You need to visit Europe and get a better sense of our place in time, EagleFan. We don't have many old things in the U.S. But we do have a lot of structures in the U.S. which are being subjected to premature obsolesence due to our wasteful land use policies that favor new construction over making better use of the investments we've already made. Maybe someday, when the U.S. grows up and gets some perspective on its place in history, it will adopt more sane and sustainable land use policies.

 

Agreed 100%. 

I'm a firm believer that, if there was enough will to save this house, it could've been done some way or another.  This is a losing situation for Frank, the city of Cleveland, and the neighborhood.  I sincerely can't remember a time I've felt so disappointed in this city.

 

Why wasn't receivership ever considered?

---

 

Tremont man jailed; his house demolished

Posted by Michael O'Malley/Plain Dealer Reporter December 12, 2008 23:20PM

Categories: Neighborhoods, Real Time News

 

Ten years ago, the city of Cleveland, fed up with high weeds growing helter-skelter in Frank Giglio's front yard, unleashed a chain-saw gang flanked by heavy earth-moving equipment.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/12/tremont_man_jailed_his_house_d.html

What a tough situation for all sides involved, I truly believe that. 

 

Now, I would consider myself to be moderately-to-very liberal politically, a believer in the proper use of such tactics as eminent domain and other tactics to combat irresponsible property owners, establishments that are a detriment to a community, etc, etc.  But I'm more than a little concerned that the city came in and demolished this man's house in this manner....his primary residence, and, from the sounds of it, probably his largest asset.  And from what I can tell, the city hasn't offered any form of renumeration.  AND his mental capacity CERTAINLY should not be an excuse for doing so. It seems like a slippery slope if we can justify taking/destroying/demolishing a citizen's private property without compensation based on their mental capacity.

Shuttered Cleveland movie houses targeted for restoration

by Michael O’Malley/Plain Dealer Reporter

December 22, 2008

 

Cleveland neighborhood development groups on opposite sides of town are working to save and restore two old movie theaters: the La Salle on East 185th Street and the Variety on Lorain Avenue at West 118th Street. ..

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/12/shuttered_cleveland_movie_hous.html

 

One of the cleveland.com posters mentioned that the Moreland Theater on Buckeye is also being renovated.

This is good news! Glad to see these places being saved.

Anybody know how one would approach the city about taking over a structure on the emergency demolition list?

^It likely depends on who owns the property. I'm not familiar with the Cleveland emergency demo list, but I suspect it includes privately owned stuff, not just city-owned.  If privately owned, you would have to negotiate a purchase from the owner.  The good news is that the county land bank, working through tax foreclosure, might streamline this process for some properties.

^^ I'd recommend contacting your councilperson.

Craig Bobby, a personal friend and long-time Cleveland area preservationist, just sent me some disturbing images about 3 significant Victorian era buildings in Cleveland that have been approved for demolition by the Cleveland Landmarks Commission.

 

The first two are on once-fabled Euclid Avenue, which was arguably the finest residential street in Victorian America during it's heyday from 1875 to 1910. Commercial encroachment on Euclid Avenue led to it's residential demise post World War I but the process had actually started in the last quarter of the 19th Century. Now two rare survivors (1880's) from the commerical phase are themselves facing demolition.

 

In better times, a developer might take these on for condo-loft apartment conversions, but in today's chilly economic climate, new projects of that type are few and far between. The building owners are said to be indifferent and uncooperative, a perfect combination that has often led to the loss of major historic structures in the past. 

 

The third photo is of St. Peter's Hall which has been owned by the local Catholic Diocese since it was built in the Second Empire style in 1873. The Catholic Church, as well as churches of other denominations, have often chosen to demolish historic buildings under their ownership using the religious logic that only the works of God are enduring, not the works of man. The Second Empire style 1873 St. Peter's Hall in Cleveland is an impressive edifice and has long been recognized as a local landmark.

 

Many preservationists see the current economic downturn as a time when fewer demolitions will take place but some evidence now appearing seems to indicate more, not fewer, demolitions are happening. The economic costs of mothballing and continuing to pay taxes on vacant buildings is becoming too much these days for private owners as well as code enforcement costs for municipalities,  One of the Euclid Avenue buildings once had an impressive copper cornice around the perimeter of the building eaves but the tenacity and brazeness of copper thieves is evident in the gaps of missing cornice where the thieves could reach them from the fire escape ladders.

