats in the 1800s. Industry made those homes less than desirable but the 13 Flood cleared them all out. And it's not like the weather is getting more predictable...

Did they tear down century old buildings in Portland? I'm all for infill on vacant lots, but I just don't see the point of tearing down the historic fabric of Tremont when huge swaths of the city are pasture. This just reeks of laziness in the the form of an unwillingness to rehab and greed in the form of maximizing square footage of units while using materials that are actually less durable than those in the buildings being demolished.

Let me guess, the brick storefront and two-story attached home at 2376 Professor are "too far gone"...

Whenever I'm in another big city on business, I always joke about meeting up with friends who live in that town at their local ESPN Zone! If one opened up in Cleveland--which I'm 99% sure is a joke--I'd be compelled to meet up with them wen they visit here!! In that case, the joke would be on me... Not only is it a dead chain, but the idea that Cleveland can support unimaginative corporate dining/entertainment options needs to be abandoned. Developers who promise "big" tenants need to be scrutinized (I'm talking about you Stark Enterprises) further. There's a reason there's only a handful of chains downtown. People who live downtown prefer the Pickle over Potbelly's and nobody drives to downtown Cleveland for a national chain...

True. But there's a good reason it wouldn't fly. Tremont has an identity. The key component being the historic nature of the neighborhood. The housing stock and the elevation of the structures are very important. Other neighborhoods would love to have the identity and feel of Tremont. I'm not saying contemporary design has no place in Tremont. I can point out several examples of brand new homes with exceptional contemporary architecture that fit in quite nicely. There are even a few brilliant remodels that maintain the historic portions of the homes while attaching taller & more modern additions. There are rows of attached town homes on Literary built in the last 15 years that look great and fit in aesthetically. For the most part, people who live in this neighborhood understand that this isn't a "new" neighborhood. It's becoming a 21st century neighborhood, but mostly because it has the walkability and design of a 19th Century neighborhood. The Churches, although no longer the focal point of the neighborhood socially, are the focal points of Tremont's skyline. A ten story structure on Professor would interrupt that. It wouldn't make sense, and that's why when it was proposed years and years ago, it died quickly.

Oh, please. I can point to numerous projects in Tremont where far more units were proposed than actually built. There are three units on what was two parcels on West 8th that was originally proposed as five, but the nearby residents pushed back in large numbers during the variance process. Did the developer "lose money" or just rake in less? I didn't see that project die. There is a current project for three detached homes on Tremont Ave. that was originally five connected town homes on the same plot. Is that developer headed to the poorhouse? No one is losing money. Density is just a word. I'm for it. But there is a threshold. Would a ten story condo-plex on Professor Ave. make sense? Also, no one is saying demolition is never an option, but developers need to make a better case. A good hunk of Tremont is a Historic District or are those signs meaningless? There's plenty of vacant land out there in the City of Cleveland begging for density and contemporary design. Just don't think you can waltz into Tremont and raze and squeeze. Except in the case of Tremont Black, where apparently you can.

You lost me on the TJI comparison. You can't possibly know the longevity of a glue & wood chip structural element because no one even thought to do such a thing until recently. Furthermore, suggesting an unproven product can stand up to the strength of an old-growth 2x8, is absurd. If you've ever cut into old-growth pine 2x4s--and I suspect you may have--you know the difference between modern lumber and what was available 100 years ago. Tremont Black is a go. I'm not fighting this project. There's a very similar project on West 7th. I'm not fighting it either. I'm trying to fight the mindset that will see the demise of the historic housing stock of Tremont. You may not see the value or beauty in these "old-timey" structures. I don't see the beauty in Tremont Black. We should both be aware that there is unseen beauty in every structure and tastes change. Build these new "ugly" structures on empty lots if you must. But please don't demo what exists just so you can squeeze as many units as possible on to one parcel. That's not pro-density, that's greed.

Of course it had a wood frame behind the brick. Not sure I see your point.

It's long gone, but this (which included actual masonry):

Thanks for asking. On your first question, yes. Aside from being built from minimal building supplies--kiln dried lightweight pine studs, foam board and OSB floor joists [TJIs]--all unproven materials--the height of the structure is very difficult to maintain. The vertical nature and small floor plans of the four units in current build almost guarantees a young, single or couple--nothing wrong with that demographically, these are welcome additions to the nieghborhood--but these aren't they types that tend to have the time to do a lot of high wire exterior maintenance. These units will sell easily off the bat and probably change hands a few times at good prices. It's after 15 years I am worried about. Once the owner has to pay full property taxes and maintain a very tall structure, I fear the they may have trouble getting what they paid in purchase price and may need to turn to renting. I have absolutely nothing against renters, but it isn't their responsibility to maintain. Again, the maintenance will be expensive and out-of-neighborhood landlords have earned their reputation... I don't have any issue with building contemporary structures in the neighborhood on vacant lots, but this should NEVER happen at the expense of solid buildings that have stood for nearly a century or longer. That does disrupt the fabric of the neighborhood and is frankly wasteful. The greenest building is the one that is already built... As far as your last question regarding congestion the answer is no. I have no issue with density when it brings foot traffic. If anything, the more folks we get, the less space for cars, the more demand for mass transit, bike infrastructure, etc..., the better. I'd love to live in the 21st Century with a good portion of the developed world. Don't get me wrong, just because developers squeezing too much onto parcels is my major qualm here, I am pro-density. Developers and TWDC seem to want everyone who gives a darn about these crowded projects a broad brushstroke of not being for density. It's wrong and dishonest. Again, density is good, but not when it is at the expense of smart growth, good sense and the long-term health of the neighborhood.

