I've been wondering for a long time what can be done about Lakeview Terrace.  Is there any hope to getting this blight turned into something productive?

 

I read many discussions about linkage between neighborhoods.  All the money going into downtown and OC and even DS and this place hinders those efforts. 

 

Any suggestions about what can reasonably be done?

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/07/cleveland_police_seek_murder_s.html

I'm curious as to if/how the murderer knew the victim. Anyway, regarding Lakeview - they recently (as in a few years ago) did some renovation work on the apartments - I'm not sure why they didn't do the same treatment that was done for the former Valleyview homes in Tremont. Keep in mind when Lakeview Terrace was built in the 1930s, having a location so close to the Cuyahoga wasn't a selling point unless you were in the shipping industry - after all, there was no such thing as the EPA or Water Quality Act, so you can imagine the 'fragrance' of the river back then.  :-P

80 years seems long enough for these to be there.  As quickly as we tear down and rebuild other areas, you'd think something would be in the works for this.  It's the switching point for 3 important areas: downtown, OC and DS.  That Detroit/25th intersection should be one of the city's most prominent.  Instead it's mildly scary, even for people who are used to that sort of thing.  Not a safe area to park in... I say that from experience.

that is a huge property.  I think around 2,000 people live there.  80 yrs is long enough, but it underwent a renovation a decade ago which upgraded all major components.  It is definitely an anchor around the neck of the area, inhibiting development.  There were offers from developers a decade ago from the likes of Wohlsteins & Jacobs to buy the property but where do you relocate that many people to?

 

Was it even a year ago that some random drunk guy wandered past there and got beat up & robbed of his belt, shoes, money, etc?

Sell both the apartments and the tower and from the profits build out the rest of Central.  The new apartments out there are very nice all things considered.

But when will they realize large public housing developments like this do not work? The new ones in Central are worse than the old ones and need to be torn down an redesigned in my opinion. The violent crime there is ridiculous. The new single family houses in Central is the only thing that seems to be working.

 

Who's the terrible architect who decided to put hidden courtyards in between all of the units in the newer ones in Central, and who was the person who accepted those plans? They need to be fired or something. It sucks, but you cant trust the people living there with that space. There needs to be no hidden courtyards or spaces anywhere in those developments.

Central neighborhood is already overloaded with low income public housing.  The last thing it needs is more.  These huge developments of public housing like Lakeview Terrace, with almost 2,000 residents, become a magnet for crime, drugs, & overwhelm the schools & social services in the area.  Breaking them up & spreading them out, ala Section 8, is the only real answer in my opinion, as unpopular as it may be.

Maybe a nice big development connected to Crocker Park would do! Haha!

Central neighborhood is already overloaded with low income public housing.  The last thing it needs is more.  These huge developments of public housing like Lakeview Terrace, with almost 2,000 residents, become a magnet for crime, drugs, & overwhelm the schools & social services in the area.  Breaking them up & spreading them out, ala Section 8, is the only real answer in my opinion, as unpopular as it may be.

 

I used to think this way, but not anymore.  Not when you consider the impact that this has had in the inner ring as well as Cleveland neighborhoods where forclosure properties have been bought up and rented as section 8 (this has happened where previous owners of homes either had to lose their shirts or chose to rent section 8.

After following this for some time and seeing the impact it has had on neighborhoods I can no longer say that Im for it. 

It doesnt matter if you agree or not, once you have some section 8, it typically always leads to more, and eventually just throws the whole neighborhood off balance and down it goes.   

There's no reason Section 8 must only be in the city and inner ring.  Efforts should be made by the CUYAHOGA Metropolitan Housing Authority to spread it throughout the county.  I agree about the negative effects that typically follow it, I just think that those effects should be shouldered by everyone, instead of only those in urban neighborhoods.  This approach could also help to curtail sprawl.

True.  I guess the "being closer to the center of employment and mass transit" are only marginal arguments at this point. 

