Generally speaking, I agree with X's point. I think that far too often, some here have this "I don't give a damn" attitude about the poor. We can't just shift all poor people in the city of Cleveland to Central. So I am sympathetic to that view, because I've seen that antagonistic attitude as well.

 

HOWEVER, THIS is different. This is a problem area and it makes the areas around it less safe. I'm no suburbanite scared at the sight of more than 3 black people, but I don't like going even past there. Its unsafe, its hideous, and I would argue that its not doing much for the people that use it either.

 

I would prefer a mixed-income development. I think waiting for this to become market rate would take too long and I'm not crazy about the idea of removing EVERYBODY. But that current piece of garbage should be torn down and a mixed income development should take its place. That's a much better use of the land and it doesn't completely shut out the current residents.

 

But just to make one more point on this: philosophically I've always been against the idea of all low income developments like this one. I feel like if a development is all low income, it does nothing but concentrate poverty. I don't know how that helps everyone. I think that mixed income developments where you hold everyone to the same standard is better for everyone. It creates more understanding and a better cultural bond. I've always felt like concentrating poverty is a really bad idea for the poor themselves. *soapbox off*

>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 have compassion for the majority of LT's residence who are honest, law abiding people. I just don't think keeping public housing on the waterfront is very smart.

Let's keep in perspective that this really isn't "prime lakefront property" no matter whether LT is there or not.  It is not lakefront at all, really.  It is basically a hillside surrounded on all sides by industry and an elevated expressway.  Very aesthetically displeasing industry at that.  When those facts change, then talking about any real value this land has would be a conversation worth having.

Let's keep in perspective that this really isn't "prime lakefront property" no matter whether LT is there or not.  It is not lakefront at all, really.  It is basically a hillside surrounded on all sides by industry and an elevated expressway.  Very aesthetically displeasing industry at that.  When those facts change, then talking about any real value this land has would be a conversation worth having.

 

Agree it's not Lakefront, but proximity to the river, Wendy Park and Flats West Bank has considerable value.  I don't know what's so displeasing about the Garrett Morgan Water Plant. It's really interesting architecture. The mounds of sand and ore etc. don't bother me at all. It's not like the place is filled with Tanneries or Steel Mills. This entire area should be redeveloped with better waterfront access asap.

^Add 10,000 people downtown and a few thousand to Ohio City and I think you'd have developers offering to work with CMHA to purchase and demolish the buildings there...

Rant/on... I support gradually shifting (ie: 5 to 10 percent each year) the CHMA budget from capital/operating of public housing structures to vouchers/section 8, as well as no- or low-interest loans to developers to build more apartments, with priority given to projects offering ground-floor mixed uses and built within 1,500 feet of Rapid transit stations, transit centers and busy bus route intersections (could be done in partnership with GCRTA and private lenders offering Location Efficient Mortgages). Such a policy would provide a rental floor, new sources of capital for apartment construction, and allow the market to respond over a realistic time period to provide more apartments.

 

...Rant/off

Rant/on... I support gradually shifting (ie: 5 to 10 percent each year) the CHMA budget from capital/operating of public housing structures to vouchers/section 8, as well as no- or low-interest loans to developers to build more apartments, with priority given to projects offering ground-floor mixed uses and built within 1,500 feet of Rapid transit stations, transit centers and busy bus route intersections (could be done in partnership with GCRTA and private lenders offering Location Efficient Mortgages). Such a policy would provide a rental floor, new sources of capital for apartment construction, and allow the market to respond over a realistic time period to provide more apartments.

 

...Rant/off

 

If we're going to be supporting people I think KJP's plan is the way to do it.

Let's keep in perspective that this really isn't "prime lakefront property" no matter whether LT is there or not.  It is not lakefront at all, really.  It is basically a hillside surrounded on all sides by industry and an elevated expressway.  Very aesthetically displeasing industry at that.  When those facts change, then talking about any real value this land has would be a conversation worth having.

 

Agree it's not Lakefront, but proximity to the river, Wendy Park and Flats West Bank has considerable value.  I don't know what's so displeasing about the Garrett Morgan Water Plant. It's really interesting architecture. The mounds of sand and ore etc. don't bother me at all. It's not like the place is filled with Tanneries or Steel Mills. This entire area should be redeveloped with better waterfront access asap.

