Again, Cleveland/Greater Cleveland was larger than Toronto/Greater Toronto in my lifetime. And I've not yet hit 50 (next year).

 

We have a lot to learn from them, things that can and should be applied here.

Again, Cleveland/Greater Cleveland was larger than Toronto/Greater Toronto in my lifetime. And I've not yet hit 50 (next year).

 

We have a lot to learn from them, things that can and should be applied here.

 

Serious question: Do they have any of the issues with indigenous subcultures that we have in the US?  Also, do any particular groups dominate their immigrant population?

Again, Cleveland/Greater Cleveland was larger than Toronto/Greater Toronto in my lifetime. And I've not yet hit 50 (next year).

 

We have a lot to learn from them, things that can and should be applied here.

 

This is exactly why I feel so disgusted by their success and our failure over time, for lack of any other term.  And agreed 100% that there's a lot we could learn from them.  Being a "Cold-Weather City" doesn't apply there when it comes to their growth, and neither should it apply here.  Urban issues including zoning, immigration, public-transit use, etc. are all issues which differ drastically between Cleveland and Toronto.  I can't front- I like Toronto as a city.  I just wish that their success could be replicated here.

Are we in this country willing to establish urban growth boundaries and merged cities/regional governments? And are we willing to enforce them by disallowing real estate development beyond existing, developed areas until the existing areas achieve a desired density as established by professional urban planners?

 

All land use in Canadian cities is governed in this manner, to varying degrees of aggressiveness. So the worst (in terms of urban blight/suburban sprawl) medium/large city in Canada is Windsor, which has arguably America's worst city across the river. The contrast between those cities is first-world vs third-world. In the opposite direction, compare Niagara Falls, Ontario to Niagara Falls, NY. The Canadian city is beautiful and its core vibrant. The American city is a dump.

 

Hamilton has its troubles with industrial decline. Making it worse, they didn't enforce an urban growth boundary 30 years ago and allowed sprawl to empty out its historic urban core. But they are now making substantial investment in light rail and commuter rail. Equally as important (and to keep this on topic), the city is enacting pedestrian- and TOD-friendly zoning along the light-rail corridor. Hamilton is successfully capitalizing on a marketing angle, that it's the affordable urban alternative to Toronto, yet still close to Toronto. Cleveland could do that, as a low-cost option to the East Coast or Chicago.

 

In Canada, their urban growth boundaries combined with pedestrian- and TOD-friendly zoning is physically shaping the urban form in a manner as designed by professionals, hired by elected leaders. It is not governed by happenstance as if it was a natural phenomenon beyond human control. An uncontrolled city is a wasteful, cost-ineffective city that becomes vulnerable to blight, poverty, crime and duplicity of public infrastructure and services.

Are we in this country willing to establish urban growth boundaries and merged cities/regional governments? And are we willing to enforce them by disallowing real estate development beyond existing, developed areas until the existing areas achieve a desired density as established by professional urban planners?

 

All land use in Canadian cities is governed in this manner, to varying degrees of aggressiveness. So the worst medium/large city in Canada is Windsor, which has arguably America's worst city across the river. The contrast between those cities is first-world vs third-world. In the opposite direction, compare Niagara Falls, Ontario to Niagara Falls, NY. The Canadian city is beautiful and its core is vibrant. The American city is a dump.

 

Hamilton has its troubles with industrial decline. Making it worse, they didn't enforce an urban growth boundary and allowed sprawl to empty out its historic urban core. But they are now making substantial investment in light rail and commuter rail. Equally as important (and to keep this on topic), the city is enacting pedestrian- and TOD-friendly zoning along the light-rail corridor. Hamilton is successfully capitalizing on a marketing angle, that it's the affordable urban alternative to Toronto, yet still close to Toronto.

 

In Canada, their urban growth boundaries combined with pedestrian- and TOD-friendly zoning is physically shaping the urban form in a manner as designed by professionals, hired by elected leaders. It is not governed by happenstance as if it was a natural phenomenon beyond human control.

