Yep, the census is a year away but EC has emptied out like many other inner ring suburbs in the region within the last 10 years.  It won't help Cleveland much to add EC's numbers, which would probably put C-town up to around 450,000. 

If council won't initiate the negotiations, what the law requires is the signatures of 25% of the electors who voted in the last election.  A grassroots movement could get that done.  For better or worse, EC has the most "street activity" on the east side.  Gathering sufficient signatures would not be that difficult IMO.

 

At the very least, it would become instant front page material and the public debate and pressure would rise from its present ashes (if there ever was any fire to it).

 

However, I am not sure what kind of effect it would have.  I have doubts about the UC neighborhood heading that way before it swallows up Hough  and heads towards 55th.  Best we could probably hope for is that Euclid to Superior would become more desirable and the building stock on that strip can/will be preserved.  I say "can" because I suspect at least some of that stock has already reached the point of no return in terms of repair and re-use.

 

Forrest Hills would be a real nice addition for the City.

From cleveland.com:

 

Cleveland Clinic will soon demolish one of Cleveland's few prominent Art Deco buildings

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2009/04/cleveland_clinic_will_soon_dem.html

 

Posted by slitt April 03, 2009 17:04PM

 

Steven Litt/The Plain Dealer

 

The OCPM building has been a familiar urban fixture for decades.

 

Time's up for the former Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine Building at East 105th Street and Carnegie Avenue. One of the few prominent examples of Art Deco architecture in Cleveland will soon be demolished...

 

.....

The building in question is the beige one on the right:

 

 

So if I'm reading the article right, they are replacing it with a 206 car parking lot, and then when the OC is completed, it could be change?

 

Parking lot idea is not good.  I thought maybe a park or something.

^Pretty much  :|

 

"The Clinic plans to replace the building with a 206-space parking lot"

 

+

 

"In the future, the land at East 105th and Carnegie could be used for a new Clinic building, although the organization has no immediate plans to build anything on the site."

 

 

Interesting Brian Smith states "There's been no organized community protest."

 

Would it have made any kind of difference? 

 

I know I was in contact with one of the memebers of the University Circle Design review who was really fighting this, but he said the clinic was succesful in convincing the majority of the members that it was a "hinderance" to their growth and plan, and had no possible use :?.   

 

That damned, farce so-called Opportunity Cooridor raises it's ugly head again.  It's the source of a ton of urban evil in this town that's only beginning to manifest itself.  The destruction of this gorgeous, historic building is an absolute travesty which, like the joke OC which is a primary genesis in the OCPM's destruction, is happening with disturbingly little public outrage or comment.  Have we become so desperate as a city that our oft self-centered power brokers, like Brian Smith & the Clinic, can have their way with our formerly great city without us barely lifting a finger? 

I don't think this has anything to do with the OC.  This thing was slated for the wrecking ball long ago.

Again, clvlndr - who is "we" and "us"? You don't know who has (or hasn't) tried to persuade the Clinic into reconsidering their plans. Would it make any difference if we organized a sit-in? Exactly how do you propose we put a stop to all these travesties? If you want to raise a stink with someone, try the Cleveland Restoration Society. I don't like the idea that they're planning to demolish the building, but I don't have time in my life to organize a protest - do you?

 

However, trying to heap guilt on "we desperate Clevelanders" for the Clinic's plans to demolish this building? Just like your griping about the Dual Hub plan... not everyone is into self-flagellation.

 

Is it really that marvelous of a building "...the building has narrow column bays, low ceilings and would feel dark and cramped if renovated. It would also yield 50 percent less usable space than other Clinic buildings."  I agree that tearing it down to put in a parking lot is a waste but it doesn't sound like the building had much use anyway. 

I noticed the wrecking ball on some really cool building at E.55 and between Chester & Euclid. 

^ I've been hoping they would just forget to tear those down.

Is it really that marvelous of a building "...the building has narrow column bays, low ceilings and would feel dark and cramped if renovated. It would also yield 50 percent less usable space than other Clinic buildings." I agree that tearing it down to put in a parking lot is a waste but it doesn't sound like the building had much use anyway.

 

To the clinic, dark and cramped is anything that doesn't look like the spaceship that is the interior of their new building.

^It reminds me of a futuristic airport.

Is it really that marvelous of a building "...the building has narrow column bays, low ceilings and would feel dark and cramped if renovated. It would also yield 50 percent less usable space than other Clinic buildings."  I agree that tearing it down to put in a parking lot is a waste but it doesn't sound like the building had much use anyway. 

