Certain parts of Cleveland have seen a renaissance of sorts when it comes to redevelopment of historic buildings. It just seems for every step forward downtown and in University Circle, there are several steps backwards in the surrounding neighborhoods.

 

For example, we've recently heard demolition requests for several mixed or single-use structures built up to the street.

 

3600 Euclid Ave (at East 36th)

3441 East 137th (at Kinsman Rd)

2132 West 25th (former Club Envy)

 

The first two were actually on the city planning commission agenda for 8/2. The former Club Envy space was discussed in the recent thread for Skylight Financial moving from downtown to Ohio City.

 

In all three cases, the buildings are being demolished for surface parking. For every Uptown, there are a dozen smaller demo projects that, while individually don't amount to anything significant, collectively show the city as a whole still going the wrong direction.

 

This is probably nothing you guys haven't discussed before. I just found myself getting particularly discouraged today catching up on the (un)development news.

 

You're absolutely right.  These demos are senseless and each one reduces our ability to revive the city. 

 

In the case of Club Envy, at least it's in service of a historic structure, but still a problem nonetheless.

The cookie-cutter tract housing that gets put up on the Eastside is a problem.

 

Cleveland is a city that prides itself on having character.  One thing that Columbus and Cincinnati have in common is that they have intact cores within 3 miles of downtown with many amenities.  Cleveland east of downtown is near barren and the Westside can be difficult to get to depending on which direction you're coming from.  The amount of investment and concentration into revitalizing DT that the City has made is futile if the bordering residential is either suburban or nonexistent.  For example, Cincinnati has poured billions into downtown over the last 17 years, but OTR now and in the late 90's before the riots has been the key to bringing day-to-day vibrancy to the business district.  After the riots when there was no investment in OTR, DT was a 9-5 neighborhood.

The cookie-cutter tract housing that gets put up on the Eastside is a problem.

 

Cleveland is a city that prides itself on having character.  One thing that Columbus and Cincinnati have in common is that they have intact cores within 3 miles of downtown with many amenities.  Cleveland east of downtown is near barren and the Westside can be difficult to get to depending on which direction you're coming from.  The amount of investment and concentration into revitalizing DT that the City has made is futile if the bordering residential is either suburban or nonexistent.  For example, Cincinnati has poured billions into downtown over the last 17 years, but OTR now and in the late 90's before the riots has been the key to bringing day-to-day vibrancy to the business district.  After the riots when there was no investment in OTR, DT was a 9-5 neighborhood.

 

What housing exactly are you speaking of?

East of downtown is Barren?  Can you be more specific?

Westside is difficult to get go?  How? and via what mode of transportation?

I wonder what the Kinsman property is being demolished for surface parking for... the stretch of Kinsman east of MLK has plenty of gaps now due to many demolitions over the past few years.  The single mixed-use buildings which used to line the street are now gone- especially east of E. 130th.  There will be little to redevelop IF a market for redevelopment of that stretch of Kinsman actually ever takes hold.  As an example, there are a total of TWO restaurants left between E. 93rd (not including McDonalds) and the triangle at E. 140th, Kinsman, and Union.  The rest of the remaining storefronts along that stretch are mostly storefront churches.  All of the now empty lots along Kinsman will have to be new-build; and without government backed Hope VI type of projects, I don't see that happening in Mt Pleasant for the next 20+ years. 

 

Not everything along our main streets should be multi-unit housing, same as not everything should have surface-parking in front of a new build commercial build.  Unfortunately, the city's planning efforts (at least at certain CDCs which are "supposed" to include neighborhood input in the planning process but often do not, especially on that side of town), have conceded that we now live in an automobile age even if the city's existing structure (or what's left of it) is what younger people are looking for.  Bottom line- there should be NO REASON why Kinsman Rd. should have surface parking.  My uninformed guess would be that the parking is either for an existing church, or for a dollar store.  This part of the city needs more help than most would even know.   

