misterjoshr

Not to knock this project at all... which I think adds a lot to this area. But as someone who just redid an entire development website (sustainableca)...it takes a ton of time and money and a thought through voice. The latter is hard to find if you are in a beds&heads mentality as opposed to a "what is this new community we are building about" kind of framework.

A lot of websites these days are done by third party apartment software services like Yardly. My guess is it comes from a service like this. My own 2 cents is it reads more AI generated then slick.

Yes -- I think speaking over a multiple year horizon -- it will allow you to look more creatively or re-look at options.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/06/project-to-preserve-and-re-use-park-synagogue-in-cleveland-heights-gains-momentum-focus-and-nearly-3m-in-state-grants.html this is a great summation of what we've been working on in Cleveland heights.

got it :)

that is very kind. Thank you. I have great colleagues and fantastic architects who push us -- they deserve a great deal of the credit.

the planter boxes are really taking hold

I am digging this! also feeling the night winter rendering

Also - what exactly makes it luxurious? The quality materials? The energy efficiency? the areas for exercise within the buildings? The mostly local business on the first floors of these spaces? If these things are attracting people to the city and to the neighborhood, given population loss, the need to increase the tax base etc -- I would say these things aren't just luxuries but things all of our neighborhoods need. I think a lot of people would also say that owning a home these days and giving up that mobility and the downpayment required is what is the luxury. Should these kinds of projects that have mostly people making between 40-100k living in them be all that's developed -- of course not. But this zero sum game mentality isn't going to help one bit. It just wins over 4 people at a block club meeting. Our politics and our words should be more studied and more meaningful then this

The argument about too much "luxury" housing is one of the more intellectually lazy arguments I've read in a long time. I don't think public policy should be geared towards or prioritized towards this group, but as someone who sees incomes and credit reports of my tenants, I think the idea that anywhere close to a majority or significant minority of the people who live in most of these places are "rich" is really not the case. They simply are deciding to put their money towards renting instead of owning and increase their geographic mobility. Most of my tenants make between 40-80g. I am actually breaking down the data by building now. You'd be shocked at how middle class it is. It just isn't the lunch pail middle class that older people know -- they look different and have different tastes but they nonetheless are middle class (btw most have student loan debt etc). When someone says they don't want luxury housing, I wonder what income streams they do want more of and if they have a real plan for developing that besides this weird form of populism which really doesn't level with people. Who do they think is shopping at grocery store they recruited to the neighborhood or buying 16 dollar movie tickets to keep the theater from needing more welfare? Wouldn't we want more people like this rather than less?

Don't forget Over 26 acres around Park Synagogue

the cost for doing that can be super expensive. we looked into it for Tappan and it was like 400k all in. any mandate would need the compliance of the utility company, of course. Not to say any of the above makes it a bad idea. Just an FYI

this is terrible that people can be all Nimby to halt good projects is an issue. but an equally extreme reaction to that would be approving this sort of design solely because it provides more density. With the rent PSF you are getting these days, at least when lumber comes back down, you can afford to do something more attractive and timeless and achieve density too.

Thanks for introducing yourself and thank you for coming!

Thanks! Also this got approved yesterday:

Thanks for posting. Please everyone feel welcome to come and intro yourself to me! I am hopeful this will be a joyful, fun event

thanks. I will certainly share this w/ the team charged with making sure we are code compliant on all of our projects. So far, they've nailed it, but I'll double check! Appreciate your help, Josh

the units at the ends are ADA accessible on the first floor. Also keep in mind these are townhomes and not a multi-family building

I meant both. 3 are on the lot across from leavened on scranton road (they were always intended to be built there to break up the slew of parking) The rest are across from the Creamery

Yeah,for the record it is 23 units total (13 townhomes). 3 on the land that is currently a lawn across from leavened bakery. Those 3 weren't discussed since they just need administrative approval. The other 10 are across from the creamery on land that was previously approved as surface parking. All are rentals. The idea is to build a pocket park on west 17th street as opposed to just lining it with townhomes. We would then build sidewalks on 17th, so we could add additional street parking for the businesses in the area. Hopefully it will pass though but we may have some objection yet. So far we have had 2 block club meetings, one near west design meeting, one planning meeting and one Tremont west meeting. We will go back to all of them for final approvals, so we shall see. No variances are needed.

