Rustbelter

Appears to be needed due to the change in elevation. The existing townhomes across Jefferson also have access from 5th.

It depends on the area. In much of Cleveland it's cheap because there is limited demand (i.e. no incentive for developers), which frankly is the majority of Cleveland proper if we're being honest. So no driver to build new, quality housing in cheaper areas; leaving subpar options for folks with limited means. It's not cheap in Ohio City/Tremont/Gordon Sq/Little Italy unless it's a dump or subsidized. As someone who has been looking to possibly purchase a house in these areas I'd say lack of market rate inventory is driving up costs for the limited amount of housing on the market, which in turn leads to subpar units getting away with higher costs or rents. So from my perspective I see the barrier as lack of inventory unless I want to gut rehab a dump (I don't), purchase a $600k+ property (out of my budget), or get into a bidding war on one of the few properties in between (not ideal). To me it's perplexing to still see a good number underdeveloped lots and run down houses (slumlord investor type places) remain in areas that are said to be "booming" with quality houses demanding $400k-500k or more and rents in new buildings demanding $2,000+/mo. It's also odd to see some of these large sites lately getting earmarked as strictly affordable housing developments given these dynamics, which I don't think is a good thing for overall market dynamics but also leaves me second guessing the momentum to sustain development in these areas.

Nice to see this development moving along here. Does this incorporate street level business? I worry about how these buildings will interact with the street because between the Clinic setbacks and Chester it's not exactly set up to be pedestrian friendly around there.

I doubt many have any significant percentage. I can say anecdotally from living in Chicago for many years that there are not a lot of under 18's in downtown Chicago either. Once you get into the Gold Coast area you'll find more, which is debatable to include as part of downtown. And even there it tends to be only wealthy families who can afford large condos in marquee buildings along with private schools. You'll probably find some in pockets of the South Loop too but that's not an area I frequented often so I can't say for sure. I did know one women who grew up in a highrise in River North and went to public school, and she said it was definite outlier for her building. Families want personal space and home ownership, and also want to drive with the exception of a few elite urban area neighborhoods in the US. So you need an active area where families can access common amenities by foot, large condos available for purchase, good schools (usually private), and a perception of safety. There are few downtown neighborhoods in the US that offer the critical mass for this - you usually at least need to go to a neighborhood that is downtown adjacent. Having downtowns typically dominated by office buildings certainly doesn't help either.

Cleveland is in Bad Need of New Housing. Developers Blame a Draconian Permit Process

So looking at the most recent 2024 data from the Center for Community solutions puts the downtown population at around 13,000. The Downtown Cleveland Market Study Report prepared for Downtown Cleveland Alliance says around 19,000 as of 2020. And the Downtown Cleveland Economic Development Report website says 21,000 as of 2023. So what gives? Why so much variance? Which to believe?

Some updated Cleveland neighborhood data from the Center for Community Solutions to peruse. 2024 City of Cleveland Neighborhoods Fact Sheets

I generally think these look fine. Pretty much in line with other new townhomes built in Cleveland or elsewhere. Have I seen better? Sure, but I don't know what people expect. These look pretty much in line with the existing tomehomes that are on the other side of Jefferson. Have no idea what's up with that care on the right side of that rendering though LOL.

Honestly not a fan of the GLBC production facility going on Scranton Peninsula. Would rather see this get developed as a neighborhood, and a giant land consuming production facility does not seem appropriate for that. Hopefully it can at least get designed so that apartments/townhomes can be built around the perimeter of the structure so it doesn't result in some bleak utilitarian streetwalls.

This Burke plan sounds like a long-term play, not something that meets the immediate needs of the Brown's ownership. Would likely involve the Brown's staying put for another decade before transitioning. I do like the idea of putting the stadium here instead of it being front-and-center of the downtown, but I don't see how this works out logistically as a short-term solution.

I very much agree, but this was discussed up thread as mentioned. This could be a great intersection with marquee type development here....very shortsighted approach by city leadership here IMO. Maybe developers push back during the RFQ process to make this mixed with market rate but that's just wishful thinking.

