Rustbelter

Ha Ha, those don't even look like Chicago type houses. I believe that I once saw the same "Chicago-style" description used to market the townhomes in Battery Park, which do not look like anything that I have seen in Chicago. I guess they feel the need to market new urban housing as something that would be found in a places which are perceived as "urban" and "cool."

No, I had not. Not too bad though! Was this prepared for and supported by the City of Cleveland? Or some other organization? Yes, it is fun to spend other people's money :wink: I'm well aware of the public/private dynamic. I'm also aware that not too many investors (or people) in Cleveland seem very up to speed on TOD. However, I do think the government could do some more things to encourage TOD when it does become more feasible for the private sector to invest down the road. Also, outside investors (or people) could come in if they see the potential even if the locals are in the dark. In the case of the West Blvd Station it was the public sector who decided to put a parking lot and an overly wide street in front of an urban rail station. To me that is an example of the local government not setting the table properly for future development. Designating a bunch unremarkable row houses, which serve as low-income housing, as historically significant structures certainly is not a magnet for market rate investments either. I think this area could be a prime location for future improvement since it's well situated between the the stable Edgewater neighborhood and the emerging Gordan Square neighborhood, with lots of underutilized land there to be built upon. Anyway.....I suppose this discussion belongs in another thread.

I see the West Blvd and W. 25th stations as wasted potential, which is exactly the kind of thing that frustrates me about Cleveland. I would love to see both of these stations redone with transit oriented development in mind. For the W. 25th station, there is room for some rice mid-rise housing to be built on the blocks south of Loraine Ave. Get rid of that strip plaza right by the station! Not to mention all of the potential low-rise and townhome development that could be built near that station in Ohio City and Duck Island. The area around the West Blvd Station is just horrible! Detroit Avenue should be narrowed and the parking lot in front of the station should be replaced with a mid-rise building or at least a public space. Even worse is perhaps the nasty low-income housing just south of the station! I would love to see all of that removed and replaced with a Battery Park type development. There is also room for development just east of the station in a rather large brownfield south of Detroit between West Blvd and W. 85th. Right now the entire area around the West Blvd station just creates a pocket of ghetto between Gordan Square and Edgewater.

Yeah, I live in Chicago and sometimes wonder the same thing! And this does not ever cover all of the small residential and commercial (condos over retail) infill that is being built all over the place. The economy is not the greatest here either but they continue to build up the urban core; however, a lot of the new proposals are for apartments instead of condos these days. Of course this building is mostly around downtown and in trendy areas. Much of the city is still struggling. The Chicago metro is about 4-5 times the size of that of the three C's and it would be awesome to see just 1/4 to 1/5 of this urban residential development pop up in each of Ohio's major cities! I think a big part of it is that urban living is much more apart of Chicago's culture than you will find in Ohio. The prevailing attitude among people under 40 is that they want to live in the city, and will move to the suburbs only because they have to. Heck, even a lot older empty nesters are moving back into the city. Hopefully as Ohio's cities improve the attitudes will change. Frankly, this development seems like a pipe dream to me. It may someday get developed but that would be a long ways down the road. Just to the north of that area in the South Loop there were tons of highrises built over the last decade that are half empty. That area also has no subway stop to serve it, which I see as a problem. It's also a pretty rough neighborhood. There has been some new housing built over there, but I imagine it was a product of the housing boom and it will come to a halt if it has not already.

What you say is all true, but there are plenty of areas like this in every city. There are still many traditionally urban neighborhoods in Cleveland that could be revitalized and potentially offer great "city living." The east side was developed as the much more urban part of the city but unfortunately it's also the most blighted. If Cleveland's neighborhoods that were originally built to be truly urban actually lived up to their potential it would cover a rather large area. As far as the outer, less urban neighborhoods are concerned, I think they will either have to urbanize (perhaps around transit nodes) or the Cleveland public schools will have to improve for them to survive them long term.

Huh? How do you figure that? Go on historicaerials.com and you will see dense commercial districts all over Cleveland on the 1950s aerial shots. The problem is that they were destroyed. Cleveland was certainly developed as a walkable city. You just described what is happening in Chicago, in that the desirable areas are booming while the rest of the city loses population. I think this is the route which Cleveland will have to follow in order to improve, and once neighborhoods like Ohio City and Detroit-Shoreway reach their full potential you will see progress spread to other areas that were formerly considered undesirable. This process will take a very long time. I think this a data shows a major weekness of Cleveland, which is the downtown being surrounded by ring of neighborhoods with little residential development instead of blending into more traditional neighborhoods. Residential infill in the Flats and in the area between E. 12th Street and E. 30th Street would help out things a lot. Of course I think that all of the cities in Ohio could use some more downtown population!

