I can say, having opened a business myself, that getting the doors opened is one of the biggest challenges an entrepreneur faces.  It's a process of watching expenses mount while not having any revenue.  If you want to help small neighborhood scale entrepreneurs to reinvigorate their neighborhood, then help get them open so they can begin to make revenue to reinvest.  Inexpensive, flexible, ready made spaces can be a huge boost towards that end. 

 

It blows my mind that the same people complaining about the city's lack of focus on neighborhood retail want to stomp on any ideas we actually do pursue.  Sorry it's not boojee enough for some folks!

Boojee?  I don't know what that is. 

 

Why must neighborhood retail must come with weights attached like operating out of trailers, especially if the intent is to prove whether neighborhood retail can work?  Of course it can, it does all over the world.  In trailers though?  That adds challenges.  Why add challenges?  This only serves as proof of concept for trailer-based neighborhood retail.  If I had to bet, I would not bet on that specific plan working out very well.  Too many limits on what can be sold like this and when.  Too many strikes against it for too many potential customers.

 

When we do things in Cleveland, we should do them right.  There ought to be complaints any time we choose half-measures instead.  Same goes for "TOD" projects skipping retail entirely like that's no big deal.  Sorry, halfway is not good enough.  Do. It. Right.  All of it.  Where retail is concerned that means real buildings, with full utilities, the whole nine yards.  It blows my mind that's too much to ask.  This is the middle of a major US city.  We have options other than trailer parks, those options are better, and we should pursue them.

Boojee= Bourgeoisie

 

Always with the naysaying!  Nobody is stepping up to build full retail buildings with utilities and the whole nine yards here.  Someone is stepping up to do this.  It gives entrepreneurs who may not have much capital a chance.  Sorry, but your ideological objection seems empty next to the possibility of giving them a chance to start something that may thrive.  And if worse comes to worse, they're just shipping containers.  Just ship them somewhere else.

Boojee?  I don't know what that is. 

 

Why must neighborhood retail must come with weights attached like operating out of trailers, especially if the intent is to prove whether neighborhood retail can work?  Of course it can, it does all over the world.  In trailers though?  That adds challenges.  Why add challenges?  This only serves as proof of concept for trailer-based neighborhood retail.  If I had to bet, I would not bet on that specific plan working out very well.  Too many limits on what can be sold like this and when.  Too many strikes against it for too many potential customers.

 

When we do things in Cleveland, we should do them right.  There ought to be complaints any time we choose half-measures instead.  Same goes for "TOD" projects skipping retail entirely like that's no big deal.  Sorry, halfway is not good enough.  Do. It. Right.  All of it.  Where retail is concerned that means real buildings, with full utilities, the whole nine yards.  It blows my mind that's too much to ask.  This is the middle of a major US city.  We have options other than trailer parks, those options are better, and we should pursue them.

 

You really kill me with this. Have you ever actually been to this neighborhood or any distressed neighborhood? And do you have any understanding whatsoever of how you begin the process of turning a distressed neighborhood into something that is not distressed? Clearly not, as demonstrated here. Private dollars (which is needed to drive retail) are not ideological. They don't give a damn about how you feel or how anyone else feels. They want to know if they can make money at that particular neighborhood. And when a neighborhood is distressed, traditional retail is skiddish about being there because there is a question of whether retail is viable. It doesn't matter if you think it should be or if I do, that's reality. So with something like this, first of all it gives a better opportunity to smaller retailers to get off of the ground with low overhead, second of all it can demonstrate to the overall retail community that people will actually buy stuff on that strip in this neighborhood. Neighborhood retail "comes with weights" when there's no incentive for private dollars to invest in said neighborhood because they question its viability. So you have to find ways to get around that in order to establish proof of said viability. Or, they could follow your path and just stay with nothing until they magically demonstrate their commercial viability without any retailers and without any places to put local retailers and still with vacant storefronts that can be exhorbant to fix and almost impossible to do so without private dollars (which aren't coming without a clear demonstration of commercial viability). I'm SURE that approach will work

Boojee?  I don't know what that is. 

 

Why must neighborhood retail must come with weights attached like operating out of trailers, especially if the intent is to prove whether neighborhood retail can work?  Of course it can, it does all over the world.  In trailers though?  That adds challenges.  Why add challenges?  This only serves as proof of concept for trailer-based neighborhood retail.  If I had to bet, I would not bet on that specific plan working out very well.  Too many limits on what can be sold like this and when.  Too many strikes against it for too many potential customers.