Here again, I don't see an issue of cars vs density.  It's easy enough to have buildings front the street with parking anywhere but there, and to utilize styles that mesh with the urban fabric.  Lakewood does this. 

 

The issue I see instead is leaders who want to surburbanize the city because that's what they value.  Certainly not all of them, but enough to keep the negative momentum rolling. 

The cookie-cutter tract housing that gets put up on the Eastside is a problem.

 

Cleveland is a city that prides itself on having character.  One thing that Columbus and Cincinnati have in common is that they have intact cores within 3 miles of downtown with many amenities.  Cleveland east of downtown is near barren and the Westside can be difficult to get to depending on which direction you're coming from.  The amount of investment and concentration into revitalizing DT that the City has made is futile if the bordering residential is either suburban or nonexistent.  For example, Cincinnati has poured billions into downtown over the last 17 years, but OTR now and in the late 90's before the riots has been the key to bringing day-to-day vibrancy to the business district.  After the riots when there was no investment in OTR, DT was a 9-5 neighborhood.

 

What housing exactly are you speaking of?

East of downtown is Barren?  Can you be more specific?

Westside is difficult to get go?  How? and via what mode of transportation?

 

South of Euclid going towards the community college has a lot of generic infill.  Also, there are many cleared lots south of Euclid inside and around 55th.  Between Euclid and Superior inside 55th is industrial.  As for crossing the city by car, there aren't many options between 480 and 490.  With the Rapid going east to west, you need to hop trains unless you're already on the Red Line.

FWIW, this thread is duplicative.  We started a Cleveland Zoning Code thread awhile back to vent about the refusal to insist that every development in the City proper be urban utopias

No, that thread is about the zoning code.  This thread is about... what it says it's about. 

 

I'm afraid there is no thread for making fun of people who seek a better future for the city, so you'll just have to keep doing that wherever you see fit.

The threads can be merged.  You're discussing.... the same issue.  Meanwhile, maybe I'll start a thread to discuss how to spend other people's money and one on the issue of how to stagnate progress with patently unrealistic and.... wait for it...... 'grossly incompetent' demands.

The threads can be merged.  You're discussing.... the same issue.  Meanwhile, maybe I'll start a thread to discuss how to spend other people's money and one on the issue of how to stagnate progress with patently unrealistic and.... wait for it...... 'grossly incompetent' demands.

 

Can you not see a distinction between zoning and planning? 

 

Your post reads like a snide parody of a false picture of every fellow forumer you've ever had the pleasure of attacking.  The topic here is whether urban development in Cleveland is still going in the wrong direction.  I get the impression you believe it's not, or maybe that it's above our station to even care.  Would you like to explain, or perhaps clarify, your position on the subject being discussed?

The city needs more modern residential. The 2 ways to reduce the need for parking are:

 

1- build high quality housing close to these job centers.

 

2- improve alternate modes of transit. That can be more frequent busses and trains, dedicated bike lanes, and so forth.

 

The easiest way to make the parking lots go away is to let them sit empty .

Notwithstanding Hts121's snide and off-base caricature of the zoning thread, he's right that the purpose of this thread is kind of murky.  Is it just to vent about ongoing development patterns (other people's money) or is it about public policies that could change those patterns?  And if the latter, the more specific and politically viable the better. 

 

I personally think zoning is the most direct tool available here, and I would push hard for form-based overlays on core corridors. This is a pretty realistic goal (it's slowly happening anyway), but it could certainly be improved/strengthened/hastened.  Some pooled public parking areas, like in Gordon Square, would help ease the burden on retail tenants.

 

I would also shift more discretionary resources away from things like the convention center hotel, the PHS square chandelier, and more into business development and neighborhood bricks and mortar.  That's probably worth a separate discussion, though.

The point of the post is less about zoning and more about the general trends of development in the city. The attitude brought on by most developers (and likely the retail driving it) is still heavily suburban in nature.