 

"Proximity" perhaps... but no "access" to any of that.  LT and the river are divided by a strip of industry.  As ridiculous as it is, you are closer to access to Wendy Park if you live in D-S than if you live in OC and FWB.  I probably would disagree about the proximity to the FWB because the amenities down there don't really offer much of an attraction to urban-oriented folks..... i.e. the people that would want to rent/buy here.  FWB is more for 21 year old surbaban frat boy binge drinkers, boaters, and old perverts who 'ain't gettin any' at home.  And, FWIW, the mounds sure would bother me if I was looking to purchase a place to live.

Let's keep in perspective that this really isn't "prime lakefront property" no matter whether LT is there or not.  It is not lakefront at all, really.  It is basically a hillside surrounded on all sides by industry and an elevated expressway.  Very aesthetically displeasing industry at that.  When those facts change, then talking about any real value this land has would be a conversation worth having.

 

Agree it's not Lakefront, but proximity to the river, Wendy Park and Flats West Bank has considerable value.  I don't know what's so displeasing about the Garrett Morgan Water Plant. It's really interesting architecture. The mounds of sand and ore etc. don't bother me at all. It's not like the place is filled with Tanneries or Steel Mills. This entire area should be redeveloped with better waterfront access asap.

 

"Proximity" perhaps... but no "access" to any of that.  LT and the river are divided by a strip of industry.  As ridiculous as it is, you are closer to access to Wendy Park if you live in D-S than if you live in OC and FWB.  I probably would disagree about the proximity to the FWB because the amenities down there don't really offer much of an attraction to urban-oriented folks..... i.e. the people that would want to rent/buy here.  FWB is more for 21 year old surbaban frat boy binge drinkers, boaters, and old perverts who 'ain't gettin any' at home.  And, FWIW, the mounds sure would bother me if I was looking to purchase a place to live.

 

Access to all of our waterfront is a work in progress, and shouldn't be discounted simply because present conditions suck. This area is all about potential; about the future of our city and ideas of what can be accomplished.

 

I think that's the root of our disagreement. It seems in your mind the nature of the place (ugly, filled with d-bags, industrial strip, project housing) is cemented forever.  If people were to subscribe to that viewpoint we may as well write off 80 percent of Cleveland right now because of crime, bad architecture, d-bags, etc.

for the record, many a people in higher up places LOVE the architecture of Lakeview Terrace and hold it up as one of the finest examples in the country of public housing....

 

The whole thing that got this thread fired back up was a PD article about a robbery outside the casino.  The article said the accused robber lived on Loop Drive and had a long list of prior convictions.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that mr "DANK" was not an official resident of Lakeview Terrace and was staying there illegally.  So lets please keep that in mind when discussions of bulldozing the entire place come up...

for the record, many a people in higher up places LOVE the architecture of Lakeview Terrace and hold it up as one of the finest examples in the country of public housing....

 

The whole thing that got this thread fired back up was a PD article about a robbery outside the casino.  The article said the accused robber lived on Loop Drive and had a long list of prior convictions.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that mr "DANK" was not an official resident of Lakeview Terrace and was staying there illegally.  So lets please keep that in mind when discussions of bulldozing the entire place come up...

 

Completely agree.  I'm so sick of reading or hearing that an entire development or neighborhood should be turned over and bulldozed because of the actions of one or a few.  Give it a rest!

for the record, many a people in higher up places LOVE the architecture of Lakeview Terrace and hold it up as one of the finest examples in the country of public housing....

 

The whole thing that got this thread fired back up was a PD article about a robbery outside the casino.  The article said the accused robber lived on Loop Drive and had a long list of prior convictions.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that mr "DANK" was not an official resident of Lakeview Terrace and was staying there illegally.  So lets please keep that in mind when discussions of bulldozing the entire place come up...

 

Completely agree.  I'm so sick of reading or hearing that an entire development or neighborhood should be turned over and bulldozed because of the actions of one or a few.  Give it a rest!

