8ShadesofGray

I'm going with either Potbelly or ... dream of dreams ... Wagamama :)

Thank you so much for this, Jeffery. Love your graphs! Pittsburgh is becoming a really fascinating story. I feel like it has quietly catapulted Minneapolis from "Savior of the Midwest" status over the past couple years, and numbers like this (as well as a shift-share analysis I saw a while back) showcase that it's not just posturing. I would love to see similar trendlines for Philly, Scranton, Reading, etc. Don't want to make any gross oversimplifications of the data, but I wonder the degree to which urban-oriented policy decisions in the 90s and 00s (or a more favorable environment, whatever the cause) would show consistent growth statewide in PA opposite relatively consistent stagnation in OH. Hmm.

I agree that we should withhold judgment until it's done. They've been doing a pretty nice job, and until proven otherwise, I'm going to assume that the side walls will be "finished" in some additional ways. That being said, if they did want a living wall :) Many historic building use trellises to prevent brick damage. These trellises can be mere inches from the building, so aesthetically and in terms of energy conservation, there is not a significant difference from plants that creep directly on the building, and the trellises can be built away from windows, etc., allowing owners to shape them a bit more. I would have to imagine, though, that the developers are considering opportunities for revenue-generating advertisements (think liquor advertisements along the shoreway in the warehouse district or the Revol ad over in Gateway). At some point a couple years ago, in a settlement with Clearchannel, Clearchannel was given the right to advertise alcohol and won the right to a small number of free ads on downtown buildings (I think 5?). In exchange, the company agreed to install one public art "advertisement" ... a mural piece not unlike what you guys are proposing here. Not sure what happened with that plan, but I can't think of anything ever having been hung. Perhaps there's an opportunity to do so here? I could be way off ... the deal might have been subsequently amended.

I'm beginning to really warm up to #3. I still worry about how the underside is programmed, but I'm realizing that the part that would not be met by natural light is more minimal than I thought. I still would love to see more detailed schematics of what that part would look like. But it really is incredibly distinct. I'm surprised that so many people disfavor Option 1 so strongly. I do think that there are some problems inherent to it, but to me, there's something in it that reminds me of European greenspaces more than the other two proposals (particularly some of the parks in Paris and the reuse of elevated industrial metal walkways in the Ruhrgebiet). Not suggesting it's ideal to frame the square or to leave the four squares disconnected at street level, but I don't think the trellis idea is inherently bad. And I LOVE the incorporation of native plantings and solar lighting schemes, although these could be incorporated into other plans. Here are a few examples of parks that use elevated metal walkways, IMHO with good result ... the Park de la Villette in Paris and the Zollverein arts complex in Essen. Both are reclamations of industrial space as public park space, so maybe the metal trellis idea would work better in a Canal Basin Park or Port greenspace development than on Public Square.

Really interesting discussion. Okay, I know that it's not the same at all, and I welcome people to challenge me (it would actually be helpful for getting my thoughts together), but my biggest concern with Number 3 is that my mind immediately flashes to the north-south corridors running through the CSU campus. The intent seems to be similar ... to allow for contiguous greenspace and pedestrian passages, while maintaining multi-multi-multi lane roads (and, at CSU, parking space) at street level underneath. In the case of CSU, I think the elevated greenspace has become increasingly welcoming ... but the design has exacerbated what would already be a bad walking experience on E. 20th and E. 22nd. I can't think of too many places that I disfavor walking more. Now, I understand that the scale and scope of this differ ... gradual incline and decline encourages pedestrians to walk over more than CSU stairs, programming and lighting underneath change the feel of the underside, etc. But I get very wary of an under component that depends on retail success or lighting maintenance to make it feel welcoming. I wish I had a better sense of how much natural light would come in below. If done, I think I would almost prefer something that looked a little more delicate than Option 3 ... a narrower land bridge concept with a fifth square directly above the intersection of Superior and Ontario or a fusion of Option 1 and Option 3 ... a walkable trellice that was a little more gradual on the ascent and descent that would bridge the four squares in the middle, rather than at the perimeters ... almost like the bottom few levels of the Eiffel Tower. Of course, with either of those modifications, you lose the large contiguous space offered by options 2 and options 3. My head hurts :) I like the concept of Option 2, but I worry about how that would play out at night. If one of the primary reasons that the square is not currently utilized as a gathering place (particularly at night) is concerns about safety (unfounded concerns IMHO), then I think open sitelines and continuous lighting becomes important, and I think that so much tree cover makes both difficult. I like the concepts of hanging native gardens and solar lighting in Option 1, and I would hope they would remain regardless of what is pursued. I've always thought that Public Square's role as the home of the first electric street lighting provides a really great opportunity for storytelling through some kind of large-scale iconic sustainable lighting scheme.