 

They sure don't build them like they used to, It would be safe to assume nothing that may get built someday to replace them could ever be as impressive as what they replaced. Thanks Craig for the information and I hope that somehow more intelligent minds will prevail before these and other important landmarks in Cleveland are lost forever.

 

  Euclid Avenue Building from the 1880's   

 

 

 

 

Euclid Avenue Building also from the 1880's 

 

 

St. Peters Hall 1873

 

I'm not seeing anything.

I know, "Uncle Rando" was going to help me out with attaching or linking to the images. I'm a newbie when it comes to using this particular posting system. If all else fails, PM me and I'll send you the image URL's. My apologies for the (hopefully temporary) snafu.

I know, "Uncle Rando" was going to help me out with attaching or linking to the images. I'm a newbie when it comes to using this particular posting system. If all else fails, PM me and I'll send you the image URL's. My apologies for the (hopefully temporary) snafu.

 

If I did it right, you're welcome :-)

 

And as with all of these overzealous demolitions, I have to ask - where are the Cleveland Restoration Society? Or do they only care about someone getting approval to replace their carriage house windows in Shaker Heights, or attending a snoop at the annual gala?

This is terribly depressing. All three are amazingly beautiful buildings that need to be preserved and restored. It would be horrifying if they were demo'ed.

Just continues the decades long comedy of errors that has been this city's viewpoint on demolition.  I'm once again speechless on the plans for these once proud structures that have been pilaged and basically thrown in the trash.  Our landfills are home to more history than our present city. 

Depressing that this region is still willing to trade structures like these for eifs clad garbage and cul-de-sacs. 

Just continues the decades long comedy of errors that has been this city's viewpoint on demolition.  I'm once again speechless on the plans for these once proud structures that have been pilaged and basically thrown in the trash.  Our landfills are home to more history than our present city. 

Depressing that this region is still willing to trade structures like these for eifs clad garbage and cul-de-sacs. 

 

I agree, but what have you personally done to stop this?

My biggest beef is with the Cleveland Restoration Society - they are the de facto "preservation" group in town (and in a much better position to stop the senseless razing of every other building worth mentioning) - where are they?!?

My biggest beef is with the Cleveland Restoration Society - they are the de facto "preservation" group in town - where are they?!?

 

Excellent question!

The battle for the buildings on Euclid was lost years ago when they rotted without redevelopment.  According to some knowledgeable sources, they are really too far gone to do anything with, so the actual demo is just the last manifestation of this loss.

 

My sadness at losses like this has not softened at all over the years, but my anger at governmental and advocacy institutions for "letting this happen" has.  If all of us cut $1M checks to the Restoration Society, I'm sure they'd be happy to start an emergency building stabilization program, but in most cases (certainly not all) the real problem is economic and social, not institutional. There simply isn't enough market interest in Cleveland's vast but rapidly shrinking inventory of historic stuff to save it all.

If all of us cut $1M checks to the Restoration Society, I'm sure they'd be happy to start an emergency building stabilization program, but in most cases (certainly not all) the real problem is economic and social, not institutional. There simply isn't enough market interest in Cleveland's vast but rapidly shrinking inventory of historic stuff to save it all.

 

That being the case, it shouldn't be left to markets.  Refurbishing all these old buildings would be a great jobs program and it would eliminate a barrier to getting retail back into the neighborhoods.  I'd rather see that done than spend it on other public works.  Nationalize the properties until the work is paid off, and pay it off slow to keep the rents way down.  Tie it in with every small business incubator program.  Get national chains into the larger buildings in areas where they're underrepresented.  Money talks to companies that wouldn't look at a neighborhood before.  Government help should only be available to retailers that are willing to provide commerce in inner cities.  There's about to be a wave of retail closures and it could be an opportunity to restructure in favor of neglected areas.

^Yes, all would be great, and all costs lots of $ that local governments don't have now.  Would be great to see some federal stimulus money headed in this direction, that's for sure.  The state historic tax credit program was certainly a good start at the state level, but too little, too late for too many buildings that are being lost.  Those Euclid Ave ones are really killing me.

