^ This. The interior of the Rotunda still had a minimal maintenance schedule to keep the building in shape-- weatherproofing, heating, etc.

 

The church on the other hand was basically left to the elements. Roof leaks were never repaired, holes allowed animals in, ice building up due to the lack of heat (add to that the melting and refreezing from our chaotic weather cycles). All of these can deteriorate any building in no time, no matter how well constructed it is.

I had a friend in town a week & half ago for CIFF 2015.  We rode over by this area, for me the first time in several years, and she abolutely couldn't believe they're tearing down such a architecturally beautiful building as the church, which is how I feel, too... I just can't believe a grand structure of that size and prominence can't be reused for anything.  I've heard a number of ticky-tack proposal like the silly indoor climbing wall gym, but are developers seriously trying?  I mean, if we can put a (seemingly very successful so far) Heinen's in the old Cleveland Trust rotunda, why not here?  And that's just one idea... I think folks have rather cavalierly given up on this building but, trust me, folks will live to regret it.  You just don't throw away such irreplaceable architecture as this.  We as a society foolishly did it in the 50s, 60s and 70s, but we should be smarter today.

 

The climbing gym proposal was more serious than Zone and the CDC would have you believe. The city for whatever reason wants that church gone. Meanwhile the gym proposal just moved to a different church in Tremont. Edgewater's loss.

 

www.freshwatercleveland.com/devnews/climbzion020915.aspx

 

As for total renovation costs, "It depends on how you do it," says Holtkamp. "If we phase it in, then our renovation budget is in the order of $2.5 million. If we do it all at once, it's more like $4 million." Optimistic scheduling includes a late summer/early fall 2015 groundbreaking and early 2016 opening.

The church was damaged beyond repair. It is not financially feasible. That's the bottom line. There's not enough of a ROI to justify spending the amount of money to save the church. It's not worth it

I had a friend in town a week & half ago for CIFF 2015.  We rode over by this area, for me the first time in several years, and she abolutely couldn't believe they're tearing down such a architecturally beautiful building as the church, which is how I feel, too... I just can't believe a grand structure of that size and prominence can't be reused for anything.  I've heard a number of ticky-tack proposal like the silly indoor climbing wall gym, but are developers seriously trying?  I mean, if we can put a (seemingly very successful so far) Heinen's in the old Cleveland Trust rotunda, why not here?  And that's just one idea... I think folks have rather cavalierly given up on this building but, trust me, folks will live to regret it.  You just don't throw away such irreplaceable architecture as this.  We as a society foolishly did it in the 50s, 60s and 70s, but we should be smarter today.

 

Come on. Have you read any of this thread?  This church is not cavalierly being tossed away on a whim; rather, after years of neglect, it's time to move on and make space for something else. 

There's this crazy thing called 'context' - the Cleveland Trust rotunda was vacant but never abandoned and left to rot like the church. It's unfortunate but that's how the former congregation and Giant Eagle let things play out.

 

That's the biggest difference. Jacobs Group bought the Cleveland Trust rotunda (and adjoining tower) in 1988, and the building stayed occupied until about 1995. And although it was vacant afterwards, Jacobs kept the heat on in winter, the A/C on in summer, made routine maintenance and patrolled it with security for a decade until the county bought it in 2005. Then county provided the same TLC to the rotunda for the next 7+ years until Geis bought it in early 2013.

 

If you want to read why the Fifth Church of Christ Scientist is not likely to survive, read the history of neglect (including by its own neighborhood) I researched and wrote about in 2013 for Sun Newspapers:

 

Fifth Church in Cleveland has long history of revamps that did not happen

By Ken Prendergast, Sun News

on May 03, 2013 at 11:50 AM, updated May 03, 2013 at 11:51 AM

 

CLEVELAND A large redevelopment plan was submitted for the vacant Fifth Church of Christ Scientist, 11623 Lake Ave., on the border of Lakewood and Cleveland.

 

The project’s principal investor already bought the church, built in 1927, and was ready to move forward.

 

The $4 million investment would come from private financing that was already secured. Two houses on West 117th Street would be demolished for a two-level, 70-car parking deck connected by a walkway over Lake Avenue.

