Then you did so as a trespasser since it is not a public ROW.  The residents have to pay for the wear and tear you caused to the brick ;)

 

^^although it was sad to see the JCC go because it was where I went to pre-school, no one is fighting Bluestone or the Zaremba development accross the street.  No one would have fought the apt building on Lee either if that had gone through.  Name one new development that didn't involve national chain stores which the residents "resisted".  They are not opposed to development at all.... just the type of development that kills the character of the city.

This should really be renamed as a "Cleveland Heights / South Euclid" development.  In fact, I believe most of the "development" will occur on the South Euclid side.

 

Anyways, I received a pamphlet in the mail from the developer.  I must admit that they are saying all the right things and promoting it as an anti-sprawl development.  Interesting points too me centered around the reconfigurations on Warrensville Ctr Rd, the costs of which will be fully absorbed by the developer.  This will include new sidewalks and pull off lanes for buses.  There will also be a lot of "green" features to the construction.  I was pleased with the presentation.

This should really be renamed as a "Cleveland Heights / South Euclid" development.  In fact, I believe most of the "development" will occur on the South Euclid side.

 

Anyways, I received a pamphlet in the mail from the developer.  I must admit that they are saying all the right things and promoting it as an anti-sprawl development.  Interesting points too me centered around the reconfigurations on Warrensville Ctr Rd, the costs of which will be fully absorbed by the developer.  This will include new sidewalks and pull off lanes for buses.  There will also be a lot of "green" features to the construction.  I was pleased with the presentation.

 

 

I wonder if that went out to all CH residents.  Do you have the ability to scan and post?  I thought the same thing about renaming the thread.  If I'm not mistaken, the developer has not purchased any land yet in CH.

This should really be renamed as a "Cleveland Heights / South Euclid" development.  In fact, I believe most of the "development" will occur on the South Euclid side.

 

Anyways, I received a pamphlet in the mail from the developer.  I must admit that they are saying all the right things and promoting it as an anti-sprawl development.  Interesting points too me centered around the reconfigurations on Warrensville Ctr Rd, the costs of which will be fully absorbed by the developer.  This will include new sidewalks and pull off lanes for buses.  There will also be a lot of "green" features to the construction.  I was pleased with the presentation.

 

Bah, they said that about Cedar Center North as well, and look what garbage is going in there.

 

Are they going to raise the speed limit on Warrensville Center to 45 after they make "improvements"?

 

This sounds like a typical suburban development with tiny hints of "faux anti-suburbanism" in an attempt to please the CH residents.  Kind of like when a drug store or fast food restaurant puts a fake cupola or brick veneer on a building which is still surrounded by a giant parking lot to make it "fit in" to a historic district.

^^although it was sad to see the JCC go because it was where I went to pre-school, no one is fighting Bluestone or the Zaremba development accross the street.  No one would have fought the apt building on Lee either if that had gone through.  Name one new development that didn't involve national chain stores which the residents "resisted".  They are not opposed to development at all.... just the type of development that kills the character of the city.

 

You beat me to it.  I would also add the new condos at Cedar and Fairmount and the Brownstones at Derbyshire as new construction the residents favored.  But try to plop in a double drive through McDonalds, and yes, CH residents will oppose that "progress" (even UH residents are in the process of opposing that very plan right now).

This should really be renamed as a "Cleveland Heights / South Euclid" development.  In fact, I believe most of the "development" will occur on the South Euclid side.

 

 

Better?  :-D

^Much :)

 

I wonder if that went out to all CH residents.  Do you have the ability to scan and post? 

 

Better - Oakwood Commons Overview

Yay, Avon Commons on Warrensville Center.  This thing is guaranteed to be a pile of crap.  Complete with outlots, big parking lot in front of building, and useless tiny bits of "greenspace" on the edges of the property (buffers and area near Warrensville Center on the edges of the outlots).

 

Hopefully they can attract some "quality" establishments to the beautiful outlots.  :roll:

Is it just me or is Jane Goodman talking out of her posterior on this one?

