327 what are you talking about...the Geis project (as evidenced by smith's pictures) is almost 50% complete and I would hardly consider it light industrial.

If that's it in the picture, then yes, it is underway.  I stand corrected on its status, though I wasn't certain to begin with. 

 

And yeah it's built streetside, for show, per the masterplan, but suburban industrial park is its functon.  It's 2011, light industry doesn't involve smokestacks anymore.  Light industry is high tech now.  It increasingly involves more office work than production.  But it also involves single-use structures, with no public access, to which workers typically drive.  They close during off hours and have no neighborhood-related function.  Yes it will look a lot better than Appled Industrial's HQ at 36th.  But it probably won't have any more positive effect on what's around it.   

 

And X, that is the plan I'm referring to.

^Right, the plan shows a shiny mixed use area between E71 and E79th.

^Right, the plan shows a shiny mixed use area between E71 and E79th.

 

Right.  I acknowledged that earlier, and my point is that it should extend westward to 55th.  But... not... social service housing, which is fine in and of itself, just less than ideal for "filling in Euclid Avenue."

?  Light industrial is light industrial.  You can't decide that whatever you want to be light industrial is light industrial.  It looks to me like the plan calls for high density mixed use along the length of Euclid that you want to see high density mixed use along.  Note the little TOD tags they've placed over their map "Euclid Corridor: Desired Land Use" map on page 29.

?  Light industrial is light industrial.  You can't decide that whatever you want to be light industrial is light industrial.  It looks to me like the plan calls for high density mixed use along the length of Euclid that you want to see high density mixed use along.  Note the little TOD tags they've placed over their map "Euclid Corridor: Desired Land Use" map on page 29.

 

Right.  Thank you for posting that link, now we're getting somewhere.  And the little number codes on page 29 correspond to zoning.  Outside the cordoned-off "mixed use" area on the eastern end, 2's for residential are scarce.  Lots of 5's for light industry.  That's precisely what they call it, light industry.  Also 3's and 4's for commercial and business/institutional.  See also the color coded maps on pages 43 and 45.  It's light industrial mixed with office park, which I suggest is functionally similar.  Sometimes it's light industrial with a thin layer of "office" on the Euclid frontage.  That's what I understand the Geis structure to be.  Interestingly, on page 45, they classify the Pierre's ice cream factory as "commercial," so we can't assume commercial means "open to pedestrians" on those maps.  Commercial could mean factory.

 

We've been through this plan before here, and I like many aspects of it.  It certainly is thorough and it hits all the right notes.  Their position on setbacks and street presence is downright noble.  I just fundamentally oppose the ratio of light-industrial/office to mixed-use/residential.  But I also understand that one little me can't do much about it.  Godspeed, Mr. Geis, and may you be blessed with tenants. 

I've found that I've had to check myself many times regarding Midtown.  It "could" be the urban district I'm sure most of us would like to see... just probably not in our lifetime.  There's other streets with more existing building stock which could be planned for adaptive mixed-use than this corridor, though most will never have had the same potential as Euclid has (or had).  The masterplan was ok... and I guess with the proposals we've heard of so far along with the construction which is going on, all  coincides with the plan- though I can't say the same about the design guidelines.  My issue with the plan is that with what we're seeing constructed along with what's planned, the pedestrian dead-zone which currently exists on Euclid will NOT change- maybe 50 years from now the city will get it right and plan for more pedestrian oriented uses...

 

My other issue with the plan is that we just had built a $275 million-dollar BRT Corridor, with multiple stops as if the plan were to build a district where the pedestrian would be enticed to use the bus to get around.  The planners might have well left the multiple stops off of the Midtown Corridor if this is what the planners had in mind all along.

I think the Euclid Corridor is developing faster than you're acknowledging. And this change has been occurring so far in the worst economic climate in 80 years. It might actually speed up now that credit is starting to loosen a bit.

^^^Just to be clear, Midtown (the CDC) can't do a whole lot about it either.  Master planning is useful for many reasons, but it's not really dictating what gets built where.  Or put another way, I don't think Geis really worried much about what color the master plan showed his lot shaded as.  He had to care about the zoning, and maybe design review with questionable real authority, but that was about it.

Getting a zoning varience is unfortunately easy to do in this town as long as the councilman is on board with the proposed changes.  And I agree, no masterplan is concrete and most change over time.  So even though the CDC proposed the plan, what we end up with will be different that the vision the plan proposed... for better or worse.   