 

Central neighborhood is already overloaded with low income public housing.  The last thing it needs is more.  These huge developments of public housing like Lakeview Terrace, with almost 2,000 residents, become a magnet for crime, drugs, & overwhelm the schools & social services in the area.  Breaking them up & spreading them out, ala Section 8, is the only real answer in my opinion, as unpopular as it may be.

 

I'd agree with this position.... although I also agree that somehow, someway Lakeview has got to go.  I would sympathize with the residents, but when you are getting subsidized housing, then being forced to relocate is part of the bargain IMO.  While spreading the burden out (i.e. what 327 said) is wise, there should be a focused effort to keep it away from the areas that have the most potential to benefit the City/County on a whole which in turn will benefit the poor who need this housing.  Not only is this property on land which could be prime for redevelopment.... it hinders the growth of one of our most promising areas.

Employment centers no longer line up with transit centers, that's a big part of it.

There's no reason Section 8 must only be in the city and inner ring.  Efforts should be made by the CUYAHOGA Metropolitan Housing Authority to spread it throughout the county.  I agree about the negative effects that typically follow it, I just think that those effects should be shouldered by everyone, instead of only those in urban neighborhoods.  This approach could also help to curtail sprawl.

 

It would be nice to see Section 8 geographically spread out, but there's nothing CMHA can really do about it.  The whole point of Section 8 (aka "tenant choice vouchers") is to let residents choose where to live and to let the private sector respond to that demand. Unfortunately, zoning restrictions pretty much take the nicest new suburbs out of the equation, which is one big impediment almost certain not to change in Ohio anytime soon.  But even beyond that, voucher recipients have not de-concentrated as much as program designers assumed they would.

 

FWIW, the best research on the topic also questions the assumption that Section 8 brings crime to communities, but obviously one study can't disprove anything, and it's likely the affects vary widely depending on housing market conditions.

There's no reason Section 8 must only be in the city and inner ring.  Efforts should be made by the CUYAHOGA Metropolitan Housing Authority to spread it throughout the county.  I agree about the negative effects that typically follow it, I just think that those effects should be shouldered by everyone, instead of only those in urban neighborhoods.  This approach could also help to curtail sprawl.

 

This approach makes a certain amount of sense but I can hear all the NIMBY's howl if that idea ever got beyond this forum. New bumper sticker : Lets put CUYAHOGA back in CMHA!

 

I'm having a hard time balancing the idea that we have a ton of cheap Single Family sites available in the city with the fact that Multi Family sites are much more economical to operate.  Getting the Single Family sites ready for occupancy would not be cheap either.

 

 

 

Central neighborhood is already overloaded with low income public housing.  The last thing it needs is more.  These huge developments of public housing like Lakeview Terrace, with almost 2,000 residents, become a magnet for crime, drugs, & overwhelm the schools & social services in the area.  Breaking them up & spreading them out, ala Section 8, is the only real answer in my opinion, as unpopular as it may be.

 

I'd agree with this position.... although I also agree that somehow, someway Lakeview has got to go.  I would sympathize with the residents, but when you are getting subsidized housing, then being forced to relocate is part of the bargain IMO.  While spreading the burden out (i.e. what 327 said) is wise, there should be a focused effort to keep it away from the areas that have the most potential to benefit the City/County on a whole which in turn will benefit the poor who need this housing.  Not only is this property on land which could be prime for redevelopment.... it hinders the growth of one of our most promising areas.

 

Well its not some new line of thinking.  This was the impetus behind HUD Hope VI, and other experimental programs that go back over 20 years that promoted just such a thing.  I wrote plenty of papers in support of why this was such a good idea, its just that the results havent worked out too well for Cuyahoga County as resulting factors have set in.   

 

Most of the longer term problem is that the people that rely on this has grown so much over the years that spreading out has only resulted in more low income communites in NEOhio, also attributed to much of the resulting, increased flight out to the region. 

If we are no longer concerned about moving people out of the situations that require them to be in this housing in the first place, then where does it end?

 

Certainly, I agree that They need to get rid of Lakview Terrace though.   

