If you must know, I have written public policies at more than one agency, so I'm at least familiar with how that sorta thing works.  Sat on the boards?  No.  But surely you're aware that board members don't tend to construct a lot of policy themselves.  Can we now get back to our regularly scheduled topic?

Sure..... as soon as you identify the actions they have not taken (without speculating, of course).

This grows long... forgive me if I step away.  I clearly referred to actions not taken in my initial post on this yesterday.  More than one specific policy came up, namely the city's zoning code for the UC area and the zoning overlay produced by Midtown Inc.  And I'm really just echoing the points made in the report referenced in the article.  That's what the discussion is supposed to be about, presumably.  But we're pretty far afield at this point... now we're discussing some sort of hybrid between sovereign immunity and ideacrime. 

 

My stance is that the city's zoning code is due for an update with TOD as a central goal.  RTA has some lovely and thorough powerpoints about how TOD works elsewhere and could work here.  I've refereced them in prior research on the concept.  Those materials could perhaps be used as a guideline for the code reform.  RTA seems to really understand TOD, but RTA doesn't control every aspect necessary to make it happen.

and like i said... i really don't think you understand zoning code, or how it works. or even what really happened in UC and the fact that the zoning code had really almost nothing to do with what went on there.

RTA seems to really understand TOD, but RTA doesn't control every aspect necessary to make it happen.

 

....Including the demand for creating it. I've chatted with current and former RTA staff as well as transit consultants from other cities who have said, with much frustration, that if RTA's cool new rail stations were built in other cities, there would be many new housing units and businesses popping up on the landscape surrounding the rail stations. There have been a few developments, but they are more the exception. I'm sure there are more things that can be done to promote such development, but the dominant problem that's keeping TOD from happening is Greater Cleveland's no-growth market. The population isn't growing. The job market isn't growing. And so the pace of change is very slow, including requests for rezoning by potential users to accommodate such projects.

And I'd also add that if I were to make a list of 500 things to encourage development, worrying about the zoning code would probably be somewhere in the low 400's.

So.... just to be clear.... you think the zoning code is why there is (as you put it) 'practically zero' completed or under construction mixed use developments along the Euclid Corridor?  You think that developers are just waiting for a change in that code before making their investments?

OK... getting somewhere... McCleveland, what is your take on the UC incident?  Do you think it could have happened as it did, if the zoning for that area had already been changed as suggested in the article?  Do you believe the city's zoning code should be revised for TOD purposes?  Why or why not?  The article/report makes points about zoning and development that are very similar to those I've made here in the past.  What is your opinion of the Center for Neighborhood Technology's understanding of zoning?

 

Hts121, no, I don't think that.  I would say that zoning reform is necessary, but not sufficient, to foster more TOD.  Regardless of what we'd like to see happen, if our current regulations forbid it, we're a lot less likely to see it happen.  Step #1 to creating TOD:  Allow it.  That doesn't mean there aren't other steps, steps beyond the control of the public.  But Step #1 seems like a threshold issue in most cases.  Just because we don't currently have some developer proposing some awesome perfecto TOD plan doesn't mean we shouldn't change our code now to indicate that's what we want, and to proactively eliminate obstacles for any developer who might one day propose it.

I don't know much about the UC incident, but I do know that zoning for single-family is often done not with the specific intent of precluding multi-family development, but rather to leave the zoning board with discretion on variance approval for specific multi-family projects.  For instance, suppose that lot is already zoned for multi-family, a private developer purchases it, and then starts building Section 8 housing because he/she knows that is a steady, sure-fire stream of income.  Try and stop it under current market conditions and the City could end up facing litigation in federal court.  This is just one potential consideration which make up the multiple complexities these governing bodies have to consider.

In your opinion, is that reason enough not to reform the code at this time?  Multi-family is not a requirement of section 8, and plenty of single-family structures in Cleveland are occupied by section 8 renters.  I understand why the city might want such discretion, but IMO it doesn't trump our current and future need for TOD.

No developer is going to buy a lot on the Corridor to build a single family section 8 home.  Once again.... realities must be taken into account.  But another tower like the one on Chester and 55th might be quite profitable.

 

And I'm not saying that the code is perfect.  Far from it.  But the changes you desire are not going to magically change the market demand.  Not one bit.

 

On that we agree.  Ultimately the code should change to accomodate supply and demand, not vice versa.  But the code should also reflect a coherent plan for the future.  The article stated that m-f demand is going unmet in a market with an overabundance of s-f structures for which demand is comparatively low.  This is not my own bungled musing... it's stated in the article as a basis for the report's recommendations.  If you disagree with that premise, I can understand why you might disagree with the conclusion.  Neither I nor the Center is suggesting that zoning reform will result in magic of any kind. 