 

Sure, better code would help, but that isn't the point. Rules on setbacks and parking requirements have been relaxed numerous times before, so if a developer really wanted a traditional mixed-use structure, he'd get it.

 

Nearly all of the mixed use developments are repurposed old buildings. How many mixed use structures have been built new in the area? Uptown... and?

The cookie-cutter tract housing that gets put up on the Eastside is a problem.

 

Cleveland is a city that prides itself on having character.  One thing that Columbus and Cincinnati have in common is that they have intact cores within 3 miles of downtown with many amenities.  Cleveland east of downtown is near barren and the Westside can be difficult to get to depending on which direction you're coming from.  The amount of investment and concentration into revitalizing DT that the City has made is futile if the bordering residential is either suburban or nonexistent.  For example, Cincinnati has poured billions into downtown over the last 17 years, but OTR now and in the late 90's before the riots has been the key to bringing day-to-day vibrancy to the business district.  After the riots when there was no investment in OTR, DT was a 9-5 neighborhood.

 

What housing exactly are you speaking of?

East of downtown is Barren?  Can you be more specific?

Westside is difficult to get go?  How? and via what mode of transportation?

 

South of Euclid going towards the community college has a lot of generic infill.  Also, there are many cleared lots south of Euclid inside and around 55th.  Between Euclid and Superior inside 55th is industrial.  As for crossing the city by car, there aren't many options between 480 and 490.  With the Rapid going east to west, you need to hop trains unless you're already on the Red Line.

 

How have these area's been historically?

 

The highways destroyed almost all the brownstone housing South of Cedar and the rest then became public housing, later Tri C moved in.  Chester and Payne's housing was destroyed and CSU built.  Most things North of Superior were industrial with a small amount of housing.  Cleveland unlike CIN & CBUS hasn't historically had housing adjacent to downtown on the Eastside.  The driving thing?  Really?  In Cleveland its difficult to get around?  Sorry cannot agree with that in any manner.  We have several wide avenues that make transversing the city easy.  But I guess the River and the Industrial valley are not to blame.  Also the building of the highways closed cross any crossing.  There used to be a crossing at Clark  and/or Fleet IIRC, it was discussed when I was at SOHIO.

 

Honestly I feel you're comparing apples to pineapples.  Different cities, growth patterns, climates, topography, etc.

Notwithstanding Hts121's snide and off-base caricature of the zoning thread, he's right that the purpose of this thread is kind of murky.  Is it just to vent about ongoing development patterns (other people's money) or is it about public policies that could change those patterns?  And if the latter, the more specific and politically viable the better. 

 

I personally think zoning is the most direct tool available here, and I would push hard for form-based overlays on core corridors. This is a pretty realistic goal (it's slowly happening anyway), but it could certainly be improved/strengthened/hastened.  Some pooled public parking areas, like in Gordon Square, would help ease the burden on retail tenants.

 

I would also shift more discretionary resources away from things like the convention center hotel, the PHS square chandelier, and more into business development and neighborhood bricks and mortar.  That's probably worth a separate discussion, though.

 

"Other people's money" typically includes public funds.  Almost always, when you're talking inner-city developments.  The tract housing that people are bringing up here was not brought to us exclusively through the magic of the free market, nor through the magnanimity of private-sector developers who tend to be born into that position.  To a significant extent, these questionable developments resulted from public policy decision-making by local officials, and were paid for with tax money.

 

I strongly agree regarding your topical points on overlays, business development, and neighborhood bricks and mortar.  That sort of discussion has to fit in somewhere, so why not here?  And no, it's not just venting, it's a collective attempt to identify problems and develop solutions.

^For sure, you're exactly right that a lot of the stuff being built is subsidized, which should give public policies a greater voice.

 

The point of the post is less about zoning and more about the general trends of development in the city. The attitude brought on by most developers (and likely the retail driving it) is still heavily suburban in nature.