 

Two major factors make Canadian cities not all that comparable to American cities.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21638191-canada-used-prize-immigrants-who-would-make-good-citizens-now-people-job-offers-have

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto

Both are results of human decisions that we in America have chosen to neglect. Canada in general and Toronto in particular are more aggressive in welcoming immigrants. And you will find many immigrants in Canada are far from wealthy.

I have been to Toronto many times and I have always noticed how diverse the population seemed.  It wasn't unusual to hear many different languages on the streets. 

 

I have heard that some of Toronto's growth came in the 80s (I think) when there was a serious movement for Quebec independence.  Many businesses in Montreal moved to Toronto due to uncertainty.  I'm not sure how much truth there is to that because I'e never researched it myself.

Toronto's growth came from multiple factors. It actually started in the 1950s as the metro area took a holistic approach to designing the city the way it wanted to be -- designed around mass transit and density. This was a very brave thing to do as itsoon American companions were being decentralized around highways. Toronto acquired Cleveland's still-new streetcars and built the Yonge-Spadina subway where it wanted high-rise development to occur, unlike Cleveland which built its CTS Rapid where the path of least resistance was -- along railroad corridors with lots of aging industries.

 

Next came Toronto's Bloor-Danforth subway followed by the Lakeshore commuter rail line on the existing CN railroad from Hamilton to Oshawa in the late 1960s. Both lines were subjects of comprehensive urban planning principles, including the use of zoning, urban growth boundaries, and even real estate crown corporations (government-owned and capital-incubated companies, many of which were later sold off to the private sector). The result was high-rise residential, office and retail clusters around transit stops that produceday phenomenal transit ridership. Toronto gained a reputation as a safe city, soaring city that ran like clockwork. I remember it being called "An American city that ran like a Swiss watch."

 

So as liberals fled America during the Vietnam War and bank headquarters fled Montreal during the 1970s Liberté Quebec uprising, the well-oiled machine of Toronto was a logical destination. Many noted American liberals followed former New Yorker Jane Jacobs who fled Robert Moses' monolithic, high-speed geometric dreams and instead sought the streetcar/pedestrian scale of cities that Toronto's city fathers respected and encouraged -- including through the use of zoning which discouraged things like blank walls along sidewalks or encouraged greater density nearer to transit stops.

 

And then there was Canada's and especially Toronto'sembracing of the immigrant. It was an early acknowledgement that immigrants don't take jobs, they create them. Yes, they encourage immigrants with wealth to come to Toronto. But once they come, so do many of their extended family members. Immigrants include refugees, as Canada has a more liberal immigration policy than the USA. For example, Ukrainian refugees are generally recognized by Canada while only Crimean Tatars are recognized as refugees by the USA. Toronto welcomes immigrants by supporting them with assimilation assistance. In Toronto, they are seen by most as strengthening the city. In Cleveland, immigrants are feared as burdens on taxpayer-funded services, as diluting the political power base of those in charge or, worse, as possible terrorists. Fear is seldom an ingredient for economic growth.

^^One question KJP.  When did they build the Gardiner, QEW and 401 highways?    Did those concur with our interstate growth?

 

Despite the transit mecca we make Toronto out to be, it's also the worst of the other end of the spectrum as well.  Lots of sprawl, and lots of concrete.  There are sections where I'd rather drive at 5 pm on a Friday in LA than in Toronto.....

The former satellite cities of York, North York, and Scarborough had their own transportation agenda, even though they joined in a metro Toronto regional government in 1954. Yet they and a few others were independent municipalities until 1998 when they merged with Toronto. They, plus Mississauga (still an independent city -- the largest suburb in North America with 700,000+ people!) sought a network of highways that ringed as they call it "Old Toronto." You'll notice there's only one interstate-type highway into and through downtown Toronto -- it's the QEW on the west shoreline, the Gardiner through downtown, and the Don Valley Expressway to the northeast of downtown. But even that isn't likely to remain as a through-downtown interstate-type highway for much longer. There's interest by developers getting the city and province to demolish the elevated Gardiner and turning it into an at-grade boulevard.

