OK, this is cheating. I didn't take these photos. Most are from Google Streetview as anyone who is familiar with this program would recognize. But I turned the views into a visual essay to show the progress made in the past 15 years or so in reclaiming a neighborhood from an urban prairie.

 

Cleveland's near-east side neighborhood of Central is named after a main street the runs through it. It is one of the earliest neighborhoods to be settled outside of downtown, with its first tracts of housing built before the Civil War because it was so close to the industrial valley. It was also the city's first black neighborhood starting just before World War I, when the first wave of African-Americans from Dixie settled here to get jobs in Cleveland's booming factories immediately south in the Flats. It wasn't a wealthy neighborhood, but it was stable -- and even attractive to whites from affluent areas of the city. The reason? It had some of the best jazz clubs in the country. My aunt who passed away a few years ago used to go with her wealthy friends from Shaker Heights to frequent jazz clubs along Cedar in the Central neighborhood in the 1920s. She was a young, rebellious, pot-smoking, Canadian whiskey-drinking visitor to these clubs and other Prohibition-era speakeasies! She was much more conservative in her later years.

 

Central remained a stable, working-class black neighborhood until the 1940s when the second wave of African-Americans from the southern states began to arrive. This was a more like a tidal wave and it overwhelmed the Central neighborhood. Overcrowding and then the construction of the Willow Freeway pushed the overflow of residents into nearby neighborhoods like Hough. Left in the wake of this upheaval was a blighted, horribly impoverished and violent community where many of the city's public housing projects were established. And those became notorious, especially the drug-infested, shooting-plagued King-Kennedy and Outwaite.

 

The result is that mulitple blocks of houses, apartment buildings and businesses were burned, collapsed from neglect, or demolished. The entire fabric of a community was removed and its slate wiped clean to start over. But the slate stayed silent for decades, with nature taking the community back. It was Cleveland's most Detroit-like area. These pictures convey the urban prairie that some areas of Central still look like. And they also show other areas have changed dramatically in just the past 15 years.....

 

This is just east of East 55th, between Cedar and Central. Sadly, the ghosts of houses' foundations are still visible in this view:

 

 

 

Streets and driveways without homes:

 

 

 

A handful of homes still stand -- barely:

 

 

 

Judging by the sign, at least some people still care about this former neighborhood:

 

 

 

I can see for miles and miles:

 

 

 

And despite the title of this thread, weeds and underbrush have not been allowed to reclaim the flanks of this street:

 

 

 

An alley that once ran between housing on the left and a large commercial structure (off East 55th) on the right:

 

 

 

This ghostly playground still stands, awaiting the return of housing and residents to justify its existence:

 

 

 

But not all of Central looks like the previous photos anymore. Consider this section of the neighborhood on the south side of Central from the above areas. This is what the area between Central and Quincy in the vicinity of East 60th looked like in 1994:

 

 

 

And then compare the same area to today:

 

 

 

But the real shocker is seen at street level:

 

 

 

 

 

Two original housing structures still stand on this street, and were refurbished:

 

 

 

Here are two more original homes on the next street over -- the two structures seen on the left. Many homes like these were usually built as doubles. But in the 1950s they were subdivided as quads or worse, causing destructive overcrowding and intensive concentrations of poor people. Most of these homes did not survive the 20th century:

 

 

 

Scovill Avenue was of citywide infamy! Sixty years ago, some parents living in nicer neighborhoods and suburbs often told their kids that if they quit school or didn't get a good job, they would end up on Scovill! On the right (south side of Scovill) is one of many mixed-income housing complexes built by the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority in Central. On the left are market-rate single-family homes:

 

 

 

More single-family homes. The area could use some trees, but that is probably more reflective of how new this development is:

 

 

 

A little farther west is the Central Commons development, which was one of the first market-rate housing developments in the area. Observers thought this pioneering development, with East 37th and Thurgood Avenue at its center, was doomed to fail. Considering what the neighborhood looked like in the mid-1990s before the commons were built, most people could be excused if they sided with the critics:

 

 

 

But 15 years later, the critics were proven wrong:

 

 

 

And how! This is what Central Commons looks like at street level today:

 

 

 

 

 

Maintenance crews are taking care the neighborhood, keeping it looking pretty:

 

 

 

Trees have grown up in the older, southern section of Central Commons, giving it the look of a more mature, established neigbhorhood:

 

 

 

It's a remarkable, even stunning change from what the area once looked like:

 

 

 

While Central still faces many challenges, the last 15 years shows that hope can sprout from the weeds!