While we can certainly hypothesize that that 4% was already long gone (and the article does as well), I haven't seen any blind surveying or other data collection that gives up a reasonable understanding of how that break downs ... whether it's 290 of the 300 or 150 of the 300. A couple thoughts, though. First, a number of the individuals who have left (although a small number, relative to the total number leaving) are in positions of department leadership. I think it's doubtful these people were living outside the city, given the chances for political fallout. Second, I think that the real estate market has indeed made it difficult to sell properties ... or to buy properties for that matter. Third, I think it's reasonable to assume that, as department cultures change and such a move becomes more socially acceptable or even expected, those numbers may change. Finally, the true population declines are based on the premise that the loss of those city employees may incentivize other residents to leave, particularly in the southwestern neighborhoods, where the concentration of public safety workers provides neighborhoods with brands as being ... well, safe.

Where are the UO gays to defend ABBA? C'mon my brethren, this is OUR band ;)

I dunno ... could make a kicka*s observation deck or reading room for a penthouse suite :) The reason that I was asking about the tax credits was the significant disadvantage that Cleveland faces in the proposal review now that ODOD has skewed scoring toward "underserved" communities. The fact that, based on merit of projects, we received about two-thirds of first-round tax credits and only received one in the third round kind of illustrates that point. Although Schofield would still have an advantage, as I believe commercial conversions are scored most favorably.

Out of curiosity, does the owner plan to renovate regardless of state preservation credits? From everything that's been shared so far, seems like he's really passionate about the project, but I'm wondering how it would impact the timeline if they don't receive credits in Round 4.

Not positive on that, I suppose. I'm not sure where I first heard that; perhaps from the CDC? Certainly debatable. I think Goodrich-Kirtland's density of Asians may be higher: 17.4% as of 2000, compared to what looks like 7% in the University District. But University is bigger, so it might beat out Asiatown in number of Asian residents. And then in terms of size, I'm sure distinctions can be made between geographic size, number of Asian-owned businesses, gross sales of businesses, number and density of Asian-Americans v. Asian-born residents, etc. Which is why I probably shouldn't use vague terms like 2nd largest :) Point taken.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I don't think the annex has the power to draw tourists to Cleveland, or at least not a strong drawing power (although I don't think it would detract someone from visiting if they were in Cleveland, either). But the revenue that goes to that annex or any other outpost of the Rock Hall brings dollars back to the nonprofit, dollars that likely wouldn't have gone to it otherwise. It would take incidental tourist dollars being spent in Manhattan and brings at least a portion of them back to Cleveland ... dollars that are then invested in supporting our local museum's staff, expansion of exhibits, more ambitious special exhibits, etc. The principle is the same as the Cleveland Orchestra splitting its time in Miami and Europe or the Cleveland Clinic opening hospitals outside of northeast Ohio; it heightens brand awareness, attracts visitors who would not have ventured to Cleveland anyway and provides an additional funding base for nonprofit ventures. The only downside I can see would be if an outpost operates at a loss. Yeah, see, that USED to be in Cleveland. I don't see how it benefits the hall to take things away like that and display them elsewhere. It draws away from the uniqueness of the actual hall IMO. I don't know ... I can't imagine it would negatively impact visitation of Cleveland's Hall. The vast majority of Rock Hall attendees are incidental visitors ... They are in Cleveland visiting friends or family, and the Rock Hall is a nice added feature but not the reason they came. I don't think those who visit Cleveland specifically to hit up the museum would suddenly favor an outpost over the real deal; if they're that crazy about rock history, they're going to want to see the fullest collection possible. The only downsides I can see are if someone was planning to attend the Rock Hall but now favor something geographically closer or if they have a negative experience at an Annex and cancel plans to attend the full Hall. But I think these are pretty small groups and would be more than offset by additional revenue coming in.

I'll give you the poorly executed ... I differ a bit on the bad idea part :) I love the concept of brand extension that annexes could provide. And I'm a huge fan of bringing tourist dollars to the Cleve, even when those tourists aren't visiting here.