We want density, right? :wink: Not necessarily. We want quality structures that will benefit the long term value of the neighborhood. They can be dense, but they shouldn't be a stack of small squares four stories tall built out of questionable materials. Density has it's pros for sure and projects like Gospel Press have been great for the neighborhood. But don't forget, the neighborhoods of Cleveland that once burned to the ground were very dense. Obvisously, one can point out a multitude of factors and I'm not trying to start a history debate, but we should always learn from our past. Just saying density is good isn't enough. It's good for the developers trying to squeeze every penny out of their parcels, but is it good for everybody? Density is great when executed properly. So you want "old timey" as opposed to contemporary (meaning, current time). Also, what materials are "questionable". From the rendering it looks to be a lot of masonry. Doesn't get any better than that for this climate. Not at all. I like modern. I can point out multiple great contemporary examples built in Tremont in the last few years that are beautiful and fit well into the neighborhood without disrupting the fabric. Two are one story. Another one is two stories. Many are three stories. And a few are even four. There isn't a drop of masonry in the Tremont Black project outside of the foundation as yet. Not sure what what your definition of masonry is, but poured concrete walls is not masonry. Maybe I'm wrong--I'm always open to that. But please don't frame my tastes as ole-timey based on my opinion of density. Dismissing and framing others arguments is a poor way to have a dialogue.

We want density, right? :wink: Not necessarily. We want quality structures that will benefit the long term value of the neighborhood. They can be dense, but they shouldn't be a stack of small squares four stories tall built out of questionable materials. Density has it's pros for sure and projects like Gospel Press have been great for the neighborhood. But don't forget, the neighborhoods of Cleveland that once burned to the ground were very dense. Obvisously, one can point out a multitude of factors and I'm not trying to start a history debate, but we should always learn from our past. Just saying density is good isn't enough. It's good for the developers trying to squeeze every penny out of their parcels, but is it good for everybody? Density is great when executed properly.

Tomorrow's tenements...the four in the back for sure.

I couldn't buy one ticket in any section at 10am. It doesn't help that they cut 5,000 seats out of the stadium. On a positive note, I don't think they sold the tickets to the sections that aren't completed yet (the new bar, the kid zone/mezzanine and whatever the upper deck right field is.) Maybe they will open those up if they get them done in time. It would be a bad idea to sell them right now...

I live in Tremont and our home is almost 120 years old. Aside from this building's age, it's not remarkable aside from the parapet and even with that, there are finer examples in Tremont and other neighborhoods. Well, if we're gonna go that way, I live in Tremont too and my home is 140 years old. When I bought in 2004, the neighbors were trying to get it condemned and torn down. I've gutted and rehabbed the entire structure and it's value is more than double what I paid. I have a soft spot for old architecture and don't immediately take the developers word for it that the building is too far gone. I don't portend to be "qualified" to decide what is a finer example, but we can agree that once this building is gone, it is gone... Tremont is almost out of vacant lots--a good thing, no doubt! But we need to be thoughtful in the coming years as the small cottages and boxy storefronts get the developers dreaming of bulldozers and high density for sale units. In the long run, it's the historic quality of the housing stock and the old Cleveland feel of Tremont that will set us aside from other neighborhoods. If you want new and dense, there is Battery Park. Old (or new) and dense, move downtown. You want a pre-war home with a yard, a park and lots of stuff to walk to all within spitting distance from downtown--that's Tremont.

I completely disagree. Standing 75 years is an achievement in itself and is a testament to the construction--especially when neglect should have shortened the life of the structure. Modern code and materials are making less solid structures. Adding 16 people to the neighborhood who take it personally when you argue for rehabilitation over demolition will only lead to more of these old structures being lost forever. What's pretty is a matter of opinion. Materials are a fact. The loss of this brick building is a loss for the neighborhood.

Image:

If this doesn't qualify as interesting or unique, you must have a much higher threshold than I:

Ugh. That's a good looking brick structure. It saddens me that the block clubs are being overrun by people that have little regard for the historic nature of Tremont. The push to replace buildings that have stood for decades, or a century even, are beginning to be replaced with crammed structures that probably won't last much longer than the tax abatements they come with is disappointing. It is far more intelligent to keep solid structures, gut them and make solid apartments that will last another 100 years. I understand building disposable town homes that don't fit my taste on vacant lots, but it's very unfortunate to take down building that can't be replaced or replicated so the builder can sell more units. Today's overpriced townehome will be tomorrow's absentee landlord owned apartments with failing maintenance. The builders only care about initial sales and clearly not the future of the neighborhood. Their disregard of it's past is a clear indicator of that.

I think the gas pump tanks were already removed, no? How much remediation do you need if your only building up from a concrete slab? I hope they're not planning on demo'ing the house.

I walk my dog on that portion of West 4th and am pretty sure that the plan is to use the old right-of way for the towpath trail. Work has already started with gas monitoring wells and a semi-bulldozed path. There is a rail path between 4th and 3rd with an underpass below Jefferson. It's completely overgrown.