WestBLVD

The links this article makes annoys me: The Go-Nowhere Generation http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-go-nowhere-generation.html?_r=2&hp

2 houses in O City and 1 in Rocky River. Surprised he went with Rocky River home. Wouldn't be my first choice, that's for sure. 2 houses in O City and 1 in Rocky River. Surprised he went with Rocky River home. Wouldn't be my first choice, that's for sure. This also aired again recently. I was also disappointed with the decision. The property taxes for the RR house are about $2,500 a year, versus $250 for the town home. So even with a marginal HOA fee, any discount in the mortgage for the RR house would be offset with much higher property taxes. That RR house is probably a money pit too. Oh well, lost another to the suburbs when it probably wasn't necessary! For those who wish to watch, you can here: http://www.hgtv.com/video/opinionated-in-cleveland-video/index.html

As was noted above, a lot of Kucinich's old representation on Cleveland's west side went to Marcia Fudge's new district. There were hundreds of "DENNIS!" signs up in Cleveland neighborhoods where he wasn't on the ballot anymore. I'm sure quite a few folks were surprised on Tuesday when they went to the polls and saw Marcia Fudge or some other candidate on the ballot instead of Kaptur/Kucinich. The big state view maps in the papers just didn't have the resolution to see the gerrymandering that took place as there are now 4 different congressional districts west of the Cuyahoga River in Cuyahoga County. Kaptur picked up 94% of the Lucas County vote (22,269) versus Kucinich's 72.5% for Cuyahoga County (22,800)

Yeah. This needs to be addressed ASAP. There has been a wreck(s) at this spot almost every week now. You can basically count on a back up at least once a week down Clifton. Traffic on the West Shoreway has grown leaps and bounds this year as an alternative to the innerbelt and its various construction tie ups so it's no surprise the number of accidents has jumped. This particular spot is always bad because the second you round that curve you hit major sun glare. It is also at the lowest elevation point for that stretch of road so it accumulates water and subsequently more likely to frost up which is never a good combination with a curve. There really is no short term solution other than putting up a caution 35 mph before that curve ... which in my opinion would do more harm as you'd have half the traffic slowing down to 35 and the other half changing lanes while going 60 to get around them, which would probably amount to more wrecks. Of course, the ideal solution is traffic calming via actual intersections ... maybe that's for 2019 if ever. I would say, though, that if they ever went through with the actual conversion, the traffic on the shoreway would plummet to just those who live north of Detroit. I am amazed at the number of cars driving the shoreway that DO NOT exit at either Lakeside or East 9th for Downtown destinations. It seems that more than half of all cars driving eastbound on the Shoreway continue to the I-90 merge going east. The same is true for the evening westbound rush. With deadman's curve backing up daily, there are more cars coming from I-90 at 5 pm going west than those getting on from downtown destinations. It becomes apparent when you see just how many cars turn down West Blvd and 117th to reconnect to I-90. I would love to see a study of the percentage of total cars that drive the shoreway between 4 and 6 pm that actually make it past 117th on Clifton ... it must only be a fraction. It would be nice to see this project go through, just to get rid of all the extraneous cross county traffic that uses this as a short cut. I'm sick and tired of hearing all the complaints about this being a "Lakewood to Downtown Cleveland" commute issue, when it's more of a Lorain County/Westlake trying to get to MLK/I-90/I-271 shortcut issue.

Excellent. Now that's an angle of downtown you rarely ever see photos taken. Looks very urban without any parking lots in view.

