gg707

That would be really awesome for the city and could help make up for some of the hit the downtown commercial market will be taking.

Have you heard any news on whether the various unnamed residential and commercial buildings in the works are still going forward? It is a tough environment for CRE right now.

Hopefully they can’t block it. Although a blocked view is a bummer, the risk of blocked views is part of life, especially in a city. If they really wanted to preserve their views forever, they could buy all the nearby lots as part of the building, but they didn’t do that because that would have cost a lot of money and result in an insane association fee.

I didn't think I'd ever see an above ground parking deck that I'd be happy to see built....

I've kind of liked the move towards units being nestled in like seen in recent projects. It is similar to something common in cities where the land is valuable, space isn't wasted, and there is a premium on squeezing in units and achieving density.

What related to the train tracks? Like the train is going to hit the houses if they get too close or something?

Looks like the presentation with the various pictures and materials is up: http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2020/05152020/CPC-Revised-presentation-05-15-2020.pdf

Maybe spending a little more upfront on the contractor would have saved a lot of money in the end....

Aren't they going to 44th and Lorain in the new building there?

Yes, part of it. Brickhaus is holding onto a portion of the site as well.

The Brickhaus plan would have been awesome. I'm not sure how realistic that plan is though with the Harbor Square development going in down the street. There is only so much demand for commercial and retail in the area, and Harbor Square's location gets way more foot traffic obviously and is a better spot. This is a more realistic plan and it will do a ton for the area in connecting the Carnegie bridge with Ohio City from a pedestrian perspective. Is it clear that this will have no ground floor retail from the article?

It is at the intersection of Lorain and W 20th, on the NW corner, right after the Carnegie bridge ramp ends. It is the lot that has been fenced off for a long time with Brickhaus signs on the fence.

Great shots -- I really enjoyed visiting Bogota when I was there. Very vibrant city and just enormous in size.

I'm sure it is, although that doesn't seem different from using hardy board or other kinds of siding that are going on most new construction. Solid brick would be awesome, but that would be a very different price point.

Were they doing work there?

Also, I will add, I think rising property values are a problem that can and should be addressed by the city. But, the property value increases aren't caused by the abatements, and the best way to address issues caused by property value increases isn't to eliminate the abatement program. The property value increases are a symptom of a good thing -- land in the city is getting more valuable and people want to live here. That would be happening even if the abatements didn't exist. To protect current residents, we could put in place measures to limit the size of annual property value increases so that increases aren't dramatic from year to year, which is the kind of increase that causes the most financial stress. There could also be ways that the city rebates back a portion of the increased property tax value for lower and moderate income residents.

The "facts" that you are asserting here were largely shown to not be true in a study that was completed as part of the tax abatement review by City Council. The study is here: https://www.crainscleveland.com/government/study-shows-foreclosures-are-not-increased-after-tax-abatements-end Some highlights from an actual study: Less abatements are being used now than were several years ago, and represent a very small fraction of the city's housing market. Residential and commercial properties are no more likely to be sold by an owner or go into foreclosure once a 15-year tax abatement rolls off than they were when the abatement was active. Most abated properties are not sold when the abatement ends. Abatements make up only a fraction of Cleveland's property overall, according to the study. The share of abated parcels has gone from a high of 4.6% in 2008 to 2.5% in 2018. The location of abatements is not correlated with areas where there is a risk of displacement, and abated properties are spread all over the city. The overall conclusion is that our housing market is still very fragile and that is abatements are such a small piece of the housing pie that they aren't causing the parade of horribles that communities like to blame them for.

That would be enormously convenient for people living in the near West Side neighborhoods.

This sounds like a really great project. It's great that we are starting to see some of the development that used to be centered around UC spilling out into other neighborhoods on the east side. That's becoming a nice little strip, and with some additional residents, it will become even nicer.

I live in the area, and I've found that sign (and others like it) to be particularly distasteful. Basically a statement that different kinds of people aren't welcome in a neighborhood. You see signs like that in suburban areas any time multi-family housing is proposed.

Another nice development for a Cleveland area company: https://www.crainscleveland.com/manufacturing/polyone-corp-agrees-buy-clariants-color-and-additive-masterbatch-business-145-billion PolyOne is currently 681 in the Fortune listings, so I wonder if this could be enough to push it into the top 500.

We have been doing a similar experiment and YouTubeTV has been pretty good on sports coverage. The coverage is tied to the local market, so if a game is on local TV, it will be on there. I was worried about buffering speed and lagging, but so far it has been fine. It is $49 a month, so cheaper than cable.

Bummer. I liked to stop in there whenever I was in Little Italy. Always seemed busy too.

Did the Rising Star on Murray Hill close?

I think that's accurate. There are a small number of cities where displacement through gentrification is a real problem (e.g., San Francisco, NYC, DC) and work needs to be done in those cities to try to ensure that existing residents aren't totally pushed out. In most other places where it is talked about, people use the term gentrification largely to oppose change to neighborhoods, development, or an influx of new people. The use of the term gentrification to oppose new people moving into an area is the most pernicious in that it's fundamentally exclusionary in nature and is little better than saying certain groups of people aren't allowed to live in certain areas. All that said, I think there would be way less inappropriate uses of the term "gentrification" to express these other ideas if greater public dollars were being spent ensuring that affordable and well-located public and/or affordable housing options are available.