SixthCity

2015 Q1 report: http://www.downtowncleveland.com/media/243493/q1_2015updatefinal_spreads.pdf

Downtown was super busy today. The Indians game and the weather helped. Lots of people on the 9th St. pier and Voinovich Park as well.

No need to stop there. Here's another, albeit smaller and overseas. Ferro Corp. to acquire Spanish company Nubiola Pigmentos Ferro has been acquiring companies in recent months. In February, Ferro bought TherMark Holdings Inc.. And last September, the company announced plans to acquire Vetriceramici S.p.A., which closed in December. Ferro is actively working to grow, the release said, noting that the company “is seeking to expand sales in emerging markets, accelerate product development efforts, and acquire businesses that build upon its leading market positions in glass-based coatings and color solutions.” http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20150430/FREE/150429802/ferro-corp-to-acquire-spanish-company-nubiola-pigmentos

Pretty crazy considering 2 years ago it looked like something out of Berlin circa May 1945.

I took this yesterday. Looks like the buck hoist on the southern end of the eastern facade has been removed. The other hoists and their tracks have also been removed from the eastern facade.

^ Derrick Rose was repeatedly trying to drive on 3 bodies in the paint, and getting stuffed. He has a hard time spreading the ball around. I understand the angst.

Milwaukee!

I just watched the video of JR's punch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxyWn2AiORY Look how Crowder runs up, pops him with his shoulder and then pushes him. I'm not saying what JR did was right, it clearly wasn't. But it's absurd how arbitrary the refs were in that game. Kryie, JR, Lebron, et al were getting banged on in the paint by Boston with no ramifications. Either you let the players have it out or you strictly control the game.

I agreeski.

Why? I'm gonna push you a little bit to define "our" again as I think its important. The City of Cleveland has very little, if any, to contribute to these projects. The vast majority comes from State and Federal Tax Credits. The historic tax credits come with the explicit goal of historic preservation, which some consider to be a worthwhile public good in itself. When we consider that the main funders are the tax bases of the State and Federal Government, this becomes much much less true: Furthermore, I think the net transfer payments flow much heavier in the other direction. I think this is what happens when we end the analysis at the word "subsidy." "Market realities," are not just what we make them, at least not as can be dictated by local government. This operative factor left out here is the scale of the subsidy. The City's, as well as State funds have been used to close financing gaps in projects that would otherwise be unprofitable or not profitable enough to be built (at least is claimed by the developer: this also excludes the Med Mart and CC). So while a project downtown may need a tax credit worth 7% of its overall project cost, the other 93% which will be financed by project money - the project in Mt. Pleasant may need 70% of the project cost to be subsidized while only 30% may be financed with private money. Assuming downtown redevelopment pulls from outside of City borders, the net tax return usually will far outweigh whatever subsidy was provided - especially if the subsidy was not provided by the City at all! So in short, yes public money does distort markets. But is public money best spent to give a large private investment a proportionally small boost to make it happen or is it best spent trying to nearly completely subsidize projects in seriously battered outlying neighborhoods, many of which have a totally uncertain future? I think the former. In many ways its about return on investment. Public actors want to see an increase in tax base and make an investment in a stable project that going to somewhat reliably function. If this is your goal, I think investing in Downtown properties is a good gamble but the same cannot be said for investments in Kinsman. These are not even mutually exclusive choices by the way. The State Historic tax credit program has awarded plenty of money to neighborhood level projects - the City of Cleveland has subsidized plenty of neighborhood projects too - but well applied subsidies usually ride the coat tails of private investment. Ohio City, Tremont, and Detroit Shoreway have all made great use of tax credits, including LIHTC. So there is nothing about the tax credit programs that discriminates against neighborhood level projects. But like I said before, the subsidies most often follow the lead of private market actors who respond to largely private market conditions.

Yeah wait, how is a "gentrifying" downtown a bad thing in and of itself? By the way, "gentrification" is one of those magical words that no one really seems to have a set definition of yet its invocation elicits weird responses from people. I thought it meant new higher-income people moving into neighborhoods and displacing (rarely forcibly) those already there - the moral implications of this are at least debatable. But in Downtown Cleveland, there was no low-income population. For decades, there was hardly a residential population at all. There is no one getting kicked out. The only true low income buildings are the 3 CMHA properties (Bohn, Allerton, and Winton Manor) that are insulated from market trends. There isn't even a realistic threat they would go anywhere. So is Downtown Cleveland's improvement really gentrification? Is such an expanded definition really warranted? Is there even any harm here? I say no to all 3 questions. Also, like X said, how does that correspond to the weakening of outlying urban neighborhoods? A mere temporal correspondence? Or is 1 a causal factor of 2?

