First off residents aren't taking the place of retail, they are helping create it.

 

These obsolete office buildings are being converted into residential, saving them from demolition, or a slow decay caused by vacancy. Its not like we are preventing companies from moving downtown because we'd rather have residential. Building owners can make more money with offices than with apartments/condos.

 

Buildings like the Bingham dont exist in other neighborhoods and serve great as residential. If not it would most likely have been demolished.

 

Downtown living is 100% different than neighborhood living(Ohio City, Tremont, etc.) There are ton of people who live downtown but would never consider Ohio City or etc. And visa-versa, there are many who love living in a neighborhood but would never live downtown.

 

Downtown can draw people in from other parts of the country. I know several people from out of state who moved here. They chose downtown. If downtown wasn't an option, they were going to choose a far out suburb such as mentor.

 

Residential can help add a 24/7 activity to downtown that is harder to maintain with no residential population. Look at Chicago north of the river compared to the loop. The loop is dead after 5, while north of the river is hoppin.

 

Also it is much harder for a developer to get control of 100 houses in a neighborhood than it is to buy a large downtown building that can be converted into 100 units.

 

 

Oh, I agree that downtown living is unique and definitely provides a certain niche market. But there are still quite a few people who live downtown that moved from other neighborhoods or chose downtown among an apartment elsewhere in the city.

 

Perhaps I didn't convey this clearly in my original post, but I was remarking on conversions because they increase the number of available units in a city that is losing residents. An increase in 5K new converted units in downtown means that 5k units elsewhere in the city become vacant. Toss a couple more of those vacant units on select streets in our city and it's easy to see where we are going. A 6 unit apartment building that becomes vacant on a street in Cudell or Edgewater can prove to be disastrous for that entire block and set that neighborhood into decline.

 

 

 

But downtown is drawing largely from the suburbs.  86% of people moving downtown are from outside the city and 51% are from outside Cuyahoga County. So instead of choosing to live in Westlake, Strongsville, or Mentor, they are choosing to live downtown. And personally, and I think you would agree as well, I dont give a crap if there is vacancy in those cities if it means more people living in Cleveland and Downtown. Nobody complains when those cities build new houses. In the past, cities like Rocky River, Willowick, Eastlake, and Parma stole from Cleveland and the inner ring. Nobody cared or did anything to stop it. Now further out cities like Mentor, Strongsville and Westlake are just stealing residents from those previously mentioned suburbs that are now loosing population. So now that Cleveland, and downtown is stealing some residents back, and really, a tiny number, people complain and say this region isnt growing and it hurts the suburbs and region. And at the same time Geauga County continues to build new houses and those same people dont say a thing, and possibly even move there.

But downtown is drawing largely from the suburbs.  86% of people moving downtown are from outside the city and 51% are from outside Cuyahoga County. So instead of choosing to live in Westlake, Strongsville, or Mentor, they are choosing to live downtown. And personally, and I think you would agree as well, I dont give a crap if there is vacancy in those cities if it means more people living in Cleveland and Downtown. Nobody complains when those cities build new houses. In the past, cities like Rocky River, Willowick, Eastlake, and Parma stole from Cleveland and the inner ring. Nobody cared or did anything to stop it. Now further out cities like Mentor, Strongsville and Westlake are just stealing residents from those previously mentioned suburbs that are now loosing population. So now that Cleveland, and downtown is stealing some residents back, and really, a tiny number, people complain and say this region isnt growing and it hurts the suburbs and region. And at the same time Geauga County continues to build new houses and those same people dont say a thing, and possibly even move there.

 

Very true, I could care less if vacancies started to sprout in Geauga County. But I do worry about the glut of housing here.

 

I often wonder though that if the desirability of downtown living has more to do with the age and modernity of the unit itself, versus the actual location. Downtown by far has the most number of new modernized units and someone looking for an urban place that has granite countertops, sleek finishes, walk in closets, central air, etc, is most likely going to pick downtown because that's where the most selection is.