 

"This deal would improve the environmental quality of the property in terms of soil, roots, canopy cover, streambank stabilization, sediment control,stormwater infiltration and management, plant and wildlife habitat and diversity, and water quality in Nine Mile Creek."

 

Look at the plan layout.  There are two tiny slivers of space set for greenspace.  The rest is space already taken by the golf course, and then acreage set for parking and retail.  Now, setting aside how "green" their building practices might be, I can't see how paving over those 32 acres or whatever it is improves the environment there over an empty golf course, which is what is there and will likely remain there for the near future, given the housing market.

 

And, national retailers:  There are vacancies at Severance and an empty lot literally a third of a mile up the road.  By the way, the size of the Cedar Center north property appears to be very similar to the area reserved for retail in the South Euclid portion of the development.  And Coral is treading lightly, bringing us a scaled back "phase 1" on the seized land, about 4 years later than promised.  So which is it?  Are we woefully under-served by retail  or is it a difficult environment to secure tenants in?

 

Anyway, South Euclid is probably bleeding cash and the elected officials take whatever they can get, which is why they're going to push hard for this. 

I agree that CH has reserved Severance for the big box stores more typical of suburban development.  If McD's wanted a drive-through in the Heights, there would be few if any objections to such development there.  There is room for more development at Severance, and CH residents have lots of big box stores a short drive away.

 

As I recall the development proposed for Oakwood is almost entirely in South Euclid rather than CH.  CH residents tend to want the mom-and-pop businesses found in the Cedar-Fairmounts/Coventrys/Cedar-Lees, with residential or office space over smaller retail/restaurant/service business.  Arguably CH needs more and better developments like that in other (particularly northern) areas of the city. 

 

I also think that the noise from CH residents so far might be coming from fear of losing green space -- once it is developed, it's gone forever.  And there is a reluctance to give it up too easily.  (Just imagine if a green belt existed between the Shaker Lakes and Forest Hill -- you'd have a park network all the way to the lake.)  From the people I've talked to in CH, they're not dead set against this development, but they want their concerns heard before the cities sign off on the developer's plans.  And many of the people I've talked to have not been very well informed of what exactly the plans are at the moment.  So there is some uninformed fear of losing something without quite knowing what they're going to get. 

 

I hope that CH and SE work on this project together, and the developer continues to provide information and gather feedback from the residents so that whatever development takes place succeeds in the long run.  (As others have noted, the long delay at Cedar Center suggests that this project is not going to go up anytime soon.)

I don't live in SE anymore, but I still own my house there, so I'm following this project with great interest.

 

I can't add too much that hasn't already been said.  The Heights/Hillcrest area is already oversaturated with retail space, but South Euclid really doesn't have its share compared to surrounding communities.  Considering the revenue generated by retail, it's no wonder the city is supportive of the project.  I'm disappointed they didn't follow a New Urbanist or lifestyle center model; there's many  examples of such development that isn't necessarily upscale outside of the Cleveland area.

 

Some national chains that come to mind that aren't in the Heights/Hillcrest/Chagrin Valley area:

 

* Lowe's

* Sam's Club

* Sears Grand

* Dave & Buster's

* Tractor Supply  :-D

* Uhhh ... I can't think of anything else right now.

 

I would imagine that with J.C. Penney now opening  plaza stores, they might be enticed into fleeing a sinking ship like Richmond Town Square.  Could this center also provide an entry point into the Cleveland market for Meijer (now in Mansfield) or Menards (in Canton, Mansfield and Sandusky)?  I don't see Valu coming down from Buffalo; they prefer older strip centers similar to Golden Gate and Eastgate.  Wegmans supposedly scrapped plans for NEO and western PA to concentrate on the Northeast Corridor.

 

I live very close to this proposed project and also received a brochure in the mail. I am still taking in all of the pro's and con's of Oakwood but if it's going to be anchored by a Costco, that would be enough to make me not only oppose the entire project but also consider moving further east. I'm already frustrated that GFS is the anchor store of Cedar Center North. SE is trying to promote a green neighborhood via several routes - the community gardens and the green houses that have been built are both excellent implementations so far. It'd be a damn shame to contradict that by bringing the worst possible retailers into the community.