Yeah, this intersection has so much potential it just hurts. When they cleared out that neighborhood a few blocks south a few years ago to build the Target/Giant Eagle, they capitalized on the I-90 intersection, which in turn today has created a new commercial hub for the west side. The walk from this rapid stop to the big boxes (Staples, Home Depot, Target, Giant Eagle) isn't very pleasant, but it's doable for those who really want to. First of all, this part of the county is quite far from "mall" type shopping. I'll say it ... but this would have been the ideal place to build the Crocker Park development or a Crocker Park type development. It could have spanned from the I-90 exit up to Berea Rd and the rapid stop. This would have been a best of both worlds for urbanists and car loving suburbanites. Those who just want to shop at a mall right off the interstate, can just park (for free), shop, and leave. Those who enjoy an urban setting can arrive by multiple forms of transit, walk around, shop, dine, live there in an urban but new build setting, etc. I would love to see a plan that sort of connects the big box that's there already and transforms it into a more walkable, pleasant, dare I say Crocker Parkesque setting all the way up to Berea Road. Let's face it, this interstate exit is arguably the most suburban feeling in the entire city of Cleveland. Might as well take a fake suburban urban Westlake potemkin village and plop it here. Put in a huge park and ride garage right off 90 connected to the rapid stop for those who refuse to let go of the wheel and encourage them to train into downtown and do some shopping on the way home. And then of course, from Berea north on 117th, I'd love to see historic rehabs and industrial conversions take place as the gradient between industry/sprawl and dense residential is demarcated by the rapid line.

Really? I always thought CLE had cheaper fares. What discount airline flies out of PIT? It's a mix of de-hubbing and some low cost carriers that have brought fares down at PIT (Jet Blue, Southwest, Airtran) Check out this article here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/which-airports-have-the-most-unfair-fares/#charts The full chart is here: http://www.538host.com/airlong.png Note that CLE is "overpriced" by 55 dollars, while PIT is "discounted" 13 dollars.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of people living in the Youngstown MSA drove to CLE for a flight versus PIT for a flight. PIT tends to have cheaper fares than CLE. So even if it leans slightly PIT or not, UAL would rather grab some of those passengers going to PIT and bring them through a higher fare CLE with the amenity of leaving/arriving close to home/work. The easiest way to do this, is of course, by offering YNG-CLE service.

^ I think some airlines have toyed around with using buses to get people from nearby small metros to their hub airport versus using small aircraft. I think as fuel continues to rise and the economics of small regional jets comes into play, we might see more in the way of "air buses" or "air trains" operated by the airlines that get people from the regional airports to the nearby hubs. But people who live in their 300,000 to 600,000 metros an hour or two outside of a million plus metro really do love the convenience of their local airport, no matter how wasteful or impractical it might be. People like that they can just ask a friend or family member to make that quick 10 minute drive to drop them off or pick them up. Try asking a friend or relative if they would drive you to the hub airport 90 minutes away and watch them make up an excuse. Airlines know that in some small markets people will gladly pay a premium to avoid boarding directly at the big hub (long drive times, long security lines, cost of parking) so in some cases it works to their economic advantage when they can charge significantly higher fares. I don't think this would be the case at YNG. This CLE-YNG proposal seems to be bucking the trend in Ohio. With the loss of service between TOL-DTW and DAY-CVG, I'm not sure this would last and if the subsidy is warranted.

Me too. Well put. I get that alot of people on this board & elsewhere feel like the Shoreway project doesn't go far enough to create lakefront development but if it remains a concrete divided highway, that development will NEVER happen. This project needs to go forward so that sometime down the line, the basics are there to allow development along a 35mph boulevard.... Yes, that's my sentiment. I think the ODOT plan now is terrible. It's sort of a gamble, do you go ahead with this plan now and then hope that 20 years down the road you can improve upon it. Or do you hold out 5-8 years and hope that times change and the original concept can go forth? It's probably best just to go ahead and do something now, even if it means prolonging the desired results decades into the future.