I've driven that area quite a few times and it is impressive how much has been filled in. It runs at least 30 blocks. It just shows what can be accomplished throughout the city.

And more is coming. This is what inspired me to take a Streetview tour of this neighborhood and to do this thread:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,25255.msg578464.html#msg578464

While the scale of the effort here is impressive, it's EXTREMELY low density for an area so close to downtown.  The goal here was not to rebuild a lost city but to create additional suburbs.  I would take one renovated jazz club over a hundred cheap sprawl houses.  This doesn't look "central" at all, it looks fringe.

While the scale of the effort here is impressive, it's EXTREMELY low density for an area so close to downtown.  The goal here was not to rebuild a lost city but to create additional suburbs.  I would take one renovated jazz club over a hundred cheap sprawl houses.  This doesn't look "central" at all, it looks fringe.

 

And its pretty much all public housing? Correct? Which is nothing that exciting.

 

They contributed to completely wiping out the history and culture of the neighborhood and forever scaring the land in which the former neighborhood stood.

Sorry. I can't cry for what was lost. There's nothing we can do about that anymore. Most of the original housing was gone by the 1980s or was no longer salvageable, with only the paint holding up some homes. What could be saved was saved. What can't be saved needs to be removed like a cancer so we can move on.

 

And while public agencies were responsible for much of the construction, it is not public housing. Some are subsidized. Some are market rate rental. Some are market-rate for-sale housing. I doubt this area could have stabilized so quickly without the public funding. A lot of vacant land has been developed with thousands of homes in just 15 years.

 

I don't understand the comment that this should be higher density. It's the same number of houses as before -- meaning that each house is separated from the next by only a driveway. Perhaps you referred to Central Commons? In the before and after aerials, it certainly looks more densely developed than it was before. If you want even denser housing, who's going to populate it today? Who's going to live here? If you add so much housing supply to the market, what's that going to do to market prices? Where's the payback for investors? We sure do hope for the perfect on this site!! It's going to take a lot of stabilization work to convince people to move back to the neighborhood to fill in the extensive remaining tracts of vacant land with the low- to medium-density housing. The neighborhood and its surrounding areas still have serious socio-economic issues that hold it back from attracting more residents and employers.

 

I think this is a beautiful neighborhood, with very nice housing styles. It certainly blows away what was there before (which was nothing) and blows away most suburban developments. The housing emulates the designs of urban-style homes with front porches and different styles. The newest stuff is not cookie-cutter architecture, and its built near the sidewalks to promote casual, neighborly interaction in a walkable setting.

 

The enemy of the good is the perfect. Those who would say "no" to the above housing so they could wait for something they really want usually end up with this:

 

Look down some of those streets and all you can see is lawns, driveways, and attached garages.  It could just as easily be in Avon.  The homes themselves are hidden by car-oriented features.  All built for a market that can afford neither mortgages nor car payments.  Not one person with a choice would choose this area over Avon, and not one person considering a move into Cleveland would choose this area either... because it doesn't look like Cleveland. 

 

It's made for people who resent feeling trapped in the city and yearn for a non-urban lifestyle.  I would rather find homes for those people in actual suburbs than cover large sections of Cleveland with fake ones.  I spent a lot of time in this area last summer for a job, and all you see is people carrying groceries on foot from car-oriented plazas to car-oriented subdivisions.  Not one mixed use structure has been included in all this construction.  They've even changed the street layout so that it's less grid and more loop-de-doo's that don't go anywhere.

 

The handful of attractive urban apartments they've left standing only makes the scene more ridiculous, because it reminds us what we traded for this.  It also reminds us that we had other options.  Suburb vs. vacant lot is a false choice.  You don't see any other depressed city trying to "revive" its innermost neighborhoods with this junk.  They use townhouses, lofts, and interspersed retail.  That's what we should have done here... at least along Central Avenue itself, which isn't supposed to be a residential sidestreet at all.  For heaven's sake, it's called Central Avenue.  It shouldn't feature postage-stamp ranches.

