8ShadesofGray

I might have gotten a little overzealous ... not sure how they stack up in terms of #s of establishments and residents (I assume Chicago wins out on both counts), but Chicago's Chinatown IS slightly spatially larger ... a perimeter of 2.1 miles to Cleveland's 1.9 miles.

Quick question. Working on a project for work and am trying to identify some vacant storefronts that could be filled for a temporary use. I have some thoughts about location, but thought I would ask for some input. I don't think we'll find anywhere in Cleveland that meets all of these requirements, but fulfilling most of them would be great. I am looking for: - A strip of street-level storefronts that is largely intact (think W. 25th, Gordon Square, etc.); - At least some storefronts within the strip that are currently vacant; - Preferably along a major corridor ... i.e. somewhere where random people would see the project; - Preferably in an area with an interesting built environment, somewhere that might not be a bastion of pedestrian activity right now, but is prime for that kind of walkability; - A location that is easily accessible by out-of-towners (i.e. downtown or easy to navigate to from downtown, preferably with reasonable access to mass transit); - A location with a relatively strong CDC; - A location that is not necessarily gentrified yet, but where Clevelanders would generally be willing to venture without fear of crime, etc; - A place where an arts project might be unexpected. Any thoughts you have would be GREATLY appreciated.

Certainly not. Not saying we should be applauding the County Commissioners or Jacobs or anyone involved in what is at best a real estate transaction that deserves at least some level of public scrutiny. I was more talking about many's statement that only a very small group of preservation "freaks" were upset about the decision and very late in the game. If such a small segment of the population only had a very passing interest in the tower, I don't think it would have generated the 10th highest number of blog activity nationwide ... that kind of volume suggests that it was a major community issue, and if anything, it's a rationale for going back to the commissioners and saying "voters obviously care about this; isn't it time that you had a transparent, public process for how the site is preserved/demolished, sold/retained, etc.

The Asiatown website is up and running and looking pretty great ... now let us Urban Ohioans go out and spread the good word that, yes, Cleveland does have a Chinatown, one of the larger Chinatowns in the U.S. and perhaps the largest in the Midwest. http://www.asiatowncleveland.com/

I know there has been quite a bit of conversation about how there wasn't enough public dialogue or public outcry about the Breuer tower, but outside.in disagrees. Their research indicates that Breuer is the tenth "bloggiest place" in the U.S., i.e. the building with the tenth highest blog commentary of all building-related blog discussions in the country. Interestingly, controversies surrounding Forest City's Atlantic Yards project in NYC made it the second bloggiest place in the country, actually beating out blog discussions of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis :-o http://outside.in/public/bloggiest_places

^ Dunno about that, but an application was submitted for an Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit for Terminal Tower, with an estimated rehabilitation expense of $26.7 million. Not sure if this is to support the existing rehabilitation work or another rehabilitation project within the complex. Either way, obviously not cheap.