 

I think the same thing has been said for the Huntington Building downtown and even the Terminal Tower for the matter (when comparing to modern built office space)  So should that make all these buildings (and others built in this era) expendable, because they lack the more modern things like higher ceilings........

 

Also this is quoted from a Clinic spokesperson :roll:.....

 

Couldnt you also argue that the newer buildings lack the quality construction, craftsmanship and detail that a building from this period is so rich with.

I'm sure they said the same of Victorian houses in the 1960s when they replaced them with those horrendous "open" structures.

Is it really that marvelous of a building "...the building has narrow column bays, low ceilings and would feel dark and cramped if renovated. It would also yield 50 percent less usable space than other Clinic buildings." I agree that tearing it down to put in a parking lot is a waste but it doesn't sound like the building had much use anyway.

 

I think the same thing has been said for the Huntington Building downtown and even the Terminal Tower for the matter (when comparing to modern built office space) So should that make all these buildings (and others built in this era) expendable, because they lack the more modern things like higher ceilings........

 

Also this is quoted from a Clinic spokesperson :roll:.....

 

Couldnt you also argue that the newer buildings lack the quality construction, craftsmanship and detail that a building from this period is so rich with.

 

I think that is this were a great building or had some significance then there would have been a public outcry to keep it.  Seems to me that its possible demolition, at the time the permit was obtained a year ago, was met with crickets.  Now tearing this down to replace it with a parking lot is a travesty and I really would expect better from the clinic.  Unfortenetly, they own the building, the land, and have the demo rights.  If no one voices an opposition to this then they have every right to tear it down.  Like was said, dont they need another spaceship building anyway?

I think you can look at Cleveland as a whole and intuit that the public here doesn't go out of its way to protect buildings, regardless of quality or historical merit.  It shouldn't require 100 people to endanger their jobs and form a picket line.  The city needs a mechanism to stand up for historic buildings.  I'm sure they have one, of some kind, but this is an example of how it doesn't work so well.  This is one of the reasons people have governments.  Historic structures don't fight for themselves, and few have built-in constituencies.  I'm sure someone can use the space in that building at some point.  Maybe it won't be the Clinic.  Being based a few blocks away does not give the Clinic god-like powers over this parcel.  Neither does ownership.

 

   

I heard that a prominent developer in town tried to save the building by offering to buy it from the Clinic. CCF wouldn't listen.

The loss at E57th and Euclid Avenue completely eliminates the trace of a once dense and exciting urban fabric that stretched from Public Square to E107th.  Now, from E30th east, there is little more than nothing.  We should be embarrassed as a city at the loss of these once ubiquitous buildings.  We are a lesser city without them.

R.I.P. to the possibilities.

 

This is something that should come up during municipal elections, but I don't know that it ever does.

The loss at E57th and Euclid Avenue completely eliminates the trace of a once dense and exciting urban fabric that stretched from Public Square to E107th. Now, from E30th east, there is little more than nothing. We should be embarrassed as a city at the loss of these once ubiquitous buildings. We are a lesser city without them.

R.I.P. to the possibilities.

 

 

Although I'm not going to say RIP to possibilities, I didn't know that building was going by the way of the wrecking ball until this morning on the HealthLine.  I jumped in my seat and almost swallowed my phone.  It was one of my favorites.

When structures of this size and smaller are demolished, they are removing the opportunities for small local developers from entering into the development field within the city.  For instance; a small developer has the ability to purchased an abandoned or under utilized structure for usually less than its real value.  A good example of this fact is Joshua Hall on Prospect.  There is no way the company that developed that existing building recently, could purchase the land and built a comperable structure with 4 condos, office/retail, and indoor parking.  But they can pick up a building like Joshua Hall ($250,000 in 2001, unbelievable I know) and turn it into a neighborhood gem.  These are the size developers that have renovated and restored the Warehouse District (besides the Bingham), Ohio City, and Tremont, it certainly wasn't Forest City or the like.  This is why nearly every surface parking lot has remained that for the past 40 years, it's too damn expensive for the little guys, yet the big developers won't do anything because their profit margin would be below 30%.

All this without mentioning the fact of sustainability, aesthetics, and retaining historic structures.  It's simply nonsense on so many levels.

One way for this city to repopulate is to make it easier for the grass roots developers to get things done and STOP TEARING DOWN THE EXISTING BUILDING STOCK!