I disagree. The last thing Cleveland needs is another "pocket" of development that is unconnected to any other growing areas of the city. The Shoreway conversion is a great opportunity to FINALLY have connection in Cleveland. For too long there have been these small pockets of development for urban pioneers (Ohio City, Tremont, Detroit Shoreway, etc) that never fully grow to their potential and connect to the others. I see this as an investment in connection of already existing neighborhoods that will only lead to drawing more people into the city. People that would have been previously frightened of those "nether regions" in between currently existing pockets of new and revitalized housing. Imagine Ohio City finally connected to Detroit Shoreway connected to Clifton/Edgewater. Game changing. No marina can offer that. I wouldn't say "finally" connected, the Detroit Shoreway has always been connected to Edgewater/Clifton via Lake and Detroit Avenues west of Gordon Square. These areas have yet to be revitalized and continue to crumble into one of the most crime ridden neighborhoods on Cleveland's west side. A Shoreway conversion project bypasses the organic and historic connection of these neighborhoods in favor of a development free boulevard. The only way that DS can be physically connected is through a boulevard full of development, or the revitalization of Lake Avenue between Detroit and Clifton. Adding a median and putting in more pedestrian paths (as has been noted, a bike/pedestrian path already parallels the Shoreway right now from W 65th to West Blvd, with the Battery Park connection almost complete), without putting in at grade intersections puts off the "full west shoreway" dream for decades. The ODOT plan now sucks, and if people just accept it and let it go through, good luck ever getting a true lake connection in the near future. In terms of neighborhood cohesion, there needs to be at least a few physical structures to actually connect the neighborhoods along this route, I just don't see how a median accomplishes it.

Well, my last sentence was just a plan ... about as pie in the sky as Jane Campbell's plan. However, the baby steps of actually developing the Shoreway for development is a realistic option that wouldn't cost the city insane amounts of money.

Lowering the speed limit to 35mph and putting in a few landscaping elements doesn't make it a boulevard. The problem is this is still being touted as a lakefront development plan when that vision died years ago. Putting a median and another bike path on a highway that at points is 3/4 of a mile away from the lake is hardly lakefront development. Why isn't the city fighting for the full fledged plan or at least the possibility of going back to it? I want Clifton Blvd and its mix of apartments, houses, shops, and restaurants extended along this new boulevard. Where is this plan?Where are the current designs that show this? Now that would be a development plan versus some absurd 100 million dollar median. This city and every suburb (Can you believe not one city from Lorain to Mentor decided to put in a strip of commercial development along its lakeshore!) is to blame for poor planning, past and present. The reality is that all of the lakeshore is occupied by something. If you want to develop it, you have to remove something or extend the shoreline farther into the lake. We are afraid to touch that subject, so instead we tout inland projects as lakefront to skirt the obvious. The only way that a boulevard conversion here will work is if we sell off/lease parts of Edgewater Park for private development. Let's face it, Edgewater park is a mess. It's too big too maintain. Too many areas are just never used and there's a lot of wasted space that would make a great waterfront district. I'm all for reducing Edgewater's size for the benefit of this boulevard and actually having interaction with, gee, the lake. The question is, what do we actually gain in terms of lakefront development from a boulevard conversion that offers no development along its path? I think the City would be better off leaving the shoreway as is, filling in the part of the lake just to the north of marina with mixed use development and putting in a mile long boardwalk from the beach to the edge of the marina. But, that's another topic.

Even looking at that chart. Personal trip oil use and those derived from goods they consume are almost equal. If you figure that several percentage points can be knocked off the car, light truck, suv categories to placed into the non personal trip category. Think of all the local plumbing services, food and flower delivery, USPS, courier delivery, landscaping services, light construction, and so forth that just use regular cars or light trucks that aren't personal trips. It's probably a lot closer on average and if you are a city dweller then your personal consumption is probably a lot less from personal trips than through the items consumed.

The top and bottom of that picture shows the elevation views from the west and north - nothing worth seeing (but if you click around that loopnet site, they show up more clearly). It's sad when a Target on Brookpark Road has a nicer facade that this proposal, and that's saying a lot.

I shopped at this Big Bird very often, and the parking lot was almost never more than half full. I remember it was probably 3/4 full around the holidays and being shocked at having to park so "far" from the store. It appears they lose about nine spaces with Building A being larger than the current building that Johnny Malloy's is in, but it also appears they pick up 6-7 parallel or angled parking spaces on Clifton. So the net loss is maybe two spaces. Hopefully then there's still hope for the church. On another note, this is still in the Clifton-West Blvd historic district. There's no way (never say never) that they'd get away with that proposed design. If we are going to get a one story strip plaza, I'd really like to see a faux 2 story brick facade that complements the buildings to the east of 116th Street. Or better yet, salvage a facade from a building being demo'ed elsewhere in the city, because there sure are enough historic buildings biting the dust as of late!