 

Sure, better code would help, but that isn't the point. Rules on setbacks and parking requirements have been relaxed numerous times before, so if a developer really wanted a traditional mixed-use structure, he'd get it.

 

Nearly all of the mixed use developments are repurposed old buildings. How many mixed use structures have been built new in the area? Uptown... and?

 

In this case, the point of changing zoning wouldn't be to allow developers to build a certain way, but rather to force them to.  Only on certain key corridors though.  Decent zoning is why we're not seeing that horrible site plan shown for Clifton/117th actually getting built.

 

To your broader point, I think the development trends we don't like are pretty easy to explain by our low cost real estate market and low incomes in city neighborhoods.  Our city neighborhoods don't exactly have a lot of income density, which means relying on a geographically dispersed customer base, which means cars.  And because the marginal cost of distance to drivers is extremely low, retailers and developers (and their lenders) always want there to be conspicuously available parking so they don't lose customers to the place with the big parking lot a mile away.

 

All we can do is try to hold the line in some areas while trying to rebuild the value proposition of location through various means.  This is finally happening now in some of our neighborhoods, which is awesome.  Unfortunately it's partially self-defeating: the heightened market interest attracts more drivers, which encourages more demolition till we reach a pretty high threshold of property values that makes the opportunity costs of surface parking too high.

I strongly agree regarding your topical points on overlays, business development, and neighborhood bricks and mortar.  That sort of discussion has to fit in somewhere, so why not here?  And no, it's not just venting, it's a collective attempt to identify problems and develop solutions.

 

Why can't it be both? It's not my place to tell other people how to spend their money. I think we all agree it's up to the city/county government to develop zoning patterns. The problem is they are a reflection of their constituents -- or more accurately, the constituents that have the money and power to get things done. Realistically those have the most power to influence zoning reform (or lack thereof).

 

It sounds stupid and perhaps idealistic, but I want people to want to build in the classic urban style.  Without a collective desire to preserve existing structures or at the very least build new similar mixed use structures, the city will never see the revitalization we are hoping for. Or I am off my rocker.

I'm with you all the way, Mendo.  I think most of us are.  IMO the best way to nurture that collective desire is to demonstrate that classical urbanity (for lack of a better term) has a core constituency here.  Without that core, there's nothing to build on, nothing for anyone else to latch onto.  I think there's a belief, among those who would tear down everything and replace it with garbage, that there's no counterpoint and no alternative. 

 

Good things have been happening though, just in the past year or two.  People on the planning commission have pushed back against bad designs, on the grounds that they're inappropriately suburban.  There's now a Cleveland City Councilman who consistently seeks to preserve historic buildings.  And when a cruddy plaza was proposed on Clifton Blvd, neighbors banded together to demand better.  So my advice would be to stay on message and make noise publicly.  It seems to be working.  It's working so well that right-wing crazies have a name for it now!

The topic here is whether urban development in Cleveland is still going in the wrong direction.  I get the impression you believe it's not, or maybe that it's above our station to even care.  Would you like to explain, or perhaps clarify, your position on the subject being discussed?

 

I've most likely done so in numerous threads in which you raise this same discussion.  It might be hard to grasp from way up on your mountaintop, but let me try again.  I'd take a more pragmatic approach.  I prefer to nurture development first and STRATEGICALLY encourage urban development when realistically possible, but stop short of insisting on anything that will result in no development and leave large inner-city neighborhoods void of the amenities the residents desire.  I'd target specific areas such as Downtown, UC, LI, GS, Tremont, OC, Waterloo, etc. to allow urban development to NATURALLY flourish and thrive to the point that it NATURALLY spreads into surrounding areas, not because that is someone's fantasy, but because the market demands it.  I wouldn't spread so thin my resources, political capital and leverage wagging my finger at developments in neighborhoods which are so bare that a mixed use development would stick out like a sore thumb and fail to achieve any of the goals mixed use developments reach in the right environment.  I wouldn't put a skycraper at 65th and Euclid and I wouldn't put Uptown (or anything like it) at 87th and Superior. 

