^Yeah I always thought the Gothic Buildings constructed on the Yale campus in the 1920's make that campus look so "ridiculous".

I'm not going to go into it extensively because that's not what this thread is for, but you and I both know that comparing a 1920s building built in an older style to a modern building with a veneer of old on top of it, exactly what the Brickhaus would be, are very different things. If Yale were to build those same buildings today with current construction methods, yes, they'd be absolutely ridiculous.

I don't know anything about the Yale houses referenced above, but these houses are pegged at $500k+ each, according the proposal. You can do some quality construction with that coin, even today.

This is city-owned land.

 

Sale of city-owned land must be via an open bidder process. In this project's case, where a protected landmark is involved, the buyer must submit a proposed end-use, especially if the landmark is to be demolished or significantly altered.

 

I know we love to hate government in this country. But these rules exist out of past corruptive practices and a never-ending desire to be civil and fair to each other. Processes are faulted because people are inherently faulty, but it doesn't mean we quit in our attempts to be fair and open in the conducting of the public's business. Emotion does not serve that goal.

 

So.... The city will review the submitted proposals for the city-owned land. It will then sell the land based on those proposals. There will likely be conditions of the sale, including timelines and benchmarks for achieving progress. If those benchmarks are not met, the buyer risks having the land revert back to city ownership. But should the project move foward, it will have to go through the city Planning Commission reviews, including a Landmarks Commission review if the church is to be altered or repurposed in any way. But this building will receive its due process under the law.

 

That said, and as a resident of this neighborhood for 17+ years, I hope the Brickhaus proposal is accepted. I believe this is an attractive re-use of the church site and materials, and Brickman has the capacities to make this project happen.

 

 

^^  Go Brickhaus, their proposal is amazing and as a homeowner in the area this is by far the most attractive and elegant design I've seen!  I would love to live next to this.

^^I like!... but what becomes of the church facade?  Is it merely hidden or completely altered?

^the church will be no more.  They want to re-use church materials if possible.  The proposal is on the previous page.

If you look at the renderings they are leaving the archway as a memory of the church, and reusing materials.  I still wonder if they couldn't put this developer together with the rock climbing people and have both?

And why are so many townhomes built stair-stepped to the street. The asymmetry drives me crazy. Just build them perpendicular to the street.

 

The steps make it so passersby aren't starring directly into your windows and provide some level of privacy.

 

 

 

Those renderings are stunning. Good Lord. This has my vote

(2) And why are so many townhomes built stair-stepped to the street. The asymmetry drives me crazy. Just build them perpendicular to the street.

 

It's hard to do that when you don't have a perfect square street grid. While we tend to think of many streets as being east-west and north-south, in many cases they aren't. In this example the parcel is basically a rhombus. Clifton and Lake both are aligned southeast to northwest in this spot, with 117th and 116th almost due north-south. That means you can't parallel the street because you'll have odd angles in the walls of the units. By stair-stepping you maintain units that have walls that come together at 90 degree angles.

Interesting that the rock climbing proposal seems mostly forgotten in this thread since attention shifted to Brickman's proposal.

Interesting that the rock climbing proposal seems mostly forgotten in this thread since attention shifted to Brickman's proposal.

 

I'm pretty sure that would all just be wasted breath anyways but should'nt be much longer till we find out once and for all.

 

 

Interesting that the rock climbing proposal seems mostly forgotten in this thread since attention shifted to Brickman's proposal.

 

I'm pretty sure that would all just be wasted breath anyways but should'nt be much longer till we find out once and for all.

 

I personally prefer the rock gym over Brickman's

OUTPOURING OF SUPPORTIVE STATEMENTS and LETTERS

from around the neighborhood and beyond for Fifth Church!

 

Even former residents weigh in on repurposing versus demolition of the designated landmark.

 

View, http://www.neighborsinaction.info/neighborhoodsupport.htm

 

City of Cleveland expected to make final determination soon.

 

Public is encouraged to contact Councilman Matt Zone if you support the adaptive reuse of Fifth Church!

 

I personally prefer the rock gym over Brickman's

 

I prefer that design/use concept too. But I know Brickman has the capacity to realize projects. I wonder what the rock gym's developers capacity/track record is.