R.I.P. the possibilities indeed.

 

I agree, this demo represents all that is wrong here.  We don't value the right things and we don't seem to have a cohesive plan.

When structures of this size and smaller are demolished, they are removing the opportunities for small local developers from entering into the development field within the city. For instance; a small developer has the ability to purchased an abandoned or under utilized structure for usually less than its real value. A good example of this fact is Joshua Hall on Prospect. There is no way the company that developed that existing building recently, could purchase the land and built a comperable structure with 4 condos, office/retail, and indoor parking. But they can pick up a building like Joshua Hall ($250,000 in 2001, unbelievable I know) and turn it into a neighborhood gem. These are the size developers that have renovated and restored the Warehouse District (besides the Bingham), Ohio City, and Tremont, it certainly wasn't Forest City or the like. This is why nearly every surface parking lot has remained that for the past 40 years, it's too damn expensive for the little guys, yet the big developers won't do anything because their profit margin would be below 30%.

All this without mentioning the fact of sustainability, aesthetics, and retaining historic structures. It's simply nonsense on so many levels.

One way for this city to repopulate is to make it easier for the grass roots developers to get things done and STOP TEARING DOWN THE EXISTING BUILDING STOCK!

R.I.P. the possibilities indeed.

 

Terrific point.

There were several people over at E57th and Euclid snapping the funeral.  I'll have some pics later today.  Damn shame.

Those are just the types of buildings I don't think Cleveland has enough of. 

We once had tons of them, that's the problem.  Nicholson as Joker:  This town needs an enema! 

This photo was taken for the Cleveland Press in the late 1920s on Euclid Avenue looking west toward the East 55th Street intersection with the Pennsylvania Railroad bridge overhead...

 

 

This appears to be in the 1940s. The view is looking east on Euclid from a structure that no longer stands. The streetcar with a trailer to handle crush traffic is on East 55th. The junction of the two major streetcar lines along with Pennsylvania Railroad's major Cleveland station (just out of view to the right) made this one of many downtown-like nodes along Euclid. Alas all the buildings at the intersection are now gone, what with the demolitions this week of the buildings in the background....

 

We'll be so much better off with a mountain bike park.

I can't think of a less apprpriate place for a mountain bike park.  I have zero faith in the people that run Midtown Development Corp.

^ I don't know much about them.  I've looked over their plan and I like the rest of it, in general.  It strikes me that the mountian bike park violates every single rule they've laid out for the area.  So who's baby that is I don't know.  It's probably someone they're afraid to say no to.  I think it's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

We already have one off of West Blvd (Ray's Indoor Mountain Bike, which is awesome and everyone should check out) AND there are plans to put an outdoor mountain bike park in Old Brooklyn (Treadway), the planning commission voted 2 months ago to incorporate this into there strategic 2020 plan.  I dislike how disorganized this city can be at times.  Why midtown?  Terrible idea

I just do not see the market for the bike place. 

In an effort to open MidTown's community dialogue beyond our stakeholders I'll attempt to take a page out of jmasek's book and address the concerns of UO'ers as a MidTown employee. 

 

I can assure you that we made every effort to attract a development partner for the rehabilitation of the Cobb & Bradley building and Euclid Hotel.  Unfortunately we were unsuccessful for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the difficulty in converting those buildings in to marketable space (be it residential, office or otherwise). 

 

The bike park concept was the brainchild of an intern that worked here a few years ago.  The idea was unique, exciting and was very well received by the cyclist community.  Support for the concept was recieved from the MidTown business community as well as the City.  The prognosis for this project is not good at the moment.  Current conditions and other neighborhood priorities always result in a reexamination of the master plan.  This is the beauty behind planning... the plans constantly evolve.  The specifics for this site have changed and the precise end use may also but the general theme of public space can be maintained. 

 

I will try to answer any questions you all might have regarding this project and any other MidTown related issues.  There are some legal concerns surrounding this particular demolition so I may have to defer but will be as open as possible.

Welcome, and thanks for wanting to be a part of the dialogue here!

In an effort to open MidTown's community dialogue beyond our stakeholders I'll attempt to take a page out of jmasek's book and address the concerns of UO'ers as a MidTown employee.

 

The info is very much appreciated, thank you. Is there any way that site could end up having buildings again, instead of a space?  There are so many possibilities given its location.  My ideal outcome would tie in with the Agora.