Thank you Strap.  MidTown does not OWN MidTown.  This is the difference between Sim City and the real world.  You can't tell these folks that they have to wait decades for the viable use you envision will maybe get the necessary interest from funding sources.  There are constitutional issues to consider.

That's why zoning exists- to stop certain uses from occurring while allowing others. Who said that Midtown owns anything?  I thought part of this thread dealt with what we perceive to be poor planning along this  corridor, or a discussion considering it?

 

Private owners can propose anything they want. The city, i.e. the councilmen and zoning board, have to accept, which happens a bit too much. Again, if the plan were to build warehouses along this stretch of Euclid, why the multiple stops on the Healthline on this stretch as if pedestrians will primarily frequent the businesses?

^I think Hts was responding mostly to 327.  Did Geis need a variance for his project?

 

I agree with you about the BRT stations, by the way.  I think they are too frequent in general, but here in particular.  Some of the "R" sort of melted away when dual hub changed vehicle types.

That's why zoning exists- to stop certain uses from occurring while allowing others. Who said that Midtown owns anything? I thought part of this thread dealt with what we perceive to be poor planning along this corridor, or a discussion considering it?

 

Private owners can propose anything they want. The city, i.e. the councilmen and zoning board, have to accept, which happens a bit too much. Again, if the plan were to build warehouses along this stretch of Euclid, why the multiple stops on the Healthline on this stretch as if pedestrians will primarily frequent the businesses?

 

I didn't mean to imply that private property owners have carte blanche to build whatever they want.  But zoning cannot be overly restrictive.  There are constitutional limitations on zoning laws.  Telling an owner that he has to wait 10-20 years to maybe (if things go according to plans) develop his property according to some specific vision would offend those limitations.  Look up the phrase "economically viable use"

^Zoning is law, granted by the police power cities have.  The city could very well make a land owner wait years to develop their land if the owner wouldn't want to change the use, and it's happened before (just don't make me take out my lawbook and search for one instance LOL).  But that's getting off topic.  I see where you're coming from though.  Check your pm.

 

Maybe things will change sooner rather than later as KJP suggests.  But right now, the plans put forward by Midtown in 2005 do not match the transportation infrastructure we have in place.  The amount of stops along Euclid would suggest a higher density useage than what is proposed in the masterplan, or else people wouldn't need to stop there in the first place.  I think that this is a missed opportunity.  I know I wasn't the only one envisioning more of a mixed-use neighborhood along the stretch after the Corridor was completed.  The transportation infrastructure mode (transit) with the amount of stops in place just makes that type of development make sense.  Not warehouses, light industrial, "commercial", or whatever the case may be. 

 

I know it's a lost cause which was lost years ago... I just wish the city planners/councilmen/zoning board would have more foresight as to the type of opportunity the Euclid Corridor has.  I think the city is blowing it's shot at a great urban thoroughfare, and I think Midtown is crucial to that realization.  This will never be the Magnificent Mile, but with light industrial and warehouses, it won't be the Short North either.     

 

Ideally, development along Euclid Ave. in Midtown would proceed slowly over the next 3-5 years.

In that timeframe the energy down the road in University Circle should really be at a peak...all 3 phases of MRN's Uptown development should be at or near completion. The CIA addition, the new MOCA, the University Hospitals building projects, the Courtyard Hotel, the glorious CMA expansion and the assorted residential projects in UC and next-door Little Italy should all be more than just renderings on a piece of paper, or past the under-construction phase. Also, CCF projects on Euclid may also be taking shape by then.

UC is really on the precipice of some exciting times.

 

It would not seem unlikely that a de facto extension of this occurs into the Midtown portion of Euclid Ave. as long as there is developable land and/or original buildings remaining. And it may occur in baby steps...being even longer than the 3-5 years...but if the neighborhood takes off as light industrial in the near future, it'll probably be difficult to know if the energy from UC would have ever made its way into Midtown.

Once the retail, restaurants, apartments and museums are actual places that Clevelanders can visit, it may make apparent the potential of the entire Euclid Corridor.

 

On the other hand, it could very well be that the UC dynamic stays confined to UC.

 

Time will tell, but I hope it's the former and not the latter.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/11/geis_and_coyne_families_float.html

 

Far from just putting a masterplan on paper, this has been a collaborative effort to acheive a certain development pattern.  There's a lot more to it than zoning.  Midtown Inc really is making its SIMcity fantasy come true.  This is how its done.  If only they'd had a better fantasy.

