327

Very much agree, although I'd still love to get the clock tower back. That would make it an A++.

I don't think it's possible to overdo earth tones, but that's just me. Downtown Cleveland has plenty of rectangular glass boxes already. That being said, I like this building on this site because it does contrast nicely with the rest of the mall, and the renderings suggest it won't be another plain box.

I don't think the one in Columbus looks bad at all. Love the varied colors and surfaces. It's upscale and classy. At the same time, I'm glad Cleveland is getting a big shiny tower near the lake. Win-win!

The key for our region is to keep offering both, so we can attract everyone. Without lifting a finger, we can easily offer a full buffet of sprawl options. The other requires a bit more effort, sometimes more than it should. That's why I like to focus on maximizing the city's urbanity and avoiding sprawl-type development in the wrong places.

I like Emmet Golden on 850 a lot. Not a big fan of anyone else there, have stuck to 92.3 for a while now. Not a big fan of morning shows period.

SixthCity, I think we agree for the most part. I favor downtown development at this stage, for the same reasons as you. I would still suggest modifying the residential abatement program though, for all the reasons I've described here. And I would suggest tying all forms of city planning and development assistance to mixed-use and TOD principles. Those changes would help the rest of the city better capitalize on downtown's success, and help answer some of its critics.

No, I don't think downtown gentrification is bad per se. Indeed, I think we need it. But the OP here is not alone in questioning it. And maybe there are some issues as to degree... I don't know that we want such extreme concentration, such extreme contrast with the rest of the city, as a long term trend. How does that relate to outlying neighborhoods? Opportunity cost. Our finite resources have been concentrated into support for residential construction and conversion, much of which has been downtown. The cost of the work requires most of this residential to be high-end. And as Hts121 noted, the numbers work better downtown. It has momentum and demand, which obviously add additional enticement for developers. Not enough to obviate the need for subsidies though. Thus the city's lower-income residents are helping to pay rent for higher-income newcomers, while also supporting profitability for developers. In that sense, "market realities" are what we make them. As explained in the Steelyard article above, an unprofitable venture becomes profitable when enough subsidies are applied. This is pretty basic to modern urban development, and it's how local governments get to play a kingmaking role. Support can take any number of forms, but in the end, money is money. Cities choose which projects will receive the money necessary to make the numbers work, which means cities largely decide which projects will get built. And in setting forth their policies, cities also influence what sort of proposals developers will even make. If you know a city has mechanisms in place to fund A and not B, you're far less likely to approach that city about B. Anyway, when it came time to renew Cleveland's residential abatement program a few years back, this was raised as the main point against doing so-- that it's essentially the poor subsidizing the rich. I see validity in that point, though I also see a strong counterpoint in favor of doing it anyway. So did City Hall, which is why the abatement program was renewed. The point I haven't seen raised as much, the point I feel strongly about myself, is that residential alone only gets us so far. Moreover, much of the benefit from residential subsidies is restricted to the new residents. The essential privacy of residential units limits the trickle-down effect. I would rather see that same economic force diverted into developments which would benefit everyone. To me that means addressing the city's retail shortage, with a focus on walkable and transit-oriented options. To the extent that the city has supported retail, those principles have been ignored. So... favoring residential so heavily over retail, combined with ignoring mixed-use/TOD principles, has resulted in less liveable, less marketable outlying neighborhoods. City support is a limited resource and it plays a key role in determining the course of future development. As such, everything happens at the expense of something else.

^ Well said. The CC was a County project, so there is no excuse for its failure to integrate with the County's rail system. Someone was paid a large sum of County money to make that decision, yet no one has been held accountable and the mistake remains unacknowledged. Just as an example, our annual comics convention is held in January. At that time of year, in our climate, excellent transit access is not a quarter-mile outdoor walk-- through an open area notably lacking in storefronts that might benefit from the foot traffic-- to a train station. If that constitutes excellent transit access, then what do we call Philadelphia's solution? We could have had that too. We still could. The tracks are literally right there in front of the facility we just built. Of all the obstacles that prevent us from addressing that, none loom larger than the standing idea that we shouldn't even bother. Officially, we're so certain we don't need NCTC that we're planning a bridge there instead.

See also the Cleveland One World Festival, which takes place in and celebrates the Cultural Gardens along MLK Blvd.

http://www.noaca.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=8046 For further info on NOACA money, here's a 282 page pdf from last month. Back to population trends, perhaps the city's key development driver has been the longstanding tax abatement program for residential. As is often pointed out, construction costs necessitate a certain (high) price point to seal the deal, even with this abatement. Federal programs are available to sweeten the pot in exchange for low-income units. But as we're now seeing with the National Terminal Warehouse, things change. I have no problem with the residential tax abatement program, in itself. It is aggressive and it has been effective in many ways. It has helped in stemming overall population loss, in updating the city's housing stock, and admittedly in gentrification. However, one thing I was getting at above is that restricting this program to residential has resulted in a notable lack of mixed-use development, and a further degradation of retail options that are accessible without cars. By focusing on single-use development, and by ignoring the need for walkable and transit-oriented retail, this large-scale and city-specific funding program has resulted in several potentially undesirable population trends. These trends include 1) a spike in gentrification downtown, 2) a corresponding decline of outlying urban neighborhoods, and 3) an inappropriate degree of suburban-style single-use development throughout the city, which structurally favors a car-centric way of life. My suggestion would be to shift the focus of this program to specifically encourage mixed-use, and possibly to combine it with other new programs that might have similarly positive effects on the profitability of retail in an urban format.