 

When we do things in Cleveland, we should do them right.  There ought to be complaints any time we choose half-measures instead.  Same goes for "TOD" projects skipping retail entirely like that's no big deal.  Sorry, halfway is not good enough.  Do. It. Right.  All of it.  Where retail is concerned that means real buildings, with full utilities, the whole nine yards.  It blows my mind that's too much to ask.  This is the middle of a major US city.  We have options other than trailer parks, those options are better, and we should pursue them.

 

If there’s one lesson with respect to urban development that even a complete dilettante like me has picked up is that “all or nothing” seldom if ever works.  Being too picky about development can lead to no development.

 

I can’t decide if this reminds me more of the anti-skywalk activists downtown or historical objections to small independent markets owned by entrepreneurs (often of Asian descent) in inner city neighborhoods.

You really kill me with this. Have you ever actually been to this neighborhood or any distressed neighborhood? And do you have any understanding whatsoever of how you begin the process of turning a distressed neighborhood into something that is not distressed? Clearly not, as demonstrated here. Private dollars (which is needed to drive retail) are not ideological. They don't give a damn about how you feel or how anyone else feels. They want to know if they can make money at that particular neighborhood. And when a neighborhood is distressed, traditional retail is skiddish about being there because there is a question of whether retail is viable. It doesn't matter if you think it should be or if I do, that's reality. So with something like this, first of all it gives a better opportunity to smaller retailers to get off of the ground with low overhead, second of all it can demonstrate to the overall retail community that people will actually buy stuff on that strip in this neighborhood. Neighborhood retail "comes with weights" when there's no incentive for private dollars to invest in said neighborhood because they question its viability. So you have to find ways to get around that in order to establish proof of said viability. Or, they could follow your path and just stay with nothing until they magically demonstrate their commercial viability without any retailers and without any places to put local retailers and still with vacant storefronts that can be exhorbant to fix and almost impossible to do so without private dollars (which aren't coming without a clear demonstration of commercial viability). I'm SURE that approach will work

 

Why does this need to be personal?  Why does any discussion of public investment choices need to be personal?  I haven't questioned your qualifications to talk about it.  That's not appropriate here.

 

Many cities in this area, and others, have storefront renovation programs and small business support programs.  Those programs are specifically intended for distressed areas.  Are you suggesting they aren't viable because they don't use trailers?  I'm suggesting they're more viable for that very reason. 

 

The whole point of any such program is using public funds to address private disinvestment.  That's a constant.  It doesn't distinguish this approach from any other.  But this is not the only way to approach the problem, just like dirt bike tracks aren't the only way to approach whatever they're supposed to solve.  IMO neither of those ought to be Plan A.  If you disagree, good for you.  I don't believe our disagreement makes you ignorant.  Give that outlook a try, you might find yourself happier.

You really kill me with this. Have you ever actually been to this neighborhood or any distressed neighborhood? And do you have any understanding whatsoever of how you begin the process of turning a distressed neighborhood into something that is not distressed? Clearly not, as demonstrated here. Private dollars (which is needed to drive retail) are not ideological. They don't give a damn about how you feel or how anyone else feels. They want to know if they can make money at that particular neighborhood. And when a neighborhood is distressed, traditional retail is skiddish about being there because there is a question of whether retail is viable. It doesn't matter if you think it should be or if I do, that's reality. So with something like this, first of all it gives a better opportunity to smaller retailers to get off of the ground with low overhead, second of all it can demonstrate to the overall retail community that people will actually buy stuff on that strip in this neighborhood. Neighborhood retail "comes with weights" when there's no incentive for private dollars to invest in said neighborhood because they question its viability. So you have to find ways to get around that in order to establish proof of said viability. Or, they could follow your path and just stay with nothing until they magically demonstrate their commercial viability without any retailers and without any places to put local retailers and still with vacant storefronts that can be exhorbant to fix and almost impossible to do so without private dollars (which aren't coming without a clear demonstration of commercial viability). I'm SURE that approach will work

 

Why does this need to be personal?  Why does any discussion of public investment choices need to be personal?  I haven't questioned your qualifications to talk about it.  That's not appropriate here.

 

Many cities in this area, and others, have storefront renovation programs and small business support programs.  Those programs are specifically intended for distressed areas.  Are you suggesting they aren't viable because they don't use trailers?  I'm suggesting they're more viable for that very reason. 

 

The whole point of any such program is using public funds to address private disinvestment.  That's a constant.  It doesn't distinguish this approach from any other.  But this is not the only way to approach the problem, just like dirt bike tracks aren't the only way to approach whatever they're supposed to solve.  IMO neither of those ought to be Plan A.  If you disagree, good for you.  I don't believe our disagreement makes you ignorant.  Give that outlook a try, you might find yourself happier.