 

Greater Cleveland contains numerous examples of attractive and functional urban neighborhoods that have worked well for people of all economic levels.  But instead of copying those, Cleveland copies its own suburbs, a format not well suited for the chronically poor.  These developments are yet another mistake by a city that can't seem to accept being a city.

 

When I went over here a few times to take pictures I was amazed at the suburban feel, although there is more density than one would think. It was like Sheffield Lake or subdivisions in parts of some Lake County suburbs.

This (Cedar-Central) is one of  the oldest neighborhoods and the disrepair that the original structures fell into...and are falling into (for those that remain)...left no other choice than the demolition-and-rebuild choice. For the most part, such a tight, historic, high-density neighborhood needs to be abutting the CBD (or abutting any job area -- like a University Circle area, for example) for any real investment and restoration to occur, and not on the other side of an Interstate system surrounded by public housing.  Unfortunately, Cedar-Central was detached physically and mentally from Clevleand in the middle part of last century.

 

RE the suburban style. Unfortunately, this style is thought to be the desired way to live. In addition, this urban renewal (ahem, suburban reimagination) took place in the 80s and 90s when all this stuff (no matter the scale) was de rigeur and land in Cleveland -- specifically here -- is cheap.

None of these things lend themselve to high-density.

 

The one place I will cry for is Hough. I realize that the early-19th century homes off of Chester and also some of the homes nearer to Rockefeller Park were always big, classic homes...some with large lots. But I cannot stand the Mentor-, Kirtland-, Concord-style McMansions taking up the empty lots, as everybody knows, between Chester and Hough avenues and even north of Hough Avenue. Again though, much of this occured in the 80s and 90s when Solon, Mentor, and Highland Heights were used as the templates.

The only street I can think in Hough that does in-fill right is  Linwood Ave. just down from Lexington Ave (League Park area).

Wouldn't it be nice if developers could build what they wanted, where they wanted, when they wanted? They build what the market dictates to them. They have to compromise their own personal values and preferences to move forward. And even though public funding was heavily used here, there were public focus groups and public forums where existing and prospective residents were given an opportunity to provide input on what they wanted. Sorry to hear you don't agree with them, 327.

 

I realize you believe in creationism when it comes to development, transportation projects, and other things -- going from nothing (or even negative conditions) to an ideal outcome. Instead, I think what is being built in Central is a nice start to stabilizing the neighborhood and giving it some positive momentum to move forward and evolve toward the next investment that this neighborhood is capable of supporting. That being said, I like what was built in Central. I'm happy for this neighborhood that has been struggling since before World War II. I wish others could share my happiness and hope for it.

While the scale of the effort here is impressive, it's EXTREMELY low density for an area so close to downtown.  The goal here was not to rebuild a lost city but to create additional suburbs.  I would take one renovated jazz club over a hundred cheap sprawl houses.  This doesn't look "central" at all, it looks fringe.

 

And its pretty much all public housing? Correct? Which is nothing that exciting.

 

They contributed to completely wiping out the history and culture of the neighborhood and forever scaring the land in which the former neighborhood stood.

 

As KJP stated it's not all public housing.  In fact this is a Homeownership investment zone.  You must make X amount of dollars to be eligible for ownership of these home and you must live in them for, IIRC, 17 years.  For instance, if you are a three person family you can must make between X$ and X$ to afford the homes. 

 

This has been marketed as a middle income neighborhood.  For anyone familiar with this area, it's way better then it was in the past.

Very interesting and well done thread. 

 

Thank you.

 

 

Tedolph

^ Thanks. Much of this progress was due to the hard work of the previous councilperson for this area.

 

Furthermore, in regards to whether this "suburban" style development is good or bad (I question as to whether it's as low-density as most suburban developments), I argue that something with less density was actually needed for such a depopulated neighborhood to stabilize. It covers more ground, fills more vacant lots, and removes more urban cancers (vacant lots, un-salvageable structures, etc) than high-density development with an equal number of housing units would have.

 

This neighborhood didn't need some high-density infill housing here and there. It had gone back to being near-rural aside from its poisoned soils, illegal dumps and scattered nuisance structures. It had virtually nothing left to build on or in between. Central needed to start over and be re-settled on a vast and far-flung scale.

 

EDIT: so there.

Does Central have a "downtown" or a business district that could have a higher density and commercial/retail space like the Coventry neighborhood?

Thanks, KJP for the excellent tour.  The change here has been amazing.

