Burnham_2011

Thanks, everyone, for the thoughts on restaurants. Any ideas for unique activities. Something I'm including is a trip to the Federal Reserve money museum, which I don't think a lot of people know about. The aquarium will be open soon too, I believe.

They'd be interested in buying if they were to move. That said, sometimes showing people interesting apartment spaces can inspire confidence or interest in what the city has to offer. I'd love for them to also see some places that they can brag about to renter friends.

As for restaurants I'd say Italian, Americana, some Asian places. Vegetarian options would be nice, but no need to be full vegetarian style. Price wise I'd say the full spectrum since dinners might offer a chance for fancy fare, but lunch or breakfast out could be easy. Also (to all) I'm wondering if there are Condos/Apartment buildings you'd recommend they look at units in. Aside from the main ones (Stonebridge, 668, Bingham) does anyone have info on the loft and warehouse spaces closer to Asia town that people are turning into apartments?

So I got a wonderful email from my Dad last evening asking for my advice on things to do in Cleveland. The twist? He's was born and raised in Glenville and has lived in Cuyahoga County for his whole life. The gist of the story is that because of my ailing Grandmother he and my mother cannot take a distance vacation and so he had the idea to get a hotel room downtown for 4 or 5 days and visit the sites of our lovely city. So I wanted to involve the Urban Ohio brain-trust and get some ideas for what a 4 day vacation in Cleve. would entail (keeping in mind they live here, so the more unique, lesser-known things would be best). Of course a Cavs game and a show at Playhouse Sq. is to be expected, but give me your best shot for unique sights, venues, events, ideas. They even mentioned looking at Condos and Apartments "just for the heck of it" but I figure, this is a chance to show off downtown living, so your advice might add 2 more downtown residents! Make it good and THANK YOU!

Just another rendering.

Yeah, the last time I passed it at night only one was lit up. They shouldn't light it at all if it's broken and they can't get them all to work properly. It makes the city look cheap. This makes the city look cheap? REALLY? YES, REALLY. It's putting poor maintenance/upkeep on display in area that's supposed to draw visitors. A completely agree. I know it seems like a small thing that would be heavily overshadowed by the great things in PHS, however just a few weeks ago I had a friend in town and was showing him the city. I was obviously trying to show it off. When we got to PHS the first thing he noticed was that the jumbo screen on the Hyatt had a frozen "Windows" screen with a desktop and mouse image. Clearly a software glitch, but it became a joke of his and whether or not he was surrounded by world class entertainment that's what stuck. We don't get to decide what is important or not to guests, and details matter. So RTA should either flip the switch to off, or recognize that putting public art in their transit infrastructure exposes them to potential malfunctions that look badly on RTA and the city as a whole. If the contract says the artist needs to pay to fix it that's fine -- but in the mean time (or when they, what, throw the guy in jail for breech of contract?) PHS has this minor but obvious flaw -- and that affects Cleveland as a whole.

Is this what you're talking about? If so, I'm also surprised that maintenance would be the responsibility of the artist. As MTS mentioned there's clearly some contract that lays out the responsible party etc. but it does seem odd that RTA would install artwork like this but require the artist to cover the cost of maintenance. They look very nice when they are lit up, and I do hope that they are fixed quickly.

Just to clarify, I'm very familiar with the economic realities of development projects today, and understand fully that the "sweet spot" between cost and vision can sometimes be very narrow (you add one square foot per closet, use a new type of door, or alter the roof X degrees and the costs are too high, private equity backs out -- and you're done.) With regard to MTS questioning the DC rowhouses v. the CSU dorms and all other references to the townhomes I posted earlier: I'm trying to show that there are many varieties of architecture and materials that exist out there. That projects ALWAYS have to search for a sweet spot between what they can afford, and what in a perfect world they would want. The idea that along that spectrum townhouses that look incredibly suburban with large parking lots behind them were the "final" product says to me that either this project is being done without the needed resources to do it properly, OR that those in charge do not have the right vision. I won't pretend I'm sitting at any table in a backroom -- but I think to say "Just because we say its not designed for its location, doesn't mean jack sh!t, since not one of us sits at the negotiating table." implies we might as well not have a forum for posting discussions. Sure, it would be great if the "big players" were all reading these posts and taking them to heart - but that's not why we come here. To be clear, I post my ideas and questions here to get the opinion of other like minded individuals. We have had some incredible dialogues before where ideas went from comments to complete thoughts, and at some point I believe the ideas discussed here will briefly and sporadically get thrust into the public dialog. Perhaps with better ideas and discussion even more so. So I don't mind constructive criticism, but to simply say "what's being done is what's being done" and to conclude that there are variables we do not know, and that if those variables didn't exist we would have the best urban design principles in place, is the same kind of thinking that allowed passive citizens, governments, and non profits to watch American cities core demolished and neighborhoods split up by highways. We should demand excellence beyond reality (as should CSU students, alum, and their Urban Studies department) in the hope that we move the bar, even just a little bit, and perhaps get something better. In this, and in all projects.