 

In some neighborhoods, storefront renovation programs won't work because A: you have to get the money to do the renovation in the first place and B: that can be a lot of money that you don't have, especially if the storefronts are in bad shape. Your approach would leave the storefronts vacant AND still not prove commercial viability in the neighborhood.

 

And for the record, it's not a personal attack that I think your comments on this issue are ludicrous. Has nothing to do with you personally. Like a Supreme Court justice said, "I attack ideas, not people."

As was pointed out earlier, there are almost no storefronts in this neighborhood at this point, so storefront restoration is a red herring here. I hope there is some thought to the site planning of this project, but the concept sounds good to me. This is sort of the retail version of tactical urbanism and we could probably use a lot more of it in Cleveland. 

 

I do have some broader disappointment with this neighborhood though. A huge share of the land area here has passed through public ownership in recent years, offering a rare opportunity for some truly comprehensive planning, backed by real money, near a rapid station. Kind of a bummer that all we're ending up with is the CMHA reconstruction on its original land, single family infill on the side streets that connect it to the rapid station, and that car-oriented strip shopping center. The only reason there is a direct-ish pedestrian link across the park to the rapid station is due to some other tactical urbanism a few years ago. Kind of weak given the massive public investment on behalf of a population that is highly transit dependent.

 

EDIT:

 

Yeesh is CMHA's corporate fortress on a hill is dismal. The moat needs to be a little deeper, but otherwise it's ready to fight off the peasant uprising: http://bit.ly/2nESHBo

It's a huge, blank sheet of paper. I've done my impromptu planning exercises over the years and shared them with the city, the CDCs, GCRTA and even ODOT. But there's a reason why this is called the Forgotten Triangle. No one cares about it -- except as a pass-through to get from the Interstates to UC.

East Design Review District

Agenda

 

(8:30a.m., Tuesday, March 28th, 2017)

Cornucopia Place, 7201 Kinsman Avenue

 

9:10a.m. 2. East 2017-006 – BoxSpot Schematic Review ©

Location: Kinsman Road & E 81st Street, Ward 5

Burten, Bell, Carr Design Review District

Burten, Bell, Carr Development Inc. is working on a box container project for a

creative co-working / business incubator space on Kinsman Avenue.

Project Representative: Erick Rodriguez, Burten, Bell, Carr Development Inc.

 

Looking back at the original notice, this precise location seems awful for retail incubation. This literally might have the lowest density walk-shed of any location in the entire city. Given all the vacant land, much of which is probably publicly controlled, why not do this a few blocks to the west, closer to all the new housing?  Maybe the goal here is just a cheapo car-oriented strip plaza?

As was pointed out earlier, there are almost no storefronts in this neighborhood at this point, so storefront restoration is a red herring here. I hope there is some thought to the site planning of this project, but the concept sounds good to me. This is sort of the retail version of tactical urbanism and we could probably use a lot more of it in Cleveland. 

 

I do have some broader disappointment with this neighborhood though. A huge share of the land area here has passed through public ownership in recent years, offering a rare opportunity for some truly comprehensive planning, backed by real money, near a rapid station. Kind of a bummer that all we're ending up with is the CMHA reconstruction on its original land, single family infill on the side streets that connect it to the rapid station, and that car-oriented strip shopping center. The only reason there is a direct-ish pedestrian link across the park to the rapid station is due to some other tactical urbanism a few years ago. Kind of weak given the massive public investment on behalf of a population that is highly transit dependent.

 

EDIT:

 

Yeesh is CMHA's corporate fortress on a hill is dismal. The moat needs to be a little deeper, but otherwise it's ready to fight off the peasant uprising: http://bit.ly/2nESHBo

 

Totally agree with you on that with CMHA. For an organization that does development for a living, you would think that they would've used their HQ needs to spur additional development around it

And for the record, it's not a personal attack that I think your comments on this issue are ludicrous. Has nothing to do with you personally. Like a Supreme Court justice said, "I attack ideas, not people."

 

doesn't quite address

 

You really kill me with this. Have you ever actually been to this neighborhood or any distressed neighborhood? And do you have any understanding whatsoever of how you begin the process of turning a distressed neighborhood into something that is not distressed? Clearly not, as demonstrated here.

 

Only after that do you begin talking ideas.  And I'm done talking about this idea, feel like my point has been made. 

