^That's the problem.  What does the current zoning reg say for that site, regarding minimum set back requirements, and regarding parking?  If it doesn't require a build-out to the sidewalk, then Aldi's has every right to sue, if they already entered into an agreement.  When are local officials going to learn? 

 

 

 

 

They're learning slowly, but things are happening.  The form-based zoning for the Near West Side is moving along and the overlay district for the Euclid Corridor was certainly a good move.  As for a region-wide zoning update...yes, it is sorely needed!  Part of this TOD effort should be targeted at making these changes where TOD opportunities exist.  This site on W. 117th is a prime example.  And as it looks like we're missing this one, we should make certain that we move before the next one pops up!

I wonder if it is permitted to build a parking garage underneath an elevated intersate. I'm thinking about the Triskett rapid station. If you could move all the surface parking into structured space below I-90, that would open up a lot of space to building some dense single family homes that could become an extension of the neighborhood to the immediate west. West Park, Cleveland's solid middle class nabe, could definitley absorb some new housing.

I wonder if it is permitted to build a parking garage underneath an elevated intersate. I'm thinking about the Triskett rapid station. If you could move all the surface parking into structured space below I-90, that would open up a lot of space to building some dense single family homes that could become an extension of the neighborhood to the immediate west. West Park, Cleveland's solid middle class nabe, could definitley absorb some new housing.

 

I like where your head is at, but I would rather see a series of four story apartment buildings that close to the Rapid, with first floor retail/restaurant/mixed-use.  The garage, I think, is a bit in the wrong direction.  Not only is it expensive to build garages, but it propagates the idea that rail transit should be park-and-ride.  You would get much higher ridership by building densely within a 1/2 mile radius of the station.

 

Furthermore, if a new neighborhood were developed on the Triskett lot, and the garage were built, you would see a lot of people driving into the neighborhood and parking in the garage, versus taking transit.  Part of making transit work is making the other options more difficult.   

unless all the cops and firepeople move across the border... but that's another thread!

One of the things that was said at the TOD seminar last Thursday was that when there is a mix of parking and transit at a TOD site, the TOD performs better. But as long as the parking is in a deck and not some sprawling lot.

I wonder if it is permitted to build a parking garage underneath an elevated intersate. I'm thinking about the Triskett rapid station. If you could move all the surface parking into structured space below I-90, that would open up a lot of space to building some dense single family homes that could become an extension of the neighborhood to the immediate west. West Park, Cleveland's solid middle class nabe, could definitley absorb some new housing.

 

I like where your head is at, but I would rather see a series of four story apartment buildings that close to the Rapid, with first floor retail/restaurant/mixed-use.  The garage, I think, is a bit in the wrong direction.  Not only is it expensive to build garages, but it propagates the idea that rail transit should be park-and-ride.  You would get much higher ridership by building densely within a 1/2 mile radius of the station.

 

Furthermore, if a new neighborhood were developed on the Triskett lot, and the garage were built, you would see a lot of people driving into the neighborhood and parking in the garage, versus taking transit.  Part of making transit work is making the other options more difficult.   

 

I think that you need to take into account the neighborhood and the types of people that it attracts. This area is not a place that will attract loft seekers and empty nesters. Also, a lot of people use this as a park and ride lot--that's why it should include a garage. Why kill off a large majority of your ridership base by giving them nowhere to park? They'll look for a place to park downtown instead.

1.  Who pays for the garage, at $25,000 per spot?  Who is responsible for the maintenance?  What will the parking fee be?

 

2.  Who said anything about lofts and empty nesters?  We're talking about people who want to live within a short walk of a transit station.  That could be anyone.

 

3.  You neglect to mention the new ridership that will suddenly be within a ten minute walk, and that it is highly likely this number would exceed the current number of park-and-riders.

 

Maybe I'm being naive here, but the subway stations in my neighborhood don't have any parking.  Two of the three stations are quite busy, despite the majority of passengers arriving as pedestrians (others transfer from the bus).  There aren't any lofts in the neighborhood, and while there are plenty of empty nesters, there are many young single folks, couples, and families.  Most of the housing is single-family home, with a decent amount of apartments and condos for good measure.

 

Providing park-and-ride is by far the most expensive way to get people to a transit station, and tends to generate the lowest ridership.  Perhaps that's why the Red Line is the worst performing heavy rail line in the country?  Save the park-and-ride for the future commuter rail line. 

One of the things I didn't have time to add in my previous message is that there is a magic number of park-and-ride spaces vs. square footage for station-area development. The problem is, that magic number differs at each location and requires a market analysis to find that number.