I meant to post those to show how varied the options can be. The conversation of "what is urban" could fill infinite forum posts (on another thread, of course), and is the topic of perpetual discussion. However, in my opinion, one of the most important pieces of urban design (beyond liveability and density) is varied architecture, the result of cities having developed organically block by block. As a result you could walk a 500 foot stretch of a road and pass 7 kinds of architecture, 3 types of zoning, various colors, uses, (smells and languages!). The degradation of the city came when we tried to organize it. Financial districts, entertainment districts, residential neighborhoods and later bedroom communities (suburbs). In a nutshell: mass produced, homogeneous, homes in the suburbs were the antithesis of the city. Acres were planned, residents could chose House A or House B, and the world became very beige. I believe that a simple diversification of the materials and architecture of the units could make an enormous difference. It may seem a little like we're pretending this happened organically (read: Variations on a Theme Park by Michael Sorkin) but I would prefer fictional diversity to genuine uniformity. As always, to illustrate my point:

3rd and 12 in OT, all you need to do is hold them - and we had double coverage in the back? I don't believe that Purdue receiver was that much faster, we just missed the play. Unbelievable loss (and with Penn. State's loss it's going to be a tough afternoon.....)

So, I wanted to present a few "random" examples of developments that have been done in various cities in the last few years (some are drawings of the eventual projects). They are all rowhouse/townhouse in style. Now before we argue over the different economic issues I think we can all agree that every project is unique (tax credits, local demand, developer private v nonprofit, City Government involvement) and so instead of debating how none of these other images would have been possible, I think we should take a bit of break from that and think both optimistically and creatively. Below are images from Charlotte, Baltimore, Iowa City and Chicago. I specifically looked for variety, so we could see it can be done "anywhere". What's amazing is that all of these examples show how designs can be "distinctly urban". Or, at least they show that there is a spectrum and that budget and vision have to be balanced. Materials and design elements can be changed, made more or less elaborate, and the budget can also evolve depending on the priorities of the developer. After looking at the 4 images, there is a fifth that I specifically included because of its location. Maplewood is a neighborhood of Rochester about 3.5 miles away from the CBD, so not at all downtown. Take a look at the design of these units. Brick all the up for 3 floors, bay windows, detailed roofs with only a slight angle (for those who want to pull our the "snow" card... this is Rochester). These are infinitely better than what is going to be developed in Cleveland's CBD, just 10 blocks from skyscrapers and a stones throw from hundreds of millions in investments to infrastructure. The budget and the vision of a project must work together, and of course economic constraints exist, but I think CSU should be taking the long term value of good design into account here. Small changes to materials and design do incur a premium on costs (say, 3.5% for more brick, 7% for more brick and additional architectural elements) etc. but these changes won't be added later, and you really do get one shot at these kinds of things. That's why it's so important to do them right from the start.

Unfortunately not everyone "knows" this is wrong. Some people don't understand the importance of the built environment with regard to the development of the city. Still others think some things are more important than others. Like Public Square, the difference between the 1920s pictures with hundreds of people in and around PS and the 2010s where a small fraction are present has nothing to do with physical changes. The most important thing in a city is the people, and people "Live, Work, and Play" in that order (except for the lucky ones). Where and how they live their lives is the most important part - housing, local retail, transport. From it recreational pieces fall into place. This is a bit of what Strap and I were discussing earlier. It is especially significant with regard to CSU. Unlike private developers, they are going to build residential units no matter what -- if it's too costly to make them look nice then they'll need to build in more phases. Or the city and private money can innovate and get creative. I'm not saying I have the answer (I'm not on CSUs development team, nor the mayor, nor someone with significant finances in the picture), but I do know political process and economic development and have seen hundreds of examples where "creative financing" has been used - so when people point to that hurdle I can't help but roll my eyes. To be blunt, that "design" is as easy and standard as the financing mechanisms they are using the build it. There are so many other ways to do this.