San Diego and San Jose were not ranked above Cleveland, although San Diego actually has some pretty walkable districts that I would put over any city in Ohio. I would have expected Oakland and Seattle to rated pretty high. What is surprising about those two cities being ranked high? Miami and Long Beach are examples of having a high density of amenities and people within cities which are not actually structured for pedestrians. Basically what ColDayMan pointed out. Yeah, there are a lot of young professionals in those neighborhoods as well as dining and nightlife options to serve them. If you live anywhere in Lakewood you're going to be able to walk to a couple of bars at least, that is for sure. Although most of the trendy new bars & restaurants seem to be opening up in the city these days, and I would have to say that Cleveland's most walkable individual neighborhoods are indeed within the city. Not everyone is ready to live in Tremont, Gordan Square, or Ohio city yet due to concerns (real or perceived) with safety. In Cleveland's case that walk score would have increased if Lakewood and Cleveland Hts were added. That is probably not the case with very many cities.

That sounds like a good time to me! Hanging out in that atmosphere for me is a welcome change of pace from my current residence in Chicago's Gold Coast (yuppie central), so I enjoy a trip to Geneva-on-the-Lake from time-to-time when I'm back in Ohio visiting family and friends. I guess it makes me "white trash" to say that? LOL

It sounds like you were in Geneva-on-the-Lake for the wrong reasons. You go there to take in the strip, the lake, and the old-school atmosphere; not for a nice sit-down meal. I also find it amusing that people think it's sketchy there. Maybe if you have a feud with an outlaw biker gang it might be risky to show up in one of the biker bars there, but I guarantee the crime rate is much lower than the national average or the trendy urban areas that people on this forum like to frequent.

There has been serious gentrification in other cities with the same race issues as Cleveland. Chicago, Philly, and Baltimore for example.

Well I would imagine that poor whites are still moving out while whites with higher incomes are moving in. Also, while these neighborhoods are certainly improving, they are a ways from being fully "gentrified" compared to other trendy neighborhoods in other cities. Tremont seems to me to be the closest to that, and as you mentioned the demographics are also the closest to that pattern.

Ha ha....didn't expect to see this! I grew up in Ashtabula County so I'm very familiar with Geneva-on-the-Lake. Growing up it was fun to go down there and hang out in the summer, but I actually appreciate it more as an adult who has moved out of the region. It's a very unique type of place these days with all mom & pop joints. Nobody is going to mistake it for being high class, but that's OK in my book.

That is a great development! I would love to see the area between I-90 and downtown completely filed in with such developments some day.

I agree. Going down that path simply follows other examples of successful urban areas, including those that are adjacent to a campus. Amazingly enough Tom does not seem to recognize all of the bars, restaurants, Lock 3 Park, and the baseball stadium as an entertainment district for some reason. It sure seems like one to me! Students are and will be drawn to downtown because it's set up to be the main entertainment hub in the city, which also happens to be next to campus in this case. Downtown has overtaken the "Zip Strip" on Exchange because frankly it contains a far superior stretch of businesses and urban infrastructure for such a purpose. That being said I would certainly like to see improvements along Exchange, and I hope those dorms going in around the stadium have street level retail. The campus needs more day-to-day neighborhood amenities. Good points about the green space too. I like UA's commons area, but the campus could use more green space/park area.

You're right, it's not rocket science. It's proper urban planning which both the city and university could benefit from. And it seems that this common sense and logic you preach does not go hand in hand with what the architect (i.e. urban planner) recommended. But hey, what do they know? They only study this stuff for a living. Furthermore, UA is an URBAN campus. It's not Kent or Penn State. UA will and should not function as some compound in the middle of the city. A healthy and vibrant city core will enhance the experience for UA students. To do so the university and the city need to work together to combine their resources. A downtown arena would be next to Akron's entertainment district, which is appealing to students. It's called critical mass. Heck, Akron already has facilities downtown that are just as far from the center of campus as a downtown arena would be. Maybe we should get rid of that pesky Polsky Building so that the city can't get tax dollars from a potential street level business that might go in there :roll: Ever been to Madison, Wisconsin? It's probably the model city to compare for having a good blend of campus meets downtown. If you ever have you may have noticed how the arena there is on the edge of campus where it meets the downtown business district, not in the center. Madison is vibrant because the university and the city have amenities that work off one another, not because they are isolated entities.

Well this U of A grad thinks any new arena should be built downtown, ideally across from the baseball park. I think this would serve the greater good of the community, and a stronger city core would help the University more than having an arena in the middle of campus. Also, this is not a rubber bowl situation. The campus is directly adjacent to downtown and in some cases it spills into downtown. It's an easy walk to main street from campus, just like the bars and restaurants down there.