^You could have metered on-street parking for short-term parkers. 

 

What happens in the DC area is that stations with extensive park-and-ride facilities typically only see high volumes during rush periods:  busy inbound in the AM, busy outbound in the PM.  The stations in more densely developed neighborhoods tend to generate more off-peak ridership, making more efficient use of the infrastructure.  For example, Dupont Circle is one of the highest ridership stations in the system--much higher than stations like Shady Grove and Vienna, which each have parking for 5000+ cars.

I'm not surprised. I've used the Dupont Circle station frequently over the years -- when I attended the high school/college radio station convention in 1985, when I visited my cousin while attending NARP meetings several times in the early 1990s, and in later visits to DC.

This was posted in the Great RTA thread, but I thought it belonged here too.

 

RTA to sell Euclid Ave. sites to rev development

 

By JAY MILLER

 

6:00 am, March 5, 2007

 

.........

 

GCRTA's February 2007 TOD Forum is now available for viewing

on the Center's web page...

 

http://urban.csuohio.edu/forum/events.shtml

 

All, please share the link as far and wide as you can! And promote the

upcoming forums while you're at it! They look very interesting.

 

For other takes on the event:

 

http://realneo.us/blog/jeff-buster/sprawl-antidote-transit-oriented-design-at-levin-college-csu

http://www.toistudio.com/blog/2007/02/greater-cleveland-regional-transit.html

http://www.gcbl.org/planning/university-circle/e-120th-university-arts-and-retail-transit-station-study

 

 

E. 120th/University Arts and Retail transit station study

 

A key ingredient to the University Circle Arts and Retail District will be transit – and artists. In the wake of Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority discovering transit-oriented design as a priority, New York-based urban design firm Project for Public Spaces appeared with the major players from the Circle to burnish Euclid and Mayfield as a transit village. PPS conducted a workshop and a walking tour of the area around the current and future home of the E. 120th Street Red Line Rapid Station.

 

Ambling from Abington Arms toward Little Italy on a sunny morning that promised renewal, we pass the giant asphalt Lot 45 on Mayfield Road. Later, as our group magic markered maps, University Circle, Inc. planning director Bob Reeves pointed out that UCI, which owns and leases the parking lot to University Hospital, wants to partner with RTA and a developer on a TOD—a mixed-use development within walking distance of a train station. Reeves and representatives from RTA and ODOT spoke openly about moving the E. 120th St. station closer to campus and building a node of activity. The stop might include a simple, glass-covered stair case/ramp leading to the platform with entrances from the red brick road (E. 117th St.) behind the Cleveland Institute of Art (CIA) factory as well as across the tracks at Mayfield and E. 119th – the road leading into Sidari’s Italian Foods.

 

Dodging mud puddles and drips of mystery water as we walked under the Mayfield Road rail bridge, discussion turned to a better soil and water management plan as an immediate priority. Consensus was achieved—the dank underpass needs a sustainable solution. Groundwater recharge zones or rain gardens along the embankment of the tracks (which CIA owns) would help, CIA Director Dave Deming said. A class project could include a cool lighting design solution under the bridge. Deming also suggested a beacon of light from the top of the station’s canopy to signal its location, and photos taken from the vantage point of the platform looking out over the Circle with place markers on the images to direct visitors.

 

CIA and Case students will bring more street life to the area around the station if public spaces are carved out with just enough suggestion of uses but with openness to change how the students want to use it. I suggested reusing the old rail spur/bridge that once connected to the factory as an entrance ramp to the RTA platform, and blocking off a section of E. 117th where it meets Mayfield as a pedestrian-only promenade (Reeves approved, noting that left-turns were too dangerous to keep the intersection as is, and that UCI was planning a new road from Mayfield on the other side of a TOD at Lot 45, bisecting the Triangle development and CIA. CIA also plans to build a new classroom behind the factory and new dorms, possibly at the current Food Co-Op, incorporating the grocery store in the ground floor.

 

Making an immediate left turn as we emerge from the underpass and walk up the gentle slope of E. 119, we notice the stumps of many trees and bare land marked for development. On the right, maybe 100 feet of land at the corner of Mayfield and E. 119 is owned by Tim Perotti, a developer who wants to put in a four to eight story mixed-use building with ground-floor retail and condos above. A long shallow lot behind leads a few hundred or so feet up to Sidari’s and is owned by the Carneys, who want to build condos, especially if the Rapid is right at their doorstop. Across the road—which is not a dedicated street but has easements all the way through to E. 120th (by the station’s entrance in East Cleveland)—RTA owns the embankment and UCI a long, narrow parking lot which it leases to UH. The whole area is zoned commercial (Sidari’s isn’t moving). On the E. 120th side of Sidari’s is a parcel that had underground tanks, but that Hemisphere Group completed remediation.

