<b>Cleveland Health-Tech Corridor could solve space problem</b>

 

 

Laboratory and office space for up-and-coming biomedical companies has been tight in the University Circle area of Cleveland for several years.

 

Not a bad problem to have, until you start turning away promising young tenants for lack of space. And consider this: Northeast Ohio, which had about 250 biomedical companies in 2003, now has more than 600. So the space problem is probably getting worse.

 

 

http://www.medcitynews.com/2010/04/cleveland-health-tech-corridor-could-solve-space-problem/

My land-use criticisms remain... wrong focus for "main street" and poor utilization of the new transit system.  Also, massive lost opportunity to create an attractive and marketable CSU-Case student life district.  I'd prefer to see all this health-tech development take place along the proposed Opportunity Corridor blvd, for several reasons. 

 

But I'm not blind to the inevitable.  This thing has momentum and enjoys the support of virtually everyone in power.  The fix is in.  All that lip service we heard about developing urban neighborhoods along Euclid is now firmly in the past.  The only residential there will be for those who have limited options, or who are moving to Euclid Avenue by court order.  As stated earlier, at length, my approach to developing the corridor would be 180 degrees from this.

 

Oh well.  "It is what it is."  Here's my take on the bright side:  Presumably this bio-med stuff will not receive the categorical exemption from property taxes that hospitals get, so Euclid Avenue should end up being more lucrative for the city than under a residential-heavy approach.  It's a payoff that's largely unrelated to the HealthLine, but it's a payoff nonetheless.  Post hoc ergo propter hoc!

 

More importantly, we have moneyed interests wanting to do this development ASAP, one for which Euclid Ave is ready in the immediate sense.  Waiting for the OC to be built could result in missing our open window to get this underway.  And there's no doubt in my mind that Cleveland needs its bio-science district to exist sooner rather than later.

 

So OK, we'll have hi-tech hi-$ employment lined up between downtown and UC.  The corollary of this is that we expect the accompanying residential to develop at the poles of this corridor.  OK, cool.  But please let's consider the forms of housing we're focusing on at these poles.  Recall the two incoming Clinic doctors who recently asked for advice on finding modern high-rise housing nearby.  Each came from somewhere that offered this housing type in abundance... and each displayed minimal interest in historic structures, let alone any of our lovely new "family-friendly" tract housing like Beacon Place or St. Luke's point. 

 

Obviously the Uptown project will help in this regard.  But assuming our new bio-tech corridor takes off, that'll be a drop in the bucket.  It's high time that CMHA stopped dominating the high-rise market in the City of Cleveland, particularly on the East Side.  Modern high-rises are an important part of any balanced urban housing market.  At the moment our offerings are highly skewed, or rather, squatly skewed.  For maximum benefit, this imbalance needs to be addressed in conjunction with the bio-tech corridor.                       

^ I share the same vision for the corridor and the need for specific housing. I really do not understand the logic that has guided the design of what is supposed to be this city's 'feature' street....to becoming what it is. I don't agree wit it either. Of all possible places this sort of thing could have been done.

^Really, you don't understand the logic of focusing one of the few promising growth industries in the region towards underused land near the anchor institutions that help generate the potential for this growth?

 

I would be ecstatic to see high density residential development on the corridor, but I think you guys overestimate the current market potential there.  How much new-build high density residential development has come on line downtown and in University Circle, both much more desirable, over the past 10 years?  How long has it taken to get Uptown off the ground, despite its prime location, despite subsidized planning and land acquisition?

 

And if a new residential high rise were built at East 75th, would you really tell a new Clinic hire posting here looking for a "safe" or "nice neighborhood" to move there?

 

Over all I think this Health Tech Corridor v. Residential development debate you set up is a false choice.  I think it's going to be a lot easier to attract some commercial development to midtown, and only then will mid/high rise residential be close to viable.  And if it is, there should be plenty of room for it.  This idea that new commercial development will crowd out residential in midtown reminds me of the discussion we had about gentrification of Glenville.  It's just not on the radar as a problem.