I'm realizing that this was the longest post ever. My posts are like super-block hospitals ... they're long and rambling and discourage pedestrian activity ;)

Nice photo spread. Welcome to my neighborhood! Asiatown is an interesting place, for sure. There are a ton of assets in the neighborhood; the sheer density of Asian immigrants and artists seem to indicate to me good things will be coming to the nabe in years to come. And actually, although maybe not with as blatant cache as a Tremont or an Ohio City, I think it's already fairly successful. It's the second largest Asian district in the Midwest (after Chicago) and those 10 blocks contain Ohio's largest density of Asian residents. Much of the housing is owned by Asian families who use the properties to acclimate family members who immigrate here, so you will very, very rarely see a "For Sale" sign in this neighborhood; as a result, it has one of the most stable housing values in the city. And unlike popular perceptions, it's pretty safe ... my census tract has among the lowest crime rates in the city, and we definitely benefit from just how packed in the housing is ... lots and lots and lots of eyes on the street. As for why it's not doing better (or not perceived to be doing better), a couple of thoughts: - The structure of the neighborhood makes its vibrancy a little less obvious than it could be. A lot of activity is tucked into these monolithic warehouses; literally hundreds of artists and small start-ups (as well as traditional manufacturing and distribution centers) are occupying these buildings, but the average Joe has no idea it's going on. I honestly think the rehab in this neighborhood is probably the most jaw-dropping in the city ... but it's all interior work. You'll walk into these insane 2,000 sq. ft. lofts that people are paying $900/mo. to be in (and in some cases, as low as $300 or $400 ... True and craaaaazy), but the outside of the buildings aren't well-lit, are spread out, have barbed wire around them, etc.). - Terribly low word-of-mouth. While I think people are waking up and realizing the neighborhood is here, it's a long time coming! It might not have the long history of a singular ethnic neighborhood that Little Italy does, but it's not like this is a new hood. Even the Asian population is not exactly a recent development ... there were more than 400 Asian residents as of 1980; as of 2000, that number had ballooned to more than 1,000 (the Census projected in that year that Goodrich-Kirtland was 46.5% Caucasian, 25.9% Asian, 17.4% African American and 12.6% Latino ... this has GOT to be Cleveland's most diverse neighborhood, maybe the most diverse in the state). I cannot tell you how many people ask me where I live and then say "Where's that?" and then say "I didn't even know Cleveland had a Chinatown!" - Bigotry. Let's be honest ... there is a sizable portion of the local population who think that everything between E. 12th and the Clinic is uninterrupted ghetto. I would argue that Little Italy owes at least part of its success to its brand image of being uber-white, and therefore in some minds, inherently safe. And I would argue that Asiatown owes at least some of its low frequency as a visitor destination to the brand image of being largely non-white and therefore "not a place to be after dark". I could be wrong here, but I just think people, particularly suburbanites and particularly the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boomers, are still threatened by neighborhoods that are minority-majority. Why, for instance, does Larchmere seemingly attract more visitors, despite the fact that Buckeye is equally proximate to Shaker Square and has a more intact commercial corridor? Hopefully, I'm off, but I really think that people's perceptions of place are being shaped by their outspoken feelings about race (particularly given the fact that, statistically, my neighborhood is pretty damn safe). That being said, I see nothing but good things for my hood. Look at the great work weepinwillow is doing over at Tyler Village, the fact that the neighborhood can support not one but five or six Asian markets, the drawing power of quirky establishments like Josaphat Arts Hall and Zygote Press ... it's pretty effing amazing :)

Congratulations, Weepin! I know this has been a labor of love for you guys ... and a love of labor. Everybody on Urban Ohio should be singing your guys' praises right now. These folks took an empty building with a beautiful exterior on a not-so-easy section of Lorain (that does, however, have tons of potential) and breathed new life into it. If more of us had the guts to roll up our sleeves like this, this town would look very different. Can't wait to attend some raucous parties there ;)

Not sure this is such a great thing. I do get a certain karmic pleasure out of watching them lose the annex after hogging the induction ceremony for so long, but honestly, had this become the tourist trap that it was intended to be, it could have had significant financial benefits for the Rock Hall, which only would have stood to support the marketing, development and expansion of the museum here.