Always thought this too. Something on the scale of this type of infill/redevelopment that blends into the town's historic character would be good on the south side of 303. Peninsula could potentially be much more interesting. Downtown Douglas, MI

I could be mistaken, but it doesn't appear that cut-outs for parallel street parking are being installed in front of these buildings. Seems shortsighted because people will need street parking as the area grows.

The listing mentions the Welleon so it seems like that's what they're hoping for.

I like this approach, although I think a renovated stadium would likely stay in place longer (maybe 20-25yrs). Regardless, it's an opportunity to leverage development of the land north of the stadium along with the other ancillary improvements. Then, when the time comes, the stadium can go elsewhere and that void could be filled in with other types of development. Maybe that's when the Burke land comes into play. I really don't mind the Brook Park site and having a football stadium on the lakefront does suck, but I think this should be strategic given the hand we're playing with. In an ideal world we could just remove the stadium now and then get the site developed with something more appropriate. However, I'm not very confident that would happen in a reasonable timeframe given the underdeveloped areas we have all over downtown and adjacent areas. If Cleveland were booming like say Austin or Nashville my take would be different, and I'd say go ahead a move it out to the Brook Park site.

This is a hot take. I mean, like Henke mentioned, pretty much every house in Cleveland and many in the inner burbs has a garage/driveway behind it. The point of having the parking in the back is so that it isn't a detriment to the streetscrape and also to minimizes curb cuts. Most likely this will manifest as garage entrance or service ally. Maybe a courtyard style lot (that could be lighted and secured). As for the "public space," I think that's kind of pointless and not a fan, but it will probably only amount to some sort of tiny pocket park at the entrance or corner in most cases. Overall I think these codes look pretty good.

Seems like there has been a recent series of car break-ins downtown. Have noticed a lot of broken car window glass scattered about in my parking garage.

Chicago has permit parking (stickers) on residential streets but not on metered streets. If you live on a metered street/block you'll be assigned a permit for parking on an adjacent residential street. I personally like the model used in Short North in Columbus. To park on side street you either have a residential permit or you pay to park during metered hours. Apparently Ohio City forgot the permit part of that.

They do. In some cases the core city can stand on it's own and pay no mind to suburban haters, but in the US this is not the norm. In other cases the core city happens to cover a very large land area (e.g. Columbus, San Diego, etc.), so it isn't as much of an issue.

Is there a rendering/plan of this? I've seen the site plans but not anything of the inside of Tower City.

Yes, I find this odd. I'm surprised DuPage County or even Schaumberg airport would not be the reliever in Chicagoland. LitH Airport seems more like the Geauga or Ashtabula County airports. On the surface it appears these designations are arbitrary and/or political.

How does the downtown population and median income of Indy and the immediately adjacent neighborhoods compare? I'm guessing it's better off than Cleveland in that regard. This would be a big driver of downtown retail in terms of at least creating a baseline customer base. Cleveland's downtown being cut off from neighborhoods really hurts it too IMO.

^ Yes, a site engulfed by highways and next to the Ford plant is an amazing TOD opportunity..../s

What does this "infrastructure work" involve? I doubt it involves interchange modifications or new on/off ramps along I-71 & I-480 to serve traffic generated by a new football stadium. Not to mention new signalized intersections needed for access to the site from the surface streets. Typically the way this works is the municipality (i.e. Brook Park) would need to hire an engineering team to work with ODOT for any roadway improvements needed to accommodate newly planned developments (i.e. the Browns). Maybe some the surface streets are not under ODOT jurisdiction but the highways sure are. Yup, yet I have not seen any media materials addressing this. I also have a hard time believing this process starting from scratch has any chance of accommodating the Brown's schedule. If the Browns and Brook Park are making some attempt to stay on top of things they should at least be working towards a feasibility study. Even if they are I don't think 2029 is viable to get any major roadway improvements in place, more like into the 2030's.

I also mentioned this up thread. This is potentially a big deal, and could push up costs and delay the move post 2028 if they're not already out in front of this with ODOT.