 

The church itself would be renovated for offices of a specialty freight shipper called Ohio Northern Transit Co., as well as for an employee insurance and benefits agency. And it would house a small gallery for Tom Wilson, a Lakewood resident and cartoonist who created the famous Ziggy comic strip.

 

But after getting no neighborhood support for his project, James C. White, then 46, of Lakewood, sold the church on Feb. 3, 1992 to Rini-Rego Supermarkets Inc. after owning it for just 11 months.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/sunpostherald/index.ssf/2013/05/fifth_church_in_cleveland_has.html

The other big difference is that the county massively subsidized the rotunda project, both directly and indirectly, which it obviously can't afford to do for every project.

There's this crazy thing called 'context' - the Cleveland Trust rotunda was vacant but never abandoned and left to rot like the church. It's unfortunate but that's how the former congregation and Giant Eagle let things play out.

 

That's the biggest difference. Jacobs Group bought the Cleveland Trust rotunda (and adjoining tower) in 1988, and the building stayed occupied until about 1995. And although it was vacant afterwards, Jacobs kept the heat on in winter, the A/C on in summer, made routine maintenance and patrolled it with security for a decade until the county bought it in 2005. Then county provided the same TLC to the rotunda for the next 7+ years until Geis bought it in early 2013.

 

If you want to read why the Fifth Church of Christ Scientist is not likely to survive, read the history of neglect (including by its own neighborhood) I researched and wrote about in 2013 for Sun Newspapers:

 

Fifth Church in Cleveland has long history of revamps that did not happen

By Ken Prendergast, Sun News

on May 03, 2013 at 11:50 AM, updated May 03, 2013 at 11:51 AM

 

CLEVELAND A large redevelopment plan was submitted for the vacant Fifth Church of Christ Scientist, 11623 Lake Ave., on the border of Lakewood and Cleveland.

 

The project’s principal investor already bought the church, built in 1927, and was ready to move forward.

 

The $4 million investment would come from private financing that was already secured. Two houses on West 117th Street would be demolished for a two-level, 70-car parking deck connected by a walkway over Lake Avenue.

 

The church itself would be renovated for offices of a specialty freight shipper called Ohio Northern Transit Co., as well as for an employee insurance and benefits agency. And it would house a small gallery for Tom Wilson, a Lakewood resident and cartoonist who created the famous Ziggy comic strip.

 

But after getting no neighborhood support for his project, James C. White, then 46, of Lakewood, sold the church on Feb. 3, 1992 to Rini-Rego Supermarkets Inc. after owning it for just 11 months.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/sunpostherald/index.ssf/2013/05/fifth_church_in_cleveland_has.html

 

I was pretty clear in my post that the Heinen's supermarket was just an analogy of what creativity can reap for an old, non-standard type building ... I didn't suggest it was even a viable solution for the church... anyway...

 

This article only reinforces my feelings about the church's upcoming date with the wrecking ball and brings several thoughts to mind about the : divisive, pointless bickering, poor planning, a powerful neighborhood association blocking all proposals (in one case, at least, they appeared legit), a crooked power-broker and, of course, that old Cleveland bugaboo ... parking! ... Most importantly, though, the church's future suffered from a total lack of leadership and the "old Cleveland" inertia that gripped and stalled development again and again ... fortunately, that Cleveland has been replaced by the "can do" mentality we have today...

 

... Although not a direct analogy, University Circle Uptown suffering-then-success is parallel.  Uptown is where we had decades of inertia and nothing getting done: a standoff-ish neighborhood group that fought tooth and nail against any development (those Hessler Road neighbors); a totally directionless/dysfunctional UCI and a major prestigious university that was having financial trauma and its own leadership issues (President Hundert was ultimately "no-confidence-d" by the faculty (see "fired")).  And then to add insult to injury, there was the uber-wealthy patron, the late Peter B. Lewis, who took the podium and publicly spanked all parties involved... And that pesky surface parking lot at Ford & E. 115 seemed it would sit there undeveloped forever...

 

... until the Campbell mayoralty was defeated, and in walked her ex-planning director, Chris Ronayne (the man who pulled the FEB parties, institution and financing to the table)... and we have Uptown, today, and all it's spin-off institutions, like the Marriott Courtyard, the expanded CIA, relocated UC-Little Italy Red Line Rapid station (itself some 50 years in the making) and, now, Intesa... Ronayne's can-do, 'let's cool down/put our heads together and work through this' mentality was responsible for all of it from where I sit...