Other Space, an 8-episode sitcom on yahoo screen. Sci-fi humor is hard to pull off but they do it well. The first episode kinda sucks but it gets a lot better as it goes. I want other people to watch so we get a second season! It features Joel and Crow from MST3K, as well as Milana Veyntrub from the AT&T commercials. She's amazing, I had no idea how funny she could be.

To NCJ: the thing to remember about DCA is that they are a Special Improvement District funded by downtown property owners in a specific geographic area (see below). As such, their interests are aligned with the interests of those property owners, which may or may not impact their view on competing developments in other parts of town. This is the downside of having each neighborhood advocate only for itself, whether through a CDC or a BID or an SID or what have you. Population trends tend to outstrip arbitrary neighborhood boundaries, while advocacy groups often cannot. http://www.downtowncleveland.com/media/238072/special-improvements_map.pdf For example, look at this map of DCA's SID area. It ends at East 18th and does not include CSU. CSU does not participate in the DCA assessment because it already covers similar services within its own borders, but this also means that DCA's outlook is not likely to focus much on CSU as a part of downtown. And yet, CSU seems to represent a major population driver for downtown, a primary growth prospect in terms of both numbers and area. Would the Greater Cleveland community benefit from these entities having closer ties? I tend to think so, but that's not how things are set up. Neither entity is really at fault for this, it's just that each one is beholden to its particular mission and funding sources. Where does NOACA spends it money? You rarely hear anything about them. I'm open to suggestions about an appropriate thread for that sort of discussion.

That would be a huge blow to Buckeye architecturally and should not be allowed. Cleveland cannot afford to replace historic mixed-use structures with surface parking and "pocket parks" along major commercial streets.

I'm definitely complaining about the city choosing some types of projects over others. Absotively posilutely. And I don't just mean the City of Cleveland but also the County and in some instances NOACA as well. And I don't just mean with funds raised locally but with federal and state pass-through funds as well. I attempt to examine these issues holistically. Too often these discussions get hung up on technicalities that do not meaningfully impact the situation at hand. Too often they get derailed with this notion that private developers are spending all their own money and have plenary authority to do whatever they choose. That is almost never true, particularly in an environment like Cleveland.

Steelyard Commons phase two construction will start soon, after Cuyahoga County OKs bond issue By Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer Email the author | Follow on Twitter on September 30, 2013 at 10:40 AM, updated October 01, 2013 at 7:12 AM http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/09/steelyard_commons_phase_two_co.html "The recession basically killed the growth of every national retail chain in the country," Schneider said Friday. "Burlington had expressed interest, and they were one of the few stores that were growing. The economics of the lease are not very strong economics. We decided it would be worth it to get this thing moving, even though the economics wouldn't be justified on a totally privately financed basis." That's where Cleveland and Cuyahoga County stepped in. The city, which approved a tax-increment financing deal for the project years ago, adjusted that agreement to support another wave of retail building. Tax-increment financing allocates a portion of the new property-tax revenues generated by a project to paying off construction debt. The city added 10 years to the existing agreement, which also spins off cash for the Towpath Trail and nearby neighborhoods.

FEB does not happen without city intervention, period. The same is true of Steelyard and, I would venture, of the vast majority of developments happening in Cleveland today. Many federal and state dollars are directed through the city in the form of block grants. The uses of these technically non-city funds are chosen by the city. Again, there are literally signs all over town announcing direct city support for numerous development projects. None of them are happening in a private sector vaccuum.

Significant city funds are used to subsidize development projects. In addition to construction funding, the city helps developers with land acquisition and environmental issues. Choices are made as to what types of projects get these funds and what requirements are made (or not made) of the developers. Are you saying the Campbell administration had nothing to do with Steelyard, or the White administration had nothing to do with FEB? There are signs all over town announcing direct city support for various development projects currently underway. There are also funding programs used in other cities, which may not be as developer-friendly, that are not favored here. Alternative choices do exist and they're worth exploring. I think it's also worth exploring the effects that current and past choices have had on our population trends.