Depending on the type of built environment you like, any of those three could be very nice. Shaker is relatively quiet, but the lot sizes tend to be very large, and the majority of the community is very park-like (due to the meandering boulevards and the ... well ... many parks). Cleveland Heights to me has the "hippest" vibe, but that's hard to quantify and probably reflects my own biases as an east sider (well, a near east sider). Lakewood is nice, too, with lots of density in areas and definitely an abundance of retail. As for your mention of crime rates in the heights, I'm not sure I agree. Shaker Heights has always seemed to me to be very safe (though I couldn't find crime statistics). FBI statistics from 2006 actually show Cleveland Heights with comparable or lower per capita crime rates than Lakewood (per 100,000 residents): Violent crime: Lakewood, 203.0; Cleveland Heights, 39.5 Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter: Lakewood, 1.9; Cleveland Heights, 2.1 Forcible rape: Lakewood, 7.5; Cleveland Heights, 0.0 Robbery: Lakewood, 114.7; Cleveland Heights, 35.3 Aggravated assault: Lakewood, 79.0; Cleveland Heights, 2.1 Property crime: Lakewood, 2,402.6; Cleveland Heights, 1,258.4 Burglary: Lakewood, 490.7; Cleveland Heights, 166.4 Larceny-theft: Lakewood, 1,620.6; Cleveland Heights, 911.0 Motor vehicle theft: Lakewood, 291.4; Cleveland Heights, 181.0 Arson: Lakewood, 16.9; Cleveland Heights, 0.0 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_08_oh.html That being said, the FBI warns against trying to rate "safety" between different municipalities based on crime rates. Moreover, all three are very safe. One final note, I also wouldn't give up on living in the city proper. Particularly if school systems aren't important, you could live in a Cleveland neighborhood adjacent to Lakewood, Cleveland Heights or Shaker Heights with comparable or better lot sizes, access to retail/culture, rental/mortgage rates, proximity to mass transit, etc. Equally importantly, if you're considering buying, Cleveland has the highest number of new construction starts of any of the municipalities (as well as a ton of rehabbed spaces, many of which are historic "century homes") and the most competitive tax abatement program in the region. A number of lenders also offer low-interest rate home loans within the city (or at least they did prior to the current housing environment emerged ... will have to check and see if they're still out there). Specific areas that come to mind (given your preferences) are the bluffs overlooking Little Italy, the housing in and around Shaker Square, the Edgewater neighborhood in the 100s and 110s and the Cleveland properties near the Rocky River Reservation. Not trying to dissuade you from Lakewood or the heights, all of which are very nice. Just want you to be aware that living a couple of blocks over could mean substantially lower property taxes with comparable amenities.

Also, just half a mile to the east, you can already enjoy some Phoenix love (Superior and E. 22nd). You also have Artefino at Superior & E. 19th and the new place in the Theater District, along with a handful of Starbucks (including 2 at Steelyard Commons alone). Then you have Talkies just across the river and Civilization and Lucky's in Tremont. Maybe not as spatially as close as we would like in winter, but we are talking about roughly a dozen coffee shops within two miles of each other.

Six Cleveland projects awarded historic-preservation tax credits Saturday, December 29, 2007 Alison Grant, Plain Dealer Reporter State subsidies of more than $4.7 million are expected to breathe life into six projects to renovate historic buildings in Cleveland. The projects are among 11 across Ohio that received historic preservation tax credits to renovate historic buildings for commercial or residential use. The credits are property tax discounts equal to 25 percent of qualifying expenses in the projects. http://www.cleveland.com/business/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/business-4/1198921019280260.xml&coll=2

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ANNOUNCES HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX CREDIT AWARDS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 28, 2007 Columbus, OH -- Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher today announced an additional 11 awards through the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit program, which awards refundable tax credits to owners of historic buildings who renovate and rehabilitate the buildings in preparation for commercial or residential uses. The Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit program will provide recipients tax credits equal to 25 percent of qualified rehabilitation expenditures ... ... More at http://www.odod.state.oh.us/newsroom/releases/1849.asp

I've suggested the same thing! Each BRT station having a different Cleveland innovation/invention, selling a brand of Cleveland as a leader of innovation and birthplace of American staples. Start with a giant solar public light display on Public Square (home of the world's first electric street lamps) and featuring a mini-Wind Turbine (first electricity-generating turbine in the world), a tribute to Superman, Chef Boyardee, Lifesavers' Candy, nation's first community foundation, nation's second largest theatre complex, nation's first African American cultural organization, etc., etc., etc. Make it so!

I dunno, steep grades in San Fran (#2) and Seattle (#3) don't seem to be hurting them too badly. And hilly Pittsburgh comes in at #36 to Cincy's #53.

As this is their primary fundraiser, local support for setting up the event, a good showing at the induction and a sizable donation of funds at the event will all make it likelier that Cleveland hosts it in the future. I wonder if the financial results of the 1997 induction were lackluster or if the decision to move it to NYC was more arbitrary.