 

It's much cheaper to convert 100 units into modern units in one fell swoop downtown versus doing it in numerous much smaller apartment buildings/doubles/triples in our neighborhoods.

 

And while this merges with another thread, the East Ohio Gas conversion is likely going to take some public money to go forward. Should the city, state, county, put money into this conversion project to create more housing in this location? I guess I'd rather see those 6-15 unit "old fashioned apartment buildings" scattered throughout our neighborhoods renovated instead into 3-8 unit buildings with modern units with modern finishes. That way you modernize a building, maintain the structure, increase the desirability of that block/neighborhood but also achieve the goal of reducing the amount of units in a region that has too many to begin with.

 

 

We've discussed already that the majority of people who move downtown aren't coming from neighborhoods. Look at the census data...the entire central area out to Detroit shoreway have grown by a large percentage. The areas losing population are either full of blight or have no retail areas. Commercial corridors and easy access are what attract the people moving to these areas. They don't want to live in cudell because it's not as vibrant. I chose downtown because it's close to everything that I love.

I cant really think of any "old fashioned apartment buildings" that are sitting vacant in Cleveland's hot neighborhoods. And nobody is going to risk the investment to renovate one in Corlett, Jefferson, etc.. Those neighborhoods are full of blight, have high crime, and really there isnt much attractive about them. So of course they want to invest in growing popular neighborhoods that actually have demand and are attractive. And downtown has the largest stock of buildings to choose from. So if the East Ohio Gas conversion goes through, it will be great! Instead of having an outdated vacant office building sitting their for years, slowly decaying, and creating a dead zone and a homeless hangout, you instead get a renovated building in the cities core, full of residents and filled storefronts, creating additional traffic in the area.

 

Honestly I believe almost everyone on here would choose a Rocky River over a Jefferson. More shopping, less blight, less crime, actually more walkable, and better schools. And possibly more urban.

I cant really think of any "old fashioned apartment buildings" that are sitting vacant in Cleveland's hot neighborhoods. And nobody is going to risk the investment to renovate one in Corlett, Jefferson, etc.. Those neighborhoods are full of blight, have high crime, and really there isnt much attractive about them. So of course they want to invest in growing popular neighborhoods that actually have demand and are attractive. And downtown has the largest stock of buildings to choose from. So if the East Ohio Gas conversion goes through, it will be great! Instead of having an outdated vacant office building sitting their for years, slowly decaying, and creating a dead zone and a homeless hangout, you instead get a renovated building in the cities core, full of residents and filled storefronts, creating additional traffic in the area.

 

Honestly I believe almost everyone on here would choose a Rocky River over a Jefferson. More shopping, less blight, less crime, actually more walkable, and better schools. And possibly more urban.

 

I was referring to buildings such as this one, which I believe recently went vacant and buildings such as these that sit half empty all over town:

 

http://g.co/maps/978nu

 

There's no denying that there is a market for more downtown apartments. The conversions are warranted, but do have effects elsewhere. Even if the moves downtown are from the suburbs, someone is moving into their old residence, where did they move from, and who moved into that person's residence and so forth, until you get to the location where the extra vacant unit just got added to the list. Because the net loss in Cuyahoga County is roughly 11,000 people a year, there's always going to be a huge increase in vacant units each year, even if you get modest reductions in household size. So any new housing projects, without subsequent demolition, exacerbate vacancies, lower home values, lower rents, and lower incentives to revitalize a neighborhood.

 

Obviously it's great if downtown can steal away from potential new tract housing in North Ridgeville :) , but sometimes it's good to look at the bigger picture. The reality is that some homes/buildings/neighborhoods are just going to decline further in Cleveland at the expense of downtown's growth or some other town/neighborhood's growth in a region with a declining population. That's why I always look at huge conversion projects with a bittersweet mentality. Great for that spot, bad for somewhere else.