 

Other good ideas included:

 

Build partnerships with organizations to build up the public spaces, and create excitement among the residents and students living and using the area.

 

A plan between the city, RTA and UCI to maintain the spaces around the station and the neighborhood

 

Use local materials, solar panels for power, storm-water bioswales on the embankment, CIA class projects for public art, lighting and signage and reuse the urban archeology of the abandoned rail spur to create a train stop that identifies that you’ve arrived at an arts district.

 

###

I'm glad to see UCI and other groups are finally seriously discussing the E. 120 station and its potential TOD spin-offs.  Let's hope they keep up the momentum.  It's now looking like, more and more, the solution is not what was conventionally projected: relocation to the Mayfield Rd bridge/gateway to Little Italy but, instead, a lesser relocation just west of the current station.  Methinks Case's massive new dorm complex in tandem with CIA's McCullough building has pumped so much life into that Northeastern corner of UC that locating a new RTA station there makes more sense.

Because E.118th will be extended into the Triangle area, a mid-block RTA station makes even more sense. You should be able to see new station from Euclid at 118 and into the heart of Case's new dorms. That's really importation. Also, I believe that the new station will have some sort of presence on Mayfield as well.

 

 

 

Hey, that's the exact location I had two cops almost arrest me for trespassing--seriously, don't walk on the tracks, it's like a $150 fine.

 

In relevance to this topic, I think as long as the stop is moved closer to Mayfield Road (and stretch of the way) would be fine. 

Of course you should never walk on the tracks! It's a private, industrial property with mammoth pieces of extremely heavy equipment moving fast -- they can take up to a mile to come to a complete stop. You're lucky you only got a ticket.

RTA introduces TOD Guidelines

 

Posted in Rebuilding cities | Walkable neighborhoods | printer-friendly version | login or register to post comments »

In its first-ever concerted effort to direct development on land it owns near or at transit stations, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) introduced its Transit Oriented Design (TOD) guidelines at a CSU Levin College forum on Feb. 22, 2007.

 

“We want high quality development that provides maximum linkages between transit stations and development for patrons where they’re able to walk or ride a bike (to use transit),” says Maribeth Feke, RTA Director of Programming & Planning.

 

Research has shown that TODs can increase transit ridership, RTA states. But perhaps more important, TOD can improve quality of life, and under the right circumstances, encourage development to occur in close proximity to existing transit facilities.

 

RTA is shopping three of its properties on Euclid that it says are “ripe” for a TOD—a refueling garage across from the Agora Theater, a seven-story warehouse across from Gallucci’s, and the redevelopment of the E. 120th Red Line Rapid station, all in the Euclid Corridor. While it sends out RFPs for those sites, RTA will complete an assessment of all its properties later this year, Feke added.

 

The location of the easterly University Circle Rapid station is the source of continued speculation. A Cleveland Foundation and NOACA-funded study is looking at current location versus moving it closer to Little Italy, where RTA owns a parcel by Sidari's and developers, including the Carney family, own a huge surface parking lot along Mayfield Road, which they've slated for development if the station is relocated.

 

RTA has long sought TOD proposals, but deals were stymied when developers wanted to own the property or RTA couldn’t lend them money because of its status as a quasi-governmental body. Some proposals went "belly up” or weren’t deemed the highest and best use of the land, says Feke.

 

“We see the area around transit stations as a very valuable asset, so it doesn’t make sense to have a Jehovah’s Witness Kingdom Hall at Triskett or a used car lot at our Brookpark station,” she says.

 

RTA will provide a checklist for TOD proposals to help developers achieve land use, site design and pedestrian accessibility goals. If a proposal meets the guidelines, the agency is willing to explore new financing options, such as requests for funding for joint development as part of its capital program, as well as offering property acquisition, disposition, and management services.

 

“We’re trying to drive demand in a weak real estate market and close the financing gap between the federal funds that are available…but cannot be used for loan guarantees,” says RTA General Manager Joe Calabrese.

 

Lobbying Congress for a rule change is an option, or RTA could convince a public agency with bonding authority (such as the Port Authority) to be a project partner, says forum panelist Jeffrey Tumlin, an expert in the TOD field and Principal with San Francisco-based transit consulting firm Nelson\Nygaard.