 

Every successful city has traffic congestion. The highway engineers have sold us a bill of goods that Level of Service A (free-flowing traffic) is a worthy, attainable goal. The problem is that it is unattainable over the long-term except in dying cities. And those who are perpetually trying to seek LOS A end up sacrificing most other urban quality of life metrics (see: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/01/28/the-feds-want-to-reform-the-cult-of-level-of-service/). So eventually, cities that now focus all of their investment on transit, bikeways and land-use (including zoning) on absorbing future vehicle-miles traveled have written off further attempts at decongesting roads with more roads.

 

Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area is an example. Of all the transportation capital improvements to be funded out of a $50 billion Ontario-wide infrastructure plan, nearly all are commuter rail, subways, light-rail or busways. There's only a few road projects in there.

 

Anyway, Toronto's zoning is worth learning about as a piece of how they constructed their urban form over 60+ years. Any construction project requires a blueprint, and zoning is a part of that blueprint.

^ Response in immigration thread

Enduring flaws of Erieview District show why downtown needs new zoning (commentary) (photos)

 

The new zoning under consideration for the Weston-Citymark project would limit the width of garage entries and exits, and service bays. And it would require that a high percentage of ground floors of buildings be devoted to active uses, such as retail, and impose requirements for lots of glass and transparency at ground level. It's important to note, however, that the specific overlay proposed for the Warehouse District underwent some last-minute dilution before the planning commission approved it.

 

Instead of simply requiring developers to wrap the primary and secondary frontages of parking garages with offices, retail or housing, the new language states that a developer could also provide a garage with a façade "that does not appear as a parking structure."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2016/03/new_downtown_zoning_should_avo.html#incart_river_home

Seems like at least half of the problems described there could be fixed just by changes to Reserve Square

Seems like at least half of the problems described there could be fixed just by changes to Reserve Square

 

Reserve Square isn't all bad, but the lack of interaction with Superior and Chester is awful.

 

Now being that Superior is so needlessly wide, it's my hope that they can someday add storefronts right alongside those parking garages, and you can even expand the sidewalk area.

This is tomorrow at CSU for anyone interested:

 

Cross posted with I Love CLE thread...

 

Just saw this from local musician Brent Kirby, who is quite an excellent performer by the way.

 

Cleveland friends - if you've ever enjoyed (or hope to enjoy!) live music at The Harp, please consider signing this petition. There has been some questions and confusion on why the Harp is having to apply for the variance for music. Here are some more in depth details.

 

The Harp has had live music for as many years as it has been open, and has been a foothold in that community years before it was cool to be. It must be said also that Cleveland's live music ordinances date back to the days of player pianos and such, and if someone wants to make trouble for an establishment that has live music, any venue in town is fair game.

 

Three years ago, a small group of people (assisted by He Who Must Not Be Named) in Ohio City decided they didn't like music at the Harp and made moves to have it eliminated. The Harp applied for a variance and along with the majority of the community and it's organizations, including key councilmen, convinced the city zoning that the value of music at the Harp was worth keeping, and the variance WAS GRANTED.

 

That didn't satisfy the small group of people, and they appealed. Since then, it has gone all the way up to the Ohio Supreme Court who then pushed it back down to the Cleveland City zoning to make a decision, which happens on March 18th. The Harp has done nothing wrong, and has continued to be a positive force in the community, despite the harassment they have been taking over the last 3-4 YEARS. Not to mention the cost of legal bills.

 

If you want to fight the good fight at the local level, this is a good one to get behind. I encourage you to sign the petition, write a letter, show up on the day of the hearing at City Hall. Three years ago, I was there for that hearing, and there were too many people to fit in the room. Please support the Harp!!!

 

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/694/316/106/save-live-music-at-the-harp/

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4179.2380.html#ixzz41zHBxraC

New zoning requires "culture shift" to make Cleveland more urban, less suburban planners say (photos)

 

To underscore the point, members of the city's planning department displayed slides of East 4th Street between Prospect and Euclid Avenues in downtown Cleveland - a dense, lively, walkable, turn-of-the-century block packed with restaurants, shops and apartments.

