Ugh HOB dosent need it. They got the flailing gateway garage, the large surface lot right next to it, BP garage?, the one that fat fish blues is in, and the new one built 515 or whatever. To me it looks like by removing that last building they now got enough room to build a decent sized mid rise now.

Yes, but with the HOB being valet parking, I don't think they want to be taking the cars in garages due to the extra time it takes.  Also this makes room for bands unloading etc. 

This is not freeing up enough room to allow them to not park valet cars in the garage.  They do all of their valet in a garage behind the HOB as it stands.  The room isn't needed for bands unloading.   The HOB has a loading dock, and there is a huge concrete pad between my building and it where they can idle several busses.  I'm fairly sure that this is a genuine precursor to new construction, though it won't be too soon.

Thanks for your optimism, X!  And then for your dose of reality.  I really hope it's going to be new construction...but that it's sooner, rather than later!

Budget takes on blight, vicious dogs

Thursday, March 30, 2006

By Ken Prendergast

West Side Sun News

 

City Council passed a budget this week that will include funding increases for demolishing blighted structures and to hire at least one additional dog warden to target vicious dogs loose in neighborhoods.

 

The $503 million general fund budget increased by 5 percent over last year's budget, yet revenues are projected to rise only 3 percent to $489 million. Projected future cost savings and a carryover from last year's budget will be needed to cover the gap.

 

Continuing to improve the qualify of life in our city is a priority for city council, said Council President Martin Sweeney, Ward 20. We must provide those service that are critical to moving Cleveland forward.   

 

To achieve cost savings, Mayor Frank Jackson announced in his State of the City speech Operation Efficiency Initiative comprised of city department heads, Ward 18 Councilman Jay Westbrook and other local leaders. Jackson said the initiative is intended to keep a lid on rising costs such as health care, labor, worker's compensation and energy. He said he would like to reduce costs by 3 percent to save $15 million.

 

Sweeney said council identified the city's Department of Building and Housing as a priority for more funding. He contended more resources would make the department more effective.

 

City Council is committed to cleaning up abandoned properties, addressing the root causes and finding solutions to this issue impacting our neighborhoods, Sweeney added. This budget, along with the efforts of the Joint Task Force on Vacant and Abandoned Properties, gives us the resources and mechanism to affect change.

 

The task force has begun examining ways to tackle the issue of vacant and abandoned properties. It also has taken a four-step approach to the issue: detection, prevention, maintenance, as well as blight elimination and redevelopment, he said. The additional funds allocated by council will help pay for demolition, which Sweeney called the first and most essential step to eliminating blight.

 

Council is also addressing the threat vicious dogs present to the quality of life in our communities, he said. Our policy research demonstrates a compelling argument for at least one additional dog warden.

 

The city has only one dog warden following budget cuts in 2004 and a reassignment of police personnel by former Mayor Jane Campbell.

This makes me a little uneasy. I don't much mind demolition when we're talking about rotted-out A-frame houses. But when it comes to masonry construction, particularly warehouses and along commercial corridors, I feel we should preserve everything we have left -- no matter how bad it looks right now. We have apparently lost our ability to construct solid, attractive brick and stone buildings, so once they're gone they're never coming back.

 

Unfortunately, Council is unclear about exactly what kinds of buildings they'll be targeting. Any thoughts, KJP?

I don't think they know, either. The task force and the housing/building department will likely have the final say.

I just wish that when it comes time for new buildings, developers and architects would look around Cleveland, and try to come up with buildings that reflect the local architecture a little bit ... quit listening to Steven Litt and his fetish for having only international architects who like to build glass-clad swoopy buildings.  Let's push for inspired architecture, but architecture that's a bit more organic, with a little "form follows function, " just a bit (okay, I'm a fuddy-duddy architecturally ... but with all this development going on, there's a lot of potential happening ... but I fear most of the architecture on these projects is wholly uninspired, and completely ignoring the surroundings that the buildings are going into).

 

 

This makes me a little uneasy. I don't much mind demolition when we're talking about rotted-out A-frame houses. But when it comes to masonry construction, particularly warehouses and along commercial corridors, I feel we should preserve everything we have left -- no matter how bad it looks right now. We have apparently lost our ability to construct solid, attractive brick and stone buildings, so once they're gone they're never coming back.

