DM4

http://www.iboughtaduplex.com/general-day-to-day-landlord/pros-and-cons-of-owner-occupied-duplex-living.php

I agree. Having one of the floors occupied by the owner does make a big difference. Shaker Square and Larchmere definitely seem to have the highest potential for this IMO. They have plenty of doubles and both neighborhoods are in an area with walkable commercial strips with things to do. They also have access to one of the highest frequency rapid stations in the system. 5 minutes between rush hour trains is hard to beat!

: :roll: You don't agree? Id be willing to bet anything that if all of the doubles in Corlett or Kinsman were in Tremont they would be much more desirable/cool and would be worth a hell of a lot more money.

^ Awesome, I hope they do well! I walked by the other day and could see inside. Looks cool

You are looking at citywide density, not neighborhood density. Neighborhood density is all that really matters. A city with large areas of water, industry, (any other non residential use), etc. will have a much lower overall density. That is how Lakewood Ohio shows up denser than Philadelphia, even though anyone with eyes could tell you Philadelphia is far denser than Lakewood. I agree that 10,000 to 15,000 people per square mile is not too dense. Anything between 15,000 to 30,000 seems like a reasonable goal for rust belt cities. 20,000+ would be great. Obviously the 30/50,000+ of the coastal cities would be great, but i'm not sure how realistic that is for a city like Cleveland. Right now the only neighborhoods with that high rust belt density are Lakewood's Gold Coast, Little Italy, Shaker Square, and Coventry Village. Cedar Fairmount depending on what you define the borders as. With new construction, I can easily see Tremont reaching that point as well.

^Is it that doubles aren't cool, or is it that the majority of the neighborhoods with doubles aren't cool?

Density in rust belt cities will never reach the same as its peak as long as the housing stock remains the same. This is a good thing. Rust Belt cities were not built for the high density of the East Coast. During Cleveland's peak it was extremely overcrowded. Terrible living conditions. In many cases, these neighborhoods have now right-sized. Many others have completely emptied out. The only true way for rust belt cities to increase density is by new construction. For example, Coventry Village was built for density, and although the population has declined compared to its peak, the area remains with a much higher density than your typical City of Cleveland neighborhood. That Cleveland neighborhood was built for medium-low density but got extremely overcrowded and got as dense/or even more dense than Coventry Village is today. Those neighborhoods have now right-sized and pretty much have the population those structures were built to handle. Some have also emptied out as well, which is a completely different story. Neighborhoods like Tremont will never reach its density peak again unless much higher density development takes place. If single family homes continue to dominate, you will get a healthy neighborhood with a density that matches what it is today.

I believe that picture is pretty old. 1980's? Edit: was too slow

Ill have a hard time calling this project nuCLEus, but i'm extremely excited for this project. Stark definitely is a man with connections, so if this project actually happens, I think we might finally see retail back downtown! Our other developers do a good job with projects, but don't seem to have the same connections Stark has. This could be a game changer for downtown if done correctly.

While I'm sure it would be better for your theories if that were true...it changed in 2013. From a KJP post..."Interesting.This 2013 apartment market analysis report for Greater Cleveland shows that the apartment submarket with the highest rents and lowest vacancy rates is "Central Cleveland." http://www.mimginvestment.com/documents/resources/Cleveland_4Q13Apt.pdf Submarket Vacancy Ranking Vacancy Y-O-Y Basis Effective Y-O-Y Rank Submarket Rate Point Change Rents % Change 1 Central Cleveland 2.5% 80 $1,058 0.8% 2 Lake County 3.0% 0 $743 6.3% 3 Westlake/North Olmsted/Lorain Cnty 3.6% 50 $833 0.7% 4 Parma/Middleburg Heights 3.9% 0 $736 2.5% 5 Strongsville/North Royalton/Medina 4.0% 240 $785 2.1% 6 West Cleveland 4.7% 270 $702 0.4% 7 East Cleveland 5.1% 90 $831 3.2% 8 Beachwood/Mayfield 5.3% 280 $926 5.9% 9 Euclid 7.0% -90 $631 12.3% 10 Southeast Cleveland 8.2% 470 $724 4.0% ###" Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,24830.805.html#ixzz3A5aBxvGZ Im not quite sure what you are talking about, but I was just remembering what was stated in an article about uptown awhile ago. And Central Cleveland probably includes University Circle and other neighborhoods since those markets do not show up on that list anywhere. The list I found is older, from 2011 and has Beachwood at the top followed by Downtown/Flats. University Circle is not included on the list but is mentioned that the rents would be the highest in the region.