The drive through really lends itself towards a drug store type place. But you've got CVS literally across the street, Walgreens a block south, and then Discount Drug Mart a block south and a block west on Detroit. Would Discount Drug Mart want to move to this location for better traffic and visibility? Otherwise I just can't see this area needing another one of these type of stores. A GFS just opened up in the new Cedar Center North plaza in South Euclid as an anchor tenant. Their average store square footage is 16,000 sq ft, which is the same size as the anchor tenant for this proposal. Save A Lot is also about this size. Luckily this size is too big for a Family Dollar or Dollar General. The demographics of this neighborhood, with such a split between affluence and low income and everything in between, lends to almost anything going in here. I could just as easily see a GFS here as I could a relocated Nature's Bin or expanded Constantino's. The fate of that church rests on this proposal. You're not going to get 4 condos carved out of it, especially when it's sitting in the back parking lot of a shopping plaza and facing the proposed garbage containers. Any restaurant/bar/entertainment venue in the church would rest on the plaza owner allowing for shared parking between the two, and even then it'd probably always be full. This proposal adds zero additional parking spaces than when it was a Giant Eagle several years ago, in fact it looks like there are about 8 less spaces in the proposal than currently exist now. How full did the parking lot get when Giant Eagle was here in 2007?

Wow, look at how boxed in the church gets! I'd like to hear the city's reaction to these designs. There has to be a way they can piggyback off this. Otherwise, what do you do with it?

Yeah I posted on the previous page... I'll echo my concerns again. This proposal is exactly what we don't want for the corner. If this goes through how do you redevelop the church? I'd much rather this corner sit vacant for another 3-4 years until market conditions support the right development here than put in another one story strip plaza.

I think this is a nifty idea. I really like this area and think it has potential, but it's definitely been a neighborhood on Cleveland's back burner. I looked at a few homes in the Mill Creek development, but ultimately felt that it wasn't right for me. It had the new urbanist style, but with one way into the neighborhood and one way out, it felt too suburban for me. Plus, you couldn't really walk out to anything else and the drive up Broadway was an eternity to downtown. Cleveland really lacks affordable new build single family homes that are incorporated into the fabric of the city. If this project really does fill in those streets next Third Federal, it will fill a market need. I'm not interesting in buying a townhome or condo, but it feels that's all that's been built in Cleveland the past 7 years. I love those older 1,250 square foot homes with the postage stamp lawn, but of course what comes with those are the baggage of an 80+ year old home and layouts that don't necessarily meet todays wants. So, a development of 1,250 square foot energy efficient homes that have modern layouts but still fit into a grid pattern and fit into the urban fabric is a wonderful idea. I think that being next to the rail trail will be a big plus too. However, I think I'd be hesitant to purchase at that particular location now for lack of walkable amenities, but I do see there being a market for this kind of development in Cleveland. Sure, Cleveland is full of affordable housing. But what about affordable NEW build housing for purchase? I hope this project works and hope that it can spur some some gentrification on Broadway and bring this neighborhood off the back burner!

I recently came across that 25 "newish" house development in Kamm's Corners. It's really tucked away between two residential streets just 4 blocks south of Lorain on Scullin Drive ... you'd really never know it was there. I did a search on google and on this board and nothing came up. This development can't be more than 10 years old, but it's just in the oddest place. I'm wondering if anyone has any background info on this development and how it came to be? It's a great example of how dense you can actually make the quintessential modern single family home with a driveway and a garage into a new neighborhood. It's just amazing that they squeezed 25 free standing single family homes into that space, where in Strongsville it would have taken 10x the area.

regarding building heights, keep in mind they can't be too high given the runways at BKL. Without doing any calculations, though, ten stories would probably be okay. If I recall correctly the new pedestrian bridge linking Voinovich Park to this area had to be scaled back due to FAA regulations. The original proposal (which was an amazing piece of architecture) was 145 feet tall. It was canned and so now we will have a 71' tall bridge instead. I'm sure that building heights can gradually increase the farther you get away from the runway, but based on what the FAA said for the nearby bridge, I can't see these buildings being more than 6 stories max just to the north of the Science Center. The good news is that this bridge is scheduled to start construction next summer, so we will have development already beginning in the not too distant future. :)

Yeah, so many great projects in Cleveland unfortunately stuttered because of the recession. Who knows, let's say that it had gone through and a Borders popped up there ;) We'd still be discussing what to put in there today, but at least the building would be habitable.