I don't disagree with the report's premise about oversupply of S-F homes.  Thing is, that very few single family homes are being built in the City (or even the inner ring) and the City has absolutely ZERO control over what is being built in Solon or Auburn Township or Medina County.  None.  Those homes are being built because developers are (or were) making money by building them on private land and on their private dime.  Simple as that.

 

What you need to consider is what the City CAN do.  It CAN lay the seeds for a dramatic and arguably unprecedented transformation of a stretch like Midtown.  It CAN entice tech centers and other not ideal (in your mind) developments which will lay those seeds.  It CAN focus its efforts on the areas of UC and Downtown that have some incredible momentum, hoping that this momentum builds towards the Midtown section.  It MUST be reasonable in those dealings and carefully strike a balance between ideal and practical so that the developers don't say "piss off" and walk away.  The more progress that is made, the more leverage the City will have in dealing with potential developers.  As of now, it has very little. 

 

The first seed was the BRT and the beautification of the streetscape.  The next seeds will be developing the land into something that does not look so empty and desolate, and expanding the reach of downtown and UC along the corridor.  Once that is done, THEN we will be in business to start discussing the high-density infill you are craving.

I can't put a number on it but a considerable amount of s-f housing has been built in Cleveland recently, with city backing.  Jackson considers this a major accomplishment.  These new homes are at least partially responsible for the growth seen in pockets of Central and Fairfax in the 2010 census.  And then there are all the larger ones in Hough, far more than can be seen from Chester alone.  Feather in the cap of the late Fannie Lewis. 

 

Then we have the aforementioned UC incident, in which a councilman held up an apartment project on the (espoused) basis that he'd prefer to see more s-f homes built there instead.  Regardless of... whatever McCleveland was referring to... the councilman was only able to do this because the zoning was s-f, forcing the developer to get a variance.  I don't see how all this evidence could lead one to believe that the city has not been actively pursuing the construction of additional s-f homes.  That's exactly what the city has been doing and it's no secret.  That's why I cringe when city leaders say "we're all about TOD" or some such.  Instead of addressing the market imbalance that pro-TOD policies could perhaps mitigate, the city has pretty much done the exact opposite and exacerbated the imbalance. 

 

You say I should focus on what the city CAN do.  What the city CAN do is change the zoning code.  What happens after that is speculation, of course.  No argument there.  But the immediate question is whether the pros of reforming the zoning code outweigh the cons.  To me they do.  Will doing so, in and of itself, cause Manhattan to sprout along Euclid Avenue?  No.  That's not what anyone (save you) is suggesting.  I might even call that a straw man.  All that I'm suggesting is that the city actually DO whatever it CAN do to facilitate, or at least avoid obstructing, the kind of multi-family transit-oriented redevlopment we're talking about.  I don't get how "reforming the zoning code won't solve all our problems" justifies not doing it, if even one problem can be solved by doing it.  Why not just go ahead and solve that problem?  Then we have one less, and that's a good thing, right? 

One thing I'm a little confused about: does high-density (usu-some involving some form of mult-unit residential development)  necessarily have to be spurred by a nearby transit station, or may it merely be built near such a station and be accessible to it?  I would opt for the latter, but it seems here in Cleveland, it's the former -- as if, even though all the development aspects are similar to TOD in other cities, notably D.C., whose Metro is arguably the leading modern TOD generator, if nobody mentions rail transit as being, at least in part, the development's genesis,... it's not TOD.

 

Example: Flats East Bank's development appears to have all the aspects of TOD, but nobody's calling it that.  So does that mean it's NOT TOD?  Just curious.

I'm as much of a violator of this as anyone. I lazily call a certain project a TOD. That's like calling Severance Hall a Georgian or a calling Cleveland City Hall a Beaux-Arts. Both structures incorporate Georgian or Beaux-Arts themes. The same is true with TOD.....

 

There is a big difference between Transit-Oriented Development, which is a design concept that typically describes more than one building and often more than just one development site. TOD is not the same as transit-supportive development, and certainly not a transit-proximate development!