 

Actually, Cleveland lays claim to one of the country’s first TODs — back in the 1920s when the Van Sweringen brothers planned development on the east side of upscale residences within walking distance of the train lines they built—known today as RTA’s Green and Blue Rapid lines. It’s proof that “Cleveland knows how to do this,” Feke said.

 

Strong demand along those lines in Shaker Heights has spurred a new TOD at Van Aken Boulevard and Avalon (near Lee Road), where high-priced lofts are rising above a soon-to-be updated train station. The project is part of a $60 million public-private partnership where the city invested $18 million in infrastructure that included calming nearby Chagrin Boulevard, and adding a street that bisects Shaker Town Center, a mega-block shopping center.

 

As part of the deal, Shaker approved a rezoning but tightened design guidelines, calling for large windows on the ground floor and specific door placements to enhance how the loft building addresses the street, says Shaker Planning Director Joyce Braverman.

 

Interestingly, the city’s building code was an obstacle to building it with mixed-uses— ground-floor retail space with residential above. “The code would have required it to be built to a commercial standard, so the developer decided it’s not worth it,” she says.

 

(Shaker will hold a March 8 public meeting on the future of its TODs)

 

Meanwhile, the Cleveland EcoVillage is a case where high demand for green building and a neighborhood master plan have led to early success, despite weak market conditions. The green-built EcoVillage town homes on W. 58th Street, within walking distance of the redeveloped W. 65th and Lorain Rapid Station, are the first steps in this plan, said project manager Mandy Metcalf.

 

If some of that mojo could wear off at W. 25th and Clark Avenue, it would please Abe Bruckman, real estate manager for Ohio City Near West Development Corp. and before that for Clark-Metro CDC. That 100% corner has the highest population density in the city, taps $157 million in disposable income (source: Social Compact), and is now a main route to Steelyard Commons.

 

Resources

RTA Transit Oriented Design and Joint Development

 

 

Its funny that, despite all the TOD focus for other RTA-related proposals, nobody is calling Scot Wolstein's Flats East Bank project TOD... isn't it safe to call it such?  Even though he's not saying the Waterfront Line influenced his building his project, Wolstein's development will be a high-density, mixed use residential/commercial development directly adjacent to a rapid transit station...

 

... sure sounds like TOD to me...

Its funny that, despite all the TOD focus for other RTA-related proposals, nobody is calling Scot Wolstein's Flats East Bank project TOD... isn't it safe to call it such?  Even though he's not saying the Waterfront Line influenced his building his project, Wolstein's development will be a high-density, mixed use residential/commercial development directly adjacent to a rapid transit station...

 

Maybe I misread this somewhere, but didn't Wolstein want to re-route the Waterfront line so it ran through the center of his project?

 

On TOD in Shaker Heights, one thing that's puzzled me is why the Van Aken Line has a lot more high density mixed-use development existing along it, while the Shaker Line is almost entirely single-family residential homes that are spaced far apart.  Then when you get past the Warrensville Center station, the median of Shaker Boulevard widens and the Green Line is practically in a rural environment.  Have there been any plans to develop the Shaker Boulevard median? It makes the rapid seem awkward being all by itself like that.

^ Good Qs.

 

The differences btw Van Aken and Shaker were planned, by the Van Sweringens, when Shaker and the Rapid were developed during the 1910s.  If you'll note, Shaker has larger tracts and mansions to its north and more middle/upper-middle income housing, including lots of apartments, to its South.  While, outside of excellent Shaker Sq the Vans did not plan quality, mixed-use walking districts like Cleveland Hts, they did lay aside tracts for apartments -- even developing several themselves, around Shaker Square, and down Van Aken..

 

... Interestingly and ironically, after the Rapid was built in the 20s and Shaker was developed, the Vans became interested in autos and developing highways to serve their suburban district, which included burbs all the way to Gates Mills.  Shaker Blvd becomes wide at Warrensville heading east to accommodate a projected Van highway to Gates Mills which, of course, was never built as the Vans empire collapsed due to the Depression.  The roads that became Shaker were supposed to be marginal roads similar to those of the East Side Shoreway to Gordon Park, while large homes were built along them. 

 

Shaker has tried for years to develop condos in the bucolic median between Warrensville and Green Rd, only to face stiff fights from neighbors and naturalists, who want to maintain the semi-rural feel... at this point, I believe Shaker's pretty much dropped the idea and instead focused on the big TOD projects and Van Aken Lee and Van Aken Warrensville.

 

“We see the area around transit stations as a very valuable asset, so it doesn’t make sense to have a Jehovah’s Witness Kingdom Hall at Triskett or a used car lot at our Brookpark station,” she says.