The cookie-cutter tract housing that gets put up on the Eastside is a problem.

 

Cleveland is a city that prides itself on having character.  One thing that Columbus and Cincinnati have in common is that they have intact cores within 3 miles of downtown with many amenities.  Cleveland east of downtown is near barren and the Westside can be difficult to get to depending on which direction you're coming from.  The amount of investment and concentration into revitalizing DT that the City has made is futile if the bordering residential is either suburban or nonexistent.  For example, Cincinnati has poured billions into downtown over the last 17 years, but OTR now and in the late 90's before the riots has been the key to bringing day-to-day vibrancy to the business district.  After the riots when there was no investment in OTR, DT was a 9-5 neighborhood.

 

What housing exactly are you speaking of?

East of downtown is Barren?  Can you be more specific?

Westside is difficult to get go?  How? and via what mode of transportation?

 

South of Euclid going towards the community college has a lot of generic infill.  Also, there are many cleared lots south of Euclid inside and around 55th.  Between Euclid and Superior inside 55th is industrial.  As for crossing the city by car, there aren't many options between 480 and 490.  With the Rapid going east to west, you need to hop trains unless you're already on the Red Line.

 

How have these area's been historically?

 

The highways destroyed almost all the brownstone housing South of Cedar and the rest then became public housing, later Tri C moved in.  Chester and Payne's housing was destroyed and CSU built.  Most things North of Superior were industrial with a small amount of housing.  Cleveland unlike CIN & CBUS hasn't historically had housing adjacent to downtown on the Eastside.  The driving thing?  Really?  In Cleveland its difficult to get around?  Sorry cannot agree with that in any manner.  We have several wide avenues that make transversing the city easy.  But I guess the River and the Industrial valley are not to blame.  Also the building of the highways closed cross any crossing.  There used to be a crossing at Clark  and/or Fleet IIRC, it was discussed when I was at SOHIO.

 

Honestly I feel you're comparing apples to pineapples.  Different cities, growth patterns, climates, topography, etc.

 

You're saying some things I never did, like Cleveland being difficult to drive around.  I said between 480 and 490 it is difficult to get from one side of town to another.  The point I was making about housing within three miles of downtown was that the infill that exists is mostly of a suburban charm and that the momentum downtown Cleveland wants to create for the city is nullified by not having intact, healthy neighborhoods east and southeast of DT.

 

Columbus is mostly flat like Cleveland.  Its downtown is boxed in by expressways on four sides.  East of DT Columbus is a terrible neighborhood, and west of it might be worse, but the Scioto and highways cut it off severely from the core of Columbus.  The difference between that bad planning in Central Ohio and the realities of the DT Cleveland area is that DT Columbus is far behind Cleveland's but the city is still growing from the inside out because of German Village, Victorian Village, Short North and Campus. 

I've most likely done so in numerous threads in which you raise this same discussion.  It might be hard to grasp from way up on your mountaintop, but let me try again.  I'd take a more pragmatic approach.  I prefer to nurture development first and STRATEGICALLY encourage urban development when realistically possible, but stop short of insisting on anything that will result in no development and leave large inner-city neighborhoods void of the amenities the residents desire.  I'd target specific areas such as Downtown, UC, LI, GS, Tremont, OC, Waterloo, etc. to allow urban development to NATURALLY flourish and thrive to the point that it NATURALLY spreads into surrounding areas, not because that is someone's fantasy, but because the market demands it.  I wouldn't spread so thin my resources, political capital and leverage wagging my finger at developments in neighborhoods which are so bare that a mixed use development would stick out like a sore thumb and fail to achieve any of the goals mixed use developments reach in the right environment.  I wouldn't put a skycraper at 65th and Euclid and I wouldn't put Uptown (or anything like it) at 87th and Superior. 