I put this on our instagram but figured some of ya might like to know so i'll copy and paste w/ some pics and a flyover---- I thought I would share some exciting news on an otherwise gray day. We are really grateful and excited to have been selected by the City of Cleveland and The Cleveland School District to preserve and re-develop the Nathaniel Hawthorne School in the Jefferson Park neighborhood. We expect it to convert nicely into approximately 35-40 apartments for middle income people (rents ranging from 850-1200 dollars depending on size and bedrooms). The chance to be part of a team that will preserve the character of this building, stabilize a beautiful neighborhood asset and celebrate the community is a special opportunity. This will be SCA's smallest project in dollar amount to date, but our hope is that it can be the most impactful. After all, in Cleveland, there are no small projects. Everything has a ripple effect. Jefferson Park is one of Cleveland's important middle neighborhoods, brimming with great restaurants, a diverse, international population, a burgeoning Little Arabia and plentiful green space nearby. Working with this neighborhood fits nicely within our strategy of focusing on catalyzing interesting and dynamic projects in the areas that larger developers overlook (AsiaTown, Southern Tremont, Oberlin) because of size or complexity, but that have an oversized impact on the neighborhood. We see Hawthorne Elementary as an exciting continuation of this important work. We can't wait to roll up our sleeves and be part of a process that embraces and amplifies what already makes this neighborhood a special place — Josh and the entire team @ SCA Flyover2.MP4

weird -- it cites an RFP that expired in February.

I really think if they had proposed some parking that was less than 1:1 (20?) this would have found a more amicable resolution. I think part of the issue is that there is no parking AND they aren't making an affirmative case about what they are investing in in lieu of parking. I think this all happening near a church that serves many poor people hot meals in the community and is seen as infringing on them /their needs foments a bit more outrage than it might otherwise. I think also people haven't seem impressed by the project done by this group on 41st street which according to folks is mostly airbnb. I am not validating or agreeing with all of this -- just sharing what I have heard and that the very same block club members have managed to get ok with a lot of development over the last few years. Can you divorce Nimby-ism entirely from this? Of course not. Do I think that a lot of neighborhood groups fail to see their new neighbors as middle class/working class like them? I do. I also disagree with a lot of the process, I think block clubs are a terribly misguided way to determine what should be built, think politicians give way too much deference to them etc. I think not building parking is terribly misguided but it wouldn't be a reason not to proceed. I mostly think the building isn't high caliber enough from a design perspective and how it holds an important street corner. It is just to say on hierarchy of values, you can believe in density as a guidepost (I do) and still think this project should go back to the drawing board until it achieves other ideals as well. In other words, it is complicated and I think oversimplifying the motives of the opposition isn't helpful to the process, just like demonizing the development also doesn't really get us closer to common ground.

I'd be careful to over-generalize. I know a lot of people who for example support the Treo development or some of the ones I've been associated with but not this one. I don't think it is purely a NIMBY thing. Opposition to this development may indeed be misguided but I think dismissing it as NIMBY-ism is too simplistic for this forum

Fwiw I haven't seen any on the ground evidence that the demand for parking spaces is going down over the apartments I lease in Tremont. Only one unit out of like 180 is car-less. Most are 1 or 1 + and nearly all are one bedrooms or studios. Now...that could be ineffective marketing on our part. Our parking lots may repel sustainably minded people so perhaps that skews the data. And offering this does not imply parking codes are somehow not out of date or suggest that too much of a parking requirement produces desirable outcomes. I just thought people might find it interesting.