I'm not going to go into it extensively because that's not what this thread is for, but you and I both know that comparing a 1920s building built in an older style to a modern building with a veneer of old on top of it, exactly what the Brickhaus would be, are very different things. If Yale were to build those same buildings today with current construction methods, yes, they'd be absolutely ridiculous.

 

What, we're only talking 100 years. 

I completely agree Yanni.  The church is simply a brick, steel and concrete building with a stone veneer; like just about every "classical" building in this city.  It was built to look "old" a mere 88 years ago.  To suggest that a contemporary builder could not reuse the façade materials to perfectly recreate a worn classical façade on a new-build is silly.  It happens every day, all over the world.  The problem isn't that it cannot be done, and done quite convincingly; rather, Cleveland buyers generally do not demand such architecture in a shrinking city and real estate market.  Why would one buy a $600,000 townhouse when you can get a fully-renovated, lovely house nearby for nearly the same price?  Or get the same townhouse floor plan, with a "contemporary" exterior for $250,000 a few blocks away?  In such a market, I'm pretty sure we will continue to see ersatz modern, gimcrack townhouses for quite some time.  And I'm pretty sure they won't age as well as the Brickhaus concept....

I completely agree Yanni.  The church is simply a brick, steel and concrete building with a stone veneer; like just about every "classical" building in this city.  It was built to look "old" a mere 88 years ago.  To suggest that a contemporary builder could not reuse the façade materials to perfectly recreate a worn classical façade on a new-build is silly.  It happens every day, all over the world.  The problem isn't that it cannot be done, and done quite convincingly; rather, Cleveland buyers generally do not demand such architecture in a shrinking city and real estate market.  Why would one buy a $600,000 townhouse when you can get a fully-renovated, lovely house nearby for nearly the same price?  Or get the same townhouse floor plan, with a "contemporary" exterior for $250,000 a few blocks away?  In such a market, I'm pretty sure we will continue to see ersatz modern, gimcrack townhouses for quite some time.  And I'm pretty sure they won't age as well as the Brickhaus concept....

 

I was being sarcastic. Brickhouse is definitely the most attractive, but it comes at a price.

 

A COMMENTARY ON THE DISTURBING STRONG HOLD OF THE EDGEWATER HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE BOARD and FIFTH CHURCH!

 

"Edgewater: Neighborhood of Tomorrow…Or of Yesterday? Five Years Later…"

 

Read at, www.NeighborsInAction.info

 

I wish we could all just get passed this "Save The Church" stuff... as a homeowner, I want to see new opportunities built in this neighborhood and no more far-fetched rock climbing ideas presented which simply serve as speed bumps to the development of the neighborhood.  Build the Giant Eagle and accompanying retail, build the town homes, try to use part of the church as an architectural remembrance and let's move this area forward!

I wish we could all just get passed this "Save The Church" stuff... as a homeowner, I want to see new opportunities built in this neighborhood and no more far-fetched rock climbing ideas presented which simply serve as speed bumps to the development of the neighborhood.  Build the Giant Eagle and accompanying retail, build the town homes, try to use part of the church as an architectural remembrance and let's move this area forward!

 

Agreed! The more you fight it, the more likely Giant Eagle will pull out and you will be left with what you currently see for years to come. It is a losing battle. Lake Ave is a residential street. I don't blame these residents at all for not wanting a rock-climbing gym there. Who wants to live next to one? Move on people.

We need to get passed this notion that razing historic buildings for additional parking is "progress".

 

6 townhomes plus a gym inside a restored church. Or 11 townhomes and larger surface lot. Both proposals include sufficient parking for the Giant Eagle Express. One of them has the potential to be a neighborhood and regional draw. The other is just a larger surface lot.

 

I have to admit, the attitude of the neighborhood association and Matt Zone disappointed me. I, perhaps stupidly, thought they would have the foresight to look at other commercial districts in the area. Every one of them is comprised of renovated historic buildings.

 

Lake Ave is a residential street. I don't blame these residents at all for not wanting a rock-climbing gym there. Who wants to live next to one? Move on people.

 

Are you serious? It's a gym. Not a strip club.

 

I love walking next door to Titans gym downtown. It's something I'm going to miss when I move.

 

The 5 people on Lake adjacent to the church can continue to live next to the building that's been there 100 years.

Lake Avenue is not downtown. Nice comparison though...

People outside of downtown don't like living within walking distance of amenities? The property values near West 25 in Ohio City and Professor in Tremont say otherwise -- both of which flush with historic renovations, btw. I guess it was okay to walk there when it was a church.