 

Getting there, but your point gets lost in all the ad hominem material about mountaintops and fantasies and wagging fingers.  Are you sure attitudes and interpersonal approaches such as this are not part of the reason development might still be moving in the wrong direction?  Do you honestly believe that seeding an under-developed area with desirable mixed use developments would be counterproductive?  Frankly, I think opposing such a thing would be counterproductive.   

You let me know the next time you find me "opposing" any mixed use development

Aren't surface lots, in many cases, sort of impromptu private sector land banks that are pretty easy to redevelop if there's an opportunity?

Aren't surface lots, in many cases, sort of impromptu private sector land banks that are pretty easy to redevelop if there's an opportunity?

 

No.  If you build a retail plaza in the middle of the site, with parking in front, you're not likely to let anyone build on your parking lot because 1) there goes your parking, and 2) nobody could even see your squat little building with another structure in front.

 

You let me know the next time you find me "opposing" any mixed use development

 

What about planning for them, with public backing, on open sites?  To the extent that the city says "this is what we want to see here" for any given area, which it already does, the city would stipulate only appropriate developments and never suburbanization.  All I'm saying is shift the planning direction and the public funding away from those plazas, away from those tract hosues, and toward recognizable urbanity.  The only "other people's money" this involves is our own.  Would you be opposed to that? 

The infill on the east side in central has helped that area regain population.

 

I would also like to point out that the majority of Cleveland's 100+ year old up and down duplexes and single family homes are 'cookie cutter' and not built to the street.

 

That doesn't mean we can't enforce mixed used construction built to the street where it makes sense, butthat type of construction doesn't make much sense where these homes were built.

What about planning for them, with public backing, on open sites?  To the extent that the city says "this is what we want to see here" for any given area, which it already does, the city would stipulate only appropriate developments and never suburbanization.  All I'm saying is shift the planning direction and the public funding away from those plazas, away from those tract hosues, and toward recognizable urbanity.  The only "other people's money" this involves is our own.  Would you be opposed to that? 

 

I'm all for it and the City does indeed encourage such development when the market allows for it.  The problem with your approach is you want 'recognizable urbanity' on every street in the entire metro and perpetuate the typical Cleveland negativity when it doesn't happen.  That's not a realistic or pragmatic approach.  To the extent that our realistic choices are strip plazas (which have relatively short life spans) in low density areas vs. continual abandonment and decay (which is contageous to the surrounding areas), I'll take the latter.  You can't just jump from empty lots to a gentrified, urban paradise without adding some necessary infrastructure and infill.  True, sustainable urban density evolves.  In the real world, it is built more out of necessity than any desire for chicness.  To draw a bad analogy, I see your approach leading to a Dubai-esque skyline (which popped up out of nowhere due to the mere desire for tall buildings), not an NYC or Chicago skyline (which evolved over many, many years based on density levels necessitating the need to build up).

^To be fair, there's a lot of middle ground between the crap shown in that rendering and a multi-story, mixed use, zero-set-back building (327's presume "urban paradise," as you bait him with). So I would say generic strip plazas and abandonment are not our only realistic choices in a lot of these cases.

You can't just jump from empty lots to a gentrified, urban paradise without adding some necessary infrastructure and infill.  True, sustainable urban density evolves.

 

This thread was borne out the contempt over tearing down existing urban structures, not about suburban style infill. Your insistence that we need "some necessary infrastructure and infill" is odd, considering we had that infrastructure and we're still tearing it down.

 

Worse still, suburban style development only breeds more suburban style development. Infill from strip plazas won't encourage somebody to come in with a mixed use structure built up to the street. That is ridiculous. The two don't mix together.

The problem with your approach is you want 'recognizable urbanity' on every street in the entire metro and perpetuate the typical Cleveland negativity when it doesn't happen.  That's not a realistic or pragmatic approach. 

