Contractors are a powerful force.  New construction, especially the ugly kind, is most favorable to them.  The only question you need to ask is qui bono.  If we don't stand strong behind a coherent vision for the city, and the state, we'll get run over.  That's what's been happening.

I agree... but in the case of schools, you really do have to start with the state.

Well, locally the most impressive ones could be given Landmark status, somewhat like the churches have been going through.  This doesnt solve the problem on the state level, and likely would result in many buildings just sitting without a use, but......

I believe there are several that (both churches and schools) that councilpeople have been nominating for landmark status in the past few months for this exact reason.

According to the article, 5 of the 7 schools slated for Phase 2 demolition (demos tentatively scheduled for next year) are already designated as landmarks (including Watterson-Lake), and the other 2 have applications pending.

so... best to write the councilpeople in charge of each of these properties and the landmarks commission with your views.

 

These probable school demolitions are very sad.

Through some of my recent east side travels, I've grown fond of some of the ones that are on the list.

Found this interesting snipit in a great (but terribly sad) blog that ink posted to in a buckeye / mt pleasant photo thread...

 

"It is hard to fault the Cleveland Metropolitan School District for demolishing the schools that are to be rebuilt. The state requires that if the estimated rehabilitation cost exceeds 75% of the cost of new construction, that a new building must be built. This is because, as you surely know if you've ever fixed up an old building, costs are always higher than estimated. The school is in a difficult financial situation, and can't afford to give up the state portion of the funding for these projects. If we find this to be problematic, we need to work for change at the state level. "

 

http://www.clevelandareahistory.com/2010/05/cleveland-schools-slated-for-demolition.html

Thanks Mayor, I was wondering about that because in the Lakewood school building projects, some were rehabbed and some were demo'd. I know the all the schools that are left for phase 3 of the project needed to be demo'd because they were uneligible for state funding for rehab. That sheds some light on the subject.

I feel like a terrible citizen for not knowing this, but who are all our senators and reps for Cuyahoga county down in Columbus?

I feel like a terrible citizen for not knowing this, but who are all our senators and reps for Cuyahoga county down in Columbus?

 

I'm not saying this to be mean or a smart ass, but google is your friend and so the ohio state government website http://ohio.gov/how/government.stm#4

Found this interesting snipit in a great (but terribly sad) blog that ink posted to in a buckeye / mt pleasant photo thread...

 

"It is hard to fault the Cleveland Metropolitan School District for demolishing the schools that are to be rebuilt. The state requires that if the estimated rehabilitation cost exceeds 75% of the cost of new construction, that a new building must be built. This is because, as you surely know if you've ever fixed up an old building, costs are always higher than estimated. The school is in a difficult financial situation, and can't afford to give up the state portion of the funding for these projects. If we find this to be problematic, we need to work for change at the state level. "

 

http://www.clevelandareahistory.com/2010/05/cleveland-schools-slated-for-demolition.html

 

I love that blog.  But I wonder if the author has a lot of evidence to back up his justification for what to me sounds like a terrible rule.  New construction has cost overruns too.  And I believe rehab is more labor intensive per dollar of construction cost, so more of that money spent is coming back to the state as income tax.

As they say, the greenest building is the one that already exists.  Container ships burn a lotta fuel to bring in all that drywall from China.  Plus all the machinery involved in teardown and construction.  Add in the logistics of the mining and manufacturing and what-not, and we would seem to be better off upgrading what we have.

I completely agree with you guys... which is why everyone should probably take it up with our state representatives to attempt to change this destructive policy.

^No, the poster has a point.  I did a fair amount of construction litigation and while there are cost over runs on both new construction and rehabs, by far they are more likely on rehabs (and in fact seem almost guaranteed).  Rehab costs over runs usually result from unforseen problems or hidden problems that probably should have been uncovered in the design stage but were not.  Not much you can do when you are in the middle of a project other than issue the (often time expensive) change order and then (unfortunatley because it may effect quality) value engineer the remainder of the project where you can (cancel the historically accurate light fixtures for example).

 

New construction over runs most often are weather related (especially at the beginning of the project) or are due to late design changes the client wants.  They are definitely easier to control. 

 

Unfortunately (since I prefer re-habbing these buildings) the powers that be at the state have much experience in pricing construction and know what can go wrong so, given limited funds, you cannot blame them for going the safer route.  They do have a job to do and it is their butts when there are cost over runs and every body and their mother are out to qet them.