A bit of a dog eh? I think that's part of the seeing things for what they are v. what they could be. If this were a well developed urban enclave with a "Vikings Way" that eventually rivaled East Fourth, and had a beautiful pedestrian walkway as well as 300+ residents (growing to 400+ on my diagram) with many in their 20s - it could be an anchor that encouraged the development of our "arts district" in the 20s near Superior. From this perspective it is situated in the Center of Euclid and Superior and could have an enormous impact on the development of the NE part of the CBD.

A couple points on parking. First off, Strap, you are right that it contains fewer parking spots (probably by 1/3) however this is the crux of the issue. If we build a city to the standards of 2011 Cleveland then it is immediately out of date. Consequently on the flip side we cannot build in Cleveland like it's the 1930s again, but instead must balance vision and reality to develop something in between. Street parking surrounding all the infrastructure will allow for a good amount of parking, and if a supplement is needed (considered important) then it could be arranged by building a garage beneath the taller/denser apartments along Chester. Remember the rest of the units are apartments as such a single unit takes up the length of street-space of one car. If a plan were built that contained 1 spot for every 1.5 units and forced people to park in adjacent areas (or opened opportunity for private developers to build garages nearby) it might harm demand in some ways. However especially because this is a college campus most residents would not need their car nearby. When I went to school I parked my car in the Football field garage about 1.5 miles from my dormitory. Whether it was 5 degrees outside or raining, I had to walk to get it. The result? I used it less. We need to plan for the Cleveland of tomorrow and take risks. As far as financing? I think the more times risks pay off (East 4th, Uptown, etc.) the more financiers will be willing to back up projects. We set a self-fulfilling prophecy when we only do what we can already do. That's why runners push an extra mile each run, or lifters add another 5lb each workout. You have to strive beyond your limits - and CSU is one of the few institutions in Cleveland that has the capital and long term presence to take such a risk.

I'll never understand why we try to reinvent the wheel with our city structures. Whether or not they need more parking we should not be creating large surface lots between the units -- ever. I have a great appreciation for what CSU has done and is planning to do with their campus, but it still baffles me how little respect is paid to the decades of Urban Policy research (ironically at CSU of all places!). A grid of streets (particularly short blocks according to Jane Jacobs) creates dynamic pathways for pedestrians. Pedestrian traffic is the key to retail prosperity. If the aim is to make this a true neighborhood, then that goal should be #1, with parking accommodations being at the very most #2. Design for people first. Here's a 10 minute mockup of a very small change.

We've discussed on this board (quite a bit) the possibilities for PS's redesign. I like closing the cross streets, closing just one, or making a new environment through the use of pavers -- but I think there is one important element that seems to be missed here. Connectivity. Let's face it, the Mall and Public Square are adjacent public spaces that can either prove redundant or complimentary - and it's completely up to the design and layout. If we treat them as individual spaces we'll end up wasting them. Especially if you look at the Field Ops proposal that seemed to have the most backing (#2). It had the entire northern half of the square made into a lawn. Why would we need a 400' x 150' "Great Lawn" next to a 650' x 250' open grassy mall? Either Public square needs to be redesigned to include built items, statues, fountains, urban furniture, and further ideas, or we need to make the mall and PS more properly connected. So I drew up this simple map to show what I support. First, greening the two garages (just the surface level) on the bluff, and connected all the Lake facing parks to the mall -- and then connecting the mall and PS not through a quasi-pedestrian road (semi-blocking rockwell off to traffic) but by greening the space and having the mall flow into Public Square. However it is done, the connection/link between the Mall and PS has got to be thoroughly considered and designed to make the connection beautiful, obvious, and natural. In short, I think the ability to walk from the exit at Terminal Tower through PS onto the Mall and out to the bluff (eventually to the water through a pedestrian bridge) should be the macro-goal of any planning here. Closing those roads and making PS a big open space is, at best, a piece of a larger plan of connecting Cleveland's amenities through public space. Once the main public spaces are connected we must focus on ways to surround them not with City Beautiful - Burnham buildings... but shops, restaurants, commercial space, and economic centers.