 

I think the fact that it's public housing is what makes it vulnerable; the residents don't own it.

for the record, many a people in higher up places LOVE the architecture of Lakeview Terrace and hold it up as one of the finest examples in the country of public housing....

 

The whole thing that got this thread fired back up was a PD article about a robbery outside the casino.  The article said the accused robber lived on Loop Drive and had a long list of prior convictions.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that mr "DANK" was not an official resident of Lakeview Terrace and was staying there illegally.  So lets please keep that in mind when discussions of bulldozing the entire place come up...

 

Completely agree.  I'm so sick of reading or hearing that an entire development or neighborhood should be turned over and bulldozed because of the actions of one or a few.  Give it a rest!

 

It's not soley because of the actions of a few, but because of the housing/retail opportunities that are completely lost by keeping this public housing.  Imagine turning this entire area into mid-high rise market rate condos or apartments.  Ground floor retail and parks galore along the river could be a catalyst for linking CBD, OC, and DS.  If attractive homes were built here with views of the city and lake, there would be waiting lists a year long to get there.

for the record, many a people in higher up places LOVE the architecture of Lakeview Terrace and hold it up as one of the finest examples in the country of public housing....

 

The whole thing that got this thread fired back up was a PD article about a robbery outside the casino.  The article said the accused robber lived on Loop Drive and had a long list of prior convictions.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that mr "DANK" was not an official resident of Lakeview Terrace and was staying there illegally.  So lets please keep that in mind when discussions of bulldozing the entire place come up...

 

Completely agree.  I'm so sick of reading or hearing that an entire development or neighborhood should be turned over and bulldozed because of the actions of one or a few.  Give it a rest!

 

I think the fact that it's public housing is what makes it vulnerable; the residents don't own it.

so what is the excuse for those that own homes and don't take care of them?  Should we ship them out?  Tear down their property?

 

for the record, many a people in higher up places LOVE the architecture of Lakeview Terrace and hold it up as one of the finest examples in the country of public housing....

 

The whole thing that got this thread fired back up was a PD article about a robbery outside the casino.  The article said the accused robber lived on Loop Drive and had a long list of prior convictions.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that mr "DANK" was not an official resident of Lakeview Terrace and was staying there illegally.  So lets please keep that in mind when discussions of bulldozing the entire place come up...

 

Completely agree.  I'm so sick of reading or hearing that an entire development or neighborhood should be turned over and bulldozed because of the actions of one or a few.  Give it a rest!

 

It's not soley because of the actions of a few, but because of the housing/retail opportunities that are completely lost by keeping this public housing.  Imagine turning this entire area into mid-high rise market rate condos or apartments.  Ground floor retail and parks galore along the river could be a catalyst for linking CBD, OC, and DS.  If attractive homes were built here with views of the city and lake, there would be waiting lists a year long to get there.

And exactly what do you do with those living in those homes?  Do they NO say?  Just because they are poor or living in public housing that doesn't mean they should have to move.

 

^ It happens in eminent domain all the time. Not saying it's always right. But when it makes sense financially then it's the right thing to do. And you do it in a sensible way, perhaps the way KJP suggested; you don't just throw people into the streets. Done the right way, everyone will benefit.

for the record, many a people in higher up places LOVE the architecture of Lakeview Terrace and hold it up as one of the finest examples in the country of public housing....

 

The whole thing that got this thread fired back up was a PD article about a robbery outside the casino.  The article said the accused robber lived on Loop Drive and had a long list of prior convictions.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that mr "DANK" was not an official resident of Lakeview Terrace and was staying there illegally.  So lets please keep that in mind when discussions of bulldozing the entire place come up...

 

Completely agree.  I'm so sick of reading or hearing that an entire development or neighborhood should be turned over and bulldozed because of the actions of one or a few.  Give it a rest!

 

It's not soley because of the actions of a few, but because of the housing/retail opportunities that are completely lost by keeping this public housing.  Imagine turning this entire area into mid-high rise market rate condos or apartments.  Ground floor retail and parks galore along the river could be a catalyst for linking CBD, OC, and DS.  If attractive homes were built here with views of the city and lake, there would be waiting lists a year long to get there.