 

 

 

 

I can't believe you're blaming Downtown uniquely for this.  Every neighborhood is in competition with every neighborhood, if you want to take this logic to it's reasonable conclusion.  Ohio City's gain is Glenville's loss.  Buckeye's gain is Tremont's loss.  It shows an incredible lack of understanding of how markets work, as if every neighborhood is interchangeable.  Maybe it's best if our region can accommodate a variety of tastes or else Corlett might lose more residents to Pittsburgh.

I'm still incredibly confused.  You're comparing a $500-600 a month apartment with a $1-1500 per month apartment with an amazing view in the heart of it all???  That's not the same market at all.  Show me a high rise building in one of the neighborhoods you're speaking of, walking distance to jobs, with a comparable price tag and then we'll talk about how downtown is stealing residents.

Funny all this discussion about robbing peter to pay paul.  I've recently met three people from Chicago and one from Cali.  Each has moved to the area in the past 6months....Guess what?? All four of them picked downtown. 

Anyone take Urban Spatial Structures at Levin? I remember one particular model about housing redevelopment that argued that starting rehab where the fetching price is the highest provides the greatest return for a local economy. The idea is that someone moves into the new unit from one that's slightly less nice, and then someone moves into that unit from one that's slightly less nice than that one, down the line, until you hit the unit that no one wants to live in. So someone moves from Willoughby into a new one downtown, someone from Euclid moves to Willoughby, someone from Glenville moves to Euclid, someone from Central moves to Glenville ... And then the unit in Central probably unfortunately gets demolished. So theoretically, you've improved the living situation of multiple people. If you start with the rehab in Glenville, and the same buyer from Central moves in, the house in Central probably still gets demolished, but you haven't triggered the additional perceives "moves up" for the individuals at the top of the list. Just a model but I think an interesting one.

 

Based on census numbers (assuming migration is the same in the next decade as it was the last), the model would suggest the best places to spend dollars on living space are downtown, University Circle, and to a lesser degree the Near West and Near East neighborhoods and then some "edge" neighborhoods like Kamm's and Riverside.

 

Regardless, if we're continuing to construct and rehab living space in a region with stagnant population and a county with shrinking population, there are definitely going to be new pockets of vacancy. I think that's largely going to be a result of where people find value in living, which IMHO spells continued trouble for some of Cleveland's eastern and southwestern neighborhoods. I'd reiterate, though, that the inner ring suburbs should be worried, too. The fact of the matter is that regardless of where individuals are choosing to locate, the central city just has more robust infrastructure to address issues like vacancy, as evidenced by NPI starting to do work in the heights. Through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, 16 Cleveland neighborhoods have stepped up demolition of severely distressed property but have also leveraged a lot of resources toward rehab of 1- and 2-family houses. Plus, they've developed 5-10 year plans for how they reposition vacancy as an opportunity for revitalization and community asset building. There's also been a sizable but quiet foreclosure prevention campaign that's targeting at-risk owners before actions are actually filed. To the best of my knowledge, there are only 4 Neighborhood Stabilization areas outside of the city proper, and their infrastructure in these suburbs is considerable smaller. 

"Based on census numbers (assuming migration is the same in the next decade as it was the last), the model would suggest the best places to spend dollars on living space are downtown, University Circle, and to a lesser degree the Near West and Near East neighborhoods and then some "edge" neighborhoods like Kamm's and Riverside."

 

Thats a somber outlook indeed.  I can only hope that making those assumptions will be wrong, and things will finally stabilize and maybe even start to grow.  I think the correct building blocks are in place now and we should see that happening.  After all we are only supposed to be a few years behind Pittsburgh* (but on the same path) now.

 

*According to Baiju R. Shah of Bio-Enterprise.

 

By the way had something similar at CSU.  Ned Hill?  Brilliant guy..

.         

 

My guess (my hope) is that population would stabilize or that net out-migration would at least slow considerably. But regardless of whether we're growing, shrinking or staying the same, I'd be surprised if the list of places people are most inclined to move to within the city changes much. Depending on what happens with UCI's current strategy, you might also see some promise in Glenville, Fairfax and maybe Hough, but I'd say the best places to target money so population DOES stabilize are downtown, University Circle, Near West and Near East.