 

Geis didn't need a variance, in fact his building corresponds almost exactly with the masterplan.  The plan didn't place it right next to a grocery store, but it put a very simlar structure on the north side of Euclid.  Now if someone had wanted to build housing next to this grocery store... which is also near a theater and a thrift store... that would have required a variance.  Go figure.  How many undeveloped sections of the city could boast those three neighborhood assets within 1/4 mile of each other along a new transit line?  I don't understand the contention that housing couldn't possibly succeed here. You can't even buy clothes or groceries in University Circle.

So I wanted to add a graphic to this discussion for reference, I've added the major components of the space between PS and U.C. (i.e. the Clinic and CSU) and then put in the midtown stops on the BRT.  I think taking 2-3 of them out would have made more sense considering the configuration of midtown, but, as Oldmanladyluck has indicated, having this many stops seems to encourage dense planning - which I am in favor or.

 

A quick side note:  I think the negative use of the reference to "sim city" should stop.  It's very condescending to indicate that other persons in this forum are conflating some video game with reality.  This isn't Cleveland.com, and the people who chose to come to UO, read through these forums, and take part in this community are doing so because they care about Cleveland. 

 

Yes there are dreamers among us, and yes it is essential that we pair dreams with concrete understandings of policy and process in order to ever move agendas forward. 

 

But, Cleveland is not where it is today because we had "too many dreamers". 

 

 

 

But, Cleveland is not where it is today because we had "too many dreamers".

 

Amen to that.

 

 

Agreed.

Burnham_2011,

 

You have great graphics -- keep it up.

I wasn't assigning that reference to any of your graphics Burnham.  I enjoy viewing them.  I was responding to the slack being given to the City and/or MidTown for not taking some action that would not comply with legal standards (both federal and state) if they did.  And this goes back through a long line of threads.

I wasn't assigning that reference to any of your graphics Burnham.  I enjoy viewing them.  I was responding to the slack being given to the City and/or MidTown for not taking some action that would not comply with legal standards (both federal and state) if they did.  And this goes back through a long line of threads.

 

It should be clear by now that the slack in question has nothing to do with preventing development, or some perceived failure to employ iron-fisted zoning... but rather the character of the zoning employed, and the type of development that was actively and successfully sought by TPTB. 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/11/geis_and_coyne_families_float.html

 

Far from just putting a masterplan on paper, this has been a collaborative effort to acheive a certain development pattern.  There's a lot more to it than zoning.  Midtown Inc really is making its SIMcity fantasy come true.  This is how its done.  If only they'd had a better fantasy.

 

Geis didn't need a variance, in fact his building corresponds almost exactly with the masterplan.  The plan didn't place it right next to a grocery store, but it put a very simlar structure on the north side of Euclid.  Now if someone had wanted to build housing next to this grocery store... which is also near a theater and a thrift store... that would have required a variance.  Go figure.  How many undeveloped sections of the city could boast those three neighborhood assets within 1/4 mile of each other along a new transit line?  I don't understand the contention that housing couldn't possibly succeed here. You can't even buy clothes or groceries in University Circle.

 

I'm not sure I follow.  Are you referring to an actual grocery store?  Is there one in Midtown other than the Aldis (oops, and the one in Church Square)?  Is the theater you're referring to the Agora?

 

In any case, I don't believe the master plan itself has any legal force whatsoever.  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.  So, if Geis didn't need a variance, it's wholly because his project conforms to the zoning, no matter what the master plan says.  I will certainly grant you this: in many instances, you need subsidy to get stuff built in Cleveland because rents and sales prices are so super low.  So Midtown may hold the keys to some subsidies (they mention $600k or so in the article you link to).  And the city and state hold the keys to even more subsidies.  So certainly the government has some control in how it responds to developers.

 

That said, I believe the entire MMUD-1 district, which lines Euclid from East 40th to 79th, permits housing as of right, as long as it conforms to the other requirements (e.g., max 10 foot setback).  So, for instance, if XYZ WXZ wanted to build a dense housing development anywhere on this stretch, nobody could stop them (in contrast to that Hazel Drive site).  At worst, Midtown or the city could not offer some discretionary subsidy that they might give someone else, but even so, the developers would be entitled to very generous property tax abatement.  More likely, I suspect, Midtown would react to a serious housing proposal enthusiastically and try to line up as much help for it as they can, similar to what they've done with Geis.