 

One factual item though, this area is littered with mixed use buildings in need of renovation and tenants.  Not this particular stretch of Kinsman, no, but to me that's a myopic view.  And it's not like Kinsman itself doesn't have a degree of active retail already.  It does, so I'm not sure what exactly needs to be proven.  Public investment in retail space should probably focus on streets like Union or 93rd where there are more historic mixed-use structures left to work with.  As noted, Kinsman has seen enough demo to provide a nearly clean slate.  I just hate to see this sort of thing happen with a clean slate.  This can't possibly be what we cleaned it for... right?

As was pointed out earlier, there are almost no storefronts in this neighborhood at this point, so storefront restoration is a red herring here. I hope there is some thought to the site planning of this project, but the concept sounds good to me. This is sort of the retail version of tactical urbanism and we could probably use a lot more of it in Cleveland. 

 

I do have some broader disappointment with this neighborhood though. A huge share of the land area here has passed through public ownership in recent years, offering a rare opportunity for some truly comprehensive planning, backed by real money, near a rapid station. Kind of a bummer that all we're ending up with is the CMHA reconstruction on its original land, single family infill on the side streets that connect it to the rapid station, and that car-oriented strip shopping center. The only reason there is a direct-ish pedestrian link across the park to the rapid station is due to some other tactical urbanism a few years ago. Kind of weak given the massive public investment on behalf of a population that is highly transit dependent.

 

EDIT:

 

Yeesh is CMHA's corporate fortress on a hill is dismal. The moat needs to be a little deeper, but otherwise it's ready to fight off the peasant uprising: http://bit.ly/2nESHBo

 

I don't totally disagree.  (the strip I'm assuming you're talking about is where Burton-Bell and the CPL branch is).  And somehow the little super market a few doors down didn't seem as bad as it once did,... maybe that's my illusion...  Usually I'm not wild about this type of development, but the Kinsman district has been so forlorn and so distressed, I'll take it.  There needs to be some form of life there, and we're beginning to see signs.  I'm not wild about CMHA's HQ building, but do applaud the fact they chose to locate it there -- not just in any neighborhood, but Cleveland's most distressed area.  Also I think CMHA's newer Garden Valley housing going in, esp west of E. 75th is a welcome relief from the dismal 50s-era prison-block looking crap its replacing.  Study's have shown that the residents are more motivated to take care of such properties more than the older stuff.

As was pointed out earlier, there are almost no storefronts in this neighborhood at this point, so storefront restoration is a red herring here. I hope there is some thought to the site planning of this project, but the concept sounds good to me. This is sort of the retail version of tactical urbanism and we could probably use a lot more of it in Cleveland. 

 

I do have some broader disappointment with this neighborhood though. A huge share of the land area here has passed through public ownership in recent years, offering a rare opportunity for some truly comprehensive planning, backed by real money, near a rapid station. Kind of a bummer that all we're ending up with is the CMHA reconstruction on its original land, single family infill on the side streets that connect it to the rapid station, and that car-oriented strip shopping center. The only reason there is a direct-ish pedestrian link across the park to the rapid station is due to some other tactical urbanism a few years ago. Kind of weak given the massive public investment on behalf of a population that is highly transit dependent.

 

EDIT:

 

Yeesh is CMHA's corporate fortress on a hill is dismal. The moat needs to be a little deeper, but otherwise it's ready to fight off the peasant uprising: http://bit.ly/2nESHBo

 

I don't totally disagree.  (the strip I'm assuming you're talking about is where Burton-Bell and the CPL branch is).  And somehow the little super market a few doors down didn't seem as bad as it once did,... maybe that's my illusion...  Usually I'm not wild about this type of development, but the Kinsman district has been so forlorn and so distressed, I'll take it.  There needs to be some form of life there, and we're beginning to see signs.  I'm not wild about CMHA's HQ building, but do applaud the fact they chose to locate it there -- not just in any neighborhood, but Cleveland's most distressed area.  Also I think CMHA's newer Garden Valley housing going in, esp west of E. 75th is a welcome relief from the dismal 50s-era prison-block looking crap its replacing.  Study's have shown that the residents are more motivated to take care of such properties more than the older stuff.

 

That's right by the proposed Frank Jackson Dirt Bike Track, correct?  So much for any development around there....

Somewhere, out on the eastern prairie, a BoxSpot may rise like a lone sentinel amid the ghosts of the disappeared city....

 

Cleveland Planning Commission

Agenda for April 7, 2017

 

EAST DESIGN REVIEW

 

EAST2015-006 – BoxSpot New Construction: Seeking Schematic Design Approval

Project Location: Kinsman Road and East 81st Street

Project Representative:  Erick Rodriguez, Burten Bell Carr Development

 

 

 

 

To repeat my earlier comment, why on earth would you put this thing in that location, with an absurdly tiny amount of disposable income within the walk-shed? It makes no sense-as walk-up shopping and isn't designed to attract drive-in shoppers either.

