Rustbelter

Huh? In this case "my people" wanted apartments because they're single, only needed space for themselves, and did not want a yard to maintain. They could not find available apartments that were to their liking in the area when they looked. I was told the nicer apartments they wanted did not have availability and other units they looked at were older units or had awkward layouts. Like I said before, these are not urbanist like those on this forum but they considered living by the action if they could find decent places. Ultimately the neighborhoods did not have the apartments they were looking for at the time, and one ended up moving to Lakewood and the other to Westlake.

I don't live in Cleveland anymore, but I do notice the improvements in Gordan Square over the last several years during my frequent trips back into town. That being said the area still has a long ways to go. Once you get west of Lake Avenue or go south towards Lorain Avenue the area appears to be ghetto. There are also a lot of holes in the urban fabric both east and west of the square which need to be filled in to create more of a cohesive environment. Traveling west on Detroit past Lake Avenue appears to be a wasteland that looks like much of the East Side ghettos until you get to W. 110th (where it gets dramatically better). North of Gordan Square is obviously much nicer and feels pretty safe to me. Until the area between Lake Avenue and Edgewater/Lakewood is addressed I think Gordan Square will be held back from hitting its full potential. I would have to disagree with those people who said there is nothing in the neighborhood for kids. There is nothing lacking in terms of activities that makes it any less interesting than a typical suburb for a child. Obviously I think there are safety concerns around there that may be a problem at this time. However, I would not expect even a fully gentrified Gordan Square (along with Cleveland's other improving neighborhoods) to grow by attracting families since the city schools are so bad. I live in Chicago, and even the hyper-yuppie neighborhoods like Lincoln Park do not have many kids because the city schools are horrible and people do not stay around when their children reach school age. The only kids you usually see are those attending private schools who presumably have upper class parents that can afford these schools along with the local housing costs. Trendy urban neighborhoods in this country are generally made up of singles, empty nesters, and DINKs because urban school districts are bad everywhere.

That's too bad. That would be a prime location for apartments, being so close to the Market District and the Red Line. Cleveland seems to have very little in terms of decent apartment buildings for professionals outside of downtown, which is probably a big factor that keeps those types from moving into the city. I know multiple people who considered moving into the city, but ended up in the burbs because that's where they were able to find the best living options. They did not want to be downtown, but wanted to be in more of a neighborhood atmosphere. These are not urban minded people like those on this forum, but they were intrigued by the cool restaurants and bars around Ohio City and Tremont. Ultimately the lack of decent housing options kept them in the burbs because they did not want to sacrifice their living conditions to live in the city.

I have always wondered what the deal was with that area when it existed, such as its demographics and how poor it was prior to it being leveled. I bet if those structures would have been left in tact it would be much like Tremont or Ohio City today. To me this was Cleveland's biggest loss in terms of neighborhoods because of its proximity to downtown. I also think establishing a residential neighborhood in this part of the city would do a lot for Cleveland. One problem I have with Cleveland is there are no visible residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown. Ohio City is cut off by the river to the west, there is a mess of highways to the south, and it's industrial to the east of downtown for a ways. Many of Cleveland's peer cities at least have one solid, or at least interesting, residential neighborhood adjacent to downtown; such as the North/East side in Milwaukee, Over the Rhine in Cincinnati, and Allentown in Buffalo. Well I think that is debatable depending how a person defines downtown. In Philly you can walk from Rittenhouse Square to the central business district in a manner of blocks, so I'm sure that someone could reasonably say that there has been residential in "downtown" Philly for some time based on that. I think San Francisco should be added to your list as well. In Chicago's case you are correct if you define downtown as just the Loop area. However, there has been residential in Chicago along N. Michigan Avenue and into the Gold Coast for some time, which are areas that most people would refer to as downtown Chicago.

I don't believe that Cleveland had much of a residential population at all downtown once it reached big city status. I'm sure at one time there was residential right off of Public Square when Cleveland was more of a town, but that made way for the central business district as the city grew. I do know that the area between E. 12th Street and E. 30th Street was once a densely population area made up of apartment blocks and houses. Although, I'm not sure if that area was considered part of downtown at the time or some other neighborhood. I believe very few streets around there survived as residential by 1960. Here are some photos from that area of some of the last survivors that were destroyed to make room for Cleveland State and parking lots (from the CSU archives). I don't really know the history of that area other than Millionaires Row along Euclid. I just know that must have been a pretty active residential district at one time that was leveled to make room for parking lots and one story commercial/industrial structures :x

True, but several of those suburbs of Cleveland that were mentioned are bungalow belt areas that were in decline well before this current horrible economy.