 

hahaha. I guess the assumption is that Jehovah’s Witness' don't use public transit?

Maybe I misread this somewhere, but didn't Wolstein want to re-route the Waterfront line so it ran through the center of his project?

 

You may be thinking of Bob Stark, who is interested in changing the routing of the Waterfront Line north of the freight railroad tracks along the lakefront and west of West 3rd Street.

 

at this point, I believe Shaker's pretty much dropped the idea and instead focused on the big TOD projects and Van Aken Lee and Van Aken Warrensville.

 

The city is still interested, but is limiting their interest to developing Shaker Boulevard's median in the area of the Warrensville Road. I've heard nothing recent about the areas farther east along Shaker.

 

Maybe I misread this somewhere, but didn't Wolstein want to re-route the Waterfront line so it ran through the center of his project?

 

I think it has been discussed that the Flats East Bank project is practically adjacent to the existing Flats East Bank station. But you might also be thinking of when Wolstein mentioned Shaker Square as the type of neighborhood he'd like to create there - but I don't think he said he'd like to reroute the waterfront line. It would be an unnecessary expense.

^In fact, in Wolstein's schematic, he planned his office tower (one of them, at least-- where DFAS was once projected) adjacent to the elevated portion of the existing Waterfront Line (WFL) where a long-range station had been planned.  Wolstein's plans, overall, appeared to mesh with the WFL and not at all alter it... I think moving the WFL to the lakeshore would a counterproductive waste of $$ taking it away from a projected multi-modal Amtrak/Commuter terminal and even farther from the few (and potentially more) downtown workers who do use the line only to appease a few tourists... Some Stark ideas are good, but on this, he should leave well enough alone.

Stark's proposed Waterfront Line realignment was limited to the area west of West 3rd, and the realignment was actually pretty minor. It wouldn't affect a proposed site for the North Coast Transportation Center on the lower level of a new "Mall D."

^I see...

The handsome Avalon Station condo project is moving toward an early summer opening.  Shaker Town Center looks like its shaping up, with more street and facade improvements, particularly on the south side of Chagrin Blvd...

 

In the late 1980s, Shaker obviously made a huge blunder it is now forced to live with when it tore down buildings along Chagrin's sidewalk and moved the building line for new, modern-ish single-use structures to the rear of an asphalt jungle.  Add to the fact that, to add insult to injury, they moved a little needed new fire station to the site long the South side of Chagrin (what was so bad about rebuilding on the previous Lee Road site across from City Hall?), in essence, throwing away one more slot for sidewalk-oriented retail... It was a ridiculous bow to the auto particularly in a suburb that probably has the best rail transit service to the central city core in the entire Midwest (that, of course, includes all of Chicago's burbs).  On top of that, Shaker's neighbor to the north, Cleveland Heights, is a model and has the best, old-style mixed-use walking districts like Coventry, Cedar-Fairmount and Cedar-Lee... One classic in the vicinity that needs to be preserved and enhanced/expanded is the 1920s Tudor-style Kingsbury building right at the Lee-Van Aken corner across from the Rapid.  Its a classic suburban mixed-use structure that addresses the rail transit station and which has always been an attractive gateway to what was the Chagrin-Lee-Avalon retail district, however imperfect it was.

 

Shaker Town Center is yet one more example of how we Clevelanders so frequently have unlearned the things that have made the city great.  (what's next: tear down Shaker Sq. to build a strip mall?).   But at least, in creating a new faux main street along with a midrise condo that sits flush on Van Aken's sidewalk steps away from 2 rail stations, it's apparent that Shaker planners have seen the (TOD/mixed use) error of their ways, and are tying their level best to correct it.  The district has a livelier, more ped-orientation to it, already, even though neither Avalon Station nor the Chagrin facade rehab is done... The excellent/classy Heinens supermarket, though set back from the street, along with the hodgepodge of retail, is actually bringing some foot-traffic to the area, albeit pedestrians who must dodge cars and navigate the asphalt jungle... While I doubt this area will ever be a Coventry, Shaker's steadily making the best of a bad error made in the 1980s with the needed, more urban/ped-TOD friendly changes to this area that's still brimming with potential.

I was just at the Chagrin/Warrensville station the other day (I had some free time and I wanted to get some use out of my all-day pass :)).  While I agree a lot more could be done to accomodate the pedestrian element, it's actually pretty well done on its northern side, where The Fresh Market and the Blue Line Cafe are located. There needs to be a way to keep cars from speeding down Van Aken, though.