I recently posted that the Corlette Building on CSU's campus is scheduled to be demolished soon.  Here's some more information that I heard, from a reliable source:

 

It sounded like CSU was worried the City would push the building as a landmark and thus make it difficult to tear down, so they were hurrying to demolish it soon (demo to begin at end of March).  But after the demolition, the site will be temporarily used as a gravel lot for contractor parking.  The site eventually will be the site of an outdoor music pavilion of sorts, then someday a permanent performance building, supposedly 4-5 years from now.

 

Supposedly, a study was done (not sure by whom) that claimed it would cost $40 million to renovate the Corlette Building.  The outside terra cotta is indeed beautiful, but even for me, the inside was nothing special and really in dismal shape and nothing special architecturally inside. 

^Thanks, cleB for the update.  That Corlette facade really is pretty awesome, but IF CSU really can get its performing arts thingy built here, and it's decently designed, I can live with this demo.  There is info about the performing arts building study (including some sexy renderings) on the CSU thread if you're interested.

Maybe this is more for the CSU thread, but I thought the plans for the performing arts center were nixed/swept aside when the President said that he wanted to leverage the Allen Theater in Playhouse Square instead.  Maybe it's not an either/or situation as I had assumed...?

It would be a scaled down Performing Arts Center and ALSO the Allen Theatre.

The Cleveland City Planning Commission will hear the demolition request for the Corlett Building tomorrow morning. CSU's plans for the site are in the image gallery at the bottom of the agenda. The building is on the National Register of Historic Places.

I had heard that the Corlette is NOT on the National Register yet, or perhaps only part of it is.  Sorry for the confusion, but the clear indication I got was that it is not yet fully protected, and thus needs to be torn down quickly for CSU to avoid that fight.  This project is already fully funded by the University.

 

For a bit of good news, the renderings and final use of the property seems to be very good for Euclid Ave and CSU in general.

The Corlett is listed in the National Register, but it is not a Cleveland Landmark.

Residents Want Abandoned Homes Torn Down

POSTED: 6:27 pm EST February 21, 2009

UPDATED: 8:19 pm EST February 21, 2009

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/18767601/detail.html#

 

EAST CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Residents of one Cleveland suburb said enough is enough.

 

They are tired of seeing abandoned homes on every corner, and they are taking action.

 

East Cleveland has more than 2,200 empty homes -- that's 20 percent of the city. It has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the state, NewsChannel5 reported.

 

Volunteers and students with Case Western Reserve University started cataloging all og the homes on every street on Saturday.

 

"We got a problem here, a serious problem," said resident Debra King.

 

She was one of many local residents walking the streets to revitalize her city.

 

"I'm concerned about the abandoned buildings, I really am," she said. "We're going to actually go through every part of East Cleveland and survey every vacant property, every vacant lot and mark it on the map."

 

By rating each home, the residents hope to get a clearer picture of which homes to tear down first. East Cleveland should get around $2.2 million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the neighborhood revitalization program.

 

Although most of the homes cannot be fixed, young residents like Darell hope someday folks will be flocking to his neighborhood not to tear the homes down, but to move into them.

 

"I wanna see East Cleveland and the abandoned houses be fixed up again like it was in the old days," he said.

 

Residents, with the assistance of the Northeast Ohio Alliance for Hope, will then give their survey to city leaders in hopes of helping them make decisions about the future of the homes.

I'd like to see them spend all that money on shoring up and preserving the larger apartment and mixed-use buildings throughout East Cleveland.  These contribute mightily to Cleveland's urban feel.  Areas of the city that have lost them, yet kept the houses, barely look like they're in a major city anymore.

Pretty hard to move in and renovate homes or buildings when they're torn down.  I understand their concerns, and a lot of these houses should be torn down, but I doubt there would be any more thought put into tearing down a solid framed brick or masonry building, than a deteriorating wood framed house.

The problem in East Cleveland is and always has been (as far back as I can remember) police presence.... or, better put, an utter lack thereof.  Until an investment is made in putting black and whites on the street corners, EC will not garner any investment from the developers that (all things being even) would probably love to get their hands on some of those beauts on Euclid Ave.  Sure, the abandoned houses are an eyesore, but the public's safety is a much bigger problem.  This City should be thriving right now due to the Euclid Corridor and its proximity to UC.  The only solution I see is annexation but am not sure Cleveland would even agree to that.