^ I thought University Circle had the highest rents, followed by Beachwood, and then Downtown.

We'd have to grow at Toronto's rate if we really expect to go from virtually no retail, to retail lining the streets and filling the shopping malls. Honestly Id be fine with Tower City keeping the retail level it has now, while the nicer stores line Prospect, Euclid, and Huron into Playhouse Square. I also would be fine with seeing the Tower City space reimagined. It really is amazing what Philadelphia was able to do with retail in center city. Its a shame we are always a few decades behind east coast cities in revitalization efforts. Maybe we can learn from them.

Do we really want mall retail downtown? Right now id like to have retail anywhere, but id greatly prefer it to be on the street and not in a mall.

Does anyone else with TWC in the city if Cleveland not get the NFL network? It's supposed to free but for some reason it's not available in Cleveland, but is in most of its suburbs?

I passed by the other day and it definitely appeared to be under construction. Weird...

It is. The Downtown Cleveland Alliance report I posted includes a statistic regarding that progress. EDIT: Here it is.... Cleveland emerging as a magnet for talent attraction, experiencing a 68 percent increase in the number of 25-34 year old college graduates (2006-2012) http://www.downtowncleveland.com/media/221278/Q2-2014-DCA.pdf At the last census point, there were 2,745 residents living downtown within that age range. Would be interesting to see where that number is today. Could imagine mid 3,000's

^ Huge gains like that are usually caused when the number is very low, and a few people move in. A couple people making over 200k moving in could make the increase percentage that large. Same thing happens when one or two white people move into a neighborhood like Glenville which is predominately black. It shows as a large increase in white population for that census tract, even though the overall population change is rather meaningless. It is positive we are seeing people with that income level move in, but I don't think the numbers are significant enough for any major change to come rushing in.

I don't think it's that black and white. Plenty of people who only drive go on vacations and prefer to not use their car until they leave. Although there are some crazy people, I really believe there are far less people strongly opposed to rail then we like to believe. Those who are a just a loud minority, like Manziel fans... ;)

Another positive about a free waterfront line, it would make the muni lot more practical for Indians and Cavs games which would get people on the rails and help devalue the lots near the stadium.

The waterfront line should be free. Introduce people to the rail system and it's such a short distance that it isn't worth the full fare. Make it like the trolleys or pittsburghs fare free zone. It would be good for connecting tourists to the lakefront.

KJP[/member] Thats good to hear. I feel like people forget about that East 9th Station. It could use some new signage to change things up a bit and get people to notice it.

^ Not saying they aren't people, but when was the last time you heard of a people bragging about the new public housing development with crime issues? Im just saying its understandable that we don't hear much about it. If any public housing could even come close to Battery Park, it would probably be Tremont Point since its more mixed if I recall correctly and is integrated into an actual quality neighborhood. Still, there is a huge difference between market rate and public housing developments.

^The Green/Blue lines really offer a nice ride and a more enjoyable experience than the Red Line IMO so I can see why you enjoy taking it. The biggest thing I miss about other cities is trains coming every 5 minutes or even less. Missing the train by a second didn't seem so bad. Here waiting 15 to 30 minutes seems like forever if you miss your train! The only place you can get that similar service is Shaker Square! Im hoping that the Larchmere streetscape helps things really take off over there and help increase ridership as well. Different topic, but the new Little Italy should be HUGE for the system. Especially once Uptown and Intesa is built out, along with all of the smaller projects happening in Little Italy and University Circle. And in Shaker Heights, if the Van Aken/Warrensville district turns out to be the urban neighborhood it could be, and Lee Road gets redeveloped like the city plans, you could see another large boost in ridership. I could imagine downtown residents taking the blue line out to Van Aken/Warrensville if it attracts good retailers.

^ Battery Park is high end market rate housing while Arbor Park is largely public housing, with the rest low rent housing. There is also a crime problem in Arbor Park and it is located in a neighborhood mostly made up public housing. Central as a whole has a serious crime issue as well. I don't think they really compare so its understandable that Battery Park is talked about while Arbor Park is not. Plus central/arbor park is extremely cut off from downtown. The biggest thing downtown needs is for the area north of CSU and east of East 13th to develop.