 

"Everything you're seeing here is illegal," said planner Kyle Reisz, describing the image.

 

Pointing to one building at the corner of East 4th and Euclid Avenue, he said: "This is a mixed-use building with apartments over [ground floor] retail. Current zoning says because this is residential it has to have a front yard like a single-family house."

 

Reisz paused for effect, he added: "That's what it says."

 

For too long, Collier said, Cleveland has simply acquiesced when developers offer to build according to the existing zoning, taking the view that any investment is better than none.

 

"We are considered a weak market city," Collier said. "To some degree that creates a sense of desperation and when you're desperate you settle and you end up with developments you don't want to see.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2016/03/new_zoning_will_require_cultur.html#incart_river_home

^Thanks for posting. On the one hand, I'm happy that the embedded City Planning presentation highlighted the garage-heavy townhouse development on Bridge and West 58th as something improved zoning could prevent. On the other hand, it's slightly disingenuous, since the then-current zoning didn't permit that type of project anyway. If City Planning didn't like that type of project, why the eff didn't they deny the zoning relief that was requested, or demand a better site plan as a condition?

Excellent point Strap. I can say, having worked on dozens of projects that have dealt with the current planning commission and design review panels in the past 4 years, they, for the most part were not part of the approval of the W58th project. There are many new planners in City Hall now, many of which are under 35 years old, who are putting an end to that kind of development. It simply wouldn't fly now. There are a lot of behind the scene planners that are positively impacting the process that you probably aren't aware of. Things are moving in the right direction, the revised zoning code is the most visible proof of that.

Pedestrian activity changes when you're walking along an interesting street. Via @cityateyelevel. No blank walls. https://t.co/1owwtfxTqG

The land swap means this Dow/Innova episode isn't purely a zoning thing, but it is a nice reminder of the value of as-of-right zoning:

 

Residents of the 7th Ward, which Dow represents, plan to pack a city Board of Zoning Appeals meeting Monday morning to challenge the rezoning required to build Phase Two of the Innova project, the councilman said.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/03/cleveland_city_councilman_tj_d.html

Not about Cleveland, but possibly relevant to its zoning reform: this nifty presentation about Houston's approach to land use (and how it has allowed efficient residential densification in some inner neighborhoods) has been making its way through the housing Twitterverse: http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/events/rethink2011/documents/MakeoverMontgomeryConference_3A_Tennant.pdf

 

I wouldn't want to replicate Houston's rules exactly (I'd be more restrictive about curb cuts in some areas, for example), but there are large swaths of the Cleveland that should just be rezoned to allow townhouse development as of right. Meaning no more need for BZA relief/further rezonings. I don't think anyone can argue with a straight face that the design quality of our townhouse developments is any better than Houston's despite, Houston's total lack of design review and planning commission input.

Seems to me, large scale zoning changes like Houston's offer tremendous possible downside for Cleveland councilpeople with little potential upside.  This would allow every cranky single family homeowner to descend into sputtering outrage when anything more dense than a garage is built on their street.  They could easily point their fingers at the local councilperson who voted for this change and accuse them of gentrification or ceding control over development to out of control developers.  Meanwhile, the councilperson loses the opportunity for grandstanding and ribbon cutting events for new townhouse developments because they have removed themselves from the process.  Developers could simply proceed without begging permission.

 

It seems obvious that if Cleveland is going to get serious about redeveloping the core (particularly the Eastside), it needs to take measures like the one Strap proposed to strengthen property rights and remove democratic politics from the process.  Unfortunately, my present confidence in the City's political leadership is at an absolute low ebb.  I'm sometimes amazed anything gets done.

Pretty ridiculous that for a City that has lost so much population, one of the greatest hurdles to new growth is the City government itself, who ostensibly wants to accommodate such growth.  These arbitrary hurdles have a real effect on people looking for homes and leads many to view the suburbs as a more attractive choice leading to real market consequences.  Of course its middle class people who are harmed most by this stuff because they can't absorb the costs associated with the inefficiencies.