From the Mayor's Office: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 19, 2007 Cleveland Mayor Frank G. Jackson partners with Rock Hall to hold 2009 Inductions in Cleveland Induction ceremony and other major initiatives support Rock Hall’s mission CLEVELAND – Cleveland Mayor Frank G. Jackson, City Council President Martin Sweeney, Joel Peresman, President and CEO of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation and Terry Stewart, President and CEO of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, were joined by Rock Hall Board Members to announce today that the 2009 Rock Hall Inductions would be held in Cleveland in March 2009, with the option of bringing them back to the City every three years. In addition, the Rock Hall announced additional measures designed to support its mission and capital campaign ... ... More at http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/pdf/press/20071219366.pdf

Ah, that's a methodology I can get behind, even if it is a little simple and doesn't take into account specific characteristics of walkability (multi-use, density, dedicated bike lanes, etc.). Two things I would note ... First, these rankings are based on 2000 Census data, so we may see some movement after 2010 info is in. Second, in 2000, there were 67 American cities with populations of 250,000 or more, so placing in the top 20 or so is actually not too shabby (although, obviously, all Ohio cities could stand to improve). While Columbus didn't place on any of the Top 25 lists, it is worth noting that Columbus did have the highest rate of bicycle commute among its Ohio peers (0.35% compared to Cleveland and Toledo's 0.22% and Cincy's 0.20%), but all Ohio cities ranked in the bottom half of the group in this category (Columbus at 41, Toledo at 48, Cleveland at 49 and Cincy at 53).

For the Cleveland list, I'd also consider the wind turbine. While it might not have the history of some of the other landmarks mentioned, it does have a distinctive quality (personally, I've never seen a wind turbine in the CBD in any of the cities I've visited) and speaks to the overall brand image that Cleveland is trying to carve out ... an industrial city reinventing itself as a center for green technology. Moreover, local Charles Brush's wind turbine was the first example of an electricity-generating turbine in the world ... that's pretty cool.

Grants from cigarette tax revenues likely within a year Wednesday, December 12, 2007 Some Cuyahoga County artists and performers will likely get their hands on a chunk of the county's cigarette-tax money within a year. Trustees for Cuyahoga Arts and Culture, the agency created to administer the tax of 1.5 cents per cigarette, met Tuesday and said they expect to have a plan for doling out about $500,000 in grants to individual artists by late 2008 ... ... More at http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-0/1197452598280820.xml&coll=2

Not as much as a collage that included this ...

I'm not sure about that ... there are a ton of people down there on the existing (repair-required) boardwalk during spring and summer months ... the little short stretch just beyond the public pier typically has 10-15 people fishing off of the boardwalk on weekends ... another 10-15 are usually fishing along the pier. On bike trips from E. 36th down Marginal Road, up the lakefront bike trail to MLK, I also usually saw an average of 50 or so people cycling, walking or running the trail on any given trip (obviously, a good deal more during Walk and Roll, Red Ribbon Ride, Parade the Circle, etc.). That being said, I agree ... you won't hit the volume of people you might be inclined to without expanding additional public use around a boardwalk.

From my perspective, this is a real shame. Would we be talking about just the marina portion of the park or the pier and the boardwalk as well? Maybe I'm being a NIMBY, and I recognize that something had to go, short of building offshore, but it is nice to have a park, bike trail and cafe (Andrea's) all centered around E. 55th, and the area is surprisingly well used. Not to mention, on a shoreline peppered with private, semi-exclusive yacht clubs, it's nice to have a public launching area.

Thought it might be appropriate to mention the Great Lakes Urban Exchange here in case you missed the post I did at http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=14758.0. Two individuals (one in Pittsburgh and one in Detroit) are launching a Brookings Institute project that will document what young people are doing to revitalize urban areas in the Great Lakes region, as well as the challenges and opportunities they face. In February, they'll be launching a website of blog content and documentary videos, as they travel to cities throughout the Great Lakes states meeting with young leaders. Ultimately, they're hoping to spark a regional dialogue about how young people throughout the region can connect, collaborate and build a shared agenda in advance of the 2008 presidential election. They're interested in identifying young movers and shakers in each of the 3 Cs who are doing transformative work in things like land bank, transit, combatting racial segregation, civic engagement, sustainability, affordable housing, etc. They'll be conducting site visits soon ... I know they're visiting Cleveland at the end of next week. If you would like to get in touch with the co-founders, PM me, and I can give you their contact info. This seems like a great way for many young leaders in the 3 Cs to start networking and exploring shared agendas not only in Ohio but throughout the region.