 

On a side noter: One thing I am a bit unclear of is why people keep assuming CH residents are all about mom and pop stores, oppose big box development, and are true urbanists, whereas SE residents seem to be "desperate for development" and don't care about gaining parks and keeping big box retailers out. If anything, SE is one of the most un-big box suburbs in NE Ohio. We have some very nice shopping centers filled with local/mom and pop/ethnic selections unseen elsewhere. I speak highly of the Jewish eateries at Cedar-Green. I've seen that stereotyping on Cleveland.com and on here and it's simply not true. The other stereotype is that all of the storefronts on Mayfield in CH and SE are vacant. They are almost all filled and being used by mom and pop stores - or as I like to refer to it as Salon Row, because there must be 20 salon's along Mayfield near Warrensville. Each one does excellent business from what I see as I pass them daily.

 

I am watching Oakwood and Cedar Center North closely but for the time being, I am focusing on something closer to my backyard - another planned development in SE that is going to be hit or miss @ Cedar-Miramar across from University Square.

What is going accross from Univ Square?

Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't Costco considered a "lesser evil" as far as big box stores go (as in better than Sams Club, BJs, Wal-Mart, etc.)?  Also, why would "moving further east" be a response to Costco moving in?  There's already a Costco (and a thousand other big box stores) further east.  Wouldn't moving further west get you away from big boxes if that's what you're upset about?

On a side noter: One thing I am a bit unclear of is why people keep assuming CH residents are all about mom and pop stores, oppose big box development, and are true urbanists, whereas SE residents seem to be "desperate for development" and don't care about gaining parks and keeping big box retailers out. If anything, SE is one of the most un-big box suburbs in NE Ohio. We have some very nice shopping centers filled with local/mom and pop/ethnic selections unseen elsewhere. I speak highly of the Jewish eateries at Cedar-Green. I've seen that stereotyping on Cleveland.com and on here and it's simply not true.

 

When I lived in SE, there seemed to be a sense that the community had no clear identity of its own.  Cleveland Heights was the left-leaning urban suburb, Beachwood was the upscale Jewish suburb, University Heights had John Carroll and a gorgeous residential housing stock, and Lyndhurst the emerging home of upscale retail.  South Euclid ... well, it's south of Euclid, and ... uhhh ... sign amortization made the Mayfield strip look a lot better, and ... uhh, it's got some Russian immigrants, old-time Italians, young Jews who couldn't afford Beachwood or Pepper Pike, and vacant houses where blacks used to live, and ... Warehouse Beverage is cool, and .... uhhh, is it part of the Heights or Hillcrest, and ... you get the idea.

 

SE has the mom-and-pop stores, but what's there for the young professionals that city officials want to attract?  Lots of salons and hole-in-the-wall bars aren't exactly as much of an attraction as Coventry, Cedar-Lee and Legacy Village.  Then again, neither will be a big box center.

 

Desperation?  Well, South Euclid doesn't have the non-residential tax base of Cleveland Heights, Beachwood and Lyndhurst, and its housing stock don't pay the bills as well as the "beautiful homes" of University Heights.  The foreclosure crisis hit South Euclid hard, because ARMs made the housing stock temporarily affordable to working-class African-Americans looking to move out of East Cleveland and Collinwood.

 

One problem with Oakwood, IMHO, is that it really isn't going to solve the problem of South Euclid's identity crisis.  Does it want to be a college town?  A suburb for young, single first-time homebuyers?  If I was South Euclid's planner, a couple of my solutions would be to rebuild the city's once-pedestrian-oriented downtown (Mayfield-Green area), and work with ODOT to make Mayfield Road more civilized and pedestrian-oriented, as in Cleveland Heights.  "Stores need more parking" is a 1970s-style solution to the city's woes, and we know how well that worked out elsewhere.