This is certainly not just a Cleveland problem, but unfortunately this article is just more bad press for Cleveland. Most of those suburbs discussed are getting poorer due to suburban sprawl, with the new residents being the former urban poor. The real story should be the shift of middle class money to the exurbs.

^^^ I agree with the post above. One of the most annoying things about the people of Cleveland is their self-depreciating ways. It has to be about the worst in the country when it comes to that sort of thing, much of which having to do with ignorance. Unfortunately many Clevelanders cannot see beyond their own negativity and don't realize all of the great things that Cleveland has going for it. Cleveland used to be one of the more prominent cities in the country during its prime, but it hit some tough times and obviously no longer has that status. Unfortunately this is what a lot of people focus on in Cleveland. That does not mean Cleveland is a bad place, it just didn't live up to its full potential like many thought it would. I'm not as familiar with Cincinnati, but I image it is similar in that regard. Despite its problems, I find Cleveland to be a better city than many other locations where people have an over-inflated sense of their city. This is often the case with cities that have grown a lot in recent decades and like to pound their chest. Unlike Cleveland and many other places in Ohio, I find that Columbus is a city that has an over-inflated opinion of itself due to recent strides.

Well maybe Lake County can talk to Cuyahoga County then if they want an express Red Line route with park & ride from Wickliffe to the Windermere stop? I bet the demand for such a thing from Lake county residents would be pretty low. I really don't think that extending the Red Line further would create any more development at this time since we're talking about some pretty run-down areas. Maybe when we start to see development in East Cleveland along those stops we can then start thinking more about Red Line TOD further down Euclid. Last I checked they were demolishing apartment buildings in East Cleveland that are a stones throw from those existing Red Line stops, not rehabbing them because they have good rail access. Heck, there is not even any TOD along the west side Red Line where there are healthier neighborhoods that are more primed for new development (University Circle aside). Yes, that extension should have been made 50 years ago to serve the then middle class neighborhoods and industry along that corridor.....along with a Euclid Avenue subway from downtown to University Circle. Yes, if that area was nicely built up it would not be too bad of walk from 105th to the Cedar Red Line station. There has to be a demand for that to happen though, but I agree that it would potentially be a feasible project(s) in the near future.

As a former Akron resident and UofA alumni this is great to see! Akron really needs to address neighborhood development surrounding the downtown core, and this looks like a nice vision. Right now Akron definitely lacks pedestrian oriented neighborhoods, so it's nice to see that people are making steps to change that.

I agree. Extending either of these lines should not at all be a priority of the RTA. A downtown loop of the waterfront line and a western extension of light rail out to Lakewood make way more sense than this. The Healthline pretty much serves its purpose for now, which is providing a connection from downtown to University Circle as well as spurring development in between. Anything beyond East Cleveland could be served by an extended Red Line on the railroad right-of-way that parallels Euclid Ave; but again, I think there are much more productive expansion projects that should be considered before that. While I do think that the Healthline is an obvious improvement from what was there before, I also think that BRT is a half-a**ed form of rapid transit under most circumstances. A subway down Euclid Ave in lieu of BRT would have never happened at this point in time, but I think a light rail could have. I would eventually like to see light rail put down the center of Chester Ave, replacing the Euclid BRT, and serving this corridor when it reaches a critical mass in terms of development. A Chester Ave light rail could branch out from a potential downtown loop created by the waterfront line (somewhere near CSU). This light rail would terminate at University Circle, making a loop around the area before heading back to downtown. Chester Avenue is much better suited for light rail since it's much wider than Euclid Avenue, and a revitalized midtown would mean more traffic on Euclid that makes operating transit on it more difficult.

Yes, there are tons of underused industrial areas or brownfields located within a 1/2 mile radius of the West Blvd stop that could be redeveloped as residential some day.