 

Ohio City, Knez Homes team up to offer quicker new construction on Cleveland land-bank lots

 

"It's very difficult for people to build houses in the city of Cleveland," said Ben Trimble, senior director of real estate and planning for Ohio City, Inc.  "You find that at the top of the market, people with more means have the ability to build a custom home. They have the money and time. It really jacks up costs for building, though. ... We're trying to find a way to help the middle class. We have available land, so how do we make it available to more people?"...

 

Today, a buyer who wants to build on a land-bank lot – land that, generally, the city sells for $200 – must jump through a series of hoops. There's an application. Proof of financing. Vetting by the local City Council representative and the land bank. Discussions with the area's development corporation and the local block club. Design reviews. Public hearings on zoning variances, since many homes run into challenges with Cleveland's outdated zoning code

 

Bo Knez, owner of Knez Homes, says that process is taking him an average of 230 days – upwards of seven months. And that doesn't include construction, which might take four to five months. By contrast, Knez said, he often can get a permit in a week or two in the suburbs...

 

..."Our biggest competition here is time," said Knez, who lives and works in Lake County but grew up in Cleveland near East 55th Street and St. Clair Avenue. "We are losing residents to surrounding areas because we can't get product in the ground quick enough. We have projects in Lakewood. We have projects in Shaker Heights. And we have projects in Pepper Pike. And we're seeing the approval processes go a lot quicker. People don't like to wait a year for their home, and that's where we're at with the city of Cleveland."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/03/ohio_city_knez_homes_team_up_t.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

-----

 

Crain's take:

 

Cleveland local development corporation, builder launch city for-sale housing drive

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20160324/NEWS/160329849/local-development-corporation-builder-launch-city-for-sale-housing

As mentioned in the Ohio City thread...this really needs to be examined. I realize the City wants to have some sort of control over the process but seven months vs two weeks is insane.

 

I remember a realtor telling me there are really two types of home buyers; ones who want to find a place asap and ones who have no time table at all. The developer is right, Cleveland is turning away a huge segment of home buyers simply because it takes too long before a shovel can even be put into the ground. Hope someone is listening!

I wouldn't be surprised if this problem is a big drag on the city's population. People who want to live in the city being turned way because its so difficult to build modern attractive housing.

The zoning code adds more to the timetable of building a house in Cleveland than anything.

The zoning code adds more to the timetable of building a house in Cleveland than anything.

 

W 28th, is the city aware of this? And do you know if there is a reform minded person in the administration who is attempting to streamline the process or modernize the zoning code?

The zoning code adds more to the timetable of building a house in Cleveland than anything.

 

And I bet 90% of the delay is the culture of the City of Cleveland employees, in which an 8 hour day only includes 2 hours of actual tasks related to their jobs.  The entire administration needs to be replaced with someone who will crack down on every city department to weed out the slackers.

^Eh, I doubt that's the main problem. Rezoning is a quasi-legislative act. It's not really a "process" through which applicants are entitled to their desired outcome. Neighbors need to have time to weigh in and public hearings need to be held. The problem probably isn't the administration, but requiring zoning relief for vanilla projects in the first place.

What a ridiculous gauntlet of veto powers.  Clean up the code, cut out the councilman and cut out the CDCs.

I'm certainly not defending the timeline Knez cites, but one thing to keep in mind is that he's referring specifically to landbank lots. Comparing the administrative process of essentially receiving free land in Cleveland (even in neighborhoods where it has market value), to construction on what I'm guessing are conventionally acquired sites in Lakewood, Shaker, Pepper Pike. It's a little bit apples and oranges. Unless we want Dow handing free land over to his buddies, that city process should take a little bit of time for due dilligence and ensuring the acquirer is a bonafide developer or whatever. On the other hand, the change the city is making, which is essentially pre-certification, makes a lot of sense, and it shouldn't have taken this long to happen.

 

In any case, I think a bigger question is why the city's land bank is still giving land away in Ohio City, even in relatively un-cool parts. Maybe there are good policy reasons (home ownership programs tied to income restrictions of buyers as mentioned in the article?) but worth revisiting. The city is certainly losing money here.