Warehouse Beverage is cool

 

It's the best!

 

SE has the mom-and-pop stores, but what's there for the young professionals that city officials want to attract?  Lots of salons and hole-in-the-wall bars aren't exactly as much of an attraction as Coventry, Cedar-Lee and Legacy Village.  Then again, neither will be a big box center.

 

South Euclid wants to attract young families (white collar or not), not Yuppies.  And all those attractions are within 10 minutes of the bulk of South Euclid.

 

Desperation?  Well, South Euclid doesn't have the non-residential tax base of Cleveland Heights, Beachwood and Lyndhurst

 

Beachwood and Lyndhurst, maybe.  But I would bet that SE has more of a non-residential tax base, relatively speaking, than Cleveland Heights.  CH is almost all residential.  SE has industry and retail.  CH just has retail.

 

 

One problem with Oakwood, IMHO, is that it really isn't going to solve the problem of South Euclid's identity crisis.  Does it want to be a college town?  A suburb for young, single first-time homebuyers?  If I was South Euclid's planner, a couple of my solutions would be to rebuild the city's once-pedestrian-oriented downtown (Mayfield-Green area), and work with ODOT to make Mayfield Road more civilized and pedestrian-oriented, as in Cleveland Heights.  "Stores need more parking" is a 1970s-style solution to the city's woes, and we know how well that worked out elsewhere.

 

I think what you are chiming for on Mayfield is exactly what this project will do for Warrensville Ctr Rd.

 

SE is what it is.  A fairly stable city with decent housing stock and great bang for the buck.  It is centrally located in the Hillcrest area and I don't think it worries much or gives any consideration to any alleged "identiy crisis"

Is South Euclid still considered a stable city?  My sister had to pull her kid from the school system due to the inner city levels of chaos from the students, and I'm pretty sure I've read on Cleveland.com it has an above average number of foreclosures and lowered property values.  Plus there are quite a few empty stores along Mayfield/Green. 

 

Dan, your generalizations of the east side suburbs is off imo. Saying SE is in the midst of an identity crisis is exactly the stereotype I was referring to before. Calling CH this big left city is off because only some of the residents are "left-leaning" - hardly enough to call the entire community of some 50k people that. If that was the case, then Severance's mansion would never have become Wal-Mart. Some of the most interesting architectural houses in Cuyahoga County are in South Euclid - take a drive down Belvoir and you'll see some houses that truly stand out. Notre Dame's campus is growing and recently completed dorm expansions and has acquired the land/building of it's inter-connected Regina for further expansion. Need I mention some of the other things that make SE what it is: The library, probably one of the most beautiful in all of Ohio, Sand Ridge Country Club and houses designed by Walker & Weeks that sit abut it, the Metroparks (shared with Euclid and Richmond Heights) is a gorgeous walk or bike ride anytime of the year, and as mentioned before, the green initiative involving the plans to turn more houses green and the community gardens that have been popping up, sponsored by neighboring Whole Foods.

 

Independent places like the Zumba studio, One More Step dance studio, Amir Foods, Phoenix Coffee (yeah CH has two), Warehouse Beverage - ALL located at Mayfield-Green makes for a very nice pocket of small and independent retailers. Not to mention Mandel Bakery, Rachel's Caribbean, Batiste Cajun, the Bavarian Tea House, the 3 authentic Jewish eateries at Cedar-Green, as well as all that was lost at Cedar Center before it got torn down all make up for a great mix of unique places to NE Ohio. There's also a dog park, a fairly large medical site (UH Suburban), and most importantly of all - the promise of added green space at Oakwood as well as the public space at Cedar Center North - if and when it happens, but at the very minimum, proposed for the future.

 

I think of SE as just another inner ring suburb like CH, Euclid, and Lakewood - full of potential, full of issues to be addressed, and full of thinks to discover.

Rachel's Caribbean

Rachel's closed a while ago.  At least last spring.  Sad because I really wanted to try it, finally went to see their hours, and saw they were closed.  Replaced by an Indian place I believe called... Z-something?  Zababa?