Woah, this area basically looks to be an urban prairie.

To be fair, the CPC used an old satellite view of the area. There's been apartment buildings built south and west of the intersection of Kinsman/East 79th since that view was captured.

I like the overall arrangement and design in those pictures but now I'm really confused.  This isn't just boxes, it's construction using boxes, which means sinking money and effort into something that's still boxes when we're done.  Kinsman deserves real buildings, just like the rest of Cleveland.

I like the overall arrangement and design in those pictures but now I'm really confused.  This isn't just boxes, it's construction using boxes, which means sinking money and effort into something that's still boxes when we're done.  Kinsman deserves real buildings, just like the rest of Cleveland.

 

Apparently it doesn't, yet.  These are infinitely better than vacant fields and ruins.

 

If they succeed, they help justify more permanent structures.

I like the overall arrangement and design in those pictures but now I'm really confused.  This isn't just boxes, it's construction using boxes, which means sinking money and effort into something that's still boxes when we're done.  Kinsman deserves real buildings, just like the rest of Cleveland.

 

Apparently it doesn't, yet.  These are infinitely better than vacant fields and ruins.

 

If they succeed, they help justify more permanent structures.

 

That logic is what concerns me.  A weak stab is being substituted for a full go, with performance of the weak stab being used to determine the hypothetical success of a full go.  First of all, apples and oranges.  But if this doesn't work, even if the problem is site choice or single-use or the limitations of shipping containers or whatever, it becomes a new argument for the TJ Dows of the world to use against honest to goodness urban retail.

I actually really like these concepts. This type of container architecture can go pretty far and I think can make for an interesting space, so I don't really see this type of development as "less than."

 

I'd actually love to see it duplicated on the West Side along stretches like Madison where there are some sprawling parking lots and substandard buildings that don't conform to an urban environment (Dollar General, Gryo George, etc).

I like the overall arrangement and design in those pictures but now I'm really confused.  This isn't just boxes, it's construction using boxes, which means sinking money and effort into something that's still boxes when we're done.  Kinsman deserves real buildings, just like the rest of Cleveland.

 

Apparently it doesn't, yet.  These are infinitely better than vacant fields and ruins.

 

If they succeed, they help justify more permanent structures.

 

That logic is what concerns me.  A weak stab is being substituted for a full go, with performance of the weak stab being used to determine the hypothetical success of a full go.  First of all, apples and oranges.  But if this doesn't work, even if the problem is site choice or single-use or the limitations of shipping containers or whatever, it becomes a new argument for the TJ Dows of the world to use against honest to goodness urban retail.

 

It's not the "Dows" that the viability of neighborhoods has to be proven to.  It's private sector investors and entrepreneurs.

A few demolitions are on design-review's agenda this week including this, which appears to be part of a larger vision for lower Kinsman including a nature center....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2017/04212017/index.php

EAST2017-011 – Proposed Demolition of a One-Story Institutional Use Building

Project Address: 6833 Berwick Road

Project Representative: Jason Minter, Burten, Bell, Carr Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2017/04212017/image/6833_Berwick_06.jpg

^ I sure hope the Sidaway Bridge gets put back into use as part of broader greenway plan.

I like the overall arrangement and design in those pictures but now I'm really confused.  This isn't just boxes, it's construction using boxes, which means sinking money and effort into something that's still boxes when we're done.  Kinsman deserves real buildings, just like the rest of Cleveland.

 

Talk about oversimplifying it. This a commercial project and has to meet the same requirements as any other commercial building.

 

Here's another project that's a "...still boxes when we're done."

 

 

 

 

At any rate, the project received planning approval.

http://www.thearchoffice.com/2017/04/24/boxspot-gets-nod-cleveland-planning-commission/

I meant literally boxes, as in metal crates not intended for human occupancy.  The nucleus tower design is a bit boxy for my preference but that's a matter of aesthetics.  There we're talking about an actual building, a significant one, rather than recycled trailer parts.  I hope we can agree that recognizing this distinction is more than just a failure to think outside the box.

Cleveland city council approves plan to reopen East Side Market

September 28, 2015

LEE CHILCOTE

 

Cleveland’s East Side Market closed in 2007, leaving behind an empty building in the heart of the Glenville neighborhood. Now a plan is underway to reopen the municipally owned facility, which launched in 1988 as a fresh foods market for the city’s northeastern neighborhoods, as a full-service grocery store, health clinic and hub for food-related businesses.