 

Leadership.  If it had existed at the Edge, the lovely Fifth Church would likely have been saved... too bad.

Leadership.  If it had existed at the Edge, the lovely Fifth Church would likely have been saved... too bad.

 

I agree with your entire post, but it fundamentally boils down to this line.    Jay Westbrook and the Cudell CDC leadership were holdovers from the 70's/80's just cruising along, collecting a check and not wanting to "lead." 

 

Westbrook is gone, replaced by Zone who is slowly unraveling the mess with the CDC, the Edgewater Homeowners and other interested parties (note that Dona Brady is intentionally left out since no one ever hears from or sees her). 

 

Up next:  a changing of the guard at Cudell is necessary.   

I was pretty clear in my post that the Heinen's supermarket was just an analogy of what creativity can reap for an old, non-standard type building ... I didn't suggest it was even a viable solution for the church... anyway...

 

Sorry, but I don't find the analogy. To me, it read like you were making a direct comparison. Otherwise, why mention Heinen's/Cleveland Trust rotunda at all?

 

Point is, the neighborhood allegedly wanted to keep the church while preventing commercial uses from creeping into their neighborhood. Ironically, the only use capable of producing enough income to economically justify redeveloping the church is commercial. So the neighborhood really doesn't want the church THAT much, despite these love letters left for it. I saw these and photographed them this morning on my regular walk....

 

 

Sorry, but I don't find the analogy. To me, it read like you were making a direct comparison. Otherwise, why mention Heinen's/Cleveland Trust rotunda at all?

 

... because the Heinen's example shows that if people come together, a creative, workable solution can be had, otherwise that rotunda would be sitting there still vacant and the Breuer tower next door may likely have been torn down.  Yes the County bought and preserved the ex-CT buildings while the church sat deteriorating for 25+ years, but that's not the point.

The neighborhood apparently wouldn't accept a solution like Heinen's though, since they proved that they didn't want a commercial tenant in the building. I don't know what they expected to happen. They wanted the church to be preserved, but it didn't seem like they wanted anything to occupy the building. They wanted a nice pretty building to look at, but that's about it. It makes no sense to me. Why live in a city if a commercial business in your neighborhood is too disruptive?

Yes the County bought and preserved the ex-CT buildings while the church sat deteriorating for 25+ years, but that's not the point.

 

Actually, Jacobs preserved it first and longer. Riser Foods wanted to repurpose the church for a grocery store -- same as Geis/Heinen's did for CT. But the neighbors didn't want it. Later, Riser proposed demolishing the church for parking for a new grocery store fronting Clifton. The neighbors didn't want that either. So the grocery store chain, since bought by Giant Eagle, basically told the neighbors and the city "F--- this", sold the church to the city for a $1, and moved closed their grocery store a couple miles south on West 117th next to I-90.

 

I was pretty clear in my post that the Heinen's supermarket was just an analogy of what creativity can reap for an old, non-standard type building ... I didn't suggest it was even a viable solution for the church... anyway...

 

 

Crystal clear, which is why I didn't make my usual comment about Heinens' tendency to locate solely in prosperous areas.

 

But even if that wasn't the case, they would have bailed by now based on the view of the neighborhood "activists".  Who are cutting off their noses to spite their face.

 

I used to work near this area.  It's okay, but not that great.  Being so selective about development will mean none, and as a result it will only get worse.

Why didn't neighbors want a grocery store to repurpose the space?  What was their stated reasoning?

If I recall correctly, they were concerned about traffic, garbage, etc. from the grocery store. The church, the grassy strip along Lake Avenue and a retaining wall that's not visible from Lake Avenue was a buffer to the neighborhood on the north side of Lake.

I used to work near this area.  It's okay, but not that great.  Being so selective about development will mean none, and as a result it will only get worse.