At the same time, though, it makes Cleveland look underservedly bad to individuals who've never been to Cleveland. Had I stayed in Indiana after undergrad and not moved to Cleveland, and had I seen this report, with Cleveland considered far less walkable than greater Miami, I would have thought the city was in one of Dante's circles of hell ... a circle with sh!tty weather and no sidewalks. Had the researcher identified even THREE walkable places in the entire metropolitan area, we'd be on par with Chicago, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Portland ... places that I would associate us with from my travels. The problem is that this research had very little to do with walkability and more to do with the regional draw of regions' respective walkable places. Cities with large pedestrian-oriented tourist populations CLEARLY had an advantage. Had this report highlighted Cleveland's true weaknesses when it comes to connectivity, walkability, etc., I'd understand your point ... but instead of focusing on how sprawl has contributed to underutility of our walkable neighborhoods or the fact that we could be doing a better job to expose visitors to neighborhoods throughout greater Cleveland, it's making it sound like we lack the basic infrastructure for people to walk around comfortably. I think Stark would be better served by a report that explored true indicators of what constitutes a desirable, walkable neighborhood, rather than what we got.

I suppose it would depend on the value of the house and the amount of pay. While both pay payroll taxes, part of the Strongsville resident's taxes go to Cleveland and part to Strongsville (and the respective services that each city offers for the homeless, while the Cleveland resident's payroll tax goes exclusively to the city of Cleveland. Assuming both are paying the 2% rate on payroll tax, the Strongsville person is paying more toward homeless services if a larger portion of Strongsville's payroll tax receipts go toward supporting homeless services than do Cleveland's payroll tax receipts) OR if the amount of their property taxes that go toward supporting county-level homeless services plus the amount of payroll taxes going to Strongsville and Cleveland homeless services exceeds the other individual's Cleveland payroll taxes going to homeless services. It's a difficult question to answer unless we know the expenses of Strongsville's, Cleveland's and Cuyahoga County's services to homeless individuals, as well as the percentage of respective agencies' budgets that are supported by payroll taxes or property taxes, compared to other forms of revenues (if, for instance, the city of Cleveland is able to draw substantial federal dollars that reduce the need to allocate taxpayer dollars toward homeless services and Strongsville relies almost exclusively on taxpayer dollars). We also shouldn't discount that the Strongsville individual may be more likely to make purchases outside of Cuyahoga County and avoiding the portion of sales tax that goes back to Cuyahoga County's general fund. Or that the Cleveland taxpayer indirectly pays property taxes by portions of their rent offsetting landlord's property taxes (landlords generally factor levels of property tax into their rents; if property taxes increase for the landlord, they may be inclined to offset this with higher rents, meaning that the renter is in fact paying property tax as well). Moreover, while the Strongsville resident MAY be paying more toward homeless services, their locational decision to live far away from the city proper also may contribute to the prevalence of homelessness ... with sprawl contributing to a faltering central economy and concentrations of impoverishment that make homelessness more likely than in mixed income communities. They are just a single person, but their decision still may play some role in increasing the likelihood of homeless problems in the central city, so no matter how minimal their contribution to this burden might be, we should still consider it. The Strongsville also escape the psychological and economic burdens of living in close proximity to large populations of the homeless, such as lower property values, etc., meaning that the Cleveland resident is left paying higher ancillary costs outside of their tax contribution. I understand your point, and you may very well be right ... just wanted to note that this issue is hardly as simple as who contributes more tax revenue to Cleveland and Cuyahoga County.

They have 18 applicants ahead of them ... with any luck, they'll be toward the tail-end of the next pool of reviewed applications, which looks like it's going to occur sometime in January. If their qualified rehab expenses are accurate, and if they're approved, they'd receive a credit in excess of $1 million. Excited for them!

Vomit in my mouth.