^Is it police presence, or is it the actions of the inhabitants, which requires the police presence?

Why annexation hasn't happened yet is beyond me.  I doubt Cleveland wants to do it, but it couldn't hurt come census time.  And right now Cleveland has a huge mess on its border, right by the UC area, that it can't control.  Seems like annexation at this point would be better for everyone.

^Is it police presence, or is it the actions of the inhabitants, which requires the police presence?

 

Of course the actions of the inhabitants necessitates the police presence.  Go to any economically depraved neighborhood in the country and crime will be a problem.  But in EC there is no deterrent.  Drive around Cleveland Heights, and I bet you can't make it 5 minutes without seeing a cop.  In EC, that is not the case.  There always has been a problem with minimum manning in EC, especially for the ECPD.  One of my best friend's dad just retired from ECPD and he always complained that the police simply did not have enough of a street presence to make any impact.  They are too busy responding to calls, that they cannot effectively deter crime before it happens. 

 

Look at what Rudy G. did in NYC with his order-maintenance policing.  He took cops out of their cruisers and put them on street patrol going after the criminal element, perpetrators of vandalism and aggressive panhandlers.  Putting aside the constitutional issues that such measures invoked, the aggressive, street-beat cops were largely successful in cleaning up the streets of Manhattan.

I totally agree with the idea of wanting more cops (see Public Safety thread).

My fiance grew up on Fourth, which is off of Hayden and directly adjacent to the Windemere Rapid Station.  When everyone hears "Hayden", they think "the hood".  However, I can tell you first hand that is not the case.  Fourth has a majority of homeowners who have lived in their homes for many years.  It is the kind of street where you know everyone on the street, and know if someone is not from the immediate vicinity (who might be there to cause trouble). 

 

Most suburbanites will never know the experience of being able to go to your front porch in the morning, and saying hi to your neighbors next door and across the street who have also come outside to enjoy the day.  Across the street one neighbor might be grilling burgers and hotdogs, who will invite you over to eat.  Children run up and down the sidewalks playing, with all eyes on the street watching them for their safety.  And if you ever run out of something, the convenience store is not even two blocks away.

 

I would truly LOVE to see East Cleveland's revival.  However, aside from the social problems of the city, it will take most of the old housing stock to be leveled before serious reinvestment will occur.  Many of the old mansions along Euclid within the East Cleveland boarder still stand, not even a mile from University Circle's boarder.  I'm telling you, the city has MASSIVE potential, however the social problems of the city will hold it's true potential back. 

 

As of right now, unfortunately, it would not be in the best interests of the City of Cleveland to agree to annexation with East Cleveland.  The city has a multitude of problems which need to be addressed.  Regional government, in my opinion would be the better answer to addressing the city's problems rather than outright annexation.

^Is it police presence, or is it the actions of the inhabitants, which requires the police presence?

 

Of course the actions of the inhabitants necessitates the police presence.  Go to any economically depraved neighborhood in the country and crime will be a problem.  But in EC there is no deterrent.  Drive around Cleveland Heights, and I bet you can't make it 5 minutes without seeing a cop.  In EC, that is not the case.  There always has been a problem with minimum manning in EC, especially for the ECPD.  One of my best friend's dad just retired from ECPD and he always complained that the police simply did not have enough of a street presence to make any impact.  They are too busy responding to calls, that they cannot effectively deter crime before it happens. 

 

Look at what Rudy G. did in NYC with his order-maintenance policing.  He took cops out of their cruisers and put them on street patrol going after the criminal element, perpetrators of vandalism and aggressive panhandlers.  Putting aside the constitutional issues that such measures invoked, the aggressive, street-beat cops were largely successful in cleaning up the streets of Manhattan.

 

Certain streets/area's of Manhattan/NYC.

 

There is a large police presence in the "tourist" areas.  Herald Square, Rock Center, Columbus Circle, the Times Square - Grand Center 42 Corridor, etc.

 

I do think we need more cops on the street but on a tighter leash than Rudy had in NYC.  It was a public relations nightmare and the number of cops injuring killing citizens is well documented.