 

The problem with my approach is your ridiculous description of it.  I have advocated "recognizable urbanity" on major inner-city thoroghfares and in areas under downtown's afternoon shadow.  One might call it "typical Cleveland negativity" when these ideas are opposed on the grounds that we're not worthy because we haven't built enough suburban plazas yet, on the very sites where we want the opposite sort of development to happen. 

 

I would strongly disagree that bad development is a necessary component of good development.  Quite the contrary, in many cases the bad development hinders a neighborhood's functionality and marketability to the point that its very existence makes good development less likely.  Ripping down those plazas is a cost to either the city or the next developer, and I don't believe a causal link between suburban plazas and mixed-use density has been established.

Aren't surface lots, in many cases, sort of impromptu private sector land banks that are pretty easy to redevelop if there's an opportunity?

 

No.  If you build a retail plaza in the middle of the site, with parking in front, you're not likely to let anyone build on your parking lot because 1) there goes your parking, and 2) nobody could even see your squat little building with another structure in front.

 

 

About twelve years ago, the owner of the bar I work at bought and tore down the old Forest City Auto Parts in Bedford, for surface parking.  He needed it.  But it should be noted that it was next door, not in front of the bar (which directly abuts the sidewalk).

 

It doesn't sound like any of these buildings are being torn down to provide parking for buildings behind them.  More likely next door.

The point of the post is less about zoning and more about the general trends of development in the city. The attitude brought on by most developers (and likely the retail driving it) is still heavily suburban in nature.

 

Sure, better code would help, but that isn't the point. Rules on setbacks and parking requirements have been relaxed numerous times before, so if a developer really wanted a traditional mixed-use structure, he'd get it.

 

Nearly all of the mixed use developments are repurposed old buildings. How many mixed use structures have been built new in the area? Uptown... and?

 

515 Euclid Ave, Fries & Schuele, Rock-Caesar's Collection Auto Group parking garage on Prospect, off the top of my head ... but I get your point. Nevertheless it's hard for me to be too hard on Cleveland in this regard because we have such a huge inventory of old, architechural beauties that can, and are, being repurposed into mixed-use properties, notably all over downtown and in such hot areas as Ohio City, Det-Shoreway, Larchmere (oops, will ignore 10-year old, 5-story Larchmere Lofts, an otherwise lovely high-density midrise but with its driveway and zero retail fronting the busy Larchmere strip!!).  We're light years ahead of most Rust Belt cities in this regard (ref: Detroit).

 

... supporting the OP is K&D, who missed a major opportunity with Stonebridge.  Keep in mind, had they put ground-level retail in their huge, multi-building Stonebridge complex, we'd already have what Fairmount/Wolstein is developing on Flats East Bank.  K&D is probably the largest real estate holder (in terms of number of living units under single control) in the City of Cleveland, and yet they can’t seem to shake much of their single-use suburban habits.

 

So I would say generic strip plazas and abandonment are not our only realistic choices in a lot of these cases.

 

If a financially backed alternative was put forth, I'd be all for it.  I'm only looking at what's on the table and am in no way opposed to tweaking plans to the point where they will be more attractive yet still be financially viable.

 

The problem with my approach is your ridiculous description of it. 

 

My apologies for reciprocating

 

This thread was borne out the contempt over tearing down existing urban structures, not about suburban style infill.

 

Then why not continue the discussion in the Cleveland Demolitions thread?  These general negativity/venting threads simply duplicate discussion that have been ongoing for years at UO.  I'm all for preservation, but I also realize that we have a lot of structures, albeit attractive on the outside, which are impractical to save.

 

The one thing that continually gets lost in these discussion is financing requirements.  Forumers like to blast City Hall and the developers, but never consider the financing requirements which are attached to the deals by private lenders and the implications of property rights when economically viable alternatives are not presented.  I think you all undestimate the extent of these requirements and the factors which are considered and often preclude the type of urbanity you desire.