 

I agree with both of you to an extent.  "Bang for the buck" is probably it's best calling card.  Lack of highway access hurts it as it's kind of a lousy drive downtown or to any employment that requires a trip on the highway, and driving THROUGH the Heights to University Circle compares unfavorably to driving there FROM the Heights.  It will always have a little bit of a lot of different aspects.  It's proximity to Notre Dame and JCU means there will be some college kids about, neither campus really encourages being out in the community.  It's on the edge of the Heights and has some of those aspects, with the small shops along Mayfield and Cedar, but it's also near Lyndhurst, Beachwood and Richmond Heights, which go away from those tendencies.  The fact is, as a resident of South Euclid, I never have to go very far for any of my retail needs, but when it's a collection of national retailers I want, I need to go outside of the city limits (often just a tad) to reach them -- at UH's University Square, or CH's Severance, or Lyndhurst's Legacy Village.  That doesn't bother me because I don't need a Costco 2 minutes from my house, especially not if it's set behind "greenspace" and a huge parking lot.  But it makes it difficult on the city's balance sheet.

Is South Euclid still considered a stable city?  My sister had to pull her kid from the school system due to the inner city levels of chaos from the students, and I'm pretty sure I've read on Cleveland.com it has an above average number of foreclosures and lowered property values.  Plus there are quite a few empty stores along Mayfield/Green. 

 

Still "considered" a stable city?.... depends on who you ask and the factors which weigh heavily in their subjective analysis.  Some people rave about the schools and others have the viewpoint of your sister.  "Inner city level of chaos" it does not have.  The bullies, which SE-L always had plenty of, just look a tad different than they did in the early 90's. 

 

It is one of the best school systems for black males.... nationally acclaimed a few years ago on that front.  The bigger problem, IMO, is the consolidation of the schools which recently took place.  SE-L went from 6 elementary schools to 3 and 2 middle schools to 1.  That increased class sizes and crowded the buildings (which did not expand physically).  The school board sort of jumped into that decision without much forward thinking.

 

I never get my info from cleveland.com, but I would believe the foreclosures issue.  On the other had, that kind of clensed the City of folks who couldn't afford it in the first place.  I don't believe the claim of disproportionate lowered property values though.  It was not a big 'bubble' area.... meaning the home prices never went through the roof.  But, on the other hand, it is sort of like Garfield Heights and Parma, with a large number of post-war starter homes which will inevitably drop in value due to cheaper materials and cookie cutter out-of-style design.

 

First Interstate commits to buying 90 acres of former Oakwood Club in Cleveland Heights

By Michelle Jarboe, The Plain Dealer

Updated: Tuesday, March 08, 2011, 8:54 PM

 

CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, Ohio -- First Interstate Properties will buy 90 acres of the former Oakwood Club in Cleveland Heights, rounding out its purchase of a rare undeveloped tract in Cleveland's close-lying suburbs.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/03/first_interstate_commits_to_bu.html

Why would they build a walmart when there is one within spitting distance at Severence Circle?

I've seen Walmarts built within 1/4 mile of each other.  The old one shuts down and sits empty.  It's grand.

I was just talking to a developer who has had some dealings with Walmart in the past. He tells me that they have been recently looking at where there stores are located in proximity to each other, and where they feel there is too much of an overlap, they are closing down one store, but then using the space to re-open as a Sam's Club.

 

Obviously there's no concrete info in that, but it may give some insight into what happens to Severance if they open a new one nearby.

This thread is for discussion on the Oakwood Commons project, not for merger discussions.

 

Couldn't it have been moved to its own thread?

 

Anyways, Oakwood Commons is going to be a massive failure, but there's nothing that you can do to stop it. 

I can only hope it matches the elegance and asthetics of the gorgeous Severance outdoor mall nearby.

Severance was built over an existing footprint that was already set up as a circle.  Oakwood is more of a blank slate.  How about we wait until at least one rendering is released..... one tenant is announced..... one iota of certainty is discovered on how it will operate before declaring it a massive failure.