 

The neighborhood doesn't know good development when they see it.

Lake Avenue is not downtown. Nice comparison though...

 

Yet wouldn't they want to look at the restored church AND townhomes?  They've been staring at a parking lot and dumpsters for years long before it became a vacant lot. 

The larger point here is that EHA has far too much of a say in this project.

 

Those of us S of Edgewater are being treated as afterthoughts.

 

 

A conversion to a rock climbing gym is unique, innovative and would grab publicity probably nationally. It's different and different is good. Our leaders are too handicapped to understand that. Getting rid of this building is a bigger loss than losing a giant eagle express. Huge mistake and restless, this part of town needs innovation. It lacks talent and amenities the other parts of the city have

Let me say this loud and clear. GIANT EAGLE SUCKS.

 

There. Good day.

 

I'm not sure about the lack of talent.

 

Chris Ronayne and Glazen live here and Matt Zones influence should ultimately be a net positive.  There has been an influx of new voices in Cudell and it seems a changing of the guard is imminent there.

 

The Clifton Baltic Neighborhood Association (Facebook) is working on being a local voice and has made some strides in at least trying to make Baltic Park more of a public asset.  And the Metroparks is nothing but positive. 

 

Baby steps.

Let me say this loud and clear. GIANT EAGLE SUCKS.

 

There. Good day.

 

 

AMEN.  The worst thing that has happened to Cleveland in generations.  I'd rather our river catch fire than set foot in one.

Lake Avenue is not downtown. Nice comparison though...

 

Do you think there's any shades of gray between these extremes that you might be willing to support? Or are the extremes the only options you can envision?

I'm speaking as a homeowner and from a resale perrspective. I don't think the rock climbing proposal is a viable long term solution. I wouldn't want to live on the same street as that just as I wouldn't want to live in a home on Clifton Blvd. It's a preference is all which is probably the same preference of those that live on Lake. They moved there because it was quiet and residential but close to commercial without being next to it. Just my opinion.

I think our disagreement stems from the notion that a rock climbing gym would somehow negatively affect your property value. I don't see how you came to that conclusion. Not a all commercial uses are the same. Moreover the restoration of the church could truly be something special for the neighborhood.

 

How will it change your quiet street? Are you worried people will be walking to the gym from their homes increasing pedestrian foot traffic? Sounds like a good problem to have.

^^This sounds like a Cleveland.com comment...only missing the "thugs" that will patronize it. How is a repurposed building used as a gym worse than a rotting building? I don't know that it's the best use but doing a quick google search of indoor rock climbing in Austin, Portland and Minneapolis (three of Cleveland's competitors and growing) all have at least one right by their downtowns.

I'm speaking as a homeowner and from a resale perrspective. I don't think the rock climbing proposal is a viable long term solution. I wouldn't want to live on the same street as that just as I wouldn't want to live in a home on Clifton Blvd. It's a preference is all which is probably the same preference of those that live on Lake. They moved there because it was quiet and residential but close to commercial without being next to it. Just my opinion.

 

So having a high-volume, car-dependent retail business that tends to produce trash and vehicular trips is more desirable to preserving tranquility next to your single-use residential area than a lower-volume business like rock-climbing would? Help me understand that. I don't understand how this business erodes your residential paradigm more than a retail strip would in the future or more than the church had in the past.

"I wouldn't want to live on the same street as that "

 

This is exactly the elitism that the Edgewater Homeowners Association conveys.  It frames itself as a separate community, not part of one. 

 

 

 

 

 

If your mentality is that u wouldn't want to live on the same street as that, and you WOULD wanna live in the same street as giant eagle...there is a place for people like you. It's called Avon Lake.

OK, people enough piling on.

Apparently I am not allowed to have an opinion, which is what I thought this board was for. Thank you for telling me what is wrong with me after I shared my opinion. I most certainly do belong in Avon Lake - you are right. Additionally I am an elitist who should be commenting on cleveland.com instead. I will definitely rethink before I decide to comment again.

 

For the record, I live in Lakewood on a quiet, residential street. I own my house. I picked the location because it was very quiet, yet within a few minutes I can walk up to Detroit where the action is. If I wanted to live next to a far-fetched rock climbing gym, I would have bought a house near one.

 

Rest assured, this is the last you'll here from me.