 

At the request of Cleveland City Council members Kevin Conwell, Jeff Johnson and Mike Polensek, council at a Sept. 14 meeting approved leasing the property to Northeast Ohio Neighborhood Health Services (NEON), a nonprofit that operates community health centers in Cleveland and East Cleveland. The city will lease the property at East 105th and St. Clair for just $1 per year. Using both public and private funds, NEON aims to complete a $3.5 million renovation that it says will create at least 103 jobs.

 

The most significant part of the project is the fact that it will bring a new fresh foods market to an area that is considered a food desert. Mazzulo’s Fresh Market, a family-owned grocer with two small stores in Aurora and Bainbridge, has signed a letter of intent to lease 13,000 square feet of the property at a price of $15 per square foot. The new Mazzulo’s will be stocked with fresh meats, seafood and fruits and vegetables and will also have a small outdoor café with Wi-Fi.

 

MORE:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20150928/BLOGS16/150929832/cleveland-city-council-approves-plan-to-reopen-east-side-market

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2017/pdf/NE_Design_Review_Agenda_05-2-17.pdf

 

8:40am 3. NE 2017-015 —Gateway 105 Farmer’s Market – New Construction (N)

Glenville Design Review District

Location: 1318-1322 E. 105th St

Seeking schematic approval for the proposed new construction of a temporary

fresh market stand and community space.

Project Representative: Julie Criscione, JMC Owner’s Rep Services, LLC

I meant literally boxes, as in metal crates not intended for human occupancy.  The nucleus tower design is a bit boxy for my preference but that's a matter of aesthetics.  There we're talking about an actual building, a significant one, rather than recycled trailer parts.  I hope we can agree that recognizing this distinction is more than just a failure to think outside the box.

 

Well played....

Despite redlining and foreclosure, Cleveland's East Side could grow with smart investment: panel (photos)

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

on May 11, 2017 at 10:05 AM

 

CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, Ohio - There's a deep connection between the history of redlining on the East Side of Cleveland and the continuing decline of neighborhoods hollowed out by subprime lending and the mortgage foreclosure crisis of the 2000s.

 

So said Terry Schwarz, director of Kent State University's Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative in her kickoff to a panel discussion on why redevelopment in poor, predominantly black neighborhoods on the city's East Side is lagging that of the West Side.

 

To illustrate her point, she showed contemporary maps of distressed and foreclosed properties on the East Side of Cleveland that looked eerily similar to redlining maps of the 1930s and '40s.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2017/05/despite_legacy_of_redlining_an.html

FRONT exhibit aims to spur Glenville renaissance with global artists residency (photos)

Posted on May 28, 2017 at 6:01 AM

BY STEVEN LITT, THE PLAIN DEALER

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - From Playhouse Square and University Circle to Ohio City, Tremont and Detroit Shoreway, Cleveland has a reputation for using the arts to delight the mind and the soul, and to spark neighborhood revitalization.

 

Both practices soon will take root in Glenville, the poor, primarily black neighborhood sandwiched between University Circle and Bratenahl that yearns to regain its former status as one of the city's most desirable districts.

 

The Front International Cleveland Triennial for Contemporary Art (FRONT) plans to announce formally on Monday that the former Medical Associates Building at 1464 East 105th Street - a local landmark - is being renovated as the home base for a yearlong residency for a dozen artists participating in the ambitious global exhibit in the summer of 2018.

 

MORE

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2017/05/front_exhibit_aim_to_spur_glenville.html

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2017/06022017/index.php

 

NORTHEAST DESIGN REVIEW

NE2017-015 – Gateway 105 Farmer's Market New Construction: Seeking Final  Approval

Project Addresses: 1318-1322 East 105th Street

Project Representative: Julie Criscione, JMC Owner's Rep Services

 

 

That's a barn, and not a very attractive one.  We'd be better off using tents until an appropriate structure can be built.

That's a barn, and not a very attractive one.  We'd be better off using tents until an appropriate structure can be built.

 

Perhaps modular containers?

Low expectations met with equal effort.

That's a barn, and not a very attractive one.  We'd be better off using tents until an appropriate structure can be built.

 

Perhaps modular containers?

 

Let's just pave it over and have people sell things from the trunks of their cars.  We'll call them "buskers" and that'll elevate the whole affair.

Let's just pave it over and have people sell things from the trunks of their cars.  We'll call them "buskers" and that'll elevate the whole affair.

 

I guess my primary question would be what you see as a proper design for a farmer's market?