And exactly what do you do with those living in those homes?  Do they NO say?  Just because they are poor or living in public housing that doesn't mean they should have to move.

 

Then the city moves them somewhere else.  It's a poor financial decision for the city to let public housing occupy prime lakefront/riverfront land that could be turned into a goldmine. Its decisions like this that is typical for Cleveland in the past, but needs to change in the future.  Public housing tentants dont need lakefront property nor do they need homes in the inner city ring. 

for the record, many a people in higher up places LOVE the architecture of Lakeview Terrace and hold it up as one of the finest examples in the country of public housing....

 

The whole thing that got this thread fired back up was a PD article about a robbery outside the casino.  The article said the accused robber lived on Loop Drive and had a long list of prior convictions.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that mr "DANK" was not an official resident of Lakeview Terrace and was staying there illegally.  So lets please keep that in mind when discussions of bulldozing the entire place come up...

 

Completely agree.  I'm so sick of reading or hearing that an entire development or neighborhood should be turned over and bulldozed because of the actions of one or a few.  Give it a rest!

 

It's not soley because of the actions of a few, but because of the housing/retail opportunities that are completely lost by keeping this public housing.  Imagine turning this entire area into mid-high rise market rate condos or apartments.  Ground floor retail and parks galore along the river could be a catalyst for linking CBD, OC, and DS.  If attractive homes were built here with views of the city and lake, there would be waiting lists a year long to get there.

And exactly what do you do with those living in those homes?  Do they NO say?  Just because they are poor or living in public housing that doesn't mean they should have to move.

 

Then the city moves them somewhere else.  It's a poor financial decision for the city to let public housing occupy prime lakefront/riverfront land that could be turned into a goldmine. Its decisions like this that is typical for Cleveland in the past, but needs to change in the future.  Public housing tentants dont need lakefront property nor do they need homes in the inner city ring. 

 

Reeeeaaallly?  HUMM.  And who exactly made that decision?  What proof/financial show that new development in this exactly location would equate to a "goldmine"?  I'm as progressive as they come, and considering my lifestlye and status in life, probably more progressive.  But whimsically deciding where certain people of a certain financial status should live is BS.

 

That is the equivalent of me saying, "I grew up on South Park, you're beneath me and I think whatever little home in whatever little neighborhood you live in is unfit and should be changed to X"

That assumption is based off of conventional reasoning after seeing every single lakefront property in history have higher property value.  Do you feel that public housing in this area is a financially better outcome than market rate condos/apartments?  Do you believe that people dont want to live near downtown, the Flats, Ohio City, and detroit shoreway?  Based off of demand in those areas a reasonable person would believe that that location could be prime realestate, especially compared to public housing.

 

Cleveland has a history of making poor decisions with lakefront development, and this is certainly one of them.

That assumption is based off of conventional reasoning after seeing every single lakefront property in history have higher property value.  Do you feel that public housing in this area is a financially better outcome than market rate condos/apartments?  Do you believe that people dont want to live near downtown, the Flats, Ohio City, and detroit shoreway?  Based off of demand in those areas a reasonable person would believe that that location could be prime realestate, especially compared to public housing.

 

Cleveland has a history of making poor decisions with lakefront development, and this is certainly one of them.

 

LAWD!!!  You didn't answer my question, you danced around it.

 

I wouldn't consider that area/land prime, in any sense of the word, and if a development was built there, I THINK the RIO would be low considering what is immediate to the north/northwest.  and a view of a highway to the south/southeast.  If I'm buying in Cleveland and at/in a development in a new part of town and you offer me a view of a salt mine, i'd look at you as if you were crazy.

 

I can afford to buy anywhere and I wouldn't buy in a building there.

 

I do believe people want to live in near Clevelands CBD, HOWEVER with all the existing buildings in the CBD that can be reimagined, that area is low on the list for redevelopment.

That assumption is based off of conventional reasoning after seeing every single lakefront property in history have higher property value.  Do you feel that public housing in this area is a financially better outcome than market rate condos/apartments?  Do you believe that people dont want to live near downtown, the Flats, Ohio City, and detroit shoreway?  Based off of demand in those areas a reasonable person would believe that that location could be prime realestate, especially compared to public housing.