 

There's no reason Section 8 must only be in the city and inner ring.  Efforts should be made by the CUYAHOGA Metropolitan Housing Authority to spread it throughout the county.  I agree about the negative effects that typically follow it, I just think that those effects should be shouldered by everyone, instead of only those in urban neighborhoods.  This approach could also help to curtail sprawl.

FWIW, the best research on the topic also questions the assumption that Section 8 brings crime to communities, but obviously one study can't disprove anything, and it's likely the affects vary widely depending on housing market conditions.

 

I did read alot of this research as well, and found most of it unfortunately didnt apply to what we looked at in Cuyahoga County.   

So, putting the social issues aside (yeah I know, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play...), I actually have a soft spot for the architecture of Lakeview Terrace.  My ideal pie in the sky scenario would see it be mothballed for a few years (for political reasons) then sold to a developer and transformed into a market rate community with in-house amenities that can compete with suburban communities.

One of my former colleagues spent some weeks in Cleveland a few years ago studying the public housing architecture and design etc. there and gave talks on it as well.  She said it was the best she had seen, and is certainly some of the best examples anywhere.  I will post if I find it.  There are some great posters of it from the period as well.   

The biggest problem is that some genius gave historic designation to Lakeview Terrace years ago which means it basically requires an act of congress to get it torn down or redeveloped now.  It requires review by the State Historic Preservation Office just to put new screen doors on or whatever.

 

Strap: I hate to say it, but it would be literally impossible to redevelop the site into a market rate development.  The original construction & layout makes it physically impossible.  You could never add central air, bigger closets/bathrooms, or in-suite laundry.  Forget about attached parking or an open floor plan or adding an extra bathroom.  Those places are built with solid masonry walls and concrete floors and were designed for a time when entire family would move in with all their belongings in a single suitcase.

The biggest problem is that some genius gave historic designation to Lakeview Terrace years ago which means it basically requires an act of congress to get it torn down or redeveloped now.  It requires review by the State Historic Preservation Office just to put new screen doors on or whatever.

 

Ugghh.  Does that mean it has to remain public housing as well?

 

 

 

 

 

 

^^I don't see Lakeview Terrace on either the National Register or on the list of City of Cleveland-designated landmarks, though I don't know how current that list is.  Do you have a link or something?

Im sorry, but those things are hideous!

 

I can't help it.  I have a soft spot for pre-war social housing in almost every country.  I even like the Cedar Central project; those curved railings call to me. 

Here are the posters:

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2011/11/cleveland-new-deal-era-public-housing-posters/439/#slide3

I believe in some urban class I heard that New Jersey requires every community within a county to take its fair share of public housing units, based on population, forcing a more even distribution of low income units.  Not that New Jersey is a model for a lot of things, but I think a fair share model should be looked into for Ohio, although I'm sure suburban communities would fight tooth an nail against it...as they do any shared burden relating to public education

^Midwest Champ, you're referring to legislative response to the New Jersey Supreme Court "Mt. Laurel" decisions, which were ground shaking when they came down.  Plenty of info on line for those interested.  They weren't specific to public housing, but rather affordable housing more generally, which was being zoned out of a lot of exurban Jersey jurisdictions..which should sound pretty familiar to us.  Unfortunately, the legislative fix hasn't really been all that helpful.  Jurisdictions have the option of buying their way out for one thing.

I can't help it.  I have a soft spot for pre-war social housing in almost every country.  I even like the Cedar Central project; those curved railings call to me. 

 

^Yup, I have that very one on my office wall as we speak!

Of course it would be quite a different poster today....

^^I don't see Lakeview Terrace on either the National Register or on the list of City of Cleveland-designated landmarks, though I don't know how current that list is.  Do you have a link or something?

 

You're right, it's not on the National Register.  I think it's on some other State list, but I don't know the link or listing.  I worked on those renovations years ago and there was definitely oversight & approval required from some state agency with regard to the historic appearance staying intact. 