This is a low-income/working-class neighborhood that's trying to avoid slipping into the third-world conditions of many other abandoned east-side Cleveland neighborhoods + East Cleveland. I'm not sure what you're expecting for this neighborhood for the resources it can muster, but anything that provides a sense of hope and positive momentum is a valuable asset for Glenville. Perhaps you should visit some of the other farmers markets in east-side Cleveland neighborhoods. Maybe someday this market can become an establishment like the Coit Road Farmers Market that's served its neighborhood with fresh food (not junk food served from convenience stores in this massive food desert) for 85 years and appears to serve as the design contemporary for the Gateway 105 market....

 

 

I'd also add that this rendering is just a SketchUp model. You can't infer the quality of the materials.

 

If this structure is built with suitable quality materials it will be very nice and akin to any equivalent permanent farmer's market you'd get in a much wealthier area.

Maybe someday you'll lead an effort to actually build something tangible and realize just how hard it really is. Or, maybe you'll prove to all of us how wrong we really are. I look forward to hearing your findings.

If you want to make excuses for poor design standards, or claim that poor design standards will help Glenville avoid third world status, it's a free country.  But don't complain later that we aren't getting the breaks other cities get, that the economy hates Cleveland, cars hate Cleveland, suburbs hate Cleveland, etc.  Not when Cleveland opts for half-measures, low quality, ugliness and failure at every opportunity, and then has the audacity to use "Cleveland" as an excuse.

 

Nobody will stand up for us until we stand up for ourselves.  People who live on the east side of Cleveland do not deserve garbage buildings because they live on the east side of Cleveland.  Glenville is not the third world, it is part of our home and we need to show more pride in it.  The notion that Glenville should have to face its problems alone, financially or otherwise, is the core of the problem here.  We should all be ashamed of this, whatever part of the region we live in.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. The point where we diverge is that I objectively do not think that this proposed building is bad, and I'm not sure your concept of what should be built aligns with what a community farmer's market actually is. As I pointed out above, it seems you want this to be a full-out market which is just not the scope of this project.

Maybe someday you'll lead an effort to actually build something tangible and realize just how hard it really is. Or, maybe you'll prove to all of us how wrong we really are. I look forward to hearing your findings.

 

Preach

If you want to make excuses for poor design standards, or claim that poor design standards will help Glenville avoid third world status, it's a free country.  But don't complain later that we aren't getting the breaks other cities get, that the economy hates Cleveland, cars hate Cleveland, suburbs hate Cleveland, etc.  Not when Cleveland opts for half-measures, low quality, ugliness and failure at every opportunity, and then has the audacity to use "Cleveland" as an excuse.

 

Nobody will stand up for us until we stand up for ourselves.  People who live on the east side of Cleveland do not deserve garbage buildings because they live on the east side of Cleveland.  Glenville is not the third world, it is part of our home and we need to show more pride in it.  The notion that Glenville should have to face its problems alone, financially or otherwise, is the core of the problem here.  We should all be ashamed of this, whatever part of the region we live in.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. The point where we diverge is that I objectively do not think that this proposed building is bad, and I'm not sure your concept of what should be built aligns with what a community farmer's market actually is. As I pointed out above, it seems you want this to be a full-out market which is just not the scope of this project.

 

That's fine if you like it, and you may be right that the next rendering will look better.  I can't even discern what it's supposed to be made of.  The footprint looks to be pretty minimal and that troubles me more than any specific design aspect.  Does the "farmers market" concept require big lawns?  If so, this probably doesn't belong on the corner of 105th.

I think it really depends on the scale of the operation. I haven't been to the existing Gateway 105 open-air market, but it looks like the size of this new facility marks a pretty significant scaling up of the current market. (https://www.facebook.com/Gateway105/). There also appears to be enough room to grow in size. Location-wise I think they want to keep it within relatively close proximity of the current market site.

 

I'm not sure if the structure is intended for all-year use or if this will still be a seasonal thing. As I understand, this entire project is designed by and for the existing Gateway 105 farmer's market (through Famicos), so I assume it's in line with their needs and long-term plan.

 

 

AMAZING VIDEO (note over an hour):

 

East Side Development: Prospects for Reinvention

 

East Design Review District

Agenda

8:30a.m., Tuesday, June 13th, 2017

Cornucopia Place, 7201 Kinsman Avenue

 

8:45 East 2017-xxx E 79th Street TLCI Study C

E 79th Street between Woodland and Garden Valley Aves.

Ward 5

Burten, Bell, Carr District

Alex Pesta, City Architecture

 

Some background.....