Good news (I think) on the Census data front ... According to numbers I pulled from NEOCANDO, downtown and vicinity population trends are increasingly more positive then elsewhere in the county.

 

- At the county level, we lost 8.2% of our population between 2000 - 2010.

- This loss was about the same for inner ring suburbs (8.4% loss) and other suburbs in the county (8.1% loss). For the inner ring, only 2 of 16 municipalities experienced a population gain between 2000 and 2010, Cuyahoga Heights and Linndale, and these two suburbs have a combined population of less than 1,000. Population loss for the inner ring range from a very modest 1.0% loss in Brooklyn Heights to a pretty staggering 34.4% population decline in East Cleveland.

- Meanwhile, the city lost 17.1%. This is a higher rate of population decline than any of the inner ring suburbs except for East Cleveland.

- That being said, the population fortune of the city is not uniform. Downtown's resurgence has been widely broadcast, but Downtown's 52.7% population increase is still pretty staggering.

- Interestingly and less covered, the neighborhoods adjacent to downtown experienced a population decline, but a very modest one of 2.8%. This included a population loss of 15.3% in Tremont and 10.2% in the Industrial Valley but also a more modest loss of 4.5% in Goodrich-Kirtland and a very modest loss of 1.1% in Ohio City ... and a 5.2% gain in Central.

- When you add downtown to the neighborhoods adjacent to it, the central core saw a 5.4% population increase over the decade. Unfortunately, these gains were more than offset by a 19.1% population decline in the "outer" Cleveland neighborhoods.

 

So, in terms of county population fortunes in the 2000s, they'd be ranked as:

 

- Downtown, 52.7% gain

- "Inner" Cleveland Neighborhoods, 2.8% loss

- Outer Suburbs, 8.1% loss

- Inner Ring Suburbs, 8.4% loss

- "Outer" Cleveland Neighborhoods, 19.1% loss

As a point of comparison with the 90s, which I think really points out how this is trending ...

 

- Outer Suburbs (Cuyahoga County only), 1990-2000, 0.4% growth; 2000-2010, 8.1% decline

- Inner Ring Suburbs, 1990-2000, 5.1% decline; 2000-2010, 8.4% decline

- "Outer" City Neighborhoods (not bordering downtown), 1990-2000, 5.3% decline; 2000-2010, 19.1% decline

- "Inner" City Neighborhoods (bordering downtown), 1990-2000, 10.5% decline; 2000-2010, 2.8% decline

- Downtown, 1990-2000, 28.1% growth; 2000-2010, 52.7% growth

 

The exurbs (at least the Cuyahoga County ones) are starting to trend similar to the inner ring suburbs, a big difference since their modest growth/stability in the 90s. A similar pattern is happening in the city neighborhoods; the neighborhoods closest to the suburbs were considerably more stable that the inner neighborhoods in the 90s. The reverse was true in the 2000s. And through it all, downtown has of course been growing ... But almost twice as fast in the 2000s than in the 1990s.

 

All in all, it's looking as though the core is getting stronger relative to the rest of the county ... In 2000, 13 of 16 the inner ring suburbs were doing better growth-wise than downtown and the neighborhoods that surround it. In 2010, the urban core outperformed 15 of 16 of them. Wow.

I love that you are as much of a numbers nerd as I am!!! Thanks for the details!!!!

As a point of comparison with the 90s, which I think really points out how this is trending ...

 

- Outer Suburbs (Cuyahoga County only), 1990-2000, 0.4% growth; 2000-2010, 8.1% decline

- Inner Ring Suburbs, 1990-2000, 5.1% decline; 2000-2010, 8.4% decline

- "Outer" City Neighborhoods (not bordering downtown), 1990-2000, 5.3% decline; 2000-2010, 19.1% decline

- "Inner" City Neighborhoods (bordering downtown), 1990-2000, 10.5% decline; 2000-2010, 2.8% decline

- Downtown, 1990-2000, 28.1% growth; 2000-2010, 52.7% growth

 

The exurbs (at least the Cuyahoga County ones) are starting to trend similar to the inner ring suburbs, a big difference since their modest growth/stability in the 90s. A similar pattern is happening in the city neighborhoods; the neighborhoods closest to the suburbs were considerably more stable that the inner neighborhoods in the 90s. The reverse was true in the 2000s. And through it all, downtown has of course been growing ... But almost twice as fast in the 2000s than in the 1990s.