 

This is so right.  Anyone remember seeing the Venice apartment building come down on Euclid a few years ago (to make room for Beacon Place)?  Very depressing.  Or the old Weizer block on lower Buckeye?  So short sighted.

I just wish that when it comes time for new buildings, developers and architects would look around Cleveland, and try to come up with buildings that reflect the local architecture a little bit ... quit listening to Steven Litt and his fetish for having only international architects who like to build glass-clad swoopy buildings.  Let's push for inspired architecture, but architecture that's a bit more organic, with a little "form follows function, " just a bit (okay, I'm a fuddy-duddy architecturally ... but with all this development going on, there's a lot of potential happening ... but I fear most of the architecture on these projects is wholly uninspired, and completely ignoring the surroundings that the buildings are going into).

 

 

RB, do you really think there is too much stuff in town designed by Steve Litt's type of international architect?  Until the local firms show me something I really like I am relieved whenever I see commissions going to big names out of town.  I think Cleveland's architecural patrons have been amazingly conservative over the years (perfect example: CPL) leaving plenty of room for some glass-clad swoopy buildings.

How about modern buildings that push the architectural edge, yet realize that they also function as part of a larger whole?  Is that so hard?  Is it impossible for an architect to have a forward thinking vision without being an egomaniac?

No, there's probably not too much stuff designed by the International Architects ... though anytime Litt reviews a new building, if it has not been designed by the latest "hot architect du jour" he laments how once again Cleveland is passing up the opportunity to be cutting edge.  Do we need to be cutting edge?  The guy really doesn't like Cleveland's architecture as it is.  And while there are plenty of bland buildings in town, I don't think the answer is having every new building being a post-Mies glass swoopy thing.  That's not going to bring jobs to Cleveland, that's not going to turn the economy around.  I live in the University Circle vicinity, and I don't see the Peter B. Lewis building at CWRU really increasing the quality of life for everyone here.  I do think good architecture can be inspiring ... but what is "good" architecture?  Everyone's got a different view.  I admit, my view is pretty old-fashioned, and people don't seem to build old-style buildings anymore, though I think you can draw inspiration from them.  Look at Cesar Pelli's Key Tower ... it's a new building, but it really draws inspiration from the classic old-school skyscraper, with setbacks and a muscular appeal.  But as a contrast, look at all the new townhouses going up in various neighborhoods and inner-ring suburbs.  Bland slabs with an occasional embellishment.  Why not draw inspiration from some of the classic apartment buildings on East Boulevard overlooking Rockefeller Park?  Or some of the 1930s apartments on Lake Road and Clifton Boulevard?  I know the new townhouses have to have huge bathrooms and closets, along with granite countertops and stainless steel appliances ... but why should they just be bland boxes?  As excited I am about the idea of Rockport Square in Lakewood (and believe me, no matter what they put there, it's MUCH better than the car lots), the buildings are ... blah.  There's tons of new construction going up in Chicago, and even the most newest buildings draw inspiration from the classic townhouses, apartments, and brownstones of Chicago.  Can't Cleveland have that?

The demolition of the old residence hall on the St. John's campus (E. 9th & Superior) is nearly complete.  Will we be looking at another parking lot or some sort of green space in the near future?

^Both.

It will be parking with green space incorporated into it. However, most of the center of the lot will stay open so that they can hold events there.

 

Here are some "Dashboard Camera" shots from Friday morning.

 

 

 

I am a happy camper.  Was driving down Euclid and noticed that they are beginning the demolition of that hulking (it has to be at least seven stories and takes up half the block) long abandoned warehouse next door to the Dunham Tavern Museum (across the street from Galluccis).  Don't know the circumstances behind the demolition but have always thought the entire block should be incorporated into the museum, although I doubt they are behind it unless they received a huge bequest.  The demolition itself must be costing well into seven figures, not to mention purchase of the land.  Anybody have any idea what is going on here?  Can't imagine it was bought by RTA as part of Euclid Corridor Project as the street is pretty wide at that point.