 

During my walk this morning along Edgewater and Harborview drives, past multiple signs warning that the area was under video surveillance, I got my share of suspicious looks by residents dragging their garbage cans to the curb. And I'm a 47-year-old, clean-cut, well-dressed man! But I'll bet they were wondering what I was taking pictures of. This:

 

 

 

 

 

 

URGENT: St. Thomas Rezoning Hearing, Friday, April 17, 9am, City Hall, Rm 514

 

    St. Thomas Church, 9509 Lake Ave., redevelopment proposal has been fast-tracked.  The developer, who currently does not hold title to the property, wants to rezone the property from its current single-family (A1) zoning, to demolish the church and to build 12 townhouses on the site.  This site, which is surrounded by individual homes, is not an appropriate place for a townhouse district.  We, as a community, have no obligation to change our zoning to maximize developer profits.  This type of preferential zoning goes against the purpose of zoning and destroys the fabric of a neighborhood.  We need as many concerned residents as possible at the Planning Commission hearing. 

    We are continuing to seek signatures on a petition to retain the current single-family zoning, or, at the very  least, have it designated as a low density townhouse district (RA-1), rather than the higher density that is proposed.  Please share this information with other concerned residents.

 

 

 

During my walk this morning along Edgewater and Harborview drives, past multiple signs warning that the area was under video surveillance, I got my share of suspicious looks by residents dragging their garbage cans to the curb. And I'm a 47-year-old, clean-cut, well-dressed man! But I'll bet they were wondering what I was taking pictures of. This:

 

 

Have there been break-ins in the area?  We've had a rash in the Nordonia area, and I daresay someone taking pictures would be looked at suspiciously, walking or driving....

URGENT: St. Thomas Rezoning Hearing, Friday, April 17, 9am, City Hall, Rm 514

 

    St. Thomas Church, 9509 Lake Ave., redevelopment proposal has been fast-tracked.  The developer, who currently does not hold title to the property, wants the property rezoned from its current single-family (A1) zoning, to demolish the church and to build 12 townhouses on the site.  This site, which is surrounded by individual homes, is not an appropriate place for a townhouse district.  We, as a community, have no obligation to change our zoning to maximize developer profits.  This type of preferential zoning goes against the purpose of zoning and destroys the fabric of a neighborhood.  We need as many concerned residents as possible at the Planning Commission hearing. 

    Attached are the hearing notice, photos of the church and neighborhood, the project site plan, and photos of a similar Sloane Ave. project by the same developer.  We are continuing to seek signatures on a petition (attached) to retain the current single-family zoning, or, at the very  least, have it designated as a low density townhouse district (RA-1), rather than the higher density that is proposed.  Please share this information with other concerned residents.

 

 

 

Welcome CleConcerned. Why isn't this an appropriate place for a townhouse development? What alternative development do you foresee making economic sense here?

I don't see an issue with the townhomes proposed. They are at the same setback as the current homes, and they raise property values of the area much more than the existing church.

There's a large apartment building less than a block away on the corner of Lake and West Blvd., and apartments all the way down Lake to W. 117th. 

I'd say that low-density development is the exception rather than the rule, at least as far as the south side of Lake Avenue is concerned.

URGENT: St. Thomas Rezoning Hearing, Friday, April 17, 9am, City Hall, Rm 514

 

    St. Thomas Church, 9509 Lake Ave., redevelopment proposal has been fast-tracked.  The developer, who currently does not hold title to the property, wants the property rezoned from its current single-family (A1) zoning, to demolish the church and to build 12 townhouses on the site.  This site, which is surrounded by individual homes, is not an appropriate place for a townhouse district.  We, as a community, have no obligation to change our zoning to maximize developer profits.  This type of preferential zoning goes against the purpose of zoning and destroys the fabric of a neighborhood.  We need as many concerned residents as possible at the Planning Commission hearing. 

    Attached are the hearing notice, photos of the church and neighborhood, the project site plan, and photos of a similar Sloane Ave. project by the same developer.  We are continuing to seek signatures on a petition (attached) to retain the current single-family zoning, or, at the very  least, have it designated as a low density townhouse district (RA-1), rather than the higher density that is proposed.  Please share this information with other concerned residents.

 

 

 

Welcome CleConcerned. Why isn't this an appropriate place for a townhouse development? What alternative development do you foresee making economic sense here?

 

My guess is that it's the "save the church" guy from a few months ago that would post opposition to the demolition.

CleConcerned, do you live in the house behind the project? If not, have you spoken to the owners?

Is there actually a concern here about the distance between the house and the drive or are we just looking to hold up progress for the sake of a battle?

