Over the weekend, I was in Atlanta and impressed with Peachtree St/Rd. There were many distinct neighborhoods that resembled urban centers ( DOwntown.Midtown/ Art District, Buckhead)  Could Euclid Avenue follow this model? Could we see other urban centers with skyscaper hotels and condo in University Circle and Midtown/55th?  Shopping District between Midtown and University Circle?

I cannot wait until MTS sees this :wink:

 

I am not sure I understand the question.  Do you think the lack of development on Euclid Ave as opposed to Peachtree street is due to too much zoning, too little?  Do you think zoning is the biggest challenge for Euclid Ave?

Or that zoning is the only variable which differs in determining development along the two streets?  Or even that the type of development along Peachtree Street is such a lofty goal?  (I see it as a wide highway through a skyscraper canyon, with little street activity, especially around Buckhead.)

I cannot wait until MTS sees this ;)

 

 

Ugh...you know I hate comparison threads

Developers with TONS of cash more often than not get's zoning changed. The next question would be which developer would risk the development if there is not much demand for it. I know people have said build it and they will come. But i think companies these days wants more than that.

This is Cleveland- it's TOO EASY in many circumstances to get zoning variances.  At this point in time, I would stick with zoning until demand picks up (WAY up) to the point where developers would have no choice but to build at high densities.  Otherwise, we end up with "what the market demands".

You wanna know why Peachtree St in Atlanta has seen more development than Euclid Ave in Cleveland? Simply put, it has to do with the fruit reference. People like peaches. People don't like math classes. Next question please.

 

  Atlanta is growing while Cleveland is shrinking. (Sorry, Clevelanders.)

 

  In a growing city, new development is typically denser than what was there before. In a shrinking city, new development is often less dense than what was there before.

I'm not sure where people are getting their demand measurments here, but that's not the thread question anyway.  The question is whether getting rid of zoning would lead to desirable developments.  The answer:  No.  That doesn't even make any sense.  If you zone for desirable development, and you enforce it, you eventually get what you want.  Maybe not right away, but the alternative is getting what you don't want and getting it even faster.  That outcome is two different kinds of bad.  This is not complex. 

 

Cleveland's problem is not that it has zoning... it's that most of the zoning is outdated and suburban-oriented... and that when truly urban zoning is set up, a la Midtown, it simply gets ignored.  If you want a certain outcome, it is insanity to bypass or eliminate rules that point directly to your desired outcome.  So if you want something, and you have the capacity to make rules, then make your desired outcome the rule.  If you want it but you don't do that, you have no business complaining when something else happens. 

Sorry for not being an urban planner, I just wonder why we don't see high density housing in University Circle. I find it really odd that cities like St. Louis, Atlanta, Dallas and Houston all have these activity centers around medical centers and schools that rival downtown business districts. University Circle should resemble those areas, it has more cultural, educational and medical prowess than 90% of the communities these activity centers are found in. I don't know much, just thinking, Atlanta  and St. Louis have some shady neighborhoods bordering the spectacular activity centers. I am just hopeful that Euclid will return to being the hotbed of urban activity. It's been 50 years, but Cleveland has one of the best grids in the US. Perfect for population growth and new industry. Wouldn't it be great to see hotels in University Circle? I actually wish the convention center was located along Euclid between midtown and uptown, it makes too much sense.

Glenville, I share your concerns and I'm no less curious about what the deal is.  Whoever solves this first... wins.

If zoning is so rigid as to demand only one specific type of development, then it is by definition hostile to any other form of development, whether or not the needs and wants of the community change after the enacting of said zoning laws.  If all development that would be profitable is forbidden and all development permitted is a likely loss, then the development will go elsewhere.

 

Zoning should either be eliminated or at least made so that it's friendly to what people want to build and buy, not what Internet preachers wish people would want to build and buy.

Sorry for not being an urban planner, I just wonder why we don't see high density housing in University Circle. I find it really odd that cities like St. Louis, Atlanta, Dallas and Houston all have these activity centers around medical centers and schools that rival downtown business districts. University Circle should resemble those areas, it has more cultural, educational and medical prowess than 90% of the communities these activity centers are found in. I don't know much, just thinking, Atlanta and St. Louis have some shady neighborhoods bordering the spectacular activity centers. I am just hopeful that Euclid will return to being the hotbed of urban activity. It's been 50 years, but Cleveland has one of the best grids in the US. Perfect for population growth and new industry. Wouldn't it be great to see hotels in University Circle? I actually wish the convention center was located along Euclid between midtown and uptown, it makes too much sense.

 

 

I often wondered why similar cities developed so differently and how much zoning played into that.  To me, Vancouver BC is a prime example.  A city smaller than Seattle but high rise developments everywhere, even in the inner ring suburbs serviced by light rail surrounded by fields!  I always attributed this to immigration from Hong Kong and Taiwan where this is what people are used to living in but maybe I am wrong?

I'm with you Glenville.  I have always thpught that Midtown needs a destination center such as a ballpark or convention center that will revitalize this stretch of Euclid.  It is not so much of a risk as putting up an office building or a residential complex.  No matter the neighborhood, Jacobs Field or the Q would still pull in at least 15 to 20k a night, and sometimes 35k.  You need to automatically get people into the neighborhood first, and the persuade them after.  It won't be as tough of a sell if people have already gone to several ball games or conventions in the neighborhood already, versus just driving through it with their windows up and their doors locked.  JMHO. 

When the city tries to dictate every aspect of planning it hurts the city.  During CV/Medical Mart discussion  the developers wanted to locate the med mart/cv in University circle closer to the clinic.  But of course the city got in the way and demanded it should be downtown.  This could have further rejuvenated Euclid.  The city doesnt know how med mart works the developers do.  I can only imagine the impact of this project in midtown..

When the city tries to dictate every aspect of planning it hurts the city.  During CV/Medical Mart discussion  the developers wanted to locate the med mart/cv in University circle closer to the clinic.  But of course the city got in the way and demanded it should be downtown.  This could have further rejuvenated Euclid.  The city doesnt know how med mart works the developers do.  I can only imagine the impact of this project in midtown..

 

Without getting off topic, the city was right.

 

There are no ancillary spin off in University Circle or midtown to support the mart. Nor were there any developers/investors willing to make it happen inconjunction with a med mart built away from downtown.  If that is incorrect, please correct me.

 

IIRC, UC was one of several location not the only location. Lastly, it would have left the CC to rot.  The mall site was the right site.

 

Back on topic please.