I mentioned this is another topic before, but I think Euclid Ave. and St. Charles Ave in New Orleans are very similar. Both are main avenues that connect the downtown CBD to a large park (Audobon Park in N.O. University Circle in Cleveland). They also both had (now just St Charles) street cars. If Millionaire's Row had been preserved (say from E30 to the Clinic around E79), the Euclid Street car left intact, and the neighborhoods north and south of Euclid (Hough, Central, Kinsman) survived as they were in the 40s -- I believe it would look a lot like this: http://g.co/maps/szet9 Though that is a lot of "what if's"

Just a quick history lesson -- since the end of the Civil War the square has been 4 quadrants, a feature mostly promoted by mass transit (street cars and then buses) agencies and local businesses. I'm not offering an opinion one way or the other - but thought this was interesting: http://ech.cwru.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=FWOPS

Regarding KJPs posting of the E 105 Master Plan -- can anyone speak to the "historic condo restoration district"? Who owns these right now? Looking them up online there isn't a lot of real information on the city's GIS map - and zillow doesn't have recent sales data that makes sense ($67k for a single condo, but the entire building for $115k) ? Are these privately owned?

Dayton, Columbus, and Cincinnati all made it, but not Cleveland. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/20/worst-cities-for-young-people-from-seattle-to-cincinnati-photos.all.html

Not to get too far off topic, but was there a forum for Legacy Village... are there diagrams of what was originally promised?

KJP, poetic stuff there - and in many ways true. We've all heard various numbers but the downtown occupancy rates for rental apartments are very high, much higher than most developers need to inspire further building. Based on what MurrayHill said about the pricing, one could foresee downtown getting even more demand from the growing population/prices in Uptown. Conversion costs of buildings on E. 9th would be lower than full building expenses (though each building has its own challenges) and should be the direction City policy directs developers to move. Sadly it is true that the economics don't work out for a WHD infill project without higher overall rates, or superior/new demand coming from people with more money. In Kyle Ezell's book "Retire Downtown: The Lifestyle Destination for Active Retirees and Empty Nesters" he discusses the benefits of bringing baby boomers back into the city. This group has a lot more money to spend, and bring with them higher expectations for comfort. One could easily sell higher cost apartment (larger floor plans and high cost psf) to this group. Once housing prices normalize many baby boomers (hitting 65+) will be interested in selling their houses and downsizing anyhow. This truly gets at the root of development, financing, and demand -- and I agree with Hts - we should have a dedicated thread to discussing housing costs, development fundamentals, and areas that are most likely to see development in the near term.

I'm curious where you came up with $260 PSF. There are municipal estimates available and this is very high. NYC costs are around $282/PSF for an 8-24 story apartment. By comparison, Seattle is $222, Baltimore is $196, Dallas is $181. My numbers are from Reed Construction Data. Depending on the financing, taxes, property costs, and various incentives (state and local) these prices fluctuate. And while you are right that there is more of a speculative angle to the profitability of developments in Cleveland, it is not abnormal for developers to arrange for riskier projects that can only succeed if variables out of their control work out. For example, developing Pesht would have been a significant risk, but the multi-use urban neighborhood that it would have created is a model that works in many other cities. Market values won't rise without an impetus, and there is only so much that the public sector and non profit (CC, UH) can do before developers need to push to the tipping point.

WHAT: The complete mixed use Flats East Bank project. With housing, commercial, and retail all set up using the FEB Rapid stop and developer agreements fulfilling the "East/West" proposal to connect the banks of the river. WHY: If this got done the Waterfront line would be very busy, potentially encouraging further RTA development of the line (Downtown Loop?). The WHD would have a larger adjacent population encouraging developers to build on the open lots. The Jacobs P.S. property would likely be built on. The Downtown CBD would be developed from the Cuyahoga to E12 achieving a critical mass to spur further developments to move (Gateway Mixed use, Avenue District, Asia Town, etc.)

http://lisacanter.com/teachcleveland/images/pdf/timeline/1957.pdf "What downtown needed was more parking, which could be provided by tearing down old buildings." :bang: What began as a simple google search has now ruined my day. Mr. Albert Porter, ladies and gentlemen.