I think citizen input is good and can be productive, but sometimes there just isn't a place for the citizens to try and run the show based off of their own wants. Just my opinion.

People are actually petitioning these new Townhomes? Unbelievable. There's an apartment building literally on the same block as this development, just a few hundred feet away. Lake Avenue is peppered with high density buildings the entire Cleveland stretch.

 

This neighborhood desperately needs new life breathed into it with infill developments. We should be petitioning to get MORE of these developments on the numerous empty lots that scatter the neighborhood, not blocking them.

I'm fine with citizen voices like this, but not when their only input is "no." I want to hear constructive ideas, not opposition without alternatives or compromise. That's what doomed the Fifth Church to 20 years of vacancy, decay and presumably demolition. Sometimes you can love your neighborhood to death.

Oh jeez, there's always someone...

Oh jeez, there's always someone...

And to bring it here of all places lol.

Townhouse districts are intended to serve as a transition between areas of detached residences and areas of higher intensity development, and so are inappropriate on a site that is fully surrounded by traditional individual homes.   

Townhouse districts are intended to serve as a transition between areas of detached residences and areas of higher intensity development, and so are inappropriate on a site that is fully surrounded by traditional individual homes.   

 

Do you not realize there are apartments and town homes located directly across W 117th St? Also, what authority has dictated that town homes can only exist in "transition" areas?

Man!  Y'all really gonna make me bust out MS Paint on a Monday morning?

 

Here's the area:

 

I've outlined the commercial/multifamily properties in red.  As you can see, in the immediate vicinity, there are plenty of uses that are not single family homes.  In fact, everything outlined in red almost certainly generates more traffic/congestion/noice, etc. in multiples more than this town home project feasibly could.  Second, the property currently situated is already and institutional use - far from being operated as a single family house!  Third, I don't know if you're familiar with Brickman projects.  Putting his personality aside, he builds very nice, expensive stuff.  Well designed (he usually uses Scott Dimit, as classy as they come) and well situated.  Given their proximity to the park and their views, these will probably be priced around half a million.  This price will hardly attract the folks that will beer bong beers of their porch and keep their cars on blocks in the yard.  If I owned a home on that street, I would be overjoyed to have this here.  Such high priced homes surely raise your appraisal figures.

 

Beautiful neighborhood it is, but bucolic single family area it surely isn't.

Man!  Y'all really gonna make me bust out MS Paint on a Monday morning?

 

Here's the area:

 

I've outlined the commercial/multifamily properties in red.  As you can see, in the immediate vicinity, there are plenty of uses that are not single family homes.  In fact, everything outlined in red almost certainly generates more traffic/congestion/noice, etc. in multiples more than this town home project feasibly could.  Second, the property currently situated is already and institutional use - far from being operated as a single family house!  Third, I don't know if you're familiar with Brickman projects.  Putting his personality aside, he builds very nice, expensive stuff.  Well designed (he usually uses Scott Dimit, as classy as they come) and well situated.  Given their proximity to the park and their views, these will probably be priced around half a million.  This price will hardly attract the folks that will beer bong beers of their porch and keep their cars on blocks in the yard.  If I owned a home on that street, I would be overjoyed to have this here.  Such high priced homes surely raise your appraisal figures.

 

Beautiful neighborhood it is, but bucolic single family area it surely isn't.

 

You actually missed about 4 multifamily "homes" (in the frame dwelling sense) in that same stretch of Lake. 

^ Yeah, I didn't even take into account all of the doubles that I'm sure are peppered throughout.  Good point though.

People are actually petitioning these new Townhomes? Unbelievable. There's an apartment building literally on the same block as this development, just a few hundred feet away. Lake Avenue is peppered with high density buildings the entire Cleveland stretch.

 

This neighborhood desperately needs new life breathed into it with infill developments. We should be petitioning to get MORE of these developments on the numerous empty lots that scatter the neighborhood, not blocking them.

 

My understanding is they are not as concerned with the townhouses as they are the density and proximity to the property lines.  They would prefer single family homes, but ultimately want the developer of the townhomes to address their concerns about the neighboring yard, sunlight, etc, and potentially reduce the development by a couple units to alleviate their concerns. 

 

This group needs to get their messaging together because it's all over the map in terms of their goals.