 

Whether its commercial or residential, the number one concern for me is site and building design.  The Clinic has obviously done a horrible job, not only with its own campus, but also selling off chunks for the low density non profit buildings on Euclid near E105th.  Those projects may really come back to haunt us because of their prime location.  But that was a while ago when the Clinic was in simple blight elimination mode.  Let's hope they've evolved.

^Very thoughtful post.

I agree that creating newer housing on the east side should be a priority but i agree with straphanger that there is just not enough desire to live in midtown.  Even if Euclid was developed, if you go a block north or south you would still be in a rough neighborhood.  I see the chester-105th area as more viable because of its proximity to university circle but the area between maybe e. 40ish and e. 80ish might be better served with this medical technology development.

I agree that the idea of residential in Midtown is dead now. 

 

But very little modern high-density housing has been built in downtown or UC.  A wee bit has appeared in each, but most of this is for-purchase only, not rentals.  What we need is high-rise rental units.  Think: Lakewood's Gold Coast... but closer to the big employment centers that draw urban-minded out of towners, who may be here on limited engagements but could eventually be convinced to settle and purchase. 

 

No, E75th would not be a great ("safe") place to plop an apartment tower.  But downtown and UC are, and I'm suggesting that we prioritize getting new apartment towers built at both ends of the corridor.  I believe that balancing our residential options is necessary to ensure the success of the hi-tech corridor plan.  We're competing for capital with places that don't have this sort of imbalance. 

 

I don't necessarily agree with the idea of this mandatory sequence, i.e. we have to build the entire industrial park before there's any demand for any new residential.  That area is already brimming with hi-end employment; what it lacks is housing that entices anyone to move in (non-commitally) and try living near work.  People who aren't willing to buy in the city might be willing to rent there.  Yes, I believe this demand has been underestimated.  But it's critical to recognize that this demand is specific to modern urban rentals.       

 

I also don't believe prime plots are nearly as infinite as is suggested, and I mourn the wastefulness of Beacon Place and St. Lukes.  There never was any unmet demand for new tract housing in the East 80s, nor at MLK and Shaker.  If apartment towers aren't appropriate at those locations, these off-the-shelf suburban-generic for-purchase units were even less so.  And now those plots are gone. 

 

I suppose it's debatable whether there's unmet demand for high rise apartments in the middle of a major city that inexplicably has none, but it seems quite clear that the family-oriented residential we've been building in that area instead has been thoroughly misguided.  I understand that we want families with kids to settle in Cleveland... but come on.  That's the last wave, not the first.  Let's bring in some singles first.  Those are the people who are most interested in city living.  Right now we do not have enough housing that appeals to them at their stage of life.   

 

***

 

As for putting all the bio-tech stuff on Main Street, which I find ludicrous based on any and all observable models... I've officially surrendered.  That debate seems to be over.  At this point, yes, design and siting are the main concerns.  Euclid Avenue WILL BE an industrial park, and all previous aspirations to the contrary are dead.  The viability of alternative visions is now irrelevant.   

I agree with 327.  With the various big construction projects that will be hitting Cleveland in the next 4-5 years we have not heard about any plans for high rise developments.  A certain city 100 miles away in PA seems to be constantly building them as they seem rather popular with the folks there.   

 

I would think an affordable energy efficient high-rise near E4, the warehouse district, playhouse sq, etc., would do very well in attracting tenants.  But I guess its easier to sit on a parking lot to collect cash rather than take a chance and somewhat of a big risk in this environment on building something downtown that hasn't been really done here.

No, E75th would not be a great ("safe") place to plop an apartment tower.  But downtown and UC are, and I'm suggesting that we prioritize getting new apartment towers built at both ends of the corridor.  I believe that balancing our residential options is necessary to ensure the success of the hi-tech corridor plan.