 

All in all, it's looking as though the core is getting stronger relative to the rest of the county ... In 2000, 13 of 16 the inner ring suburbs were doing better growth-wise than downtown and the neighborhoods that surround it. In 2010, the urban core outperformed 15 of 16 of them. Wow.

I love you boo!  Aries are so smart!

Touche!!

While it's nice to see the core growing, I don't like that neighborhoods almost have to hit rock bottom before they can rebound. Or at least that's the way it seems.

Updated -- added Flats East Bank Phase II, Rosetta Building, and 1120 Chester Ave. 

 

DOWNTOWN CLEVELAND NEW RESIDENTIAL

 

Under Construction:

Cleveland State University Mixed-Use North Campus Apartments (308 units) -- $45 million http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/06/new_neighborhood_to_rise_on_cl.html

 

In the pipeline:

The Park Building and Southworth Building apartments (34 apartments) -- $21 million http://development.ohio.gov/Urban/OHPTC/documents/Round7ApprovedApplications.pdf

Hanna Annex Apartments (102 apartments) -- $23 million http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/12/playhousesquare_to_sell_downto.html

Schofield Building (24-30 apartments) -- $40 million http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/06/four_northeast_ohio_projects_i.html

 

Planning Stages:

Rosetta Center Building (85 apartments) -- $4 million http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/03/part_of_rosetta_center_office.html

Flats East Bank Phase II Residential (140 apartments)  -- $120 million http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/04/flats_east_bank_project_lines.html

East Ohio Building at 1717 East Ninth St (223 apartments) http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/03/kd_group_plans_to_buy_redevelo.html

Truman Building at 1030 Euclid (20 apartments) http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/11/with_apartments_full_developer.html

Avenue District conversion into apartments at 1211 Saint Clair Ave (up to 62 units) http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110725/FREE/307259967

1120 Chester Ave (4-story building for apartments) http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/agenda/2012/crr04-30-2012.pdf

 

Proposed:

Garfield Building (E.6th)

Baker Building (E.6th)

Arcade (100 apartments) http://crainscleveland.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=TOC

 

When pigs fly:

515 Euclid Ave (240 units) http://www.desman.com/hotproperty/task,view/id,59/Itemid,168/

Huntington Bank Building at 917 Euclid Ave http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/11/huntington_moving_to_200_publi.html

Standard Building at 1370 Ontario St http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/01/railroad_union_nhttp://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/Themes/default/images/bbc/glow.gifations_oldest.html

Warehouse District mixed-used Transit Hub  http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/11/post_536.html

Lakefront Residential http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2011/11/new_lakefront_plan_from_clevel.html

Playhouse Square parking lot across from Palace Theater http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/12/playhousesquare_to_sell_downto.html

Cleveland is growing faster than its suburbs as young professionals flock downtown

 

When a new job brought Stacey Brown to Cleveland from San Francisco two months ago, she went looking for an apartment downtown. Her manager told her that's where young people were flocking. Sure enough, she found a full house.

"It was soooo hard finding an apartment," said Brown, an upbeat and single 26 year old. "I mean I looked for three weeks, all over downtown."

The hunt was worth it. She found an opening at The Residences at 668 Euclid on bustling lower Euclid Avenue. Soon, she was meeting new friends over beers at Winking Lizard and tapping into the free Wi-Fi at Colossal Cupcakes.

"It's hard not to like it," said Brown, a medical-device saleswoman for Stryker. "Clevelanders are such great people. It's that Midwest charm. And the restaurants are phenomenal."

