ccars

What about channeling and treating the runoff? Surely something can be done for $5 million besides nuking the course.

Many regulations/plans are politically motivated. And I think laws calling for a "committee" to analyze the "reasonableness" or similar of a project are the most evil at all, since the committee is held to no standard and may freely favor political cronies and discriminate against his competitors. I think that's worse than having no laws at all. That's not to say Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights haven't benefited from their historic preservation laws. Frankly, though, I think much of the reason the city of Cleveland became depressed so quickly is because we invented Euclidean zoning and redesigned nearly the whole city to comply with those laws. The city limits now doesn't have nearly the magnetism that other urban cores maintain now.

Yes, I find it pretty absurd that the cost of living in a vibrant urban core is far higher than living in a suburb. I imagine it has to do with very, very restrictive laws regarding buildout in urban cores. And I'd rather not anyone bulldoze anything :)

They're always going to compete for residents. I think that in the end, urban cores will win out, however--despite perennial bureaucratic mismanagement, they ARE supposed to be more efficient. And, when psychology finally builds a case that suburban living tends to beget more social disorders, people will begin to realize that they don't have it all in Mentor. And keep your fingers crossed for peak oil! Once an oil crisis hits, road use will definitely fall, as we saw in the early 2000s and the 1970s. Maintenance cost will certainly fall as roads won't be torn up as fast by traffic. (Interestingly enough, pictures of the Chernobyl area reveal roads in fairly good repair despite disuse and neglect since the disaster.)

I just discovered that website and I love it! Have you looked at Euclid Beach yet? Unbelievable how much denser this city used to be in 1952. I understand that population peaked at that point, but you have to wonder whether the urban renewal or the emigration came first.

If you take Mayfield Road past Chesterland, Fowler's Mill is to the south on Rockhaven Rd. Say what you will about the environment, this deal was born out of corruption, not a concern for the water table. If there were truly a problem, the OHEPA would have done what it does to honest business owners and simply shut them down. With a fraction of that $5 million, we can figure out how to run that golf course in a sustainable fashion. Heck, it could be a model for the future.

tl;dr: Fowler's Mill GC is a gem of a course and one of Cleveland's finest. Todd Peterson, the owner of the local competition, Chardon Lakes Golf Course, bought this golf course in December of 2009 for $3.3 million while brokering a deal to have the OHEPA award the township grant money based on a concern about drinking water in the Chagrin River due to pesticide runoff. The township will now pay $5 million to Peterson and bulldoze the course. $1.7 million and the complete destruction of your competition isn't a bad profit for a six month investment.

Not sure if this is the best forum for this, but it is a "project" and I think _everyone_ ought to know about this plan. Munson to buy Fowler's Mill Golf Course Published: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 By Diane Ryder [email protected] Munson Township trustees have received a $5 million grant from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency to purchase Fowler's Mill Golf Course as a possible township hall site, walking trails and possible picnic grounds, township Trustee Andrew Bushman said. Trustees may decide to use the golf course's 7,660-square-foot clubhouse as a township hall, but that is still under discussion, Bushman said... http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2010/07/21/news/nh2796227.txt

"Didn't two people say this was a CDC project?" So a project is inherently a better idea because it's done by a nonprofit instead of a for-profit developer? The members of this organization include the food distributors in the area. They stand to benefit quite a bit from capital gains if the area does start to redevelop. And the nice new housing developments aren't going to make a terrible lot of difference, whether they're projects or not. There is no existing commercial retail space in that area. It will take 20 years before you will see an independent art gallery, bookstore, cafe or anything other than a bank branch and gas station in that area. Meanwhile, small business are closing shop at record pace in Slavic Village and other locales. And we want to put up a glorified shopping center a mile away?

"Anybody who has just driven through the intersection hasn't seen this block-by-block improvements that have and will continue to be made throughout the neighborhood north of Woodland. This is not a place that should be bulldozed or left fallow." Are the improvements all CMHA-subsidized or is there any market housing in the area? I see that the area southeast of the intersection has some potential for infill. But my biggest worry is the absolute dearth of commercial building stock there-that will be an enormous hurdle for the area without major subsidization. At least we might finally be able to price Cleveland Scrap out of that neighborhood.