I can vouch that the house neighboring the Ukrainian Archives in Tremont is gone as of this week :-(

 

Why was that demolished?..... I noticed it the other day.  It was sided with some kind of shank siding when there was an interest in "modernizing" such homes. It would have not looked too bad if it were cleaned up and painted well. Is anything going in its space? Another parking lot?

From Cleveland Area History:

 

"The house is owned by the Ukrainian Museum-Archive, which purchased the house in September. The Museum-Archive is housed and operated in the house and building on the adjoining property, 1202 Kenilworth. The museum wants to demolish the house so that they can use the land for surface parking. With the landscaping that they show in the plan, this would provide for 21 parking spaces."

 

http://www.clevelandareahistory.com/2010/03/demolition-alert-residence-designed-by.html

 

Wow! You'd never guess it was such a grand house with the 'remodeling' Yes, we welcome another parking lot....  21 spaces? What constitutes the need for this? There own business? As much as I like that museum, I particularly do not see people flocking to it. With so many homes covered with aluminum siding or some other crud.... no wonder few realize the value underneath.

A few minutes ago, I was driving home from work down Carnegie towards the Inner Belt... and the road was blocked off by police. It looks like either the building the the big wrinkly dog advertisement or the one next to it was on fire. (6200 Carnegie avenue-ish)

 

I suppose this one can be added to the soon to be leveled list. :[

^Someone should get pictures :)

A few minutes ago, I was driving home from work down Carnegie towards the Inner Belt... and the road was blocked off by police. It looks like either the building the the big wrinkly dog advertisement or the one next to it was on fire. (6200 Carnegie avenue-ish)

 

I suppose this one can be added to the soon to be leveled list. :[

 

Yeah, from the PD (abandoned building)

 

No injuries in early morning fire in Cleveland

Published: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 10:34 AM    Updated: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 10:38 AM

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cleveland fire officials are investigating an early-morning blaze on Saturday that damaged a vacant building in the 6400 block of Carnegie Avenue, a fire department spokesman said.

 

Firefighters responded shortly after midnight. Nobody was injured. (nothing more)

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/no_injuries_in_early_morning_f.html

 

 

^Someone should get pictures :)

 

Ask and you shall receive.  I snapped a few quick shots while it looked like the building was being boarded up.  Not sure if that would be temporary or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

would have made for some very nice wide-open living spaces!

Well it does seem the fire department got there pretty quickly, and the brick structure itself looks fine. I'll add it to my list of buildings to buy when I win the mega millions.

Anyone know if we're losing any historic buildings??

 

Cleveland school district places 25 buildings on demolition list

By Thomas Ott, The Plain Dealer

May 05, 2010, 9:25AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Cleveland schools will add to a stockpile of closed buildings this summer, then go on a demolition spree.

 

The district intends to level 25 buildings, including 13 of the 16 schools set to close in June, according to a plan released this week. The downsizing is part of the district's attempt to erase a $53 million deficit.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/05/cleveland_school_district_want.html

 

 

Cleveland schools plan would scrap more buildings, cut back construction

Published: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 8:00 AM   

Thomas Ott, The Plain Dealer

 

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A plan for completing the Cleveland schools' state-funded construction program calls for the district to scrap many more schools than it builds or renovates.

 

Even after closing 16 buildings in June, the district operates more than 90 schools. Prenosil's plan calls for reducing the number of new and renovated schools to 63, well below the 111 envisioned when work began in 2002.

 

The state pays two-thirds of most Cleveland school construction expenses, but the bottom line will be based on how many students are served. According to Prenosil's calculations, the cost of work jointly funded by the state and district will in the end total less than $1.2 billion, a decrease of almost $348 million.

 

If Prenosil's recommendations are followed, the number of abandoned and demolished schools would grow to 99.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/07/cleveland_schools_plan_would_s.html

 

 

Not sure if this building has received much discussion, but after the demolition of the 1830s building on West Superior (former Hoty's restaurant back in the day, more recently a check-cashing biz wrapped by a condemned 1960s parking deck), this will be the oldest building left standing downtown.......

 

2121 Ontario Street

http://auditor.cuyahogacounty.us/repi/General.asp

 

On Google Streetview it has the vacant Barbara Anne Bridal Shoppe in it.

 

I believe this building dates from the 1840s, but I don't have a specific year. The building does not have protective landmark status, according to the Cleveland Planning Commission's GIS. But it is in a historic district.