Bigriverburning, we appreciate your willingness to stick your neck out and discuss the decision making behind the demolition and the bike park.  As saddened as I am by the loss of one of my favorite pieces of Cleveland's historic building stock, I know from experience that saving historic structures like this is far from an easy thing.

Yes, thank you for commenting on this subject.

I will select my words carefully because I realize that I am pretty riled up about the demolition of these structures, and I suppose it is more of a commentary on the path that this city has taken over the past decades than Midtown Corp specifically (although I am highly skeptical of the uber generic master plan that was put together recently for this fulcrum point of the city).

I question the developers that were approached for input on the poor feasability of reusing these once common structures on Euclid Avenue.  I can't think of a building of this size that has no program that could be successfully executed within its shell.  I know all of the concerns of the site, (adjacency to the rail road tracks, supposedly strange floor plates, structural integrity in relation to the Cleveland Canvas Goods, etc.) because I contacted someone at Midtown several months ago on this subject, but these are the buildings that create value for a city.  I'm just very disappointed that this area, as seen in the photos by KJP above, have been completely discarded.  This demolition, that has continued in the past five years in this area (remember the buildings across from the Bradley & Cobb buildings, and then the building across from Galluci's that was removed) even with the success we've seen in reuse of old structures in the Warehouse District, Ohio City, Tremont, and Detroit Shoreway, completely removes the possibilities the natural growth of the city and preserving the building stock that defined this city in its greatest years. 

The Midtown master plan that was put together recently shows basically all new structures for this area.  Are we really supposed to believe that a major developer is going to take over several blocks of completely vacant land in a now faceless part of the city?  It seems extremely unlikely at this point.

However, as I stated above, if these older structures are allowed to simply exist and wait for the right time to be reused by a smaller local developer that is passionate about making an impact on our city as opposed to a 30% return on investment, you begin to sew the seeds of redensifying once relavent nodes within the city.  That opportunity has been removed from this node of E55th and Euclid with the demoltion in recent years, and as the area's stewart I think Midtown Corp should be ashamed of themselves for not having the vision or wherewithall to realize what this neighborhood could have been with simply staving off demolition.

 

Thanks for being part of the conversation, bigriverburning. Welcome.

If older structures are left to simply exist, who is to pay for the upkeep and maintenance, who is responsible for keeping them secure and preventing vandalism?  And where does that money come from?  I agree with w28th in principle, but neighborhood development corp's don't have unlimited budgets and neither do preservation societies. 

 

Unfortunately, buildings left to rot will eventually rot.  Every building doesn't end up a successful reclamation story like Tyler Village.  I wonder how long before that old (TRW?) behemoth on Carnegie east of 55th meets a simliar fate.

Who owned these buildings?  That seems like the logical place to start, in seeking who to blame for their condition.  There are many around here who revel in the privileges of ownership but reject every associated responsibility.  The fault lies either with them collectively, or with the system that affords them so much destructive power.  The lack of any visible citywide plan to preserve these assets is another problem. 

The info is very much appreciated, thank you. Is there any way that site could end up having buildings again, instead of a space?  There are so many possibilities given its location.

 

I would not rule out buildings on that corner completely but there are some existing conditions that need to be remedied.  The sanitary lateral from Cleveland Canvas Goods (neighbor to the north) runs beneath the foundation of the Cobb & Bradley building. 

 

However, as I stated above, if these older structures are allowed to simply exist and wait for the right time to be reused by a smaller local developer that is passionate about making an impact on our city as opposed to a 30% return on investment, you begin to sew the seeds of redensifying once relavent nodes within the city.  That opportunity has been removed from this node of E55th and Euclid with the demoltion in recent years, and as the area's stewart I think Midtown Corp should be ashamed of themselves for not having the vision or wherewithall to realize what this neighborhood could have been with simply staving off demolition.

 

Neither this particular decision to demolish nor MidTown's master plan occured in a vacuum.  I appreciate your passion for saving historic structures and welcome any ideas to preserve and re-use existing stock.  As you know, the challenge in mothballing is maintaining to some acceptable standard that allows for future redevelopment but does not endanger the public.  The problem is systemic.

 

As a neighborhood "steward", we work everyday to make the area desirable for existing businesses, attracting new business/development while working with the infrastructure we have.  The challenges we face include the perception of dilapidated structures and disinvestment, mass exodous from the urban core, competition with green field development, expensive redevelopment and clean-up.  Those realities are compounded by competing interests of RTA, the City, Cuyahoga County, ODOT, the state, neighboring CDC's, philanthropic organizations, neighoborhood businesses and residents. 