 

^There's really no intact commercial streetscape to speak of in Central, just a few cruddy bodegas.  The closest thing to a commercial downtown is this shopping center which offers a Dave's and a few other stores for daily necessities which, really, is more than some other neighborhoods this poor have.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Central,+Cleveland,+OH&hl=en&ll=41.49237,-81.657917&spn=0.00256,0.006539&sll=40.74101,-73.879554&sspn=0.002589,0.006539&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=18

Yep, that's the site of the old Longwood Plaza, now Arbor Park Place. It's certainly a suburban-style shopping plaza, but it's L-shaped design does have some pedestrian connectivity with the sidewalks. The old plaza was demolished along with many of the old public housing developments nearby. Those that weren't demolished were gutted and rebuilt. The neighborhood was "un-Detroited."

 

Maybe 15 years ago, I remember that within a short period of time (a month?), the driver of a waiting taxi, a young woman pedestrian and even a baby in a stroller were killed at/near the old Longwood Plaza in the crossfire among rival gangs. This area was out of control and innocent people were being victimized. The former councilman for this area, Frank Jackson, took over in 1989 and got a half-billion dollars for redeveloped focused on Ward 5. The turnaround in his ward is what helped propel him into the mayor's office.

 

EDIT: Interesting reading.......

 

http://www.thecoralcompany.com/retailarborpark.html

 

http://cannabisnews.com/news/4/thread473.shtml

 

Article shows that challenges remain:

http://clevelandeast.woio.com/news/news/64296-crime-stoppers-hopes-recent-reward-increase-will-bring-teens-killer-justice

Very Intresting Discussion KJP.  Good Digging!

 

Anyhow, to all the naysayers, when a new neighborhood is built whether it was 1910 or 2010, it going to look new and cookie cutter whether you like it or not.  People don't build things to look old.  When Central, Hough, Glenville etc were developing, they looked like new subdivisions.  As something ages, it builds character.  People 60 years from now may think Avon and Medina, and Solon have character.  We don't build things to look old.

 

In any even, the density is filling back in.  Believe it or not, this is probably similar to the way the neighborhood looked in 1930.  New roads, new houses, immature trees, etc.  It's like starting over.  And I am not talking about the commercial areas along Central 55th or Quicy, rather the housing. 

Very Intresting Discussion KJP.  Good Digging!

 

Anyhow, to all the naysayers, when a new neighborhood is built whether it was 1910 or 2010, it going to look new and cookie cutter whether you like it or not.  People don't build things to look old.  When Central, Hough, Glenville etc were developing, they looked like new subdivisions.  As something ages, it builds character.  People 60 years from now may think Avon and Medina, and Solon have character.  We don't build things to look old.

 

i dont think they were building mcmansions back  then

 

this isnt progress to me

My naysaying deals with the basic format of what's been built, rather than its style or appearance.  It was meant to be affordable... I wouldn't expect much in the way of brick or ornamentation.  Even so, these houses aren't uniform or plain, as the pictures indicate.  That's not the problem. 

 

Does Central have a "downtown" or a business district that could have a higher density and commercial/retail space like the Coventry neighborhood?

 

Once upon a time it did.  But despite all the public money thrown at redevelopment, that aspect was left out.  In fact we went in the opposite direction, placing the smallest of these new houses along the neighborhood's former main street.  I do like the fact that they kept the lots relatively narrow, but if we're calling that a walkability feature, aren't we reaching a bit?  The closest retail is that plaza on Quincy, and every aspect of this neighborhood's new design suggests that residents are expected to drive there.  Some denser housing was built along Woodland, but it doesn't even front Woodland... it fronts a linear parking lot that's physically cut off from the street.

 

No one has more to gain from density and pedestrian-oriented development than people who have trouble making ends meet.  It spares them the individual costs of car ownership.  Many don't realize this, but the combination of cash-for-clunkers and a strong metals market has made it much more difficult for poor people to obtain cars.  Literally millions of functional cars have been baled in the last few years.  A "good work car" used to be available for $500 or less, but that figure has recently tripled.  At least.  That's a world of difference if you're living on ten bucks an hour.