Not sure if this building has received much discussion, but after the demolition of the 1830s building on West Superior (former Hoty's restaurant back in the day, more recently a check-cashing biz wrapped by a condemned 1960s parking deck), this will be the oldest building left standing downtown.......

 

2121 Ontario Street

http://auditor.cuyahogacounty.us/repi/General.asp

 

On Google Streetview it has the vacant Barbara Anne Bridal Shoppe in it.

 

I believe this building dates from the 1840s, but I don't have a specific year. The building does not have protective landmark status, according to the Cleveland Planning Commission's GIS. But it is in a historic district.

 

Cleveland Area History's Christopher Busta-Peck covered the Stanley Block building in pretty fair detail in June: http://www.clevelandareahistory.com/2010/06/condemned-stanley-block.html

 

Honestly, though, it ain't looking good: http://www.clevelandareahistory.com/2010/06/stanley-block-condemnation-notice.html

Only 1874? I thought it was older than that. Oh well.

being condemned does not mean it is necessarily being torn down.  it means it has a mutlitude of code violations that make it uninhabitable as is. there are a mutltitude of people working on this buildings survival.i believe the oldest building left downtown is the Hilliard Block building on west 9th (1849).

Thanks Mayor. I hope the plans pan out. And I forgot about the Hilliard Building which is well maintained and not threatened.

Remembering the Public Square implosion

1982 implosion made way for BP building

By: Tom Livingston

 

CLEVELAND - A gorgeous October morning in 1982 was the setting for a memorable demolition of two historic Cleveland buildings.

 

It was Oct. 3, 1982, and the buildings were the Cuyahoga and Williamson buildings to be exact. They were ornate buildings from another era considered to be 'blighted' so a new skyscraper could rise downtown....

 

 

Watch Video: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/cleveland_metro/remembering-the-public-square-implosion

 

 

Now that time has passed... In retrospect, I wish the 200 Public Square building would have been built on an already vacant/parking lot...and these buildings restored. They're just the kind Harold Lloyd would have loved to climb. This is sad to watch now.

Update in the Collinwood neighborhood.

 

In the image below, the grass lot on the left has been turned into a mini suburban shopping center which has a subway, baby sitter, convenience store, and maybe a tax store.  It has a parking lot in front and has been complete for about a year now.

 

The 2 buildings shown have recently been demolished in the last month and is now just 2 lots with straw on the ground.

 

The very small yellow building on the far right is still standing but unoccupied.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cleveland,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.122306,56.162109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cleveland,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio&ll=41.554004,-81.57546&spn=0,0.027423&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.553898,-81.575443&panoid=G3-Urvor1BRHi1fp2vQLyg&cbp=12,299.09,,0,3.03

More demos.......

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/photo/102209/index.php

 

3.  Cleveland Public Library Superior Branch

1351 East 105th Street

Demolition

Ward 9 - Conwell

 

 

Does anyone know if this has been demolished yet?

 

 

No ink this has not been demolished.

It is still there in same condition.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&q=1351+E.+105th+Cleveland&hq=&hnear=1351+E+105th+St,+Cleveland,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio+44106&ll=41.52029,-81.615474&spn=0,0.02105&z=16&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=41.52029,-81.615474&panoid=x57EweIfTWo4Fc0A3NpIJQ&cbp=12,94.49,,0,5

 

 

^Thanks for the answer!

What appears to be a nearly two-block demolition occurring on the south side of Superior between E. 34th and E. 36th. This was a couple of one-story industrial buildings fronting the street. Certainly nothing nice to look at, but now there's a seemingly pointless gap in the streetscape. If this ends up a huge street-fronting surface parking lot, I'm going to be getting out my angry emoticon. Eff. Anyone know what's going on there?

^Might be worth posting in the Tyler Village thread to see if any of the insiders there know anything about it.

The big old twin apartment buildings near E. 71st on Euclid are being torn down.  It is a shame because they gave a glimpse of what the old Euclid Ave. must have looked like.  There are not many buildings like them left along that stretch.

The Eton and Rugby buildings.  Tragic.

Agreed.  I really thought they would have made amazing upscale apartments.  But I bet it's tough to make things work at that location.

Here's a pic of what we're losing:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cbustapeck/4441840663/#

What are they coming down for? Parking? grass lot?