 

Cleveland has a history of making poor decisions with lakefront development, and this is certainly one of them.

 

LAWD!!!  You didn't answer my question, you danced around it.

 

I wouldn't consider that area/land prime, in any sense of the word, and if a development was built there, I THINK the RIO would be low considering what is immediate to the north/northwest.  and a view of a highway to the south/southeast.  If I'm buying in Cleveland and at/in a development in a new part of town and you offer me a view of a salt mine, i'd look at you as if you were crazy.

 

I can afford to buy anywhere and I wouldn't buy in a building there.

 

I do believe people want to live in near Clevelands CBD, HOWEVER with all the existing buildings in the CBD that can be reimagined, that area is low on the list for redevelopment.

 

I dont think I could have answered your question in more of a direct manner.  You asked where I got my numbers from, and I told you I got them from conventional reasoning.

 

Considering there are condos that sold very well next to the Superior Ave bridge on Detroit Ave, I would have to say that you are wrong in your assumption that they wouldn't sell.  The two locations are in almost the exact same position (next to a bridge and in west bank flats) and offer similar views (Lake View terrace having the ability with better views).  I would also point to Battery Park where homes are built near industrial areas and sell like hotcakes.

 

What is your reasoning for believing that keeping public housing on lake front property in the flats would be a better financial decision than market rate housing (which have been proven to sell well)?

That assumption is based off of conventional reasoning after seeing every single lakefront property in history have higher property value.  Do you feel that public housing in this area is a financially better outcome than market rate condos/apartments?  Do you believe that people dont want to live near downtown, the Flats, Ohio City, and detroit shoreway?  Based off of demand in those areas a reasonable person would believe that that location could be prime realestate, especially compared to public housing.

 

Cleveland has a history of making poor decisions with lakefront development, and this is certainly one of them.

 

LAWD!!!  You didn't answer my question, you danced around it.

 

I wouldn't consider that area/land prime, in any sense of the word, and if a development was built there, I THINK the RIO would be low considering what is immediate to the north/northwest.  and a view of a highway to the south/southeast.  If I'm buying in Cleveland and at/in a development in a new part of town and you offer me a view of a salt mine, i'd look at you as if you were crazy.

 

I can afford to buy anywhere and I wouldn't buy in a building there.

 

I do believe people want to live in near Clevelands CBD, HOWEVER with all the existing buildings in the CBD that can be reimagined, that area is low on the list for redevelopment.

 

I dont think I could have answered your question in more of a direct manner.  You asked where I got my numbers from, and I told you I got them from conventional reasoning.

 

Considering there are condos that sold very well next to the Superior Ave bridge on Detroit Ave, I would have to say that you are wrong in your assumption that they wouldn't sell.  The two locations are in almost the exact same position (next to a bridge and in west bank flats) and offer similar views (Lake View terrace having the ability with better views).  I would also point to Battery Park where homes are built near industrial areas and sell like hotcakes.

 

What is your reasoning for believing that keeping public housing on lake front property in the flats would be a better financial decision than market rate housing (which have been proven to sell well)?

 

This property is NOT LAKE OR RIVER FRONT.  Battery Park is doing well, but selling like hotcakes is a creative use of words.  I don't believe anyone living in a certain type of housing should move just so that others can make a buck and label it "gentrification".

I don't believe anyone living in a certain type of housing should move just so that others can make a buck and label it "gentrification".

 

If this was a urban development simulation and the Federal Government did not own the land then what?  I find this question a more interesting aspect of the thread, trying to determine the relative value of the parcel.  If it was not worth developing then there would be no fear of progress.

The debate we're really having here is whether large public housing projects are an overall success or a failure. Whatever the answer, it's basically a matter of opinion.

 

Personally, I think that the Section 8 program is a much better idea than completely restricted 100%-low-income apartments. An apartment complex like Lakeview Terrace is a "neighborhood" in itself, and it would benefit from a diversity of incomes.

 

In any case, because it's agency-owned, the CMHA has a very limited set of choices as to how to handle the property, imposed by statute. As long as it remains as such, not much is going to be changed.