 

The other structural issue here is that it was built around the concept of aggressively expanding home ownership.  That notion has clearly lost its luster.  The modern economy requires mobility.  It also requires the ability to adjust your housing expenses to match income fluctuations.  The last thing any struggling family needs right now is a mortgage tying them down.  Frank Jackson did not do anyone any favors when he paid Rysar a ton of tax money to build this stuff.  He did demonstrate that public funds can make development happen, but to my eyes he provided a strong example of what not to do.  This is urban planning from 40 years ago.

What did I just tell you? This area needed mixed incomes, not more warehouses for concentrating poor people in such a small area. Poor people do need pedestrian- and transit-friendly development, but not surrounded by square miles of vacant land. Put 1,000 housing units in a high-density setting and that's what you get. Put 1,000 housing units in low- and medium-density development and you eradicate more vacant land while providing a mix of incomes.  If you don't like that, then cause something different to happen. Don't bitch at me because I do like what's happened.

 

And thanks for pissing on my thread.

I'm neither bitching at you nor pissing on your thread.  Why does it have to be personal?  It's a great thread, and it isn't about either one of us.  I've enjoyed both the pictures and your posts.  I'm honestly surprised at your take on it, as a lot of what I'm saying here is stuff you've said in the past, particularly on the car-dependence issue.

 

I really don't agree that density = warehousing people.  If the goal of this development was to draw new money into the neighborhood, I still think townhouses and mixed use would have been a better way to go.  Then all the extra land could have been concentrated into one decent-sized new park. 

Anyhow, to all the naysayers, when a new neighborhood is built whether it was 1910 or 2010, it going to look new and cookie cutter whether you like it or not.  People don't build things to look old.

 

If you think the only difference between houses in Cleveland Heights and Avon is age, then I don't know what to say.

In order to have pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development, you need to have retail development (obvs.), and it is fairly clear that retailers, particularly national chains, but even local stores, are reluctant to move into Central. The fact that Dave's is in Arbor Park Place is an enormous win, and it is actually within a 10-15 minute walk from most of Central. (I have been in Central on a weekly basis for the last fifteen years, and the folks I know who have cars and those who do not easily make it to Dave's and the other stores there.)

 

Burten Bell Carr CDC is concentrating retail development at that space with future plans for E. 55th and Woodland (referenced in another thread that I haven't the time presently to look for).

 

http://www.bbcdevelopment.org/development/master-planning/ward-5-master-plan/

 

Is it a recreation of the dense, flats-above-stores model that existed before? No. However, there is plenty of vacant land where such a model could be employed, should the market conditions exist that would make sense for a public investment in such a model. However, in addition to the difficulty in getting stores to move into Central, there is frankly a real reluctance by folks who live there presently to live in apartment-like settings. There, improving one's situation means getting a piece of land, even if it is postage stamp sized, and that general ethos is shared by many folks who live anywhere else in the US. And, truthfully, the public housing developments that are based on town home models (like in Arbor Park) tend to be better cared for by residents and see lower incidents of crime and other unsavory elements. Living above a store is not considered a step up, or even a lateral move, especially for people who have had to live next to others most of their lives.

 

In summary, Central is walkable, maybe not in the way that many of us would like, but walkable in a functional manner. And, it will get better.

well said. in the end, we aren't playing sim city.

Agreed. Thanks Avogadro.

This new stuff reminds me of the redevelopment going in  east of downtown Buffalo.  They keep, more or less, the old street grid, and put in new quasi-suburban infill on larger lots than where there before.  Which is fine. 

 

 

Your seeing this in Dayton...at a smaller scale...too.  Probably the best example is Wright-Dunbar, west of downtown, but there are examples throughout the city.

 

Students of urban morphology will recognize this as "buidling subsistution", and it is a natural part of urban growth and change in old cities..older buildings get replaced by newer through time.  The difference here...in Cleveland and Dayton and probably Buffalo.... is that there was this hiatus of a "vacant lot/abanondned shell" era  before the substitution occured.

Great Discussion and debate! It is wonderful to finally get more exposure to one of the largest new housing developments in Cleveland.  I do agree that this was not the most idea type of development but we have to remember that Cleveland was most focuses on changing perspections about Cleveland and building new housing.  In fact this was a time period when Cleveland has the highest number of new house builds in the area.  I hope now that with more experience the new infill housing can be less auto-oriented and more similar to "street-car topology".