Having seen a few Knez homes up close, I'm not impressed with their quality but it looks like they are coming in around $150-160 a square foot retail so I'm guessing they actually cost $100-120 psf to build which is in the range of most crappy production builders.  And these are sure to look as dated as the similarly styled homes just off the highway on West 41st.  But they are dead right about how ridiculous it is to get something built in the City of Cleveland. 

I'm certainly not defending the timeline Knez cites, but one thing to keep in mind is that he's referring specifically to landbank lots. Comparing the administrative process of essentially receiving free land in Cleveland (even in neighborhoods where it has market value), to construction on what I'm guessing are conventionally acquired sites in Lakewood, Shaker, Pepper Pike. It's a little bit apples and oranges. Unless we want Dow handing free land over to his buddies, that city process should take a little bit of time for due dilligence and ensuring the acquirer is a bonafide developer or whatever. On the other hand, the change the city is making, which is essentially pre-certification, makes a lot of sense, and it shouldn't have taken this long to happen.

 

In any case, I think a bigger question is why the city's land bank is still giving land away in Ohio City, even in relatively un-cool parts. Maybe there are good policy reasons (home ownership programs tied to income restrictions of buyers as mentioned in the article?) but worth revisiting. The city is certainly losing money here.

 

Strap, you are exactly right. The landbank in conjunction with the Housing Design Subcommittee within the Community Development Department at City Hall is demanding certain things when they are giving away the land for $200 in Tremont and Ohio City. On single family lots HDRS is demanding houses that reflect the character of the surrounding context (not always appropriate in y opinion, but I'll move on), and have flat out outlawed vinyl siding on the street facing facades. In areas of larger clusters of landbank lots they are giving the land for $200 only when certain affordable housing benchmarks are met (ie less in a developers and the city's pocket, but more housing options for non-rich people in Tremont and OC). It has taken a while for some of these things to completely make it through the system, but from my experience the landbank and City Hall have done an admirable job on this. Making blanket statements like "it takes 200 days for me to build a house" are not apples to oranges when compared to the suburbs, and I'm not sure why Knez is biting the hand that feeds him.

Not Cleveland but shows how ridiculous zoning codes can be.  Why is it more desirable to have a shorter NYC with less apartments and less businesses?

 

40 Percent of the Buildings in Manhattan Could Not Be Built Today

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-percent-of-manhattans-buildings-could-not-be-built-today.html?_r=0

My favorite part of this is the number of buildings that have too many apartments.

 

Then I'm sure you have some nutjob in NYC who, in the same breath, would agree with the current zoning code then tout how great rent control is in the City.

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2016/11042016/index.php

 

Cleveland Planning Commission

Agenda for November 4, 2016

 

ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS

Ordinance No. 1255-16(Ward 12/Councilmember Brancatelli; Ward 14/Brian Cummins): Changing the Use, Area and Height [D]istricts and establishing an Urban Form Overlay [D]istrict along W. 25th Street and Denison Avenue between Bradwell Avenue and I-71.

Ordinance No. 1257-16(Ward 12/Councilmember Brancatelli): Changing the Use, Area and Height [D]istricts and establishing an Urban Form Overlay [D]istrict along W. 25th Street and Selzer Avenue between Bradwell Avenue and Selzer Avenue.

Ordinance No. 1256-16(Ward 15/Councilmember Zone): Changing the Use and Area [D]istricts of the northeast and southeast parcels of Franklin [blvd] and W. 52nd Street to Local Retail and Townhouse and establishing an Urban Form Overlay [D]istrict on the northeast corner of Franklin and W. 52nd Street.

Ordinance No. xxx-16(Ward 9/Councilmember Conwell): Changing the Use, Area and Height [D]istricts and establishing and Urban Core Overlay [D]istrict in the area bounded by Euclid Ave., Stokes Blvd., MLK Drive and Chester Ave.

Why do we need a new zoning code? Exhibit A: apartment feet from transit station & in dense area needs to get a variance because of parking.