 

Cleveland's E. 79th Transit Oriented Corridor Project 

Cleveland's East 79th Street transit Oriented Corridor Study area comprises a section of East 79th Street between Woodland and Carson Avenue. Key destinations within the study area are RTA's Red and Blue/Green Line transit stations. This study examines the East 79th street corridor identifying opportunities for transit-oriented development in proximity to the RTA's Red and Blue/Green Line stations. In addition, this study will focus on roadway and land use enhancements that strengthen the north-south connection to the $331 million Opportunity Corridor. This will help build a sustainable mulit-modal transportation system supporting economic development, and enhance the quality of life for Northeast Ohio. These connections and improvements within the immediate neighborhoods address health, equity and connectivity.

East Design Review District

Agenda

8:30a.m., Tuesday, June 13th, 2017

Cornucopia Place, 7201 Kinsman Avenue

 

8:45 East 2017-xxx E 79th Street TLCI Study C

E 79th Street between Woodland and Garden Valley Aves.

Ward 5

Burten, Bell, Carr District

Alex Pesta, City Architecture

 

Some background.....

 

Cleveland's E. 79th Transit Oriented Corridor Project 

Cleveland's East 79th Street transit Oriented Corridor Study area comprises a section of East 79th Street between Woodland and Carson Avenue. Key destinations within the study area are RTA's Red and Blue/Green Line transit stations. This study examines the East 79th street corridor identifying opportunities for transit-oriented development in proximity to the RTA's Red and Blue/Green Line stations. In addition, this study will focus on roadway and land use enhancements that strengthen the north-south connection to the $331 million Opportunity Corridor. This will help build a sustainable mulit-modal transportation system supporting economic development, and enhance the quality of life for Northeast Ohio. These connections and improvements within the immediate neighborhoods address health, equity and connectivity.

 

This is urban prairie right now, but it's also immediately adjacent to the proposed Frank Jackson Alternative Urban Transportation Center.  (and firing range?)

Clean slates are all the rage these days. #ScrantonPeninsula

Moved to the Opportunity Corridor redevelopment thread.....

There were two significant real estate transactions in June in blighted, east-side neighborhoods by an out-of-state company. My first reaction is that If it sounds like a property flip/pump-and-dump scheme. But upon further review, this company looks for properties in blighted areas to reinvest in them. But these are both new buildings for federal agencies...

 

The first transaction from June I noticed was of 11601 Shaker Boulevard. This is at the site of recent activity, including the 139-unit St. Luke's Manor apartments, the 79 single-family homes of Legacy at St. Luke’s (adding to the 22 homes already built), the $5 million rebuilding of the East 116th light-rail station, and the NOACA transit-oriented development pilot project just south of the Rapid station.....

 

RTD Shaker Heights LLC was formed on May 12 by a company in Oklahoma City. The street address of the company and the man's name on the filing (Richard Tanenbaum) point to Gardner Tanenbaum Holdings. I found an interesting article about this man and his companies:  The article reads in part:

 

It can be difficult to look at a shuttered high school, a closed convention center or a long-abandoned industrial project as anything more than what it appears to be on the surface. At best, properties such as these are associated with positive memories; at worst, they’re eyesores.

 

When Richard Tanenbaum sees a once useful but now obsolete facility on a large piece of land in his hometown of Oklahoma City, he doesn’t see blight – he sees opportunity. “We like to be creative in our projects,” says Tanenbaum, the CEO of Gardner Tanenbaum Holdings. “There aren’t too many people who would want to take on the challenges we do.” .

 

The transaction involves purchasing a still-new US Social Security Administration office building and parking lot for an awful lot of money.....

 

11601 SHAKER BLVD

CLEVELAND

Sales Date 6/16/2017

Amount $2,302,750

Buyer RTD SHAKER HEIGHTS LLC

Seller PATRICK SHAKER PROPERTIES, LLC

Deed type WARRANTY D

Land value $164,700

Building value $422,000

Total value $586,700

Parcel 129-08-003

Property Office buildings 1 and 2 stories

 

The two parcels immediately east, at 11701 Shaker, are also owned by PATRICK SHAKER PROPERTIES LLC. Makes me wonder if Tanenbaum is interested in this property as well.

 

The other transaction was of a VA Hospital outpatient surgery center. Tanenbaum spent a lot of money for this property too....

 

8901 SUPERIOR AVE

CLEVELAND

Sales Date 6/16/2017

Amount $3,235,750

Buyer RTD CLEVELAND LLC

Seller MICHAEL DOWNING REALTY LTD

Deed type WARRANTY D

Land value $180,600

Building value $1,257,400

Total value $1,438,000

Parcel 107-11-008

Property Medical clinics and offices

 

I'm very curious about their intentions, especially considering how much they paid for these new federal office buildings.