Well I was just throwing some ideas out there that would likely happen before a 2 mile subway tunnel ever got funded. I agree that putting a subway down Detroit Ave would be by far the best way of extending light rail to the west. Personally I would love to see it built under the current conditions as an economic development tool. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, major subway projects simply don't happen very often in the US. So unless Cleveland gets a large population boom or there is a big change in transit philosophy it would be tough to push through. To my knowledge a Detroit Ave subway out to W. 85th is not even something that RTA has seriously looked at, or any light rail out through Lakewood for that matter. I think the best example of a new subway tunnel for arguments sake is Pittsburgh, where they're constructing a 1 mile tunnel to extend their light rail north of the Allegheny River. I actually think a west light rail line in Cleveland could do much more for the region than that Pittsburgh extension will do for Pittsburgh. A half mile is not ideal, but I don't think that it's a deal breaker. If W. 65th Street was lined with cool shops, bars, and cafes it would be a pleasant walk. A good pedestrian streetscape makes a world of difference. W. 65th actually has many structures for such amenities, both north and south of Detroit Avenue. I live in Chicago and have walked a half mile many times to get to neighborhood entertainment hubs. That being said, it would obviously be much better centered down Detroit Ave since that is the area's major commercial and transportation corridor. I don't think Detroit Avenue is wide enough for BRT since it requires a dedicated bus lane. I believe so, but I'm not sure how long it is. I doubt that its goes very far west of W. 25th Street.

Yes, that would be awesome but Cleveland does not have the density to justify the cost for a subway. New subway tunnels are rarely built in the U.S. I think a line such as this would have to be above ground and somehow follow one of these routes: 1. Follow the same route as the Red Line until West Blvd and then branch out down the rail corridor through Lakewood. 2. Use the Detroit-Superior bridge and then run along the Shoreway out to the railroad corridor along the lake. The line would then turn on the railroad corridor that goes through Lakewood. 3. Like number 2, except the line out of downtown would use the Waterfront Line route but would instead head west out of downtown using the lakefront rail corridor. I like number 2 since it could provide for extra stops at 25th & Detroit and by Battery Park. Number 1 could not provide any extra stations east of West Blvd and number 3 could not provide the stop at 25th & Detroit.

I agree that much of the west side Red Line would be well suited for TOD. I think it should be a priority for RTA to develop strategies for TOD at the following stops: 25th 65th (Eco Village) West Blvd 117th West Park *A new 85th Street stop with TOD built on the land between Madison Ave and the rail right-of-way. The other west side stops are probably better suited for park n' ride given their locations and surroundings. On the east side Red Line I really only see immediate TOD potential around University Circle/Little Italy. The Van Aiken light rail seems well suited for TOD just about anywhere east of Shaker Square. As far as new lines go, I definitely like the idea of extending the Shaker light rail to create a downtown loop and also a west extension from downtown out through Lakewood. I could see the downtown loop being a centerpiece line for a vibrant new neighborhood north of CSU (think Portland's Pearl District). The Lakewood line would serve what is already the densest urban corridor in the region as well as link it to the progressing Detroit-Shoreway and Ohio City areas. I don't think anything I mentioned is all that crazy, and in fact it appears that the infrastructure for much of it is already in place.

I never said any such thing. I said that a person buying into a community would prefer to be around others in a market rate scenario. I also said that this neighborhood does not need any such developments because it's not an exclusive community. Frankly, your comment was reactionary and taken out of context. Thanks for an actual answer from someone who has experience in the neighborhood.