When she joined the downtown scene, she helped to swell what's shaping into a historic migration. Twentysomethings are creating a new and potentially powerful housing pattern as they snap up downtown apartments as fast as they become available.

Thanks largely to young professionals, the inner city is growing faster than the outer city and the county for the first time in modern history, a recent Case Western Reserve University study found.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/04/clevelands_inner_city_is_gorn.html

 

 

^Oh hey Joe Baur.  AKA CLEJoe.

http://burghdiaspora.blogspot.com/2012/04/reverse-migration-detroit.html?m=1

 

The story goes viral...

Here is the Cleveland portion of something I put together in the census 2010 thread showing the higher growth areas around downtown...University thrown in as our "second downtown":

Cleveland:

Flats West- +87.2% to 2,222

Warehouse District/North Coast- +43.5% to 4,193

Gateway District- +57.4% to 1,944

Eastern CBD- +54.7% to 3,334

Asiatown- +1.6% to 1,354

Prospect Ave Historic District- +30.5% to 4,393

St Vincent/Cuyahoga Comm College (Tract 109301) +13.4% to 1,873

University Circle- +76.8% to 3,679

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,18930.570.html#ixzz1tjufLlou

Heard a little rumor on the street yesterday that downtown residents might be interested in.  A man (who I've seen many times before in the WHD) struck up a conversation with me on a corner.  He said he liked dogs and wanted to see mine.  He then stated that he and his business partners were planning to open a "dog hotel" downtown.  Apparently they are trying to decide between three locations in the WHD.  The old liquor store on W10th, a space in the Bingham, or a space on Johnson Court.

 

He said they've done their market research and they really think there's a market downtown for a 24 hour "dog hotel".  We've all seen the stories about the thousands of dogs that are downtown so hopefully this business takes off because I know I could really use it.  I currently drive out to Westlake to board our dog because they are open late and on Sundays.

^ There's a doghouse inn on W.117th- I just noticed their sign today.

Doesn't the MetroBark on Payne offer boarding?

^ & ^^

 

Yes and yes.  We used to go to Inn the Doghouse which was at the corner of Berea Rd and Detroit, but recently moved to W117th (highly recommended for dog daycare).  Metrobark also offers boarding.  Both of these facilities are "cage free" during the day and focus mainly on dog daycare.  Their boarding operations are secondary and they have very limited weekend and evening hours which makes pickup difficult.

 

A facility downtown might have surprising success as residents would prefer them for boarding needs and downtown workers may use them as a convenient daytime dog daycare.  In the same vein, I'm surprised there aren't more child daycare facilities downtown...

^I wonder if parking for Parents Picking up/Dropping off and for Day Care Vans/buses as well as maybe lease rates have an effect on the lack of downtown daycares. But that's just looking at a day care that was RIGHT in the CBD, maybe a few blocks from Public Square. Now one in the East teens, 20s, 30s might be logistically easier.

Anyone know what the story is with the warehouse buildings along Superior between E. 21st and E. 26th? Seems like this area would make a nice residential loft district. Not to mention some nice infill potential between Superior and CSU, which has already started along Chester.

^ Many do say "office space for lease"  Agreed on the residential conversion idea.

Anyone know what the story is with the warehouse buildings along Superior between E. 21st and E. 26th? Seems like this area would make a nice residential loft district. Not to mention some nice infill potential between Superior and CSU, which has already started along Chester.

 

In my opinion this is the most overlooked opportunity area downtown. It could be a great residential area.

Some of the buildings are already converted.  I definitely agree this could be a trendy area in 10-20 years unless we continue growing downtown at the rate of the last 20 years.

Many of those buildings are live-work artists lofts. There is usually an open-house type event over a weekend in the summer when you can tour them. Idon't know when the next one is scheduled.

Anyone know what the story is with the warehouse buildings along Superior between E. 21st and E. 26th? Seems like this area would make a nice residential loft district. Not to mention some nice infill potential between Superior and CSU, which has already started along Chester.