 

As most of you know, the Van Aken tracks leading up to the Lee Road station are below-grade in a cut. How difficult would it be to cover up the tracks and place a mixed-use office/residential building directly over it, with retail at the first floor, and the rapid station below it? Sort of a miniature version of Tower City. :)

^Good observations.

 

Warrensville-Chagrin-Van Aken... ... There's a like -- I think KJP shared it some time ago -- showing the plan for the end of the Blue Line.  Even though some of the areas there, like the new Fresh Market and Blue Line Cafe seem ped friendly, they still sit behind asphalt-sea parking lots and are single use buildings surrounded by, as you note, high-speed trafficked roadways making movement from store-to-residence, store-to-train, store-to-store access arduous. 

 

The plan is to narrow main streets intersections.  Chagrin will be traffic-calmed, much the way planners did in the Shaker Towne Center area.  Chagrin was narrowed, sidewalks widened and, even, angle parking in bays were built.  I think this is the master plan for Van Aken/Warrensville, including a lot of Tudor style townhouses and condos, many of which are planned to sit over retail (thence the mixed-use aspect) and sit directly on the sidewalk and not backed away from the sidewalk behind surface parking -- the classic auto-oriented, strip-mall urban sprawl model all too common both here and elsewhere (esp in the freeway-dominated Sun Belt).

 

Lee Road Rapid stop: actually, one version I recall switches the Rapid stop to the east side of Lee Road with a retail building over a newly enclosed station similar to what you suggest.  It's an elaborate plan and I'm not sure they'll pull it off, but it's been thought of, so you're definitely on point.

I could be wrong, but I think the majority of Shaker Hts. & Cleveland Hts. for that matter are national historic preserved and the city can't do much to alter parts of the street grid or buildings.  I think the shaker rapid or the medians of the rapid are protected which now is causing issues.

 

IIRC, those preliminary plans to building towers over some of the the shaker stations was shot down by residents.  I remember Lee Rd/Van Aken and both warrensville stations were looked at for towers.

There was a meeting in Shaker yesterday concerning this and unfortunately I missed it.  I will try and find a summary of the meeting.  Here is the website.

http://www.shakeronline.com/dept/planning/TransitOrientedDevelopment.asp

thanks for the links, i am so out of the loop as it is...

It appears W. 117-Madison appears to be yet another lost TOD opportunity.  RTA is rebuilding another surface parking lot and bus loop -- in other words: more asphalt.  The station's immediate area is tricky cause it's half Cleveland half Lakewood.  But still, you have the huge old redbrick factory adjacent to the station (sitting btw the Red Line stop and the excellent, high-density Birdtown nabe in Lakewood with it's neat though under-potentialized walking district along Madison).  Across W.117 there's the one small strip of bars in an old facade which probably should be maintained.  But cattycorner the station we have ugly, low density fastfoods, including a Burger King.  It looks like a new gas station is being built up the road behind it (heading toward the lake)... This seems par for the course for Cleveland TOD.

 

And the station, though it has a faux-Colonial look, has a too-small looking headhouse and, incredibly, NO ESCALATOR in what was one of the busiest stations on the Red Line.  Why?  Typical RTA, always operating on the cheap.

 

As I've said before, TOD is bigger than RTA and must be coordinated with the cities in which they lie.  Just as with W. 65, in which the bass-ackwards project seemingly had the EcoCity townhouses were built to save the station -- TOD seems stuck in the mud.

^ " Just as with W. 65, in which the bass-ackwards project seemingly had the EcoCity townhouses were built to save the station -- ....."

 

 

Please clarify.

 

 

It appears W. 117-Madison appears to be yet another lost TOD opportunity.  RTA is rebuilding another surface parking lot and bus loop -- in other words: more asphalt.  The station's immediate area is tricky cause it's half Cleveland half Lakewood.  But still, you have the huge old redbrick factory adjacent to the station (sitting btw the Red Line stop and the excellent, high-density Birdtown nabe in Lakewood with it's neat though under-potentialized walking district along Madison).  Across W.117 there's the one small strip of bars in an old facade which probably should be maintained.  But cattycorner the station we have ugly, low density fastfoods, including a Burger King.  It looks like a new gas station is being built up the road behind it (heading toward the lake)... This seems par for the course for Cleveland TOD.

 

And the station, though it has a faux-Colonial look, has a too-small looking headhouse and, incredibly, NO ESCALATOR in what was one of the busiest stations on the Red Line.  Why?  Typical RTA, always operating on the cheap.