Policy discussions aren't allowed in project threads.  Why are you so intent on shutting this thread down?  You've brought it up numerous times on the first page.  At this point you're just trolling.  By that I mean you don't like the topic we're trying to discuss here, you so attempt to disrupt, provoke and belittle.  You obviously have a divergent view of what can and should be done in the city, but that does not place you in a position to imply that everyone who disagrees doesn't understand the basis of what we're discussing. 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again-- Hts121, please stop attacking other forumers.  Your statements that we "never consider" this or that enough to see it your way are absolutely false and insulting.  All we're doing is taking a different position than yours with regard the thread topic. 

The demolition thread is not a project thread.  As for your view of my posts, I think it is a matter of perception.  I see you doing the same thing.  Anytime someone challenges your opinion, you get overly defensive.  I like to rib sometimes, and I do apologize if you get insulted.  Some people have thinner skin than I am accustomed to.  Regardless, I think this is an issue to raise either through PM or with the mods..... as probably is my thoughts on thread mergers. 

If we can't have a discussion here without bickering, we will lock the thread. Stop arguing, please.

without wading into all the previous posts, I think Cleveland's problem in general is that they all keep looking for the big ticket project, the magic bullet, that will revitalize this area or that.  A new streetscape, a new residential development, a new piece of infrastructure....I think this is the mindset which drives demolition.  They think whatever new development occur will easily replace whatever was torn down.  This is often not the case.

 

... supporting the OP is K&D, who missed a major opportunity with Stonebridge.  Keep in mind, had they put ground-level retail in their huge, multi-building Stonebridge complex, we'd already have what Fairmount/Wolstein is developing on Flats East Bank.  K&D is probably the largest real estate holder (in terms of number of living units under single control) in the City of Cleveland, and yet they can’t seem to shake much of their single-use suburban habits.

 

K&D appear to have no concept of what constitutes good ground-level planning.

^Geis and K&D both seem style-challenged pretty generally, which isn't to say I don't value their ability to get things done. I'd actually put MRN slightly in that category too, but realize it's subjective...and MRN at least hires good architects and has some stylish tenants to pick up the slack.

 

without wading into all the previous posts, I think Cleveland's problem in general is that they all keep looking for the big ticket project, the magic bullet, that will revitalize this area or that.  A new streetscape, a new residential development, a new piece of infrastructure....I think this is the mindset which drives demolition.  They think whatever new development occur will easily replace whatever was torn down.  This is often not the case.

 

 

I agree with the over-reliance of big ticket projects to some extent, I think this is occurring again with the convention center hotel...  I don't know about demos, though.  For the run-of-the mill residential and small commercial demos, I think the city realistically thinks the alternative in most cases is a dangerous rotting carcass of a house or storefront.  You may be referring to bigger demos, though. I'm sure the city see itself as pragmatic, allowing the demo on West 25th, for example, so MRN can fill the United Bank Bldg with tenants; allowing the demos near the casino; allowing the Clinic demos, etc.  I do wish it were a little more forceful resisting some of those.  And some of RTA's demos for the Euclid Corridor project seemed kind of ridiculous, as we've discussed before in other threads.

 

Worth pointing out that the news isn't all bad.  The state's preservation tax credit has been an awesome jolt of subsidy that's coincided really nicely with the renewed market interest downtown and some inner neighborhoods. 

speaking of zoning codes, whats the zoning like east of csu around all those potential hipster/startup ready warehouses? is it easy and legal to convert a warehouse around there to live/work? does the city crackdown hard on d.i.y. urban warehouse homesteaders or leave them alone? seems like working over the zoning to encourage that kind of creative thing in that area in particular would be easy enough to tackle, if it hasnt been already.

 

 

^There's a zoning overlay along Superior and St. Clair east of 18th specifically intended to allow/encourage conversion of warehouses into live/work spaces, so I think the city has actually gotten that part right.