 

This area has a zoning overlay district that allows for live/work spaces to exist in the old warehouse buildings.  There are lots of artists and musicians who use these places as studios.

Anyone know what the story is with the warehouse buildings along Superior between E. 21st and E. 26th? Seems like this area would make a nice residential loft district. Not to mention some nice infill potential between Superior and CSU, which has already started along Chester.

 

There's a lot of small start-up businesses, artists lofts and so on in those buildings.

There is concern with many of the buildings being lost sometime in the future due to he innerbelt construction (when ad if that phase - "The Trench" - ever gets off the ground. I believe somewhere in the innerbelt thread there is a graphic showing a number of the the warehouse being removed.

There's a lot of small start-up businesses, artists lofts and so on in those buildings.

 

I can see that in some, but there are also still buildings that look underutilized or empty. Particularly the block between 21st and 22nd street. I just think this area could be a great downtown neighborhood, but I imagine the residential population in those buildings is not nearly what it could be.

There is concern with many of the buildings being lost sometime in the future due to he innerbelt construction (when ad if that phase - "The Trench" - ever gets off the ground. I believe somewhere in the innerbelt thread there is a graphic showing a number of the the warehouse being removed.

 

Here's the thread... http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7101.0.html

 

None of the large buildings along Superior are on the "official" ODOT takings list. Please debate the other potential demolitions at that thread.

 

To keep this thread on topic, I think what's needed on that section of Superior is some density on the north side of the street. I would think that some new "downtown-area" construction would be financially feasible here. It offers the proximity of downtown (and thus the ability to charge downtown rents) without having to pay for the high-price of downtown land to build on it. Either side of East 24th at Superior might be the easiest place to start since little/no demolition is needed there. This section of Superior is between downtown and Asiatown, and an easy walk or bike ride to CSU. I think it's a good spot for downtown-area housing.

People are correct ... The warehouses in this area do have a surprisingly high amount of residential presence. I've seen estimates of around 500 artists living in warehouses along this corridor. While the city has a live/work overlay ordinance in place for this corridor (and going pretty far eastward ... I want to say into the east 60s?), meant to relax regulations of people residing in industrial buildings. State codes, however, have a number of stipulations that still keep these buildings from being truly live-work without substantial capital improvements, namely elevator modernization, sprinkler systems and insulation standards. So this is a weird stretch of buildings that are more or less under a don't-ask-don't-tell policy ... The city doesn't aggressively check buildings to see if people are living there, but if they are called in for a code violation and see evidence of people living there, they are bound by state code to have those tenants removed. Very few of the warehouses have gone through the costly process of coming up to residential code; the notable exceptions are the Perkowskis' Tower Press (residential) and Bloch (creative commercial) buildings, and both seem to have strong occupancy levels. Most of the non-rehabbed buildings nonetheless have a quiet residential population.

 

I think the slowness in redevelopment of the corridor (as well as the Chinatown development along Rockwell) is at least partially due to being in a bit of a community development no-man's land. Technically, this area is serviced by the Campus District (previously The Quadrangle), although that group's main focus seems to be the southern part of their area, particularly increasing connectivity between CSU, Tri-C, Sisters of Charity, etc. Even though St. Clair Superior's official border is East 30th, they do provide a secondary level of support along this corridor. And I believe (but could be wrong) that the Historic Warehouse/Historic Gateway orgs were instrumental in seeking historic building status on a number of the buildings. So you kind of have several chefs in the kitchen but no apparent head chef.

 

Given the Campus Village developments, the new(ish) apartment building along Euclid in the upper 20s (name escapes me) and suprisingly strong population numbers in Asiatown and the upper Prospect corridor, I think all signs point to heightened focus on the eastern border of downtown. But with a lot of opportunities for both in-fill and rehab (Prospect, Euclid, more Chester, Payne, Superior, a bajillion cross-streets) and no apparent priority list, it might be a while before resources get marshalled strategically along Superior.