I love Edgewater, but sometimes I really don't understand all the "activist" community members in that neighborhood. These are the same people who so strongly protested any commercial usage of the Fifth Church. They protested and protested, until they ultimately made it impossible for the site to be developed. A lot of the people in the northern part of Edgewater would prefer a bunch of ugly, boring ranch homes instead of the dense residential developments that this neighborhood really needs.

Townhouse districts are intended to serve as a transition between areas of detached residences and areas of higher intensity development, and so are inappropriate on a site that is fully surrounded by traditional individual homes.   

By your definition then, this is a transition area. It's moving from single family on Clifton and the first few houses on Lake to the multi-story apartment buildings less than ten houses down. On top of that, I don't understand why a neighborhood that has had pretty negligible development would want to turn down something that is going to continue to INCREASE property values and provide additional tax base.

People are actually petitioning these new Townhomes? Unbelievable. There's an apartment building literally on the same block as this development, just a few hundred feet away. Lake Avenue is peppered with high density buildings the entire Cleveland stretch.

 

This neighborhood desperately needs new life breathed into it with infill developments. We should be petitioning to get MORE of these developments on the numerous empty lots that scatter the neighborhood, not blocking them.

 

My understanding is they are not as concerned with the townhouses as they are the density and proximity to the property lines.  They would prefer single family homes, but ultimately want the developer of the townhomes to address their concerns about the neighboring yard, sunlight, etc, and potentially reduce the development by a couple units to alleviate their concerns. 

 

This group needs to get their messaging together because it's all over the map in terms of their goals.

 

My group is proposing the developer erect a tent-city for that lot.

 

Our motto is "Density Without Construction."

 

I once had a discussion with someone who opposed this type of development. It wasn't in Edgewater specifically, but he was opposed to a proposed apartment building on his street, which he thought should only allow single-family homes (despite the fact there are many multi-family homes and apartments that already exist on the street). In the end, his argument basically boiled down to "We don't want any chance of bringing any undesirables to our neighborhood." I don't think that's a very good argument.

^ That's a hornet's nest of an issue but it's safe to say that concern, while justified in some situations, just isn't at issue here.  These town homes will almost certainly be priced higher than any of the existing homes on the street.  Maybe it will be the town home residents complaining about the plebes next door!

I once had a discussion with someone who opposed this type of development. It wasn't in Edgewater specifically, but he was opposed to a proposed apartment building on his street, which he thought should only allow single-family homes (despite the fact there are many multi-family homes and apartments that already exist on the street). In the end, his argument basically boiled down to "We don't want any chance of bringing any undesirables to our neighborhood." I don't think that's a very good argument.

 

It's actually really ironic.  For decades, Edgewater was arguably the most stable and desirable neighborhood in the entire city.  But over the last 15 years, Tremont, OC, D-S, and Downtown have stolen most of Edgewater's thunder, and lower income people displaced from those neighborhoods have been moving west. 

 

When I was growing up in Edgewater, Cudell was never a spit-shine neighborhood, but it's gotten decidedly rougher over the past decade, and the crime and physical deterioration is starting to creep into Edgewater, too.  If Edgewater wants to avoid what's happening in the neighborhood just to the south of it, the easiest way* is probably to compete with the near west neighborhoods for the yuppie demographic, and that means building the same upscale housing stock that's selling in Tremont, OC, and D-S:  townhouses and apartments.

 

*easiest, but not necessarily most socially just, etc.  I'm not endorsing those motivations, just pointing out that if that's the EHA's goal, they should really be embracing these sorts of developments.

^ Mixed-income housing developments are at least a place to start, instead of actively trying to force lower-income people away from the neighborhood.

^ Mixed-income housing developments are at least a place to start, instead of actively trying to force lower-income people away from the neighborhood.

 

*easiest, but not necessarily most socially just, etc.  I'm not endorsing those motivations, just pointing out that if that's the EHA's goal, they should really be embracing these sorts of developments.

 

 

^ Mixed-income housing developments are at least a place to start, instead of actively trying to force lower-income people away from the neighborhood.

 

The problem with "mixed income" developments is they end up including the subculture that chases away people with options.  It ends up being "low income".

 

As long as this happens, middle and higher income people will separate themselves, and there's not a hell of a lot the government can do about that without overstepping bounds and getting de-elected.  Leaving aside the question of whether or not it even should.