I can't think of an area I'd rather have fixed up before this one.  I would include Glenville in the greater East Cleveland reinvestment zone, but that's arbitrary.  It has that awesome location between the Heights/UC and the lake, along with great transit access, great urban character and a history of opulence.  There is so much to build on and so much that could one day be.  In keeping with the thread topic, I think EC's tiny demolition budget may have been a blessing in disguise all these years.

^So true.  Watching big chunks of East Cleveland get demoed in the next couple years is going to be a particularly depressing chapter of the massive demo wave about to hit Cleveland.  The whole thing makes me so sick.  But I definitely can't blame the residents who have to put up with all those rotting shells of houses.

 

And thanks, OldmanLady Luck for the personal perspective.  I definitely agree with you about the potential in EC but for the social/economic problems there.

It's sad because EC is a city of two.  Upper East Cleveland and Lower East Cleveland.

Most suburbanites will never know the experience of being able to go to your front porch in the morning, and saying hi to your neighbors next door and across the street who have also come outside to enjoy the day.  Across the street one neighbor might be grilling burgers and hotdogs, who will invite you over to eat.  Children run up and down the sidewalks playing, with all eyes on the street watching them for their safety.  And if you ever run out of something, the convenience store is not even two blocks away.

 

Very nicely put.  You didn't put down suburbanites, just explained what they're missing. 

It's sad because EC is a city of two. Upper East Cleveland and Lower East Cleveland.

 

I don't know EC at all.  But if there is this division, would it make sense for Cleveland to take over one half and Cleveland Heights the other half?  Lost in all this discussion about taking over responsibility for East Cleveland is whether the people of East Cleveland would want to give up on their city.

 

 

It's sad because EC is a city of two.  Upper East Cleveland and Lower East Cleveland.

 

I don't know EC at all.  But if there is this division, would it make sense for Cleveland to take over one half and Cleveland Heights the other half?  Lost in all this discussion about taking over responsibility for East Cleveland is whether the people of East Cleveland would want to give up on their city.

 

 

 

The question is, is it legal and does another city have the power, funds or legal clout to do such a thing.  If EC is absorbed it has to be all or nothing.  Not the lower half to cleveland and the upper half to CH.

I'm sure there would have to be a vote by the citizens of EC.  It would not be up to Cleveland (they could only accept or reject).

Shortly after Jackson was elected, I heard Ken Silliman (Cleveland mayor Frank Jackson's Chief of Staff) say that Frank supports annexing East Cleveland, however, Cleveland will not initiate the annexation.  East Cleveland voters/gov't have to initiate the process.  Jackson isn't much of a go-getter and East Cleveland officials are so dysfunctional that it'd take a miracle for annexation to happen.

Shortly after Jackson was elected, I heard Ken Silliman (Cleveland mayor Frank Jackson's Chief of Staff) say that Frank supports annexing East Cleveland, however, Cleveland will not initiate the annexation.  East Cleveland voters/gov't have to initiate the process.  Jackson isn't much of a go-getter and East Cleveland officials are so dysfunctional that it'd take a miracle for annexation to happen.

 

He isn't a go getter?  Why would he go after a liability?

Because it may be more of a liability on its own.  There is a specific process for merging two cities and I'm pretty sure it requires a vote on both sides.  I have it in a notebook in my locker and I'll post it sometime.

No disrespect to EC, but why would Cleveland want to annex them? 

Because it may be more of a liability on its own.  There is a specific process for merging two cities and I'm pretty sure it requires a vote on both sides.  I have it in a notebook in my locker and I'll post it sometime.

 

The procedure is governed by Ch. 709 of the Revised Code.  In a nutshell, the basic procedure would be as follows:

 

1) Either EC's council proposes annexation through an ordinance declaring its desire to be annexed or the electors of EC pass a petition (25% of voters) directing the council to take such action.

 

2) 3 commisssioners are appointed by council, or the probate court if council can't agree, to negotiate the terms of the annexation - such as whether it will be for corporate municipal purposes or just for schools.  Cleveland would take part in these negotiations of course.

 

3) the negotiated conditions of annexation are submitted for a vote of electors of both EC and Cleveland at the next regular or primary election.  Although, Cleveland's city council may assent to the annexation and waive the vote of its electors on this issue.  The EC electors must vote.  If approved, the annexation occurs.

Simple as pie.  Anyone know anyone on EC council?  Census is a year away, let's go.