Excellent post, jam40jeff. An existing building stock is the key to developing a vibrant neighborhood. As I said, none of us have a vote in this particular project. But we need to start taking a good, hard look at the assets we already have, rather than cheerlead the developers who are building more retail space and surface parking in a city that already has an oversupply.

That's fine. And that means that my vote isn't going to make a difference as to whether the project gets done or not. That's not going to stop me from warning against car-centric development on fallow land inside the city limits. We can't tell how this project will turn out for the community, to be sure, but I envision that a project like this would be far more beneficial to an established community. And you know, if the right people read our posts, maybe we'll see just that type of redevelopment sometime in the future. Forgive my perceived negativity, but if we don't have this kind of debate, we're liable to finally turn the entire city into a suburb without even discussing it. It's a distinct possibility, as remote as it may seem.

The developer is hoping to receive the land gratis from the city. The location then is a proper subject for public debate. The only reason I make my opinion known is to try to spread new urbanist ideals. Whether or not this project ends up conforming to them is not as important as planting that seed, so that developers consider those ideals in projects moving forward. So no matter the circumstance, I'm going to rail against any suburban-style new development, since in my opinion it'll have a worse impact than leaving the land fallow. Again, opinions may differ. But I'm here to try to spread good urban planning principles.

I love the idea of brick roads, but I've been told by people who lived on them that they get very icy and slippery in the wintertime. The low-maintenance factor must be unsurpassed, though. They repaved Falls Road in Chagrin Falls maybe 5 years ago with brick and the road is still as perfect as the day it was laid. Those dilapidated brick roads we see all the time might be upwards of 30 years old.

Cars definitely promote flexibility as to the workplace, which is probably why the biggest cities have higher unemployment than Cuyahoga County and the rest of the "driving" cities. At the same time, the foreclosure crisis is keeping people in their houses when they don't necessarily want to be there (their mortgages are underwater). So what about chip-and-seal road construction? It definitely keeps speed and cost down. Most Geauga County roads used to be chip-and-seal, and some still are. That won't achieve the 5 mph goal but it at least keeps people from treating back roads as freeways. And unpaved roads don't necessarily stop people from driving small cars, although it does provide a subsidy to the car wash industry. Sperry Road in Chesterland has been unpaved for many years and you'll see all sorts of cars driving that road.

Whatever. This is not productive.

Harlem. the area north of the convention center in DC. Sweet Auburn in Atlanta. Wynwood in Miami. I can go on. ;) Those places aren't comparable. You referred to areas of growing population. This is Cleveland. Population is declining in the city limits. We might have to take a page out of Detroit's or Youngstown's book and start "right-sizing" the community with bulldozers. If we build new buildings and as a consequence let a 100-year-old community get plowed into the dirt, we'll have definitely lost something. I think it's more important to stop this process by better utilizing what we already have rather than trying to encourage businesses to build new. Opinions may differ.

Look, you can't just expect development to spring up out of nothingness, especially in a city where houses and retail spaces are being abandoned at record pace, AND in an era of stringent lending standards. I'll ask you this again: When was the last time you saw any building with streetfront retail be built in this city in an area (a) without pre-existing wealth and (b) without other established businesses located in old housing stock? I doubt you will even find one built at the peak of the commercial construction boom. The only way you're going to pull off this magic trick is with a hydrogen bomb of money from the county.

My eyes, a sharp wit, and a thirst for knowledge. For many years.

When was the last time you saw any building with streetfront retail be built in an area (a) without pre-existing wealth and (b) without other established businesses located in old housing stock? I haven't. And we're not talking about Cracker Park here, either. If you read the book in my signature, Jane Jacobs lists four elements to creating a vital, vibrant neighborhood: 1) high density of residents 2) mixed-use zoning 3) a mix of old and new buildings 4) short blocks. The first element is the only one that is arguably already present in that area. Jacobs places particular emphasis on element number 3, citing "urban renewal" as the reason why new, chic developments often turn to blight in a few short years. Old buildings beget cheap rents, which bring in a diversity of businesses. Like I said, art galleries and tea houses couldn't possibly afford to pay the rent in a new construction. That title is reserved for high-volume businesses, like supermarkets and big-box stores.