!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just had a thought. Someone should bury a time-capsule under the park while construction is being done.

Announcing and reffing today has been absolutely unreal... Olynyk yanks Kevin Loves out of the socket...nothing. Isaiah Thomas fouls LeBron out-of-bounds!!!!...nothing. Announcers openly rooting for Boston. Never seen anything like this.

I get the gist of the article and I largely agree. But there is something to be said for setting the record straight. Slander unchecked can be adopted as fact if met with silence, and that happens a lot when people talk about Cleveland. So yes, we do have a lot of legitimate reasons to be silently confident (and more everyday) but there is some utility in loudly proclaiming the facts. And the facts favor the vibrancy of Downtown and do not support the lotto-ticket wasteland bullsh*t. Perception influences people's choices and if we want to be on the right side of perception, we may have to work a little to make our case.

Didn't know it it was better to put this in the retail or restaurant thread. For the purposes of commercial real estate, I think this would qualify as "retail." Wonder where these will pop up... Corner Bakery set to open 13 locations in greater Cleveland market Corner Bakery Cafe is set to make a big impact in the Cleveland market. The restaurant chain — one firmly in the hot fast-casual market — in the second quarter closed a 13-location deal for the Cleveland market. This marks Corner Bakery Cafe’s first area development agreement in Ohio. Don’t expect the restaurant chain to slow down, either. The company says that it plans to double its footprint during the next two years. There are already more than 185 company-owned and franchise Corner Bakery Cafes open. The company also boasts franchise agreements representing commitments for 390 more units. http://www.rejournals.com/2015/04/21/corner-bakery-set-to-open-13-locations-in-greater-cleveland-market/

Cleveland Play House wins coveted 2015 Regional Theatre Tony Award in its 100th year CLEVELAND, Ohio – The Cleveland Play House, America's first regional theater, which will celebrate its centennial season this year, has won the 2015 Regional Theatre Tony Award, one of the most prestigious and coveted honors in the entertainment industry. The announcement was made Friday by the Tony Awards Administrative Committee. The group selected the downtown Play House for the accolade based on a recommendation of the American Theatre Critics Association. "This is extraordinary for this company and for this community," said Play House managing director Kevin Moore. "I think about the 100 years of plays and people, the artists and theatergoers. This company is astounding." http://www.cleveland.com/onstage/index.ssf/2015/04/cleveland_play_house_wins_cove.html#incart_m-rpt-1

I think you meant *wouldn't. Regardless, that's not the issue. Whether public financing helps complete a piece of the developer's capital stack, the developer still has to have a profitable project at hand. Of the public sources, the City (if involved at all) is almost always the smallest. The profitability of the project depends on much larger trends such as population movements (I'm tying this back to the topic, I swear) that the City cannot control. So once again, the City may help set the table, but private money does the cooking. Whether the City plays any role in real estate development is not the issue, I'm saying they don't even come close to playing the principal role - they can't and they shouldn't. Macroeconomics, population trends, consumer preferences, social trends, etc. have 95% more impact on the growth and decline of cities than cash strapped City government's contributions to real estate projects does. I'm glad you mentioned the Breuer Tower because it couldn't be a better example - County Gov. owned it for years and it sat as a deteriorating vacant skyscraper. Geis saw the growth and potential downtown and decided to take a risk. He did get plenty of public financing for the project but he made his decision based on the market, the population influx downtown, and the current consumer trend to move back to cities. And now we have a successfully completed mega project. The public sector can offer help but it's the private actor that ultimately does the work and takes the risk and makes decisions based on forces outside of the City's control.

So, subsidized housing. Hardly creating a enclave of affluence. Well if you knew what the average rents for apartments in The 9 were. Maybe you'd change your tune. Plus this was only one example. Clearly the 9 is an enclave of Affluence in the city. I'm well aware the rents. The discussion was about The CITY'S role in private development. I shouldn't have even responded as HUD (the FEDS) investments in affordable housing have nothing to do with anything here. The tangential point was that public money to subsidize low income housing development has nothing to do with the claim Substantial City resources are being used to develop for the rich at the expense of the poor.