 

Agreed, the powers that be should prioritize getting medium/high density residential built downtown and UC.  So, UCI, Case and the Cleveland Foundations should, for example,  team up to secure land, pay for top notch master planning and to recruit a developer to make it happen at UC.  Maybe something like this: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,11359.0.html

 

And downtown, the public sector should bend over backwards to subsidize high density residential through historic preservation tax credits, publicly funded infrastructure work and creative conditional sales of city owned parking lots.  I'm too lazy to post the links to the downtown residential projects in these categories.

 

Point being, I don't see you can possibly say that medium/high density residential isn't already being prioritized downtown and at UC.  The only reason why residential projects are happening there is because it's a priority.  I don't think we're really on different pages here in what we want to see, but I think your expectations for what master planning can do for Midtown given our market are a bit unrealistic.

 

EDIT: and really, I think there is plenty of room, both literally (land) and in the imagination of planners here if a risk-tolerant, creative developer did come up with a viable plan for some housing here.  This corridor initiative is creating the infrastructure to help lure and then nurture biotech, it's not a rezoning that will make residential impossible.  If anything, this will make residential more viable on the avenue.  So please look at it that way.  This increases the viability of residential development in Midtown.

^Really, you don't understand the logic of focusing one of the few promising growth industries in the region towards underused land near the anchor institutions that help generate the potential for this growth?

 

Personally, (as a general rule of thumb--meaning I acknowledge gray areas) I feel it is a sign of a physically failing society (in a free falling state...thinking its flying) that one of the biggest industries that is growing is relating to conventional health care/high tech...Or...the kind of industry which makes more profit on promotion of 'treating' and prescribing drugs..... than addressing causes/effects and promoting prevention as 'cures' and/or real cure. Does this mean we're really getting healthier? I feel a thriving economy will eventually be driven by a healthy population of people. The healthier the people, the better the widgets.

 

The fact that we have this booming growth in so called "health care/tech.", to me...never really had me jumping on that bandwagon of pride. But that is me... I tend to follow more the school and industry of homeopath/nutrition, etc. all which can also create jobs and growth. Remember.....Just because something is 'growing' does not always merit socially redeeming value in a balanced way for all. For a few maybe, but again, I wouldn't build my economy around things that appease or promote unhealthy and insatiable lifestyles that degrade the body, mind and soul. Growth beyond maturity is cancer. (Man I wish I remember who said that!)

 

In the end, I have no problem with such a tech corridor, but not as the main focus for the city's main showpiece avenue to the world. Philosophically speaking, I don't and never will subscribe to the 'jobs/growth' at any cost ideology which is a lot of what I see with this focus. What I see as a result is our main avenue being a testament/poster child to social dysfunction and failure and the industries that cash in on it. So...not blindly opposed to 'growth'...just opposed to blind growth. But then again, maybe we should show this to the world and quit trying to hide it.

Industrial parks and mental hospitals do not encourage adjacent residential development.  They work strongly against it.  Not everything goes well together.  Propose this stuff for any currently desirable residential area and rotten vegetables will come flying at the stage.  This is why I'm no longer advocating residential in Midtown, at least not on Euclid.  The potential viability of such is already dropping like a rock. 

 

"Mixed-use" does not include biomedical research, or any other kind of industry... residential-yes, offices-yes, retail-yes, entertainment-yes... but not secured research facilities.  The nature of that business requires tightly controlled access... not neighbors, not tourists, not street activity.  If nothing else, think of the insurance rates.  Perhaps biomedical research can anchor the region's economy, but that doesn't mean it can anchor a walkable neighborhood.  Tacos are great, and Valvoline is great, but Valvoline's not very good on tacos.

 

So, OK, we'll focus on downtown and UC for residential growth.  My point is that we really need to address the lack of modern high rise rental units in those two areas.  I think the unmet demand is concentrated in this segment.  If we don't meet that demand, it will impair our influx of young entrepreneurs and professionals, and that will impair the development of our tech corridor. 

 

I'm not suggesting we stop doing historical renovations.  There's obviously a market for that too.  But we're not getting to the next level of growth until we address what we're lacking.  I know there are several vague conceptual plans out there to build some towers.  I'm saying we need to move those up the priority board in a hurry... and in the UC area, we need to push back against the NIMBYs who fight height. 