Imagine it. That is exactly what happened.

 

And here are some lovely parting shots I took last week.

 

Good by hulking building.

 

 

 

You've got to be f*cking kidding me...

Was this not the building, Blinker, that we were told would be re-used when we were so clearly p.o.'d about the buildings coming down just east of 55th?  "Oh, those buildings can't stay, but the ones just up the road will be re-used, so it's all good!" (I'm paraphrasing...)

Yes. This makes me sick -- and surprised because I was told the buildings had been designated historic landmarks.

I can't imagine anyone but RTA is behind it.

These are EXACTLY the sorts of structures that the City is banking on developers building after the corridor is finished.  Why in holy hell would they allow RTA or FTA or whomever to demolish them?!?!  At best, we'll end up with something 5 years down the line that is built with much shoddier materials and is much less dense.  Not to mention the wasted dollars and materials due to the demolition.  How friggin ass-backwards is this???

 

Where are the freakin preservationists and why aren't these things being brought in front of the public much sooner?!

Oh wait, I'm wrong -- I was thinking of the buildings on the north side of Euclid, just east of 55th. These are closer to 65th. It was suggested to me that they might be redeveloped -- but they hadn't been nominated for historic status or anything, so they weren't protected. Yuck yuck yuck.

 

Undoubtedly the next ones to go will be those beautiful old apartment buildings near the ones pictured here, on the south side of Euclid.

 

I think the issue, MGD, is that the people who live in this area are largely disenfranchised, relegated to public housing projects along Cedar and Central or to deteriorating houses along Hough and points north. It's sad that the type of "slum" clearance (so-called urban renewal) that began in the 1950s, and which has in hindsight been recognized as racist and classist, continues apace today. Other cities seem to have learned their lesson; we apparently have not.

But I distinctly remember being told that these buildings, further east, would be optimal for re-use because they were not in the way of the corridor and were in better condition.  Bollocks!

do you love it?

I've just been re-reading Blinker's earlier thread on this neighborhood and the discussion I'm referring to is towards the bottom of the first page...

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=5235.0

 

So, now I'm wondering if this is the "surgical demolition" that they were talking about or if they've given up on finding a developer and are just demo-ing the whole thing.  I would find it hard to believe that they'd demolish this mammoth structure on the ECTP budget.  But I've been surprised by their mistakes before!

I am in no way sad to see this building go.  It looms over Dunham Tavern like a menace and certainly does not have any architectural character (although the vast amount of graffiti it attracts is very pretty).  If anything, its original construction (its looks like a former warehouse or light industrial facility) reveals the state of Cleveland zoning (or lack thereof) when it was first built (maybe in the twenties...just a guess).  Mid town Euclid Avenue should have stayed residential and retail.  Instead the city allowed industry to slowly creep in so you ended up having warehouses next to apartment buildings, houses, churches and retail.  I am sure, (among other things) this destroyed the last vestiges of residential living, proably starting shortly after the war.  Cleveland has tons of similar buildings that need renovation in more appropriate locations. 

 

Given that this is an RTA project I guess my new question is whether they are go to demolition it all the way or just the section closest to Euclid.  I  really would like to see the land given to Dunham (of course can't happen if a public agency like RTA owns it).

I  really would like to see the land given to Dunham (of course can't happen if a public agency like RTA owns it).

 

^What, so there can be a big green field surrounding an unimpressive white shack? That thing is what doesn't belong on Euclid.

^So much for all you posters who clamor for historic preservation.  That "thing" has been on Euclid Avenue since the early 1800's when the street was nothing more than a dirt road (and probably not called Euclid) and the area around it was nothing more than farm land.  It was a well know stage coach stop and is one of the oldest (if not oldest...I am not sure) buildings in Cleveland and an important part of our heritage (unlike the hulk next to it).  Simply unbelievable.

Well it's absolutely an important part of our history and I don't think anyone would argue that.

 

However, it's the history behind it that's much more impressive than the actual structure, imho. The same can be said for many historic sites - they'e not much to look at, but happen to have historic importance. I wouldn't ever suggest that it doesn't belong on Euclid, or that it has no worth but it's not like people gawk at the Dunham in the same way they gawk at say, the Old Arcade.