But I'm still unclear how the City choosing to do a TIF for steelyard commons lines up with your criticism that the City chooses to help finance bad projects at the expense of good ones. What was the "good" large scale urban retail project that lost out because steel yard got a TIF? The City can't just decree where it wants retail. Furthermore, isn't steelyard an example of affordable urban core retail that would have otherwise been in the suburbs? Granted, it deviates from the urban minded layout I'm sure we would prefer. It's core neighborhood retail nonetheless. If Weston wanted to do somethjbg similar on their warehouse district lots l, I'm sure the City would TIF that as well, but they don't. The city may help, in small part, to finance private deals but it is the private developer that makes the choice to invest, and they rely on market forces beyond the City's control. Also, the importance of technicalities and nuance in real estate development cannot be overstated. The detailed mechanics of finance has a lot to do with how projects do or don't pan out.

So, subsidized housing. Hardly creating a enclave of affluence.

Care to show some examples? In the past, the bulk of enviro clean up was provided by the Feds, the State, with small help from the County and minuscule (if any) help provided by the City. Almost all of this has evaporated post-recession. Where has the City put money into land acquisition, at least on a large scale? The City and County maintain a land bank to capture vacant and abandoned land - they will give this to developers who want to develop but they will almost always sell if for a price. The City just doesn't have much money to facilitate development. 95% of development is done by the private market. The City may set the table but they have very little capital to contribute. For some reason, City government looms larger in peoples mind that is almost ever really the reality. City government DOES have great power to obstruct, but develop? No.

But the government of the City of Cleveland has had very little if anything to do with these trends. For some reason, I've noticed that a lot of Clevelanders think that the City government has waaay more power and money than it really does. The City of Cleveland has not created a colony of affluent residents. The City has and will offer small pieces of financing for larger private redevelopment projects if than can show, through a pretty high burden, that it is crucial to their financing. This usually comes by way of no-interest or a low interest loan that the City make money on. Sometimes, the City will give a small forgivable loan that can be discharged if the project creates enough permanent jobs. Very small grants are often available too for brownfield remediation, storefront improvements, etc. - but verifiably, these are very small pieces to larger projects that are financed by private money. And these are very small portions of the larger budget for the City, who is more concerned with providing basic services. All of these funding mechanisms are also available to neighborhood projects and are often deployed there. The vast majority of public money that has gone to the redevelopment of downtown has been through the historic tax credit program - but that is State money. And State money well spent. As for downtown retail, I'm not sure what the City is supposed to do about that. Downtown is awash in retail space, it's not like we need to create more. Tower City is a full fledged mall on our rail hub - yet they struggle to sign and retain tenants. This is a market issue that the City government has very little, if any control over. Outside of Tower City there are still vacant retail spots on Euclid and the other thoroughfares. Things are much much much better than they used to be but the City can't force retailers to locate in the City core to serve residents - this must be the retailer's choice. The City could subsidize retailers but such a scheme would be way more costly and risky than the City has the stones for. This essentially would have to be a year over year subsidy- unlike the developer loans or grants which are given upfront. Also, could you imagine the political backlash the City would face if it gave a year over year subsidy to retailers? The cacophony would be earsplitting. What you see downtown and on the near west side, in terms of growth and decline, is mostly the function of private market actors, not the City of Cleveland's government. The City's core has lost population, and with exceptions of the nascent affluence and growthn in some core areas, most of the inner city residents are still quite poor. That is the reality retailers look at. Also, retailers are more focused on located around centers of wealth and population - this is what leads them to the suburbs. So, the best chance we have at getting vital retail downtown is to increase our household count and purchasing power. Luckily this is happening. Getting retailers in the core will be benefit to everyone but they will not locate there because the government does anything for them - in this way, the "gentrification" helps and does not hurt. I'm not understanding this. This was a private development project. The City didn't pick the site, finance construction, or maintain it. Of course there is land downtown to build retail but this is land owned by private parties who have to decide what to do with it - City leadership can't do much about that. The feasibility of Steelyard is that it was close to Highway access and had room for parking. Sucks that that would be so important, but it is.