^I actually agree that the mental hospital would have been a great fit for a site along a well designed opportunity corridor near a red line station, but that's years away.  So as a second best, I'm OK with the hospital on what is probably the least desirable part of the Euclid corridor, near public housing and near pretty much zero amenities (not a place likely to attract market rate housing).  So I am at least happy the hospital will be on a major transit line and will be brining jobs to the corridor and the city.  I wouldn't be so quick to take even that for granted...

 

And I agree that I would have loved to see some more height in the Uptown development- the unit count for the first phases is really low and the uniform 4 stories is a little dull architecturally, IMHO.  But I have no idea how much of that is NIMBY and v. MRN's (and their financiers') assessment of market demand.  Nor do I know the vacancy rate of the Triangle highrises, which would be a useful data point.  I am pretty confident the demand will be there at UC, but until a project goes first to build confidence, good luck finding financing.  And I don't know if the rent levels are there to underwrite projects that aren't subsidized.  Regarding downtown, what do you propose the city do?  Should a poor, financially strapped city write a $30M check to a developer to build a highrise to house well-educated, relatively high paid yuppies?  That's a pretty perverse outcome, IMHO.

 

And I think you are way wrong when it comes to the bio-tech and other tech development.  This can be highly desirable stuff that in other places has been easily integrated into mixed use developments.  That's not a promise that we'll end up with street level retail and alternating commercial and residential on Euclid, but if we don't, I don't think it will be because it's biotech as opposed to law offices.

Regarding downtown, what do you propose the city do? Should a poor, financially strapped city write a $30M check to a developer to build a highrise to house well-educated, relatively high paid yuppies?

 

Absolutely 100% yes.  How long does the city wish to be financially strapped? 

 

Presumably this "handout" would be in loan form, and if said yuppies are indeed highly paid, the city should have no problem getting its money back and then some.  Not to mention the consumer spending...!  All of these plans, tech corridor included, are aimed at increasing the city's tax base.  So if attracting yuppies isn't the goal, then what exactly is the goal?  As discussed above, it's not like the city hasn't already been spending money on new housing for this very purpose.  We can keep doing it wrong, or start doing it right.

Residential development almost always lags commercial development in a particular geographic area.

I agree with 327. With the various big construction projects that will be hitting Cleveland in the next 4-5 years we have not heard about any plans for high rise developments. A certain city 100 miles away in PA seems to be constantly building them as they seem rather popular with the folks there.

 

I would think an affordable energy efficient high-rise near E4, the warehouse district, playhouse sq, etc., would do very well in attracting tenants. But I guess its easier to sit on a parking lot to collect cash rather than take a chance and somewhat of a big risk in this environment on building something downtown that hasn't been really done here.

 

Uh, 515 Euclid Avenue.  Hmmm.

Before we start "filling in" the long, thin stretch of Euclid Ave in the MidTown neighborhood with block after block of dense retail and residences, I would prefer to first see "a few" things happen in the anchor neighborhoods of Downtown and UC, creating the spill-over necessary for developers to take a serious look at making such investments in Midtown.   

I would think an affordable energy efficient high-rise near E4, the warehouse district, playhouse sq, etc., would do very well in attracting tenants. But I guess its easier to sit on a parking lot to collect cash rather than take a chance and somewhat of a big risk in this environment on building something downtown that hasn't been really done here.

 

I dream of a high-rise on the parking lot at East 4th and Prospect.  With built in parking.  And an ESPN Zone.  Ah, well.  Guy can dream, right?

My land-use criticisms remain... wrong focus for "main street" and poor utilization of the new transit system. Also, massive lost opportunity to create an attractive and marketable CSU-Case student life district. I'd prefer to see all this health-tech development take place along the proposed Opportunity Corridor blvd, for several reasons.