 

http://realestate.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2016/12/mayfield_station_project_in_cl.html

Why do we need a new zoning code? Exhibit A: apartment feet from transit station & in dense area needs to get a variance because of parking.

 

http://realestate.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2016/12/mayfield_station_project_in_cl.html

 

Every time people try to sell me that Cleveland is a "progressive" city I think about these kinds of backward, regressive policies. 

Why do we need a new zoning code? Exhibit A: apartment feet from transit station & in dense area needs to get a variance because of parking.

 

http://realestate.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2016/12/mayfield_station_project_in_cl.html

 

Every time people try to sell me that Cleveland is a "progressive" city I think about these kinds of backward, regressive policies. 

 

Much like the Democratic party, it's coasting on a reputation but hasn't been progressive for years.  Cleveland just spent $50 million removing mass transit from a place called Public Square.

Also in that Michelle Jarbo article:

 

And plans for condos and apartments are in the works for other Little Italy sites, though at least one project, on East 123rd Street, is tied up in litigation related to zoning.

I'm not too knowledgeable in the history of zoning in this city. When (in general) did all the setback codes come about in Cleveland? I have read up a little on the law hearing in the late 20's for the village of Euclid. But what about the actual urban areas?  My assumption would be it came out of the early "Urban Blight/Renewal" days as  a knee-jerk reaction to the declining state of the urban centers. If this is true I think we have had enough time to realize that density wasn't necessarily the cause for this decline. These codes just seem like relics & ghosts in the system of an era of misunderstanding. Hard to believe they still exist.

^At this point, things like yard requirements aren't there because that's what the city wants or expects, but because it gives the city leverage. It forces developers to ask the city for discretionary changes. These are "holding zones."

^At this point, things like yard requirements aren't there because that's what the city wants or expects, but because it gives the city leverage. It forces developers to ask the city for discretionary changes. These are "holding zones."

 

And gue$$ who i$ "holding" what......

I'm not too knowledgeable in the history of zoning in this city. When (in general) did all the setback codes come about in Cleveland? I have read up a little on the law hearing in the late 20's for the village of Euclid. But what about the actual urban areas?  My assumption would be it came out of the early "Urban Blight/Renewal" days as  a knee-jerk reaction to the declining state of the urban centers.

 

We love your ideas, Mr. Developer. But we on the review board are gonna need you to take out all those windows and have an enormous concrete wall instead. Something that will crumble apart, soon. And ya better have a huge, crappy 1970's mural on it.    

^At this point, things like yard requirements aren't there because that's what the city wants or expects, but because it gives the city leverage. It forces developers to ask the city for discretionary changes. These are "holding zones."

 

Well it is also that the prospect and cost of changing the zoning code is incredibly time consuming and expensive

^At this point, things like yard requirements aren't there because that's what the city wants or expects, but because it gives the city leverage. It forces developers to ask the city for discretionary changes. These are "holding zones."

 

That would explain a lot. The sunbeltfication of a once great city.

Ahem, Cleveland....

 

Buffalo's zoning code steps into the 21st century

http://buffalonews.com/2016/12/27/city-code-21st-century/

ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS

 

1. Ordinance No. xxx-17(Ward 15/Councilmember Zone): Changing the Use, Area and Height Districts along Lorain Avenue between W. 50th Street and W. 65th Street  and replacing the PRO District with an Urban Form Overlay District along Lorain between W. 50th Street and W. 65th Street on the north and south sides of the street.

 

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2017/01062017/index.php

 

Not Cleveland, but something most of us here are pushing for:

Buffalo’s New Zoning Code Promotes Density, But Is It for Everyone?

 

Buffalo, New York’s new citywide, form-based zoning code has every buzzword an urbanist could hope for: Signed into law by Mayor Byron Brown on Tuesday, the Green Code promotes walkability, density, mixed-use development and complete streets redesigns. It preserves the character of the city’s historic neighborhoods, while calling for diversity and affordability. It even eliminates mandatory parking minimums, making Buffalo the first major city in the U.S. to do so. It’s the city’s first comprehensive zoning update since 1953.

 

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/buffalo-green-code-zoning-density