Cleveland moves forward with design of intermodal transit center "The bottom line is the project's going to happen," said Grace Gallucci, executive director of NOACA, which is underwriting most of the planning cost (RTA and Cleveland are kicking in another $30,000). "It's a great project. It's something that other cities have done." Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson, in a Feb. 10 letter to NOACA, said a transportation hub would improve the quality of life of residents and create "a stylish gateway to the city for visitors." http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/04/cleveland_moves_forward_with_design_of_intermodal_transit_center.html#incart_m-rpt-1

I see you're new so welcome to UO! Here are some thoughts to your letter: First, your thesis is "If the rapid development of Cleveland continues to be contained to the downtown and a few select neighborhoods, then this gentrification and growth could begin to harm the city as a whole." I wouldn't say that any rapid development is being actively "contained" to downtown and the select neighborhoods you mentioned. Instead, the development in the improving neighborhoods and downtown is the result of a confluence of factors mostly beyond any central planning effort. The development you see, while encouraged by the public and nonprofit sectors, is more factor of private demand and the private real estate market responding. So while there have been some strategic public and nonprofit investments in these neighborhoods, the near west side and downtown faced a very different history than other parts of the City that continue to lose population - mostly, these areas didn't completely reach war-zone level destruction and social problems like the east side. This, in turn has made it easier to "gentrify" existing west side neighborhoods with good bones than starting from scratch like you would have on the east side. Next, I would take issue that any of the "gentrification" (I don't think it can truthfully be called that) on the west side and downtown can be said to "harm the City as a whole." The improving market in certain areas can happen largely independent of the worsening of the other areas but I can't think it would serve any role in harming the City. I would make the other claim, that improving neighborhoods improve the City as whole, through increased tax base, the stabilization of real estate markets, the increase in purchasing power to attract vital retail, etc. You posed this question:"...are there any other organizations similar to DCA that work to better Cleveland's other neighborhoods? If so, do you think they could become as successful as DCA?" The answer is yes, yes, and yes. Are you familiar with Community Development Corporations ("CDCs")? Nearly every neighborhood in Cleveland has a CDC that focuses on neighborhood level issues such as planning, development, and community outreach. Given the needs of each neighborhood, each CDC focuses on vastly different things. Some CDCs actively develop property (Detroit Shoreway) while others facilitate real estate development without owning developing anything themselves (Ohio City Inc., University Circle Inc.). Others are focus on event planning and social outreach (Union Miles, Stock Yards Clark Fulton, St. Clair Superior). Some do all of this and more, like Slavic Village Development Corp. Cleveland Neighborhood Progress is also a non-profit that funds CDCs and provides certain strategic services that would otherwise be too costly for CDCs to do on their own. So the short answer is: yes. While the DCA does great work, the neighborhood CDCs are second to none in their diversity of goals, resourcefulness, and accomplishments. The reality of (re)development in Cleveland is and will be unevenly spread. This is not inherently bad or good. Cleveland is still a big City with strong markets, improving markets, stable markets, weakening markets, and completely dysfunctional markets within its borders. Some neighborhoods seem to have days of smooth sailing ahead and are seeing clusters of $300k+ town homes developed and sold easily. Others will almost certainly get worse before they improve at all, which may not be in our lifetime. There aren't many things you can do within the bounds of a rights-based capitalist democracy with limited funding to fundamentally change this. We may be able to smooth and sharpen some edges with tweaks to public policy but barring an economic boom or massive population influx, redevelopment will remain a game of inches - which hopefully will get easier and I suspect already has. Uneven urban development is much more of a norm than an exception in similar systems. All of this largely carries over with regards to population projections. The near west side, downtown, and greater University Circle population stabilize and grow while most of the east side will probably see population loss within the foreseeable future. I think however, that development (or lack thereof) and population trends are reactions to a larger basket of factors rather than casual factors themselves. Most of these factors are well outside any immediate or even long term government or non-profit's (DCA included) ability to do much about - instead, they are tied to much larger social, macroeconomic, and cultural trends. Last, I would say it's important to remember the scope of work certain folks are tasked with. Jim Marinucci certainly has done a great job with Downtown Cleveland and the DCA. But his job and mission is focused on just that, Downtown Cleveland. So while I'm sure he would love to have Downtown surrounded by healthy, vibrant neighborhoods, creating said neighborhoods is not really within his scope of work - and, to me, that's a totally ok division of labor. Also, I think I speak for everyone that an expansion of our RTA rail system would be great - this is largely dependent on..err..hindered rather, by State funding through ODOT. Currently, ODOT's per capita spending for public transit systems within Ohio ranks among the lowest in the nation. If I remember correctly, we are in the same cohort as like Montana and Wyoming.... Meanwhile, the vast majority of our tax money goes to highway infrastructure, particularly EXPANDING highway infrastructure! That's a whole 'nother can of worms with its own thread though. Hope this helped. I'm exhausted and can barely see straight. I'll clear up anything half-baked I said tomorrow.

^ Conspiracy.