 

Euclid Avenue from Public Square to East 105th is about four miles long.  So I don't think it will (or should be) "one thing".  It's not going to be all residential and office above with retail and restaurants below.  It's also not going to be all hospitals and biotech.  It's going to be a mix.  And I think there's room for it all.  Multiple users from multiple developers and interested created over time could make it an interesting area.

Euclid Avenue from Public Square to East 105th is about four miles long.  So I don't think it will (or should be) "one thing". 

 

True.  Considering the entirety, it's not like Euclid will ever be single-purpose.  Downtown is downtown, and then there's almost no open land on Euclid between the CSU and E55th.  It's the 55th-to-CCF section that offers a mostly bare canvas, and even that part is less empty than we sometimes hear.  It already has two small groceries and scattered residential. 

 

But I still don't expect to see many other uses being developed on that stretch, now that the industrial and institutional stuff appears certain.  Everything I've read about the coming developments indicates zero desire on the developers' part to intermix any neighborhood features, and minimal desire by the city to fight them.  I expect strictly industrial park type stuff, sprawly and cheap to build, with a preference for suburban land use elements.  The idea is to keep rents down and eliminate complications for tenants.  If you can't, they'll find someone that will.

 

Pick a town, any town, place yourself at the outskirts, and imagine what you'd see on a dead-end street with a name like "Enterprise Drive" or "Snicklefritz Industrial Parkway Extension."  Certain areas of W150th also come to mind, as well as parts of 82 and 91 in Twinsburg.  This is the kind of place where "tech" happens... it looks the way it does for a reason, and not because they hate architecture.  It's simply a money thing.

 

I dream of a high-rise on the parking lot at East 4th and Prospect.  With built in parking.  And an ESPN Zone. 

 

You and me both.

  I would think an affordable energy efficient high-rise near E4, the warehouse district, playhouse sq, etc., would do very well in attracting tenants.  But I guess its easier to sit on a parking lot to collect cash rather than take a chance and somewhat of a big risk in this environment on building something downtown that hasn't been really done here.

 

I dream of a high-rise on the parking lot at East 4th and Prospect.  With built in parking.  And an ESPN Zone.  Ah, well.  Guy can dream, right?

 

One of THE MOST valuable lots downtown, especially with a casino a block or two away in one direction, Quicken Loans Arena across the street in another direction, and East 4th on another.  Talk about potential!

 

I've pretty much abandoned the idea of having a mixed use residential neighborhood along this stretch.  It's obvious that much more powerful forces were in play since the Healthline was completed.  Since the region is pushing for a health-tech corridor, I'm all for it.  We might not get a cohesive neighborhood in Midtown, but there are other areas of the city which will undoubtedly benefit from the corridor. Glenville, Hough, and Fairfax are three right off the bat- great potential for new developments in the neighborhoods surrounding the stretch. 

Consider the vacant Public Square parcel.  With MedMart/Convention Center nearby, why not a combo hotel/office/residential building?

Consider the vacant Public Square parcel. With MedMart/Convention Center nearby, why not a combo hotel/office/residential building?

 

Jacobs had a plan for that lot that fell with the economy.  I hope that will be resurrected soon.

not sure if anything was ever posted on the 100 gigabit network for the Health Tech Corridor, I did a search and did not find anything...  other than the initial burst of news there has not been much info....  this is the world's first commercial 100 gig network and it's right here at home, this makes cleveland a magnet for big data....  I've posted some initial info and the most up to date I could find..

 

 

Lighting Up the Network of Tomorrow, Now

 

Cleveland. 4th Quarter 2015. 100 Gigs. OneCommunity will be lighting up the first and only commercially available 100 Gigabit fiber network in the country. The network will traverse and span the 1,600 acre 3-mile Health-Tech Corridor (HTC), home to Cleveland’s accelerating high-tech community, and further position Cleveland as a Smart City. Public and private institutions and businesses will be able to leverage the power and potential of this infrastructure as a platform for exponential growth and innovation./quote]

 

http://rethinkcleveland.org/Media-Center/News/lIghting-Up-the-Network-of-Tomorrow,-Now.aspx#.VgBTa1DOLSI.twitter