 

You can facilitate them doing it in your city, or they will go to other cities.  Or the suburbs.

Well mixed income is not an issue here.  As mentioned upthread, these townhomes are probably going to be priced north of the surrounding homes.    I heard in excess of $350,000, and the ones up the street at 117th/Lake are supposed to top out at over $500,000.  I really don't understand people sometimes--these are the first major developments in this neighborhood in decades. 

Seriously, the argument of needing mixed income in Cleveland neighborhoods so we don't price out lower income people is not really warranted. As much progress as we have made, the average price for a home in the city is still well below $100,000. Take a second and look at other cities real estate prices on Zillow and realize how low ours really are.

 

We need more newer, higher priced housing to go with our glut of older, cheaper housing to provide more options to everyone.

^ Mixed-income housing developments are at least a place to start, instead of actively trying to force lower-income people away from the neighborhood.

 

The problem with "mixed income" developments is they end up including the subculture that chases away people with options.  It ends up being "low income".

 

Only the less desirable people with options.

Townhouse districts are intended to serve as a transition between areas of detached residences and areas of higher intensity development, and so are inappropriate on a site that is fully surrounded by traditional individual homes. 

 

Wow, tough crowd.  A transition area is an area between residential and some other more intense use, such as commercial or industrial.  For instance, Battery Park has traditional residences on one side, industrial on two sides (one industrial building has since been converted to lofts), and railroad tracks and the lake on the fourth side.  The developer built detached homes on the street facing the older traditional homes and then attached townhouses further in.  The W.  117th St. proposal again is an area of transition with commercial on the back side, it is also a block to itself, and has townhouses across in Lakewood.  The fact that some doubles or apartment buildings  are in my area does not make this an area of transition.  Those structures are historic existing conditions, but should not effect our modern zoning districts and laws.

 

My neighbors and I are not against development, but think it should be done with an eye towards the quality of life of residents, and its fit with the character of the neighborhood.  Twelve units is just too dense for this site.  Neighborhood concerns include quality of life, privacy, peaceful enjoyment, property values and fit with the character of the neighborhood.  While abutting properties will of course be the most dramatically affected, it will also affect the neighborhood as a whole.  How would you feel about a three story wall of townhouses with rooftop stairway penthouses and decks being built along your property line, taking away any privacy, and increasing traffic, noise and other nuisances?  I think everyone would take steps to protect their home, and their quality of life...     

So, again, what is an economically viable development alternative for this site?

^ I hate to disparage people's opinions on here, but if that's not an extreme, irrational case of NIMBYism, then I don't know what is.

So, again, what is an economically viable development alternative for this site?

 

The original post mentioned a less-dense townhouse development as an acceptable compromise. And really, this par for the course for these things: developer proposes higher density than she ever expects to build; neighborhood pushes back; everyone agrees in the middle and walks away feeling reasonable.

 

As much as I generally support high density, the whole point of zoning is to provide reliable assurance to land owners about the uses of neighboring holdings. So even if I disagree about the merits of a particular case, I don't find it wholly unreasonable for neighbors to be ticked when a developer proposes a fairly arbitrary zoning change.

Is there a link to the site plan for these townhouses?

My neighbors and I are not against development, but think it should be done with an eye towards the quality of life of residents, and its fit with the character of the neighborhood.  Twelve units is just too dense for this site.  Neighborhood concerns include quality of life, privacy, peaceful enjoyment, property values and fit with the character of the neighborhood.  While abutting properties will of course be the most dramatically affected, it will also affect the neighborhood as a whole.  How would you feel about a three story wall of townhouses with rooftop stairway penthouses and decks being built along your property line, taking away any privacy, and increasing traffic, noise and other nuisances?  I think everyone would take steps to protect their home, and their quality of life...     

 

That exact scenario literally happened to me in Tremont.  We had a block of townhouses built in what was basically our back yard.  There hasn't been any noticeable increase in traffic (they're townhouses, not a gas station,) and honestly, the neighbors just to the north of me are noisier with the parties they throw on the back patio of their single family home.

 

I guess people have a right to be concerned about anything they want, but in my personal experience, there are much bigger things to worry about than $300,000 townhouses.