I also think this will lead to more higher-density development for this neighborhood. There are still a lot of huge tracts of near-rural land to develop, such as in the area I first showed east of East 55th and north of Central, or along Kinsman to the southeast of East 55th. To have square miles of countryside in your inner city is a major weight around the ankle of Cleveland that keeps it from moving forward as much as it needs to. Develop it first by whatever land use patterns the market will allow (hopefully that includes mixed incomes so that poverty is not concentrated), stabilize the area, add jobs mixed in near pedestrian and transit routes, and create a self-sustaining neighborhood that can become more densely developed as it becomes more stable and more popular.

Not ideal, but like KJP said it's about all that one could hope for around there at this point.

 

Ideal urban infill will only likely occur in areas that are better suited for market rate infill. Even in Cleveland's "hot areas" this seems to be a challenge to accomplish.

There's a reason decent infill "seems to be a challenge" here, and it's not entirely market related.  In Central, the market gave us a one-word answer-- No.  But Cleveland City Hall determined that this land use pattern was the most desirable, sought out a builder who builds this kind of stuff, and paid them to build it.  This was not an only-choice or take-what-comes scenario.  It certainly wasn't supply and demand.  When public money drives development, it's no longer a matter of what developers want or what the market wants, because money talks.  We didn't settle for this.  We specifically chose this, even though the city and the metro both struggle with an oversupply of low-end single-family homes.

 

KJP described above how meetings were held and the neighborhood favored this land use pattern.  Of course they did.  I bet an overwhelming majority in Central would prefer to move to the suburbs if they could.  They're not living where they are by choice, and they understandably don't have a rosy view of urban lifestyles.  But now we have a large area that's marketable ONLY to people who currently live in slum conditions nearby.  Anyone else who wants a Lake County lifestyle will simply choose Lake County. 

 

As such, all this new construction does nothing to increase the city's population.  From 2000-2010, Central grew while the city as a whole shrank rapidly.  All we did was move people around... it isn't growth and it won't lead to growth.  The housing these "new" residents left behind is simply abandoned and falling into disrepair.  Some of that housing is of much higher original quality than this stuff, and if fixed up, would be much more marketable to actual new residents. 

 

It makes no sense to have city planning done by those whose main goal is to escape the city, because the results will reflect their frustration.  This is what happens when neighborhood interests are given precedence over the future of the city as a whole.  If the same public funds had instead been used to renovate Cleveland's existing apartment stock... we could draw new residents with new money, which would increase our tax base and our eligibility for federal funds, which in turn would truly improve the prospects of everyone living in Central.  Then if they wanted to move to the suburbs, they could... but they'd be leaving behind a growing city with a bright future, the kind of city that can compete for residents nationwide.     

Oh, don't get me wrong 327. I think Cleveland does a poor job with urban planning and land use. All I'm saying is that if we can't get good urban design in up & coming neighborhoods then you should not be all that disappointed to see this kind of stuff in the Central Neighborhood. That being said I still don't think it would be too bad if pedestrian orientated retail is added down the road. At least it's not urban mcmansions like they built in Hough!

 

I think one thing that Cleveland needs is a critical mass of well designed and successful urban neighborhoods that people can look at and be envious of. When that happens other districts will see this and follow suit. Hopefully Cleveland does a better job of making sure this happens in the future. That kind of thing would have to happen in areas like Ohio City, Gordon Square, or Downtown first; which frankly all still have a long way to go.

I'm neither bitching at you nor pissing on your thread.  Why does it have to be personal?

 

LOL!!!  So glad to see I'm not the only one who has finds themselves in one-sided arguments with KJP....

 

Aside from that, great thread.  I drive this area alot too and have pondered the economic impacts extensively.  Consider what subsidies were given to create this development, assemble this land, attract builders & buyers & finance the mortgages...  Consider what the long term implications are for the area and what the payback has been to have people repopulating the areas, raising families....

LOL!!!  So glad to see I'm not the only one who has finds themselves in one-sided arguments with KJP....

 

 

That's because there is only one side -- my side!

There's a reason decent infill "seems to be a challenge" here, and it's not entirely market related.  In Central, the market gave us a one-word answer-- No.

 

Then what part of "no" do you not understand? Projects that receive public subsidy do not depend entirely on said subsidy but require developers to put up equity (sweat and financial), lenders to lend money (do not underestimate the conservatism of banks), and end-users to actually live in and put shops in the development. Subsidies can nudge all of the above in a direction, but that direction cannot be counter to the momentum of the market.