 

here's some more info: http://ech.case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=LT1

I believe in some urban class I heard that New Jersey requires every community within a county to take its fair share of public housing units, based on population, forcing a more even distribution of low income units.  Not that New Jersey is a model for a lot of things, but I think a fair share model should be looked into for Ohio, although I'm sure suburban communities would fight tooth an nail against it...as they do any shared burden relating to public education

 

My home town (Brick, NJ pop 75,000) had less than 1 percent black residents. There was an uproar over this "fair share" issue, and from what I remember the town worked out a sketchy deal where they would accept only elderly low-income housing. Other cities were not happy. Brick has a reputation for being safe, a good portion are white-flighters from up north.

 

Lawrence, KS—After years of waiting, Brick, New Jersey at last has claimed the title as America’s Safest City. The announcement was made in the new edition of City Crime Rankings, an annual reference book of crime statistics and rankings slated for publication this week. It’s safety record is impressive, with no murders or rapes reported. Brick also boasts the lowest overall violent crime and robbery rates among cities across the nation.

 

http://www.morganquitno.com/safecity.htm

^Ugh, "safest city" rankings that look only at crime are a major pet peeve of mine, but anyhoo...

 

^^Gottaplan, looking around, I think what you experiences was a "Section 106" review.  In short, any federal undertaking needs to be sensitive to the architecture of a building on the register, or eligible for register.  I don't think there's any kind of designation that would hamper private redevelopment or demolition though. 

^Midwest Champ, you're referring to legislative response to the New Jersey Supreme Court "Mt. Laurel" decisions, which were ground shaking when they came down.  Plenty of info on line for those interested.  They weren't specific to public housing, but rather affordable housing more generally, which was being zoned out of a lot of exurban Jersey jurisdictions..which should sound pretty familiar to us.  Unfortunately, the legislative fix hasn't really been all that helpful.  Jurisdictions have the option of buying their way out for one thing.

 

Ah...thanks for the clarification.  I wish there had been a more positive outcome.

Lakeview Strikes Again

 

This time armed robbery outside the Casino. 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/08/casino_robbery_suspect_arreste.html

 

 

What is it going to take to put public pressure to do something about this dump?

 

I'm for affordable housing as long as its done smartly, is attractive, and selective about who they let in there, but this is ridiculous. This place needs to go, NOW

It feels so weird to read the cleveland.com comments section and and actually agree with half of them.

The gift that keeps on giving.

What is it going to take to put public pressure to do something about this dump?

 

That's a great question.  I think HUD probably gets lots of feedback that starts something like "Dear HUD, your project [insert name here] is a blight on our local community......" etc.

 

I have no idea who has the pull with HUD to get the ball rolling towards some kind of change.

 

 

Tearing down Lakeview Terrace will forever rid our city of the Ronald "Dank" Wells of the world?  Well then, let's get on it, post haste! :roll:

I am not sure that anyone thinks having LT there is ideal.  Maybe when it was first built, but not anymore.  That said, they would still need to find a developer who can purchase it at FMV, cover the demolition and remediation costs, and still turn a profit on whatever is going to be its replacement.  I'd say we are still 10 years of strong momentum spilling out from OC and some new momentum building in the FWB for that to happen.  Everything between FWB and OC would be developed first.  Only when no other suitable land is available would there be a bidding war on LT.  This puts the situation in a bit of catch-22 because LT's presence would frustrate any such grand scale development.

Tearing down Lakeview Terrace will forever rid our city of the Ronald "Dank" Wells of the world?  Well then, let's get on it, post haste! :roll:

 

Let's burn that straw man right now. 

 

The catch 22 HTS presented above is a pretty good illustration of why Lakeview needs to be somewhere else.  Let's make it a little more difficult for the Roland Danks of the world to walk to easy stickup spots.  At least make him take the bus.

 

 

^Lol.  Lakeview Terrace isn't going anywhere, for a variety of reasons. 