Older cities have got to find a way to make these types of buildings economically viable.  They distinguish us from the newer cities.  They give us sense of place, and should be looked upon with pride and as assets to our communities.  We must incorporate them into our present and future cityscape along with new and interesting structures that define contemporary society.  We have something that new cities don't and never will have.  Why do we let this advantage slip away so easily?

^ Agreed..  I'll bet it will be a parking lot.

The demo site will be home to one of the affordable housing projects discussed here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7408.msg515457.html#msg515457

[i always forget which is which]

 

Older cities have got to find a way to make these types of buildings economically viable. They distinguish us from the newer cities. They give us sense of place, and should be looked upon with pride and as assets to our communities. We must incorporate them into our present and future cityscape along with new and interesting structures that define contemporary society. We have something that new cities don't and never will have. Why do we let this advantage slip away so easily?

 

Amen.  It kills me.  The curse of relatively low property/housing values.

The demo site will be home to one of the affordable housing projects discussed here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7408.msg515457.html#msg515457

[i always forget which is which]

 

Older cities have got to find a way to make these types of buildings economically viable. They distinguish us from the newer cities. They give us sense of place, and should be looked upon with pride and as assets to our communities. We must incorporate them into our present and future cityscape along with new and interesting structures that define contemporary society. We have something that new cities don't and never will have. Why do we let this advantage slip away so easily?

 

Amen. It kills me. The curse of relatively low property/housing values.

 

The property values plays a tremendous role in it.  It isn't that no one "gets it", that no one "cares", or somehow that everyone in Cleveland is inept or non progressive.  The fact of the matter is that all over our cities we have buildings on every corner litterally dying and coming up on their life cycle.  Few cities saw the complete disinvestment that Cleveland did when the industry rug got pulled from under our feet, leaving us with beautiful old buildings vacant, neglected, and unclaimed.  The structural integrity of many of these buildings are compromised.  So you end up with situations like the buildings on the NE corner of 55th and Euclid that had be demolished because they were structurally unstable and would have required over $1m just to stabalize.  Who can pay for that?  A cash strapped city doesn't have any sort of "preservation fund", the non profit development corps don't have that sort of money, and last I checked we don't have any sort of public benefactor running around buying buildings and paying to stabalize them then mothballing them for a time development might be ripe... so we have the very sad process of watching buildings die.

 

Then the property values come into play.  How many times do we see something get built and people complain about the apartments or offices / whatever being "super expensive", even if they are a fraction of what other cities cost.  I hear developers all the time talk about how hard it is to make anything happen that meets Cleveland "price points"... that is why almost everything that happens requires some sort of subsidy to be even remotely viable.  In this case I know that the buildings were structurally unstable, that the developer looked into reusing the buildings but that the cost of structural repairs inflated the cost of the project so much that it wasn't even remotely viable... and this is a subsidized housing project. They had to prove that reusing the buildings wasn't economically feasible and they did. The reality is, no matter how much we hate it, developers work in a for profit world.  If they can't make money they won't move forward.  If they wouldn't have purchased the property to demo and new build... it would have sat vacant and probably within 12-18 months been put up for demo on public saftey grounds.  Like I said, sadly there is no one being a benefactor to simply buy and stabalize buildings and wait to see if the market can turn around.  If Bill Gates would bequeath me a couple billion dollars I would immediately start doing this.

 

Seeing some of the buildings that "died" on Euclid due to a generations worth of neglect is tragic.  But one of these days, don't take Euclid, Carnegie, or Chester in or out of downtown.  Take Cedar, it will shake you to your core.  Dozens of the most beautiful buildings you will ever see, all dying with no hope.  Every day we are losing another piece of our inheritence because of 60 years of damaging policy (mostly at the state and federal levels), and there is very very very little we can do about it.  It is the awful and ugly truth (unless of course someone wants to raise a pool of millions of dollars and start a non-profit preservation fund).  :/

^Perfectly said.  The reason you might not see so much abandonment in Boston, for example, is that rents/housing prices are so high that developers make money by constantly investing in older buildings, dramatically extending their life cycle.  Imagine if you could rehab a Cleveland double into two $300-500k condos.  That's the situation in Boston, even with run-of-the-mill, 100 year old, frame housing stock.

McCleve-

 

You are sadly spot on, and I think only Detroit suffered/suffers more than Cleveburg. There are sooo many micro and macro-level factors that have led us here.  I hope we can do better than what the last 60 yrs. have resulted in.