gottaplan

Restricting their ability to exist or restricting their development, tomato, tomahto... greenfield development is always going to be cheaper, more attractive. Everyone knows that and Mr Bier's article highlights the problems associated with this. Unless changes occur to make it less attractive, the problems will continue. Eventually, these tracts of large parcel, single family cul-de-sac homes will find themselves in similar situations as the inner ring suburbs... increasing deferred maintenance costs, dated designs which no longer meet buyers needs, etc. Then what? And what is the environmental cost of all these large plot single family home developments? Has North Royalton solved their flooding problems? How much mature forest area has been cleared for homes in Solon/Chagrin/Bainbridge? How much farmland was lost in Medina/Lorain for new home plots? How much has storm runoff increased from these home developments and big box stores that follow?

Maybe at $5 or $6, or with a VMT fee on top of the gas tax to accurately price in the cost of road use. Maybe. Quite honestly, there are a number of people in my office who would put themselves at the brink of bankruptcy in order to continue living farther out, away from the city. A young coworker recently bought a house in Chagrin Falls and is absolutely in love with it. I have a feeling that she'd willingly (albeit not happily) pay significantly more in gas and property taxes in order to keep it. Why do we need this? And what would you get if you prevented a township from existing? It's needed to eliminate sprawl. "According to Bier’s research, 96 percent of Geauga County land is in townships; 90 percent in Medina County; 86 percent in Portage County and 70 percent in Lorain". Restricting the ability for these townships to add housing & provide services would help stop the outflow of migration. The main attraction of living in a township is lower property taxes & no income taxes.

So many assumptions are factored into those numbers quoted in the Bier article. I certainly don't mean to minimize the possible outcome he's predicting, but seeing fuel prices climb to steady +$4/gallon would have a big impact on outward migration. - There needs to be some state legislation restricting/limiting the ability of these townships to exist. It would never be approved by any of those representing the township areas of course. - There also needs to be continued incentives to attract the same families who choose to live in Medina/Sheffield/Painesville Twp etc back to the urban center/inner ring. Everyone loves to blame highways and cars as the source of sprawl, but I see it as more of a land use/zoning problem. You can have all the cars & highways in the world, but if you don't allow huge tracts of farmland to be turned into single family homes all over Lorain, Medina & Geauga counties, I don't see the problem.

may not be relevant to this thread, but Cuyahoga County has a job listing for the position of Executive Director of Cuyahoga Planning Commission. Must have experience & focus in shared services & sustainability. Perhaps some of the members of this board should apply... http://www.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/employment.aspx

I would choose Detroit Shoreway over Tremont, but that's a personal preference based on a variety of factors. Look on the north side of Detroit primarily, from 76th heading back east to 58th. Some solid single family homes with decent yards. - Also look for some of the homes which have already been "flipped" by Cleveland Housing Network. These have all new wall insulation, windows, drywall, mechanicals, etc. Also usually have new driveways & garages out back. - Look for some of vacant lots as well which can be purchased and built on. - Perhaps also buying an older, possibly bank owned home, which could be purchased, torn down & rebuilt for a great long term investment, as the 15 yr tax abatement would apply.

^proposal looks great but that building's had more facelifts than Joan Rivers.... I hate to see another restaurant come in, spend thousands on renovations, and then not get the business to support it. I think this is the 5th business at this location in 4 years... Spice Kitchen/Roseangel/LaBoca/CheddarMacs/Snickers....

probably old news to some of you, but public tours of the Innerbelt project are offered each month. I'm signed up for the tour end of July! http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/ClevelandUrbanCoreProjects/Innerbelt/InnerbeltBridge/NewsInformation/Pages/Project-Tours.aspx

^I'm confident Toby Keith's bar will turn back the clock...

This thread has gotten off topic (surprise!) and is now a debate about making Ohio cities more "urban & progressive" than making Ohio a high growth state. Texas is a high growth state, but is not very urban or progressive. Comparing Ohio cities to places like San Fran or Portland as models of progressive urbanism is ridiculous. Ohio cities like Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo & Dayton have vast industrial pasts to overcome which those west coast cities do not. What was Portland doing as a city back in the 1920's when Cleveland was a center of manufacturing/steel/refining etc? What was San Fran doing during the 40's & 50's when Toledo was making glass for everything in the country? They don't have these massive outdated/abandoned manufacturing facilities to deal with across their inner cities like many Ohio cities do. For evidence of what a daunting challenge this is, look no further than the attempts to simply connect the final phases of the canal tow path here in the Cleveland area... all the final gaps are contaminated former industrial sites... And mentioning bike lanes is silly also. NYC has a cost of living so high, hardly anyone can afford a car. That will never be the case here in Ohio. Bike lanes are cool, but should hardly be mentioned in a list of priorities to make Ohio a high growth state...