I apologize for the offensive statements. It's a pretty polarizing topic that gets ppl heated. There are ideas that are different that provide opportunity for us to progress as a city. When they all get shut down it just feels like same old same old and things that can set our neighborhoods apart become just unrealized pipe dreams

you guys have somehow turned his statement about wanting his residential street to remain residential into him wanting to suburbanize edgewater and keep the blacks out of his gated community.  Don't become righteously indignant over a benign opinion.

^ Fair enough Whip but I can't take statements like this seriously.  YMMV

 

" If I wanted to live next to a far-fetched rock climbing gym, I would have bought a house near one. "

 

Additionally, my elitist comment was directed at EHA of which poster is not a part of so the offense is misplaced.

 

 

 

 

I think it's unfair to characterize or label the Edgewater homeowners as elitist or anything else negative.  The Edgewater neighborhood is known for its homes more than anything and those people have earned a say in what goes on that corner.

I think it's unfair to characterize or label the Edgewater homeowners as elitist or anything else negative.  The Edgewater neighborhood is known for its homes more than anything and those people have earned a say in what goes on that corner.

 

While they have their say, this entire argument reminds me of the same one we're having on the sin tax forum.  Not a word from them over the last 30 years as the church was abandoned and fell into disrepair--oh and by the way they were looking at a Giant Eagle parking lot and dumpsters for Johnny Malloys.  But now all of a sudden their voices need to be heard.

 

Edgewater is known for its homes for the most part, but there have been many variations of that over the years (think of the 60's brick ranches clashing with the more stately English and Tudor homes or worse yet the GAWD awful grey new-build thing dating back to the 80's on the south side of Lake Ave). 

 

Everyone's voice needs to be heard, but our leaders need to build a consensus that we can all live with.  Too often this is not practiced by Cleveland politicians, who only make their voices known when the situation becomes dire. 

 

 

I think you're way off to say "not a word" from Edgewater residents on other topics or something else that was to be done with the church was abandoned.  Also silly to point out some homes that were torn down for rebuilt ranches back in the 60's.  how many current home owners were around 50 yrs ago when that happened?  And the fault lies with the City for allowing ranch homes to be built in a historic district like Edgewater

I think you're way off to say "not a word" from Edgewater residents on other topics or something else that was to be done with the church was abandoned.  Also silly to point out some homes that were torn down for rebuilt ranches back in the 60's.  how many current home owners were around 50 yrs ago when that happened?  And the fault lies with the City for allowing ranch homes to be built in a historic district like Edgewater

 

The homeowners might not have been around, but the EHA was.  60+ years in fact. 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2012/04/clevelands_edgewater_neighborh.html

 

I understand your point though. 

 

And mine is echoed in some other poster's sentiments here:  one corner does not make a fiefdom.  Because Lake and 117th fall under their gaze does not mean the greater interest of the community should also be considered.  I personally think they should combine BOTH plans, to save the church as a gym/community wellness center, AND build high-end town homes next to it.  Win win!

to save the church as a gym/community wellness center, AND build high-end town homes next to it.  Win win!

 

Sounds like a good idea to me, but this issue is more about what will generate the highest return on investment.  The church cannot be saved and repurposed in any sort of fashion without a huge subsidy to salvage the building & then provide on going operating subsidy.  Where's that money going to come from?  Even with the most generous historic tax credits for renovation, that might get 20% of the renovation costs and nothing for the ongoing operation. 

I'm in this neighborhood too.  I'd love for the church to be preserved as is, because however much it would cost to repair the structure, the cost of replacing it with another landmark of similar quality is prohibitive.  And while historical preservation won't provide much ROI on an individual project basis, the aggregated cost of neglecting it is beyond measure.  The boom period that produced these structures was unique.  We now live in an age that produces ranches, plazas, parking lots.  Every tear-down is a substantial and permanent loss. 

 

There was a time when Playhouse Square supposedly couldn't be salvaged.  Demo was imminent.  But because a few people spoke up, that sad inevitable reality was replaced with a better and more hopeful reality.

 

The neighborhoods surrounding W117th offer something for everyone, with incredible diversity and minimal blight.  It's worth the investment.  If the right re-use can be found (I think we can do better than rock climbing), that church building could be the same kind of anchor/catalyst as the Capitol Theater or the West Side Market.  We're lucky it's there, and I hope it's still there 100 years from now.