 

Believe me, I share your pain in lamenting the loss of two great buildings in the place that I work everyday.  The sad fact is that until we as a city, region, state and country decide that the advantages of urban investment outweigh sprawl we will continue to lose.  There are bright spots in MidTown.  The Baker Electric Motor Car and Victory buildings at E. 71st and Euclid, the mansions in the historic Prospect Ave. district, 4415 Euclid Ave., the Center for Families and Children, the Agora and others demonstrate that re-use is possible, even profitable.  The vacant land between 55th and 79th is governed by the only form based zoning code in the city.  There are density, set back and use requirments that seek to recreate a vibrant urban district.  MidTown's local design review has consolidated with University Circle establishing a single design review district between the Inner Belt and eastern edge of the city along the Euclid Corridor.  Property values on the corridor are some of the highest in the County.  The medical institutions to the east are rapidly exanding and we may soon have a one of a kind facility downtown to further grow the healthcare sector. 

 

I can tell you that the developers that were approached about redevelopment here were smaller shops and I'm sure that there was probably a use out there that was not considered that would have worked.  Unfortunately, we ran out of time here.  The city is conducting the demo based on a 2004 condemnation. 

 

Sorry for the rambler.  Hope this makes some sense.  I'm in between obligations here...

 

 

 

Thank you again for all the information and insight.  I worry a little bit that if midtown wants the site empty, we're not likely to see buildings there.  I've been confused for years as to where midtown stands on the subject.  As a side note, I'm clueless about the sanitary lateral issue... that's over my head.  Can you elaborate?

 

It seems incongruous to me that the form-based zoning code would call for density and no setbacks all along Euclid, while simultaneously embracing a plan to put a zero-density rural amenity on that key parcel.  I like the zoning overlay.  But what good is it if it would still allow a dirt track to be placed in the middle of the city?  Either we have a plan, or we take whatever comes regardless of how urban it is.  I don't think we can have it both ways.

The building came down today. I have to say, I am disgusted but at the same time, I would be willing to accept it if they ALSO tear down all the rubbish nearby (e.g. the U-haul store on the corner of E. 55th and Chester and the Rockcliff Market caddycornered to it) are so ugly. When will those come down? They are dangerous, they are dangerously ugly and disrupting to the rest of MidTown.

I think all of MT is pretty ugly.  It looks like a scattered mess. 

 

E.55-E.61 looks ready to farm.  In other areas, you come across a building that survived the wrecking ball, and totally does not fit in with the aesthetically unpleasing alterations that have occurred to a majority of the area.

 

 

The building came down today. I have to say, I am disgusted but at the same time, I would be willing to accept it if they ALSO tear down all the rubbish nearby (e.g. the U-haul store on the corner of E. 55th and Chester and the Rockcliff Market caddycornered to it) are so ugly. When will those come down? They are dangerous, they are dangerously ugly and disrupting to the rest of MidTown.

 

There isn't much on that stretch of Euclid that I wouldn't demolish at this point.  I would save all the churches, other than that ugly new Mormon one, save Rugby Hall, save anything else built pre-1950, but level a whole bunch of awful junk that should never ever have been allowed to go up there.  Some poor soul has to pay for the demolition, so save the trouble and start telling people "that's inappropriate for Euclid Avenue and you're not building it there."

How backwards can society get? The good stuff is being torn down and is being replaced with ugly stuff, meanwhile, the average to ugly existing stuff remains and gets uglier. That describes that end of MidTown. Granted, there are gems and masterpieces still standing and mixed in, such as Ingleside Manor, but I mean come on - what's going to happen in 10 or 20 years when MidTown does make a comeback and we're permanently stuck with crap like a windowless Aldi's?

A thought that soothes me when I get upset about this stuff is that we're never really permanently stuck with anything.  Over the long term, cities are infinitely malleable.  Everything will meet the wrecking ball, and be replaced with something new.  Or not, and it will be fields and nature will reclaim it.  Windowless Aldi's, too, shall come to pass.

I can appreciate your zen approach to it, but I'm only going to be young for so long and I would prefer to get good things rolling sooner rather than later.  It's high time for a sense of urgency around here.  I posted an article earlier today about how so many in Cleveland's municipal staff haven't met basic civil service requirements.  I believe a lot of missed opportunities and lost years can be blamed on this.  We need to start using every tool in a modern American city's arsenal.  I don't think we are.  Historic preservation and building standards would both be great places to start.