 

As I've said before, TOD is bigger than RTA and must be coordinated with the cities in which they lie.  Just as with W. 65, in which the bass-ackwards project seemingly had the EcoCity townhouses were built to save the station -- TOD seems stuck in the mud.

 

Yes, RTA is rebuilding the existing loop and lot, but as you stated, "TOD is bigger than RTA". Another problem is, to this day, the difficulty in trying to find five non-academic professionals in the planning field who can agree on an easily-promotable definition of TOD. Add in the municipality-straddling location of this station, and I'd say we're damn lucky a project of any kind got done in our lifetimes.

 

What would you suggest as a reuse for the old factory adjacent to the station, and have you conducted an EIS and site survey to determine if such a reuse is feasible or even possible? Just 'cuz it looks pretty don't mean it's structurally sound...

 

As far as the station itself, one man's Fauxlonial is another man's retro-historical. :-) Also, before you jump to conclusions about why there is no escalator in this station (not that reduction of long-term maintenance costs is necessarily a bad thing, those moving staircases can be a bear to keep up -- see Stokes/Windermere), consider the cattycorner location of "ugly, low density fastfoods". Mayhaps RTA is doing their part to reduce "waist" in the area? :-)

That station looks to be a disaster. In order to get over there, your pretty much have to take a bus. Fine. But where the buses currently drop you off, you have to walk all the way from the new unusable station to the old station across five lanes of traffic. So, of course, you either miss the train or miss the circulator and have to wait 30 minutes for another one. I try to be positive, but I've never had one good experience with those circulator buses at that station. I know it's horrible, but I drive to Puritas and just dump my car and get on the train that way.

That station looks to be a disaster. In order to get over there, your pretty much have to take a bus. Fine. But where the buses currently drop you off, you have to walk all the way from the new unusable station to the old station across five lanes of traffic. So, of course, you either miss the train or miss the circulator and have to wait 30 minutes for another one. I try to be positive, but I've never had one good experience with those circulator buses at that station. I know it's horrible, but I drive to Triskett and just dump my car and get on the train that way.

Jamiec,

 

Did you mean to post the same thing twice (except for the Puritas/Triskett switch)?

^ " Just as with W. 65, in which the bass-ackwards project seemingly had the EcoCity townhouses were built to save the station -- ....."

 

 

Please clarify.

 

 

 

A bit of hyperbole on my part.  Fact is, though, rumors were flying about W.65th closing under Calabrese but the EcoCity Group along with green project from some Oberlin College students planned the townhomes in accord w/ the new, green-friendly Rapid station, so it did seem like the townhomes saved the Station.  Sadly, though, nothing has been built since, TOD-wise, not even any of the slated retail inside or surrounding the station itself.

 

... As for W.117th, no, I don't have any specific adaptive reuse ideas for the red factory building although, given it's setback from the street, you'd think some kind of mixed use or condo project a la Chicle just up Berea Rd... W.117 is hemmed in by factories to the south, but there are possibilities that seem to be thrown away.  Why surface parking and the bus loop?  This is a prime spot for mixed use or res development.  Then cattycorner from the station you've got horrible fast foods and a sea of surface parking.  Again, development could bridge the station with the excellent, high-density and historic Birdtown nabe to the west of the red factory...

 

Cleveland RTA, like it's CTS predecessor, doesn't seem to understand TOD.  The orientation is always toward drivers or comfy bus transfers for commuters distant from stations rather than building up ped commuters like traditional rail systems.  RTA and Frank's officials merely travel cross town to what was done at Shaker Square, and what Shaker Heights is doing at both Lee Rd and Warrensville along the Blue line. 

 

I mean, have you noticed that, in it's (very slooooow) Red Line station rehab has executed such gems as: moving W. 25 from next to busy West Side Mkt to across the street in order to build a lightly used bus loop that, now forces the bulk of Market shoppers to fend their way across wide and dangerous Lorain Road (if I recall, the cheap and rundown CTS station predecessor at least allowed passengers to come up on both sides of Lorain.;

 

... and how about those parking spots at urbanized W. 65 where, I'm sure, the overwhelming majority of commuters are peds and  large bulk of whom don't even own cars to begin with, some by choice (like the Eco-gentrifyers who like using the Rapid and bus).

 

... and yes, its very penny-wise/pound foolish not to build an escalator inside W.117.  This is a heavily used station and to force riders to walk up and down stairs or use what should be handicapped elevators is simply backwards and foolish in today's era of Metro construction/rehab.

 

Like I said, Cleveland still just doesn't get the transit thing... not yet, anyway.