 

I am assuming that you are not a developer or a planner or an economist, otherwise you wouldn't assume that the City and planners can dictate by fiat what goes where.

 

I bet an overwhelming majority in Central would prefer to move to the suburbs if they could.  They're not living where they are by choice, and they understandably don't have a rosy view of urban lifestyles.

 

Honestly, do you know anybody who lives in Central, or are you making assumptions. The folks I know in Central have friends and family there and want to stay. Moving out to the suburbs where they know few folks (if any) and are that much further from their jobs and transportation options is not appealing.

 

It makes no sense to have city planning done by those whose main goal is to escape the city, because the results will reflect their frustration.

 

As a planner who lives in the City by choice (I do not work for Cleveland) and who have many planner friends who choose to live in the City, this statement is utterly insulting.

There's a reason decent infill "seems to be a challenge" here, and it's not entirely market related.  In Central, the market gave us a one-word answer-- No.

 

Then what part of "no" do you not understand? Projects that receive public subsidy do not depend entirely on said subsidy but require developers to put up equity (sweat and financial), lenders to lend money (do not underestimate the conservatism of banks), and end-users to actually live in and put shops in the development. Subsidies can nudge all of the above in a direction, but that direction cannot be counter to the momentum of the market.

 

I am assuming that you are not a developer or a planner or an economist, otherwise you wouldn't assume that the City and planners can dictate by fiat what goes where.

 

I bet an overwhelming majority in Central would prefer to move to the suburbs if they could.  They're not living where they are by choice, and they understandably don't have a rosy view of urban lifestyles.

 

Honestly, do you know anybody who lives in Central, or are you making assumptions. The folks I know in Central have friends and family there and want to stay. Moving out to the suburbs where they know few folks (if any) and are that much further from their jobs and transportation options is not appealing.

 

It makes no sense to have city planning done by those whose main goal is to escape the city, because the results will reflect their frustration.

 

As a planner who lives in the City by choice (I do not work for Cleveland) and who have many planner friends who choose to live in the City, this statement is utterly insulting.

 

Child, you know it's like talking to a pet rock, right?

Some people come to this site just to argue. If you take one position, there are a couple of people here who like to stalk you from one thread to another and take the opposite position just to argue. I think they get off on it for some anti-social reason.

 

And all I wanted to do was post some pretty pictures. If you don't like them, then think back to what your mother told you:  If you don't have anything nice to say, keep your friggin' mouth shut.

 

Good thing I got me a delete button....

Some people come to this site just to argue. If you take one position, there are a couple of people here who like to stalk you from one thread to another and take the opposite position just to argue. I think they get off on it for some anti-social reason.

 

And all I wanted to do was post some pretty pictures. If you don't like them, then think back to what your mother told you:  If you don't have anything nice to say, keep your friggin' mouth shut.

 

Good thing I got me a delete button....

 

True, but dont delete this thread as its a visual reference of the change this neighborhood has seen.

well i dont really see that big of a deal here in regard to its lack of urbaness. dont forget suburbia can pretty easily be knocked down and rebuilt when the need for more density presents itself -- these homes are not pyramids or built of stone and iron thats for sure! more specifically, its not like single family homes havent been knocked back down and apt buildings or office buildings or whatev put up on their lots before as the demand arose.

 

in the meatime, i am glad struggling people now have homes to take pride in rather than living in soul-killing pj's. definately could have beenbuilt much more public transit friendly tho, no excuse for that.

 

But Cleveland City Hall determined that this land use pattern was the most desirable, sought out a builder who builds this kind of stuff, and paid them to build it.   

 

 

oye vey. you really don't know what you don't know.

But Cleveland City Hall determined that this land use pattern was the most desirable, sought out a builder who builds this kind of stuff, and paid them to build it.   

 

 

oye vey. you really don't know what you don't know.

 

well played on rosh hosh!

 

 

True, but dont delete this thread as its a visual reference of the change this neighborhood has seen.

 

Nah, I'm going to delete other people's messages!  :whip:

 

KJP, I'm just seeing this thread now (after you referenced it to someone looking for housing near CSU). I just wanted to say, this is a great and beautifully done essay! Thanks for doing it. Its quite amazing how parts of the neighborhood has turned around.