I was probably being a little harsh. But I'm more interested in the city we are today, and the city we want to be in the future, than in what we were in 1823 (the year DT was built). As MGD states, a new zoning overlay has been put into place for Euclid that requires all new buildings to be up to the sidewalk and at least 3 stories tall -- exactly like the ones now being destroyed, in other words. Therefore, it seems nonsensical and wasteful to be tearing them down.

 

What's more, this is and should be the city's most heavily traveled artery, linking downtown with University Circle. It simply doesn't make sense to have urban meadows and farmhouses here. I'm not saying we should demolish the Dunham Tavern, but it certainly isn't anything to emulate in this location.

I think the matter is that the sites are more marketable without the old "dingy" and possibly asbestos filled structures on them.  Developers may be more likely to purchase a cleaned up site versus clean up a site, gut and renovate.  I am not saying I am for this, so don't jump all over me for the statement, but I think I may have to back the decisions that were made here. 

maybe they'll build ballston were the building used to stand, complete with a hecht's

WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO TEAR THIS CITY DOWN?!?!?! I JUST LOOKED AT THE E.55/EUCLID & PROSPECT THREAD AND THE ARCHITECTURE THEY TORE DOWN IS INCREDIBLE. WHAT IS SO HARD ABOUT REHABBING FANTASTIC EXISTING HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURE RATHER THAN TEARIN IT DOWN TO CREATE AN URBAN WATELAND????? PEOPLE FLOCK TO NORTHEAST CITIES LIKE NYC, BOSTON, PHILLY ETC BECAUSE OF THE HISTORIC URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THEY RE-HAB IT!!!! THE STUFF THEY BUILD (OR DONT) LOOKS LIKE COMPLETE CRAP NOWADAYS. JUST FURTHER AND FURTHER SUBURBANIZING A CITY THAT HAS ALREADY LOST ALMOST ALL IT ONCE HAD. INSTEAD OF TEARIN CLEVELAND DOWN PRESERVE WHAT WE HAD? YOU WANT TO BUILD NEW PROJECTS? BUILD THEM AROUND HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT ARE RE-HABBED AND TIE IT INTO THE EXISTING URBAN FRAME. IT DEPRESSES ME TO NO END BECAUSE ONCE ITS GONE ITS NEVER GONNA BE DUPLICATED

 

sorry for the caps but this stuff really upsets me. i just cant take it...

 

no wonder people move to nyc....

WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO TEAR THIS CITY DOWN?!?!?! I JUST LOOKED AT THE E.55/EUCLID & PROSPECT THREAD AND THE ARCHITECTURE THEY TORE DOWN IS INCREDIBLE. WHAT IS SO HARD ABOUT REHABBING FANTASTIC EXISTING HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURE RATHER THAN TEARIN IT DOWN TO CREATE AN URBAN WATELAND????? PEOPLE FLOCK TO NORTHEAST CITIES LIKE NYC, BOSTON, PHILLY ETC BECAUSE OF THE HISTORIC URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THEY RE-HAB IT!!!! THE STUFF THEY BUILD (OR DONT) LOOKS LIKE COMPLETE CRAP NOWADAYS. JUST FURTHER AND FURTHER SUBURBANIZING A CITY THAT HAS ALREADY LOST ALMOST ALL IT ONCE HAD. INSTEAD OF TEARIN CLEVELAND DOWN PRESERVE WHAT WE HAD? YOU WANT TO BUILD NEW PROJECTS? BUILD THEM AROUND HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT ARE RE-HABBED AND TIE IT INTO THE EXISTING URBAN FRAME. IT DEPRESSES ME TO NO END BECAUSE ONCE ITS GONE ITS NEVER GONNA BE DUPLICATED

 

sorry for the caps but this stuff really upsets me. i just cant take it...

 

no wonder people move to nyc....

 

Sweetie...inhale.....now breathe.  Darling they tear down shit in NYC all the time.  I think what MayDay & GoTribe state are the problems with that structure.  Besides, with all the rehab going on in the city, don't you think someone would have ALREADY done something with that building if it were economically feasible?