Well I'm glad that you love Cleveland and wish that more people did, but I have to disagree with much of what you said. First of all, being urban has nothing to do with demographics. It has to do with built density and being structured on a human scale where a person can walk around and be part of a community. There are plenty are areas in this country that have diverse populations of people that are sprawling suburbs. Ever been to LA? If all of the rich people from Pepper Pike moved to Gordan Square then it would be every bit as urban as it is now, as well as probably safer and more bland. It would be more like Lincoln Park in Chicago, which is obviously an urban neighborhood. Second of all, people with means would prefer not to live in a mixed income scenario because they would be taking a greater risk of having a problem neighbor. Mixed income developments (especially individual buildings) usually work better in expensive cities where people are more readily willing to take that risk in order to get a better deal. Maybe that is not the reality that you think should exist or the politically correct answer you want, but it's the realty of that person who spending their hard-earned money on a home. That person wants to live someplace with less of a risk factor and is not going to move into a mixed income place in the name of social justice when it comes down to it. Thirdly, this area has a long way to go before we have to start making accommodations for poor people. It already does that in the form of cheap housing that exists all over the neighborhood. I'm not a big fan of hyper socioeconomic homogeneity like one would see in places like Lincoln Park in Chicago or Georgetown in DC; however, this is the last thing we have to worry about in Gordon Square, or in any Cleveland neighborhood for that matter. All mixed income developments will do at this point is discourage upper income people from moving into the the neighborhood, which is what it needs most at this point in its redevelopment. Furthermore, neighborhoods are dynamic and ever changing. People move and things change, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. My Grandparents used to live in Hough, walk to games at League Park, and take the streetcar downtown to work every day. Maybe in 50 years Gordon Square will be filled with "Pepper Pike types," with all of the bohemians settling into to Glenville. What's wrong with that scenario? I would actually see this as ideal and a sign that the city is improving and growing.

Oh, don't get me wrong 327. I think Cleveland does a poor job with urban planning and land use. All I'm saying is that if we can't get good urban design in up & coming neighborhoods then you should not be all that disappointed to see this kind of stuff in the Central Neighborhood. That being said I still don't think it would be too bad if pedestrian orientated retail is added down the road. At least it's not urban mcmansions like they built in Hough! I think one thing that Cleveland needs is a critical mass of well designed and successful urban neighborhoods that people can look at and be envious of. When that happens other districts will see this and follow suit. Hopefully Cleveland does a better job of making sure this happens in the future. That kind of thing would have to happen in areas like Ohio City, Gordon Square, or Downtown first; which frankly all still have a long way to go.

^^^^ Why does it have to be mixed income? This area, and Cleveland in general, needs more upper income people and Detroit-Shoreway has the amenities to attract those type of people. It would be one thing if the area was gentrified to the point where it was out of reach to lower income people, but the fact is the area still has tons of housing that is cheap.

Not ideal, but like KJP said it's about all that one could hope for around there at this point. Ideal urban infill will only likely occur in areas that are better suited for market rate infill. Even in Cleveland's "hot areas" this seems to be a challenge to accomplish.

That Atrium village plan looks great! So would another stop on the Brown Line at that location!

The Cleveland Heights/University Heights/Shaker area feels pretty similar to the Oak Park/River Forest/Forest Park area of Chicagoland. Oak Park generally has better schools though, except for maybe the Shaker Heights district. If you went with Cleveland Heights or University Heights you may want to consider private schools when the time comes, at least beyond the elementary school level. Cleveland Heights has the most walkable areas of the the communities that I mentioned. I live in Chicago by the way, and am very familiar with both areas.

That area is actually a pretty reasonable walk from the Ohio City Red Line stop, and a bit further north is the Settlers Landing stop on the Waterfront Line. I think any development around there would be pretty well served by the existing rail. It would be great to see an actual neighborhood pop up around those new parks and along Columbus Road someday. Maybe some 5-10 story building like Stonebridge.

I think companies are more willing to relocate to the urban core in Chicago because there is a large urban base of educated professional talent in the city. These people do not want to commute to the suburbs from their urban setting because it's a huge hassle in Chicago, nor do they want to move to the suburbs. Companies in Chicago know that the young talent is mostly based in the city and take this into consideration. In Cleveland, or other cities in Ohio, this is not the case. Young professions are not any more likely to be urban dwellers (probably less likely actually) and commuting is much easier.

I think Cleveland annexing East Cleveland would be worth the short term hit for some long term gains. It makes sense that East Cleveland will be revitalized some day. It's served by rail, has great urban housing stock (even though much of it has been lost), and is at the doorstep of the city's cultural hub which happens to be picking up a lot of momentum lately. I would not expect East Cleveland to be revitalized for a very long time; however, if it does get to a point where it has some momentum going it may not be as open to being annexed as it is at this time. I think Cleveland needs to "buy low" on this one if it can for potential gains in the future.