This is extremely frustrating. In fact, it's especially disconcerting because there is so little access to the water here. And the precious access we do have is not taken care of. Government inaction. They are working to address it. If all goes as planned, in another 4-5 years, there will be access at the following: W. 65th - pedestrians W. 73rd - cars & pedestrians W. 76th - pedestrians Lake Ave - pedestrians West Blvd - cars & pedestrians

I agree. With such a huge asset that Edgewater is, I think it could be a money maker with very little effort. Promote some local music concerts & art shows, charge the vendors a fee to sell goods & merchandise there. Install some high quality sports fields, either softball, volleyball, whatever. Have a winter skate park. Pretty soon you've got a steady income stream and a building base of users. More than enough activity to justify a year round "event coordinator". As it is now, there is zero promotion that goes into Edgewater Park. Outside of "Friends of Edgewater", there is no social media, nothing promoting the handful of events that take place there like the kite flying convention, the ultra-marathon, the recycled flotation competition, etc.

^they don't have anyone to supervise basic services like trash pickup & mowing. They definitely don't have anyone to coordinate concerts, food trucks, and other vendors...

Long read, but pretty much sums up much of what this thread has been discussing. Young people don't move where it's hip or cool or trendy, they move where the jobs are. http://thirtytwomag.com/2012/06/the-fall-of-thecreative-class/

One political crony taking the seat of another...

If UCI sold the land for $1 to the developer, that would be a huge infusion of equity to the project, and it would become more attractive for lenders since it's something they could physically reclaim in case of default. With UCI retaining the land, that's not an option. Partnering with the public sector for below market financing is a great idea, I hope it's being looked at. And I didn't mean to suggest the project is DOA, simply that excitement has cooled and it's still lingering in limbo while the clock is ticking. I'd still give it a 50/50 chance of going forward as proposed.

I think Coral/Panzica are as good of a development team as you'll get, the project costs are just too high for the rates here in Cleveland. The land being owned & retained by UCI adds a different wrinkle to the project also.

"getting it done right" and "having a capacity for realizing a major project" are both relative expressions. Reality is what the market will currently bear on that site. We all want something architecturally pleasing, plenty of massing & density, not some cheap looking low-rise. Developing something in between that can be funded, built & leased for Cleveland market rates is another thing. I think the Coral/Panzica proposal that was selected from the others by UCI definitely sets the bar high for anything that might follow. As I stated earlier on, I think it's unrealistic, and what is ultimately built by them or others on the site will be somewhat watered down. Reality bites

yeah and the clock is quickly ticking. Say the year started on March 1st when the news was announced, they are coming up on 6 mos already by end of July. Doesn't seem like they are even close to having financing lined up in terms of construction loan, & permanent loans with the various banks, public subsidy, equity, private lenders, mezzanine, etc. If they managed to pull it all together by the fall they'd be hard pressed to get a closing done by New Years. Following that timeline only leaves about 3 months of slack in the schedule before the deadline. Having said all that, I'm not sure how lenient UCI would be with this deadline... not likely they'd slam the door on Coral/Panzica if they were 90% complete with financing at 1 year mark, but there are other bidders for the site who would love to see that happen so they could get another crack at it

Coral/Panzica had a lunch presentation the other day with a group of local lenders & alternative financiers... doesn't seem like there was much interest. This thing is going to start gathering dust if it sits on the shelf much longer.

"Danny, the world needs ditch diggers, too"

And now RTA buys gas in small quantities whenever the prices are down, and we are saving MILLIONS. We are now buying gas for 2014. Whatever money we may have lost that first year, we have made up over and over again. How can one argue about $26,000 in salary increases when millions have been saved by his efficiencies? Good point, but I would hope anyone worth a $100k+ salary would be able to save on purchasing fuel in advance at lower prices...

I can't believe I've missed all the fun of this debate about Mr C's salary.... I also can't believe it was KJP that posted the link first. my 2 cents: $240,000 is a helluva lot of money to pay someone to run a public agency like Cleveland RTA. It's more than the Chief of Police or Chief of Fire in Cleveland make or CMHA's CEO and all those groups have nearly 1,000 employees and annual budgets in the hundreds of millions. Maybe he's the best they can get for the money, but I bet they could've got the same job done for less. We'll never know but the $20k increase seems excessive on top of an already ludicrous salary.

The hotel should start going vertical soon

Drove past Progressive field yesterday. The area in front at the intersection of Carnegie & Ontario is totally getting reconfigured. By the looks of it, there will be a new parcel of land available once the lanes are reduced. Should be interesting to see if anything gets built there.

interesting point. THere's only about a thousand books on economic development that indicate otherwise