 

Edit:  v probably a good idea.  Then the road less traveled it is.

Don't go down the "'demographics' thing" road, please.  That'll get zapped, too.

 

As for splitting stuff off onto a new thread- if some new informative topic comes up, I can do that.  But what was removed was just a rehash of previous arguments, so it got the trash bin.

I believe that this development is located within the boundaries of the CH-UH City School District, am I right?

Come to think of it, the "high end" residential development won't be totally out of place.  Not many people realize this but there is a private brick road abutting Oakwood on the west which is lined with homes that would easily fit in on Fairmount.  You have to enter the club to get there.  Its also not far from the historic neighborhood to the north of Lutheran East

 

What's the plan for these homes?  I wonder what kind of a buffer will be put in place for those residents or if many of them will stick around for the development.

There will be green space between the backs of these homes, which are covered with tree lines anyway, and any structural development.  The one family I know that lives back there is neither up nor down about it at this point.  Everybody is still waiting for some idea of which tenants will be signed.  They are definitely intrigued by the park.

There will be green space between the backs of these homes, which are covered with tree lines anyway, and any structural development.  The one family I know that lives back there is neither up nor down about it at this point.  Everybody is still waiting for some idea of which tenants will be signed.  They are definitely intrigued by the park.

 

Good information.  Those are some really nice houses and I'd hate to see them put in jeopardy in any way by this project...

It is a private right of way.  The neighbors pay for their own road work, sewer lines, etc.  No threat at all.  They have their own little private little brick road world back there.

There is another secret little road nearby another golf course in South Euclid. Several of the houses are immaculate and at least one is by Walker & Weeks! But yes, the ones in CH are not endangered by this development.

There is another secret little road nearby another golf course in South Euclid. Several of the houses are immaculate and at least one is by Walker & Weeks!

 

Is it the driveway/road off the end of Birchwold by Mayfield Country Club?

 

EDIT: And, yes, I refuse to call it The Mayfield Sand Ridge Country Club! :)  There's too much history (and it's too nice of a course) to be "brought down" by that curvy, fake mounds, wetlands everywhere cookie cutter golf course design exurban country club out in Chardon.

It is a private right of way.  The neighbors pay for their own road work, sewer lines, etc.  No threat at all.  They have their own little private little brick road world back there.

 

Yeah, I've been back there, I just didn't know where Oakwood CC ended and their world began...

There is another secret little road nearby another golf course in South Euclid. Several of the houses are immaculate and at least one is by Walker & Weeks! But yes, the ones in CH are not endangered by this development.

 

Actually, it's funny you should mention that, those two areas remind me of each other a bit, although the one near Oakwood is much more hidden and limited in access.  I think the road in South Euclid is called "Sheridan."

Sheridan is not a private right of way and it intersects Mayfield directly.  Oakwood Dr. is a private ROW and the only way to access it is to drive cross the Country Club's parking lot.

 

EDIT: And, yes, I refuse to call it The Mayfield Sand Ridge Country Club! :)  There's too much history (and it's too nice of a course) to be "brought down" by that curvy, fake mounds, wetlands everywhere cookie cutter golf course design exurban country club out in Chardon.

 

Bring it down all you want, folks.  I still have nightmares of double-bagging it up and down those hills.  Whoever designed that course had no mercy for the caddy's

One more thought about Oakwood Club.  I'm not an avid golfer, and I don't know much about the course itself (what shape it was in, how it was doing financially), but one cool thing about its history is that it hosted the 1921 Western Open.  That may not seem like a big deal, but at the time the Western Open was considered a "major."  It's kind of sad that that little piece of history will be lost.

 

Incidentally, the Euclid Club in Cleveland Heights also hosted a Western Open (in 1902), but those who know a bit about CH history will recognize that that club was torn down by Deming to build his Euclid Golf development.  There used to be golf course where many of the beautiful homes along Fairmount now sit.