It hit a lot of eastside suburbs, but it was particularly hard in Cleveland Heights. As a first-time homebuyer, I think that actually makes it MORE attractive. The amount of house you can get in Cleveland Heights, particularly given the city's many, many amenities, makes it MUCH more attractive to me than a Lyndhurst, etc. Not that I'm EVER going to buy in the suburbs :)

The Onion's coverage of Ohio passing the casino bill ... Ohio Legalized Casinos American Voices Friday, November 6, 2009 Voters in Ohio approved a plan to open casinos in the state's four largest cities. What do you think? "This could really put Cincinnati on the map." Dianne Lovecraft, Systems Analyst "It sure would be nice to see Cleveland blossom into a modern-day Atlantic City." Richard Bloch, Naphtha-Plant Treater "I cannot abide it. It will bring vice to Columbus!" Noel Derelith, Office Auditor http://www.theonion.com/content/node/99060

How did the benefit go? I had really hoped to attend, but it didn't work out. We need an UrbanOhio screening :)

One thing of note here is that the foreclosure crisis hit Cleveland Heights particularly hard. Real estate prices are starting to rebound, but from my understanding, there for a while, the median sales price was ridiculously low. A couple of my friends just bought a GORGEOUS house on Euclid Heights for an insanely low price (just a few minutes from Coventry). A ton are listed in the $50-$120K range. There were some basic repair issues they needed to address to bring it to code, but it was more or less move-in ready. So while concerns about property tax are reasonable, these might be more than offset by seizing on one of these "deal properties" and having a lower mortgage payment. When looking, I would just feel out the neighborhood and the feel you get from it, but also consider the local amenities, rate of vacancy, cleaniless, price of neighboring houses, etc. With the aforementioned area just to the east of Coventry, the Business Improvement District at Coventry suggests preservation and expansion of the great retail efforts there. Keeping an eye out for those types of developments can give you at least an intuitive sense of whether you'll get good bang for your buck in resale.

Yates: End Ohio gay-marriage ban Jon Craig, [email protected] Cincinnati Enquirer November 11, 2009 COLUMBUS - State Rep. Tyrone K. Yates wants Ohioans to vote May 4 on repealing the state's ban on gay marriage, but he acknowledges it's a long shot. The Walnut Hills Democrat introduced a resolution in the Ohio House this week that would repeal part of a 2004 amendment to the state constitution to do that. But the resolution needs 60 votes in the 99-member House, and 20 of 33 votes in the GOP-controlled Senate to get on the statewide ballot. More at ... http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20091111/NEWS0108/311110033/Yates++End+Ohio+gay+marriage+ban.

Not that it addresses issues associated with Public Auditorium, but has there been any consideration of the grassy area immediately to the east of the Administration and Development buildings? Granted, that particular area might have difficulty as far as road access, and it wouldn't be as visible as across from Key Tower, but it looks to me as though the square footage along that small greenbelt exceeds that of the 3 properties along St. Clair. It would be a narrow building, but it could run almost the entire block.

But I don't think these are generally city demos ... it just seems like a rash of private owners demoing in the past couple of months. I think the city's efforts are aimed almost exclusively at single-family homes unless there's a specific public safety hazard posed by a multi-unit building.

Nice set! Lowell was also one of the cities that really pioneered the idea of artist-based community development, investing substantially in artist live/work space as a way to drive revitalization of the downtown. Massachusetts has really set a national example for what cultural revitalization strategies can do, particularly in old industrial towns (see http://www.artistlink.org). I definitely hope Ohio ramps up similar efforts, which have worked not only in Massachusetts but places as divergent as tiny Paducah, Kentucky, and the Friendship and Garfield neighborhoods of Pittsburgh.

Alert! Quickie demolition! The two-story building just off of the northeast corner of Superior and E. 21st (the building immediately east of Daffy Dan's) has been demoed. Not an apparently historic or particularly aesthetically pleasing building, but there's now what looks to be a 40-foot gap adjacent to Superior. This demo was completed in one day ... the building was coned off yesterday, but the facade was completely intact when I went home last night at 6:30 (and I believe when I came in today), and it is completely gone now. IIRC, this section of Superior is also a Historic District, although I don't know if this building was one of the designated parcels. Anyone have any idea whether this is part of a rehab effort on either adjacent parcel? Or another surface parking lot fronting one of our busiest corridors? And is it just me or has the rate of demo on multi-unit buildings really jumped in the past few months?