It's not my point. It was news I reported. You may disagree with my reporting of the facts which are as solid as me saying the sun rose today, but that doesn't change the facts. And if it becomes a reported fact that a strip center is what is planned and that the site owner/developer says it cannot move forward unless the church is torn down, then it is clear that this site will remain dormant/vacated until another plan is put forward which respects the church. The city owns the church and has a significant investment in it. From conversations I have had with city officials, the church is as immutable as the streets which form that block. Everything I hear from the city is that the church is so important to them that, whatever development plan is put forth to meet will have to work within those parameters. Unless you hear news that is different, there is nothing to disagree with. I agree, 2008 and earlier was an entirely different development realm. Even well before then, there were proposals to tear the church down for more grocery store parking. But today the church is a big piece in the development puzzle for that corner. Each year that the church stays empty, the more it crumbles and the more cash the city has to put into just to keep it from falling down. So each year, the cost to rehab that structure goes up, and with today's housing values, credit crunch, etc what one can do with that church profitably is entirely different than 4 years ago. But, I agree with the city, the church is a landmark, a wonderful architectural specimen and must stay. You've got a lot of scenarios that can play out. Basically, any redevelopment of that church NEEDS to have some of the neighboring parcel where the Giant Eagle/ Johnny Malloy's stand, as evidenced by earlier proposals. On the other hand any redevelopment of the commercial strip on Clifton does not necessarily need the Church. If a developer comes in and wants to buy the commercial strip on Clifton to put in something new there, then the church on its parcel is SOL until the market conditions drastically improve. This is what I'm afraid of, someone coming in and seeing that corner and having no problem putting in their 15,000 square foot store with a sea of parking and leaving the church to rot some more. We can play the scenario/speculation game all we want at this stage of the game. But in this market what can feasibly go in there is very limited. I think a Crop2 restaurant would be amazing. But really, what kind of restaurant in Cleveland could realistically operate in a building that will take millions to renovate. There is going to have to be a lot of clever financing, historic tax credits, etc to really get anything off the ground.

That old church, as beautiful as it is, is what is keeping this site vacant ... for better or for worse. If that church wasn't there or had been demo'ed decades ago, you can guarantee that entire block would have been redeveloped by now (most likely with garbage). That church is crumbling, and if I recall correctly the city just dumped $300,000 into stabilizing the roof this past winter. Any plan really has to incorporate this building into the project or else the city over the years will have blown a lot of money for nothing. It's a pretty building, but an awkward space to fill. Let's say that the ideal mixed use 4 story building gets proposed for this site? What do you do with that church? I know that a bookstore had been tossed around before, but let's face it, big book stores are a thing of the past. It would probably make a great Cleveland Public Library branch, but fat chance in that ever happening. I would imagine that a renovation of the church is going to be in the millions, so as a single property it's just not going to survive being redeveloped on its own. In addition, any multi story development on this site would likely cause the need for a parking garage, escalating costs dramatically. The Rockport Square development about 5 blocks southwest of this site in Lakewood has stalled for quite some time too. I could see something similar to that being put in here, but I'm not sure about the demand for housing in this neighborhood. The housing stock in this area is 90% pre 1930 with a scattering of late 50's and 60's ranches that were carved from some of the original lakeside estates. You can probably count on one hand all the properties built after 1980. This all in a neighborhood of Cleveland that never really declined. I think a more modern build townhome would be desired by some, but might be a hard sell though. Especially considering what amazing homes with great features and architecture are selling for on Lake and Edgewater Drives these days. It's just a very interesting corner in Cleveland where a lot of things could potentially happen, but it all rests on that church and how it fits into any proposal.