 

FWIW, it would also be interested to see how building conversions would affect the relatively underground arts scene along Superior. Because of the costs incurred to modernize these buildings to residential code (barring a change in state policy), rents would have to be much higher than they currently are and probably not something most current artist tenants could afford to eat. Tower Press does provide one interesting exception though ... The Perkowskis leveraged HUD funds and set aside the majority of ground-floor units for low-income residents, and then agressively marketed those units to low-income artists.

So maybe this section could be taken over in its entirety by one CDC, such as St. Clair-Superior, and be the target of a focused redevelopment planning, investment and branding strategy?

 

I suspect that if Joe Cimperman pushed this development agenda (he certainly knows about the issues regarding industrial building residency vs state fire codes), it might get some traction.

That would take increased CDBG allocation from Cimperman to St. Clair-Superior. 

I think another issue here would be that this stretch of Superior is the dividing line between Ward 3 (north side of Superior) and Ward 8 (south side of Superior). So on a master planning/funding level, you'd probably need at least some level of long-term assurances and cooperation between Cimperman and Johnson ... And prioritization over other East 20s corridors that fit entirely in Ward 3 (like St. Clair) or entirely in Ward 8 (like Prospect or Euclid). Not necessarily an easy sell.

 

The other issue is that while St. Clair Superior seems like an obvious candidate for this work, they already have an insanely large service area (from East 30th to MLK ... or from the edge of downtown to the edge of University Circle). In the absence of greater funding or breaking the CDC into an east and west area, it's hard for me to imagine that they would be able to effectively take on a corridor of that magnitude ... Particularly since they are not currently an NPI Strategic Investment Area. And in the current environment, I can't imagine additional community development funding or cracking the current CDC into two organizations is very likely.

Or a Superior Corridor development district could be a partnership between affected CDCs so that you're not taking CDBG funds from one to another.

Some insight as to the effect the casino and a more vibrant downtown is having/can have on the local housing market...

 

http://bit.ly/JyQCMX

Some insight as to the effect the casino and a more vibrant downtown is having/can have on the local housing market...

 

http://www.woio.com/category/211979/video-landing-page?clipId=7270514&autostart=true

 

I love how they start off the segment on a negative.  I swear, no wonder why the region has "emotional" issues.

Some insight as to the effect the casino and a more vibrant downtown is having/can have on the local housing market...

 

http://www.woio.com/category/211979/video-landing-page?clipId=7270514&autostart=true

 

I love how they start off the segment on a negative.  I swear, no wonder why the region has "emotional" issues.

 

I know, I was thinking the same thing.

Thanks for the warning. I won't benefit them by clicking on the link.

^But the video does contain the very good news that Ohio City and Tremont are extremely strong real estate markets right now.

Statler Arms Apartments in downtown Cleveland changes hands, but pension fund unlikely to keep it

Published: Thursday, May 24, 2012, 6:00 PM    Updated: Thursday, May 24, 2012, 7:01 PM

Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer By Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer

 

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A California pension fund has acquired the Statler Arms Apartments in downtown Cleveland. But the new owner won't necessarily hang onto the property.

 

The 295-unit apartment building, a onetime historic hotel at 1127 Euclid Ave., changed hands Wednesday. Public records related to the deal don't include a purchase price, but Cuyahoga County sets the market value of the property at $9.5 million.

 

The Statler was part of an $820 million transaction between the California State Teachers' Retirement System and defunct financial giant Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. The pension fund said Wednesday that it has purchased Lehman's stake in 14 apartment complexes, including the Statler; development sites; and Pennsylvania real estate company LCOR Inc.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/05/statler_arms_apartments_in_dow.html

Cleveland developers win preservation tax credits to bring 103 apartments, offices, stores downtown

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/06/cleveland_developers_win_prese.html

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- State tax credits aimed at historic preservation will help developers bring 103 apartments to two buildings in downtown Cleveland, a market where demand for rental housing is outpacing supply.

 

The Truman Building and the Rosetta Center building, both on Euclid Avenue, were the two Cleveland winners in a round of awards announced today by the Ohio Department of Development.