My take on downtown, as it relates to the rest of the city, is that it's fine to focus efforts there if those efforts result in a fully functional downtown for the rest of the city to utilize and enjoy. I worry at times that Cleveland has over-emphasized developing a colony of affluent residents in its downtown, while ignoring downtown's crucial role as a retail hub for the areas around it. In that sense, yes it is possible for downtown growth to come at the expense of the city at large. A major city's downtown needs to fill many roles for many residents, not just nightlife and dining for its own, and I believe that providing retail access is a core function of downtown that we have too long ignored. I believe strongly in subsidizing urban redevelopment, but it becomes a bit icky when the entire community's funds are used to create private spaces that are restricted to their own wealthy residents. These residents have no problem driving to Beachwood or Avon to meet their retail needs, or they may take advantage of numerous online options. Meanwhile, residents of the rest of the city-- and functionally speaking, its inner ring of suburbs-- comprise the logical market for traditional downtown retail. These residents continue to face diminishing retail options both downtown and in their neighborhoods. While some of these areas range from middle-class to affluent, others aren't, and those residents may lack reliable access to transportation and/or internet. They are dependent on the public transit system that converges downtown. Regardless, all are told that the city is too poor for any subsidies that might alleviate their comparative lack of retail. In the one recent exception, the city's leadership chose to pass over downtown and instead create the inappropriately car-centric Steelyard Commons project. This sharply reduced any incentive major retailers may have had to locate downtown-- now they can put a big box nearby instead, with tons of free parking. No sense in utilizing our existing transit hub, which connects downtown to the rest of the city and inner ring. No sense in utilizing any of our grand historic downtown retail structures, many of which are now being "repurposed" away from public access just as quickly as public funding will allow.

I never understood "come and see both of our buildings" ignoring the existence of Terminal Tower. Saw him do standup once, most of it was about how people at Walmart are trashy. It came off mean-spirited so I've never been a big fan. I prefer the punching-upward style of humor.

I like the notion that the city should offer everything the burbs can, I just think the placement here is wrong. Suburban office parks seem like a better fit for the Opportunity Corridor area. It's more of a blank slate and it has lesser prospects for prime urban development. What's the sense in calling something "Midtown" if we're not going to treat it as such? It's either a cruel joke or a fundamental conceptual misunderstanding.

First off, I think the author of that article should be sanctioned in some way. A lot of it seemed like an attack against poor people generally, which is gross. Although one point he raised, about evenings and weekends, is one that has been discussed here in the last couple days. I've encountered the same (strong) opinion myself from visitors who were otherwise impressed with the city. Too much of our downtown is only open for weekday lunches. It isn't possible to have full-scale evening and weekend streetlife unless the businesses along those streets are willing to play their part in it. I recall this being one of the major planks of Philadelphia's plan to rejuvenate their own downtown... lights must be on and doors must be open when people expect them to be.

Five of the nine buildings listed in that master plan are one story, and "Coastal Taco" is not exactly a distinguished design. I mean, please tell me that's not vinyl siding, right there on the waterfront. Overall it brings to mind that Bahama Breeze place that fronts 271. It's wonderful that they're considering more residential, but how about putting some on top of all these little shacks? That point is often made here regarding development proposals on the fringes of the city, so I don't see how it wouldn't apply to downtown as well. Hate to be a downer but I'm still disappointed in the thinking behind this project. The E&Y tower is nice... but otherwise, it's as if they designed all this in the 80s and then focused every resource on property acquisition, without ever updating the concepts.

Last year I went to East Cleveland to handle a zoning matter. It was about 10 am and City Hall was locked. I called the Mayor's office to ask if it was closed for the day. They said no, we just forgot to open the doors. They sent a janitor down with some keys. My zoning matter was resolved in a few short months.

Lots of good comments on the article, nice to see. People are advocating for urbanism along Euclid and noting that this design does not seem to measure up. Pros: the surface parking is on side streets, buildings are properly fronted, some vague mention of a retail component, generally open to the public, and provides health services for nearby residents who use transit. Cons: suburban campus... acres and acres of surface parking, minimal density, minimal mixed-use (including zero residential), and another key parcel becomes exempt from property taxes through hospital ownership. That last item is one reason I've never been fond of Midtown's health-based redevelopment plan. The hospital tax exemption screws the city and its school district in a big way. I understand the "work with what we have" concept, but hospitals are not the only thing we have, and it seems like the planning ignored this rather significant opportunity cost. Put anything else there and it generates revenue. Anything but a hospital facility.

Tough crowd? Read the room, and take a look outside your front door. Heck, maybe talk to some people out there. And when you speak of neighbors, please realize that there are thousands of us, most of whom have a view on this matter that is very different from yours. This is a waterfront area, along a primary thoroughfare, which is scarcely 5 miles from a major city's downtown, and which is already among the most dense in the region. To apply an anti-density mindset here is patently ludicrous. But more importantly, that position is openly hostile to the interests of everyone else who lives nearby. Lord only knows how much business, how many new neighborhood services, it has already chased away. With all due respect, please stop. Please stop now. You are harming the quality of life for literally thousands of your neighbors who chose this core urban neighborhood precisely because of its density. While we work to attract more population and more walkable retail, you pursue policies that are aggressive and destructive to those goals. If you prefer quiet isolation, I can respect that... but our region offers you practically unlimited options for that manner of living, so why must you try to force it upon others, in a neighborhood that has its own skyline?