Well I grew up in Ashtabula County, spending my youth in Conneaut and my teen years in Ashtabula. I ended up going to college in Akron and worked in downtown Cleveland for while after college. At the age of 24 I moved to San Diego and eventually ended up in Chicago. That being said I will always identify myself as an Ohioan, and specifically a NE Ohioan. Cleveland is the city I still identify with as my home base, and usually just tell people who are non-Ohioans that I'm from the Cleveland area. With Ohioans I say that I'm from Ashtabula, but sometimes they don't even know where that is depending on what part of Ohio they are from. I can't really say that I'm totally hardcore Ohio though. That only applies to the NE part of the state. Growing up near the the eastern border I actually feel much more at home in western PA or western NY than I would in western OH. Places like Bowling Green or Lima might as well be in Indiana! Living in San Diego treated me fine, but did not stay due to high living costs and proximity to home. However, like rockandroller mentioned, I found myself defending my home state and Cleveland a lot in SoCal. That applied both to SoCal natives and people from back east who liked to bash where they came from. I like living in Chicago well enough and love the urban amenities it offers. It's not ideal though. I feel isolated in the center of the Midwest from anything else worthwhile, and I also don't like how the inner city has become polarized between hardcore yuppie and hardcore ghetto. I would dread living in suburban Chicago as well, because I think this would take away all the good aspects about living in Chicago and accentuate the bad. I still have a soft spot for Cleveland and hope it improves. This is something that I pay a lot of attention to and why I ended up on this site. I would most likely move back if the cards fell into place, but Cleveland also frustrates me a lot and it seems like the improvements never happen there fast enough. I feel like if I did move back I would become frustrated after living in other places. It's like the city has been treading water since I left, and I hope all these recent projects coming down the pike do indeed get the ball rolling there.

I agree, and don't know what the big deal is other than a lame "That's the way it has always been" argument. There are public squares all over Europe that function like this, and closer to home you can look at Indianapolis. It's not like downtown Cleveland is gridlocked with traffic.

I would like to see Public Square turned into a single public space instead of 4 quadrants, but I don't think that is the biggest issue. Nor do I think transit can be reasonably removed from Public Square because it is a natural transit hub. There are other prominent plazas that I have seen which function as transit terminals. The biggest problem IMO is the lack of residential development around it, such that "riff-raff" waiting for buses becomes a dominate presence. Improve the design while adding some cafes, shopping, and more street life; and I bet the overall vibe of PS will be much improved.

True, but I'm worried about a precedence being set and then building more such developments. If that area gets to be desirable down the road there will likely be political forces fighting for the social service buildings to stay instead of being displaced to another part of the city. That is why I brought up Chicago's Uptown, because that is exactly what has happened there. Back in the day when Uptown was looked at as hopeless they allowed for a high concentration of social service housing, which still impacts that neighborhood today.

I believe it, as I lived in Wicker Park for 4 years. I'm sure it was truly bohemian in the 80s & 90s, but these days its residents are more like yuppies with bohemian tastes (in contrast to Lincoln Park/Lakeview which are more like yuppies spawn from fraternities/sororities). Logan Square is quickly becoming the new Wicker Park, even through Wicker Park is still the main hangout for the city's hipsters.

Yes, I agree with what you're saying. Although, I think if you get a certain amount of real artists you will also get the posers/hipsters that follow. I also see this as a good thing because it attracts potentially talented young people and creates a scene. That is why I brought up Portland and Austin, which are probably extreme cases that have obnoxious levels of posers and hipsters. It's still a bit of a mystery to me how Austin ever got the reputation of being cool anyway. Underneath all its hipness it's about as unremarkable of a city as you can find. Basically it's like a bunch of hipsters and tech nerds invaded and deemed it cool for no reason. Otherwise it would be like Oklahoma City. At least Cleveland has good urban bones, architecture, and strong classical arts institutions.

Very true. This whole thing reminds me of Chicago's Uptown neighborhood, which would probably be upscale and gentrified if it were not for the large presence of half-way houses and subsidized apartments. Basically this area has and will remain sketchy instead of living up to its potential. Cleveland should not make the the same mistake, because in 50 years this might be a roadblock to turning this area into a vibrant residential neighborhood. Ohio City has some of the same problems right now.

Perhaps, but Cleveland is in proximity to other cities, so you could be an artist in Cleveland and make trips to Chicago, Toronto, Pittsburgh, DC, NYC, etc. That is a big advantage that Cleveland has over more isolated cities like Minneapolis or Kansas City. And there are plenty of "artist types" in Austin and Portland. Who is buying art there?

Sorry guys, but these designs by Dimit were part of a proposed project near CSU by a private developer. The project is dead. This is not part of CSU's varsity village. Any chance they are just on hold due to the economy? And where was the project on that site labeled "new urban brownstones" supposed to be built? That looks really cool!