No strawman, the "logic" this thread has taken over the last few posts has been that removing the place where criminals live makes the criminals disappear.  I was pointing out the patent absurdity of that logic.  Now you've amended that to essentially say that if we stick criminals into presumably less desirable areas it's for the better.  Never mind the implications for the people who live in those areas you don't deign to care about.  So now may I point out the heartless class-ism of that logic?

 

edit- I'd also like to point out that this logic appears willing to tear down the housing of the law abiding residents of Lakeview as collateral damage to the policy of preemptively shunting those we deem potential criminals about the city.

>Never mind the implications for the people who live in those areas you don't deign to care about.

 

Yep, like the people that live in OC or Downtown.  How about the entities I don't care about that have invested in those areas as well? (both those sentences were sarcasm).

 

>So now may I point out the heartless class-ism of that logic?

 

Sure you can try.  But what is heartless or class-ism about wanting a better city and getting a problem housing project cleaned up?  That's the heart of the matter. 

 

Criminals live there, it's a problem, how do we deal with it?  Hell "we" are paying for this situation to exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Putting aside the idea that public housing = criminals.

 

CMHA should routinely look at all of its properties to see if the value of the land is worth selling.  The idea being the revenue generated from the sale would give the agency more money to build better facilities for it's residents at another site, or possibly more mixed income developments.

 

Chicago did this under Mayor Dailey when I lived there.  It seemed to be a win-win...but you never know because the voice of the poor is often not heard.

 

My point is, if selling the land / property leads to better and more extensive services, that is what CMHA should do.  If not, then no.

CMHA really only has property in 2 semi-desirable locations that I know of:  aforementioned Lakeview Terrace & Riverview Tower on 25th.  Lakeview Terrace has lake views, close proximity to downtown, but also has historic implications, and would require MASSIVE relocations (last I heard, nearly 2,000 people live in the family buildings & the highrise.  Relocating that many people to another location is impossible and relocating them to dozens & dozens of locations or giving them vouchers for Section 8 housing is a massive undertaking as well.  Riverview Terrace has great views, but ridiculously narrow layouts and not nearly enough parking, and is steps away from a slipping slope of a hillside that currently isn't suitable for anything other than an urban farm.

 

Evaluating either of these properties for redevelopment as market rate is exciting to debate, but it's just not going to happen.  I know Chicago did it, I was living there and watched the low-income towers come down and the area get built out into condo townhome developments.  That's just not going to happen here in Cleveland.  The market isn't strong enough, the costs are too high, and the site itself is just too massive.  If it was a parcel 1/4 the size, it might work, but you have to take it all because people would never pay market rate to live next to crime riddled low income like Lakeview Terrace

That's just not going to happen here in Cleveland.  The market isn't strong enough, the costs are too high, and the site itself is just too massive.

 

Thank you for answering my question.  That is unfortunate, but understandable given the circumstances as you have presented them.

 

 

>Never mind the implications for the people who live in those areas you don't deign to care about.

 

Yep, like the people that live in OC or Downtown.  How about the entities I don't care about that have invested in those areas as well? (both those sentences were sarcasm).

 

>So now may I point out the heartless class-ism of that logic?

 

Sure you can try.  But what is heartless or class-ism about wanting a better city and getting a problem housing project cleaned up?  That's the heart of the matter. 

 

Criminals live there, it's a problem, how do we deal with it?  Hell "we" are paying for this situation to exist.

 

Well now, there is a question worth answering.  How indeed?  Policing, social services, community organizing, economic development?  These tools would work better at increasing safety and building a better city than just shunting around the poor from neighborhood to neighborhood.

I don't know exactly how. I am currently involved in three of these except for policing: "Policing, social services, community organizing, economic development? ".

 

I can only tell my thoughts.  I'm of the opinion that high density housing of this type does not work.  It seems to be a failed model from a former time, just like many of the programs that support those less fortunate in our society.  It's hard to tell where the line is between programs failing people or people failing to utilize what they are offered to achieve.

 

Members of a society have to want change before it can occur.  Until this is a core value I'm not sure how a tipping point is achieved.