^ I don't doubt that this market will be an asset to wherever it's located. I just think that in the grand scheme of things, it could hurt the city as a whole. In my experience, the only people who really ever have had the money to build commercial space from scratch have been big-box stores and supermarkets, in all but the wealthiest of areas. So, no, the market won't be a "failure" for the people who buy and sell in the market, or the residents located near the market, but if it encourages that area to be developed into a strip-mall and some other historic district withers and dies from lack of attention, I think we've lost more than we've gained.

"WHAT TOWERS are you talking about??" Just a general term for the CMHA buildings. I watch too much of "The Wire." :) It's going to take a great deal of "outside the box" financing to turn that area into anything other than a strip mall. I'm just saying that we're ignoring the assets we already have (good housing and commercial building stock) in favor of building on empty land, that's all. It seems our history is replete with forsaking historic districts of dense mixed-use communities in favor of suburban-style development, and I just don't see any other outcome for such a project in this location. I'm really worried that more unique neighborhoods are going to lose the battle to blight and suburbanization if we focus too much on developing empty land.

Put down the pipe, man. If people are walking from the towers to the Church's Chicken, or to the gas station for cigarettes, it's because they have to, not because it's enjoyable. Look, that area has automobile traffic so high that the optimal use of that intersection is for car-centric development. Ugly, ugly, ugly, pedestrian-unfriendly, car-centric development. You'll never catch me dead walking between strip malls in Mayfield Heights. But put me on Lee Road at Cedar, and I'll walk the whole length of the street, because I enjoy the architecture, the window shopping, and the general liveliness of people going about their business. Now, you could either put the market at this intersection and cross your fingers that somebody is going to knock down the chicken place and the gas station and replace it with pedestrian-friendly streetfront retail, but that costs money. Lots and lots of money. Your other option is to locate the market among buildings that already support streetfront retail, in decent restorable condition. Not to mention that the rent will be far cheaper for a business who wants to ride the wave of the market patrons if they locate in a pre-existing building rather than a new construction. Which area do you think is more likely to thrive?

Well, as far as I understand, the county is going to give them the land, and I'm assuming there are some grants and loans forthcoming, too, so they have some pull in where the project is located. Honestly, I didn't mean to imply that the area is crime-ridden or unsuitable for visitors by saying "devastated;" I was only referring to the fact that most if not all of the old apartment blocks and street retail are gone from the area, replaced by suburban commercial development. I've been through the intersection several times on my way to Slavic Village and Washington Park. Frankly, it wouldn't excite me one bit if I got to see a little Mayfield Heights strip-mall town develop there. It's not going to help out the project-dwellers very much, as they already have a Dave's and although there have been anecdotes about the "type" of people who shop at WSM, there is no disputing that shopping there is more expensive than a supermarket. A market like this can do a lot more good for a community that already has housing stock and a commercial business district, giving a ready-made springboard for low-margin entrepreneurs to creatively serve the influx of visitors. We have the opportunity to put another walkable, urban, visitor-friendly Cleveland neighborhood on the map!

The main issues I see is that much of the land space north of the intersection is saturated with newly built projects that will not reach the end of their useful life for many years, and the traffic. I think the highest form of development one could expect here are a few strip malls or big-box stores, especially given the truck traffic in the area. Locating the market in an already-established neighborhood like Slavic Village can really give that neighborhood a boost toward being a talked-about hotspot of the city and create that "critical mass" of creative, artistic entrepreneurs that can make the area flourish. We need more of these areas, and we can't squander an opportunity like this one. We have to stop making the same mistakes we've been making for the past 50 years in this city. Suburban development within the city limits has been one of the major catalysts for the failure of the area. We need to STOP doing this at once and focus on saving what we haven't paved over for surface parking yet. We can use county funds to put up parking lots and retail malls anywhere in the city. But the only thing that is going to make this city turn the corner is an influx of people. And they won't come just because we managed to lure a Home Depot to 55th and Woodland.