 

I really don't disagree with you about what I'd like to see happen on Euclid.  I just think that this project is the wrong target, because it has the potential to build some serious momentum for better things in the area and because the developer really did (apparently) change his plans for the better to fit the zoning requirements.  In my book, this is much less egregious than the Ronald McDonald house's huge footprint right on a prime part of Euclid (as noble an org as it is), or really anything on Euclid between 97th Street and Stokes.

 

I believe that 327 is talking about Gust Galluci's around 65th & Euclid. It's probably the biggest reason why city residents and suburbanites visit that immediate area.

 

I'd like to point out that I just bought a substantial amount of groceries (ouch) this week from the University Circle Co-Op so I  think that should qualify as a place to buy groceries in UC.

To add to 327's "three neighborhood assets within 1/4 mile of each other" in Midtown...I would include the Dunham Tavern Museum, a small but important fourth asset.

 

 

 

Btw, I think that the company referred to in this thread and the University Circle Developments (General) thread is called WXZ.

(as opposed to XYZ)

Yes, the theater is the Agora and the grocery is Gallucci's. 

 

I think Strap and Hts121 may be misconstruing my point here.  It's not that the CDC was ever against any given housing project, real or hypothetical.  It's a question of what they were for, of what they spent time and money and influence putting together.  The Geis project represents exactly what the city and CDC were looking for.  Housing doesn't.  We have no way to know what housing developers may have come forward with plans for the area, had the CDC not spent the past decade openly and actively pursuing a different direction. 

 

Why would residential developers bother approaching Midtown Inc about building housing in an area that Midtown Inc has already made clear will be industrial?  Why would you even want to build an apartment block in the middle of what's likely to be an industrial area?  There's no prohibition at work, just a clear plan which, by its nature, excludes housing projects from serious consideration by developers.  And that's been the case since well before the RTA project broke ground. 

Did you ever consider the notion that a project like the one that Geis is building was determined, after market research, to be a realistic target and housing was not?  The thought process that anyone with a lick of zoning/planning experience could realistically imagine a 3 mile long 300 ft wide strip of dense residential mixed use popping up out of thin air along Euclid anytime in the near future is beyond me.  We're talking about 100 city blocks.  If we get 30 blocks of that in the next decade or so you can slap my face and call me Sally.  That's not being negative.  That's being a "dreamer" in my book.  What we can hope for is an urban ethusiasts wet dream in UC and downtown and a much IMPROVED, even if not ideal, MidTown. 

 

I don't see anybody clamoring for better development along the healthline past UC.... why not?

Why would residential developers bother approaching Midtown Inc about building housing in an area that Midtown Inc has already made clear will be industrial?  Why would you even want to build an apartment block in the middle of what's likely to be an industrial area?  There's no prohibition at work, just a clear plan which, by its nature, excludes housing projects from serious consideration by developers.   And that's been the case since well before the RTA project broke ground. 

 

The CDC can't "make clear" that the area will be industrial anymore than Playhouse Square has been able to make clear that the area near the Greyhound terminal will be residential.

 

Anyway, I think the master plan is a distraction.  Whatever the master plan says, you're right that this project happened because the city, state and CDC gave it money.  You are welcome to say they shouldn't; that the tenants in Geis's development should instead go to Strongsville or to another tech space that someone may or may not build some day on Chester.  I guess I'm just more risk averse than you, because I don't see a residential developer sticking his neck out as long as the area is quite that desolate, not when a renter can find something in a much nicer neighborhood that's cheaper than new construction would need to cost in midtown.  Not when new residential construction of any density has proven so hard to build in areas with so many more natural advantages.

 

Also, I think calling the Geis project or anything else likely to get built around there [other than the Pierre's expansion] "industrial" is disingenuous.  The zoning generally prohibits manufacturing in the MMUD-1 district.  I don't know how the Geis project fits into this, because he does describe it has having some kind of "light manufacturing" component, I believe, but to claim that residential can't coexist with this sort of tech space is to ignore many counter examples.  If you ask a residential developer what keeps them out of Midtown, I doubt that Geis's project would even cross her mind.

I don't think this was mentioned yet.  Interesting snippet in this week's Planning Commission agenda:

 

2.Ordinance No. 182-11 (Ward 5/Cleveland):  Authorizing the Director of Economic Development to enter into contract with Midtown Acquisition, LLC, or its designee, to provide economic development assistance to partially finance the acquisition, demolition, and redevelopment of 6900 and 7000 Euclid Avenue, and other associated costs necessary to redevelop the property.