^Exactly.  There were some very deteriorated structures along Euclid that would never catch the eye of developers.  A vacent lot on a revitalized street however is enticing.  The sky's the limit as to what you can do with that property as far as creativity and magnitude goes.  At least they are not building new building right next to delapitated buildings.  That's a plus. 

I think what depresses me most about this latest demolition is that there's so much vacant land along Euclid already. Equally depressing is having the knowledge of how densely developed and vibrant Euclid Avenue was, with all its busy urban villages clustered around East 105th, East 79th, East 55th and into downtown. When I see pictures of these mixed use clusters, it makes me sad because...

 

A. I never witnessed it personally (though I saw the street with its bombed-out buildings in the 1970s);

B. A lot people were hurt financially and, with worsening crime in those areas as they declined, hurt physically;

C. Will take a lot of effort to recreate it, assuming it can or will be done;

D. Is a huge example of how dynamic and vibrant this city once was. And now that it's gone, that knowledge of what it was nags at me with a sadness as if someone I loved had died.

 

All I can say is, I hope the presence of vacant land will allow Euclid Avenue to be rebuilt. Just don't build single-level Pierre ice cream factories back from the street, or Applied Industrial HQ's like it was architectually extracted from Solon or Strongsville. Build me a street that will make me forget what we lost, so I can be proud of Cleveland's main street again.

They are tearing it down because of the Euclid Corridor.

What I do not understand, and this was already brought up, but how wide does that part of Euclid have to be?

Has anyone looked at the site plans for that area?

It would really suck if they brought the building down because they needed one extra foot of sidewalk space.

Did any thought go into this? It is so ridiculous to be tearing down all these buildings.

I agree, GoTribe, that empty land, ripe for development, may be more attractive to some developers, but as KJP noted, there is quite a bit of this already along Euclid.  Huge swaths, in fact, that have been marketed heavily over the past several years by some very capable groups.  What may be in short supply, if we keep doing what we're doing here, is sturdy old buildings with massive floor plates, made of brick and steel...high quality, expensive materials that are not widely used these days because of the cost.  Sure, someone may slap on a brick facade or use some heavy steel in the right spots, but for the most part, they're using synthetics and light grade steel for the rest of it.  What I'm getting at is that there most certainly is and will be a market for these ginormous unique spaces in our urban core in the near future...especially when they sit along corridors like Euclid.  It is therefore incredibly short-sighted and asinine to be tearing them down for something like the maintenance of a 2' right of way...

 

I'm still waiting for a reply from RTA.

I get the feeling that it wouldn't really matter to RTA if the buildings were 1-story tin foil warehouses or were 10-story architecturally significant brick structures.

Especially to one person in particular at RTA - his initials are MS.

You're probably right.  But considering the number of public agencies who have money in this project, you'd think that there would be far more public review and disclosure before sh*t like this happened.  The jury's still out, but if they're demolishing this whole structure, that's a ton of money! 

Its because of the need for bike lanes, correct?

 

Is it really worth it in the end?

They'll consider an 11th hour proposal to elimnate automobile traffic through the Clinic's campus, but when it comes to demolishing historic buildings, well, that's a decision they can make on their own without any discussion.

That old picture of E.55 ruined my day, lol. Seeing stuff like that really takes the wind out of your sails.

Here are a few more from Cleveland Memory Project. In the first one, you can see the building that is being demoed behind the Dunham (Tap-Room):

 

 

 

 

wasnt this building the one that was supposed to be reused, it has the DAS construction banner on it???  whats going on with that???

^the building you are thinking of is a couple of blocks west of this site. 

Here's the word from RTA:

 

The front building at 6611 Euclid will be asbestos abated and demolished.  It was most recently being used as a warehouse.  It was not listed on the historic register.

 

RTA solicited and received a joint development proposal in March.  They signed a memorandum of understanding and continue to evaluate the proposal towards an anticipated RTA board approval later this year.  They are happy with what will become of the building and what it will do for the area.

 

That's all the specifics I could get, as there is nothing final to date.

 

I remain very concerned...

so the front of the building will be demolished...???  huh??

Yeah, confusing, right?