Re: Lee & Van Aken station

 

Dreaming of a new, bright RTA stop

Thursday, June 07, 2007

By Marie Catanese

The Sun Press

 

......

They say they hope to increase transit ridership by improving ADA access, safety, functionality and appearance of the station while creating a mixed use "gateway."

 

or how about increasing the residential population in the immediate area by going forward with the "high impact" proposal.

 

All the fancy lights, benches and chair lifts in the world ain't going to do shit for ridership.

^I hear ya... Hopefully Avalon Station II will garner enough presales so it may get the go-ahead.  Avalon I slated to open very soon.  The area btw the condo towers and the back of the (Chagrin Ave) stores is slated to be low-rise townhomes, if I'm not mistaken.  Sure would be nice if a mirror-Tudor-style mixed-use apartment/condo could be attached to the Kingsbury @ Lee & Van Aken.

^I hear ya... Hopefully Avalon Station II will garner enough presales so it may get the go-ahead.  Avalon I slated to open very soon.  The area btw the condo towers and the back of the (Chagrin Ave) stores is slated to be low-rise townhomes, if I'm not mistaken.  Sure would be nice if a mirror-Tudor-style mixed-use apartment/condo could be attached to the Kingsbury @ Lee & Van Aken.

 

Would have been nice if Heartland used the tudor style for the Avalon I to begin with.  It would have fit it more.  We know they have the ability to do it nicely.  Heartland Developers also did South Park Row behind Shaker Square and those are beautiful tudor townhomes.  I guess they wanted to mix it up a bit.

Below is generally the street grid that Stark is proposing at Van Aken/Warrensville. Not shown are the blocks of buildings within the street grid, which would range from 3-5 stories tall. In essence, it would be a traditionally designed downtown for Shaker Heights, and a terrific ridership anchor at the east end of the Blue Line.

 

However, I don't recall how Stark proposed to handle Northfield's intersection with Chagrin/Warrensville. And I don't remember seeing it intersecting there. So I have it aligned how I would do it. And, Stark had the Blue Line Rapid continuing due east to Warrensville, with a transfer station on the east side of Warrensville immediately south of a community recreation center. Since such an alignment would preclude a future extension to Highland Hills or to Randall Park Mall redeveloped as an edge city, I suggested that he consider my proposed routing (below), with a Rapid station built into an attractive public space complete with retail spaces in the ground floor of a building at the corner of Van Aken and Warrensville. He seemed to like the idea. However, Shaker city officials apparently have some concerns with Stark's overall plan.

 

Is it possible to drop the train underground before and after the Van Aken/Warrensville/Chargin/Northfield clusterfuck?  Then have it run in the median of northfield?

Sure it's possible. How could we fund it? TIFs would probably be used to pay for redoing the street grid.

^^That was my suggestion earlier MTS.  I know lack of $$ is going to be used as a stumbling block.  But if all this money is going to be thrown around for this redesign anyway, why not spend a little extra (which, in context, would not be that much) to enhance transit?  I mean, wouldn't connecting the Warrensville/Van Aken to the Chagrin Highlands with high-speed rail creating density and negating some extra parking be worth the money?  Once again in this town, we look at transit as a nice, but not essential, expensive business and not a key service and tool for city building...

 

... as for problems Shaker officials might be having with Stark, I wouldn't know of course; but there does seem to be a pattern of Stark's ultra-bold plans overreaching and turning people off.  I know Cleveland by nature is conservative, oftentimes to its detriment, but while I admire Stark's enthusiasm, I wish he'd tone his plans down a tad.  For example, I understand he wanted to tear down the huge, gorgeous landmark Commodore Hotel at U. Circle's triangle -- UCI balked, and he backed out.  Admittedly, in the plan KJP notes above, there aren’t any buildings in Stark’s path that are worth saving in the overall context, like a Commodore Hotel, but I still wonder why he couldn’t work of the existing street configuration that exists?  I thought the original plan was narrowing the existing grid while ‘calming’ traffic and build lots of mixed-use development up to the curb.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/sunpress/news/index.ssf?/base/news-0/120171865359600.xml&coll=4

 

Van Aken changes proposed

Thursday, January 31, 2008

By Marie Catanese

The Sun Press

 

SHAKER HEIGHTS After a second set of public workshops, the city is one step closer to settling on a new design for the monstrous intersection and 60-acre commercial district at Warrensville Center Road and Van Aken Boulevard.

 

But it will still be five to 10 years before construction work begins, a time frame city Director of Planning Joyce Braverman says is "quick."

 

.........