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2011/02182011/index.php

I did a Google streetview of the site, and it's a decent-sized site. The set-back building at 6900 Euclid is nothing special (a sign out front says Reisenfeld & Co. is leasing 16,000 square feet), and I'm hopeful that's the building that gets demo'ed, rather than the one on the sidewalk at 7000 Euclid which is a two-story brick structure with terra cotta ornaments. In streetview it has a sign on it saying that Reisenfeld & Co. is leasing 56,000 square feet. It also shows Broadway Enterprises is located there, but then another search shows the "maker of T-shirts, clothing, beauty and dollar items" has moved to 4020 Payne Ave. 

 

According to CPC GIS and the county auditor's site, the two properties are both owned by H & K KIM, LLC, 1648 FOUR SEASONS DR, AKRON, OH 44333. Combined, the two parcels measure 75,000 square feet, or nearly 1.4 acres.

Yes, hope 7000 is saved.  6900 no loss of any kind.

7000 fits in really nicely with the building next door.

State abandons plans for mental health hospital on Euclid Ave.

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The state has decided to expand the main campus of Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare in Northfield, abandoning plans to move the mental health hospital to Euclid Avenue in Cleveland, which was intended to be the focal point of a MidTown Cleveland revitalization effort.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/02/state_abandons_plans_for_menta.html

^ WE UNDERSTAND!!! Just kidding :-)

Outstanding!

I guess I am somewhat pleased that it will not go on Euclid, but I wanted this move for the City.  In fact, it now appears as though the City will LOSE jobs by the consolidation occuring in the burbs.  And out of the state/county supported projects for MidTown, I liked this one the most for Euclid.

:clap:

I am of course going to be branded as a negative nellie, but I now forsee a huge vacant litter filled lot between Euclid and Chester for many years to come.  Hope I am wrong.

My chrystal ball is telling me the same thing.

While I would have preferred to see a grand mixed-use development along Euclid just east of East 55th, I would definitely prefer a 500-employee hospital over what is there now. And yes, like Hts121 and Htsguy, I am concerned it will stay that way for years.

Yeah sorry but be careful what you wish for. I will never celebrate the loss of new construction and new professional opportunities within the city. Enjoy driving past another vacant lot for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately I believe a lot of the opposition to this project was driven by prejudice toward the type of citizen that it would ultimately help.

a commenter said its "addition by subtraction".. but I can't help to agree that the facility should have gone on Euclid. Mainly, it would have been easy to get to with public transit. and that is important in an institution. Plus, it would have brought jobs, money, and growth to the area. I think its a loss overall on paper, but one that I am not too extremely upset over as an urbanist. While I like the idea of an accessible center for those who need it, this site was maybe a bit too front-and-center for the location, when you consider the long-term.

 

Yeah sorry but be careful what you wish for. I will never celebrate the loss of new construction and new professional opportunities within the city. Enjoy driving past another vacant lot for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately I believe a lot of the opposition to this project was driven by prejudice toward the type of citizen that it would ultimately help.

 

+1

The moral and social value of a mental hospital is a separate issue from its value as a "focal point of revitalizaton" for a neighborhood.

^I agree.  The hospital should have been built in the city, and I don't think anyone argued against that.  The problem was the decision to build it at this particular site, based on contiguous land availability.  There's no reason why a site on Cedar or even Central could have been chosen instead, even if the city would have had to work with more than one land owner.  Once you get east of E.55th, there's plenty of available land on both streets. The land between Central and Longfellow is a great example, since the cleared parcels amount to about the same size as the cleared land on Euclid and E. 55th. 

 

The beginning of the article makes it seem like the city dropped the ball, which I highly doubt.  The buildings from Cleveland's past which were on the site had been demolished, and the land cleaned.  The city lost a part of it's history though the buildings occupying the site before were "beyond repair" (or just in the wrong location at this point in time).  This seems more like a move on the state's part to save money.

So we lost buildings for nothing?

I don't think any buildings were demolished for the hospital. They were demolished to create a large, clean area of land that could be built upon with little or no site preparation -- competitive with greenfield sites in the outer 'burbs. This time, it lost out. I am curious to know why.

Not sure if this is the most appropriate topic to post this under or if it has already been mentioned in another post, but I noticed this morning on my way to work that the old Eagle grocery store on Euclid adjacent to the Cleveland Playhouse is apparently (finally!) being razed.  Does anyone know if the Clinic acquired that when they purchased the Playhouse?

I checked the county auditor's records, and the ownership does not appear to have changed hands recently.  It's still owned by a Si Harb, and he's owned it since 1985.

^^If this is true then there is a God.  Would sure like to know the background story.