I still have nightmares of double-bagging it up and down those hills.  Whoever designed that course had no mercy for the caddy's

 

Toughen up, son!  I caddied there a bit as well, although I mostly caddied at Westwood and Canterbury.  Canterbury wasn't too hilly overall, but 14 through 18 were a tough way to end the second double-bag loop on a hot day.

 

But I fear this is getting off topic, so I will stop the golf talk now (which isn't too hard when its 41 and raining outside anyway).

Looks like the re-zoning of the S. Euclid portion of Oakwood is going to a vote.

 

Ohio Supreme Court rules South Euclid residents can vote on rezoning of Oakwood Country Club

 

Published: Thursday, September 08, 2011, 5:40 AM    Updated: Thursday, September 08, 2011, 8:25 AM

By Peter Krouse, The Plain Dealer

 

SOUTH EUCLID, Ohio -- A referendum to repeal the rezoning of the former Oakwood Country Club in South Euclid appears headed for a vote on Nov. 8.

 

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that petitioners properly submitted their referendum request to the South Euclid City Council and that it should not have been rendered invalid.

 

 

 

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/09/ohio_supreme_court_rules_south.html

I think SE residents are going to vote that one down.  I wonder what happens next if they do?

The developers would likely first apply for a variance (which would be denied) and then sue claiming the inability to obtain a variance unconstitutionally deprives them of economically viable use of the land (I am assuming they bought it) and amounts to a 'taking' for which SE has to pay them just compensation.

Supporters of both sides are getting their message out with flyers and such.  Supporters of the development are touting new jobs and a city park without raising taxes.  Opponents are hitting talking points of no big-box stores, predatory competition that will drive out smaller businesses, and NIMBY concerns of traffic and noise on Warrensville. 

 

Meanwhile, there's this:

 

Oakwood Commons project in South Euclid could proceed, regardless of referendum outcome

SOUTH EUCLID, Ohio -- There's a good chance that a development project planned for Oakwood Commons will go forward no matter what South Euclid voters do next month.

 

As it stands, Mayor Georgine Welo said she doubts residents will repeal the commercial zoning for the project that the City Council unanimously approved in June.

 

But it is possible for the developer, First Interstate Properties, to begin the project before voters go to the polls or could get a court to reinstate the commerical zoning deisgnation if voters repeal that.

 

Read full story

 

 

I love the claim by the pro-96 side that this will come at "no cost" to South Euclid residents.

Assuming you were a S Euclid resident, which way do you vote on Issue 96?  A yes vote would approve the re-zoning and allow the development to proceed.  A no vote would be to reject the re-zoning.

If I were, it would be a NO.

With a note on the ballot to Schneider to concentrate on filling in the properties he already owns instead of creating more glut.... but that's just me.

I am really on the fence with this one.  The fact that every politician seems to be all for it makes me want to go the other way.  We're over-saturated with retail and while this may bring jobs to the city (and therefore some tax revenue), I don't see it as much of a positive gain regionally.  Big box will definitely feel out of place there.

 

On the other hand, it appears a Yes vote will preserve several acres as parkland, while there's nothing to ensure that if it remains residential and it's developed that way.  The market is also flooded with housing, but I don't think that will stop a developer from swooping in and putting up some potentially ugly and shoddy new housing.  Also, it's his land, who a I to say what he can and can't do with it?  It's a shame someone won't do something really useful with that swath. 

 

We've heard promises from developers in the past - look what happened at Cedar Center.  The city will roll over for anyone if it means a chance at more revenue.  I don't know who the prospective tenants are but it blows my mind that any are lining up to be a part of this project in such a transitional area when it barely supports University Square and Severance is 5 minutes one way and Legacy Village is 8 minutes the other way.

 

 

I'm with you, Matches... esp. the "it's his land" point.  I'm leaning yes on principal, but my heart is saying no.  I definitely don't agree with the rationale of some of these no on 96 people when it comes to the impact on Warrensville Ctr. Rd.  I will be more than happy to see that scraggily, weed covered chain link fence go.  I think the development will have a positive effect on WCR and won't unreasonably hinder traffic flow.