 

Consider this definition by the Center for Transit Oriented Development (http://ctod.org):

 

We use a performance-based definition, and believe that projects should also:

 

+ Increase “location efficiency” so people can walk and bike and take transit

+ Boost transit ridership and minimize traffic

+ Provide a rich mix of housing, shopping and transportation choices

+ Generate revenue for the public and private sectors and provide value for both new and existing residents

+ Create a sense of place

 

Many developments surrounding D.C.'s Metro rail system are very much TOD because of why they were built, how they were built and where they were built. That's especially true of federal government building projects. The General Services Administration has a policy that is not limited to one station or one development project, but to all projects it builds which are focused around Metro rail stations by intent. GSA also intentionally reduces the number of parking spaces at its buildings to less than what it sought before adopting the TOD policy and incorporates mixed uses. The reason is to reduce auto use, support transit, increase regional affordability, and support access by persons of all financial and physical abilities. The GSA's policy has led to retailers being attracted to station areas, which in turn has attracted housing, which in turn has attracted private office users -- often in vertically mixed structures which is great for fostering 24-hour pedestrian activity.

 

So on that score, no I wouldn't call the Flats East Bank development as inspired by TOD design themes. Not at all. It is a transit-proximate development project that was not built at that location to increase use of the Waterfront Line. It has enough parking that the project would function fine with or without weekday rail service being restarted. Yes, it is mixed-use and it is densely designed, which are two factors that a TOD-designed project would incorporate. But it wasn't designed to reduce traffic by maximizing transit ridership. It's actually the opposite. Its presence could motivate RTA to restart weekday Waterfront Line service -- totally backward from TOD design themes!!

 

But if weekday Waterfront Line service restarts and the rest of the Flats East Bank plan moves forward because it will link into the rail system -- then that would at least be a transit-supportive development. If the availability of parking is reduced (especially NO SURFACE LOTS!!!) below the city-required number of parking spaces per housing unit, then yes, this adds a location-efficiency aspect so that people can enjoy at least as high of a quality of life without a car as with one. Then it becomes a project that has embraced TOD-design principles.

 

Think of it this way -- could the project stay as commercially successful if transit were suddenly not there? If so, then it was probably not designed with TOD principles. Think of it another way -- if a typical American development lost a large portion of its parking, would it be as successful? If not, then it is a Car Oriented Development. But like a fish probably doesn't notice its water, most Americans probably couldn't imagine a development without sufficient parking. That's why it's so hard for many of us to picture what TOD is.

This was on the Cleveland Planning Commission's agenda for design-review today, and will be on the full commission's agenda for tomorrow:

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2011/09162011/index.php

 

SPECIAL PRESENTATION

 

Lorain Avenue Transit Oriented Development Planning Study for Kamm’s Corners (NOACA TLCI Grant). This plan, funded by NOACA through the Transportation for Liveable Communities program, is designed to address opportunities for redevelopment around the RTA West Park Rapid Station and other potential sites along Lorain Avenue in the Kamm’s Corners area. Certain roadway and alternative transportation enhancements are detailed as well.

 

The 37-MB presentation is here:

http://www.kammscorners.com/WestPark_LorainAveTransRedevPlan_July2011.pdf

 

EDIT: here's a select few graphics from the report which has many, many graphics:

 

 

 

Finally! We need more of these style developments!!

I love the office and retail aspects... even the greenspace... but I'm not so thrilled with the low density of the housing component.  And why must so many new apartments these days be set aside for senior citizens?  Cleveland needs modern rentals for young people too, even in West Park.  Young people are what we're actually trying to attract, right?  I don't see us doing much of that with "clusterhomes."  Look at all that lawn buffer in those pictures, not to mention the surface parking.  There's already some nice dedicated greenspace included, so why does the structure-to-lot ratio have to be so low?

 

Look at the "sample developments" on page 37 of the plan.  100% suburban.  On page 33 they discuss using Mayfield Heights as a model, and on page 28 they suggest that empty nesters and young professionals are all looking for the same type of housing... single family homes.  This plan is only TOD in the sense that there's a train station nearby.  And it's not even clear how people on foot are supposed to get to that train station.  If you live in the clusterhomes, you apparently have to cut through your neighbors' back yards.  And if everything in the development has its own parking lot, how does that foster additional transit usage?     

And why must so many new apartments these days be set aside for senior citizens? 

   

 

Because the CDC for that area is discovering there is an acute shortage of senior housing in the area. Many seniors have told the CDC they want to stay in West Park but no longer have the physical wherewithal to maintain their homes.

and because there is typically subsidies available for senior or low income developments and there really just isn't such a thing for market rate rentals, particuarly with HTF funds next to nothing... and in a low cost of living area the rents just simply don't justify the costs of construction. So either people around here develop and appetite for paying 2-3 times more for housing or it is going to be a slow road to see more of the development we would all like to see.

Oh, and by the way, I don't know if anyone noticed in that report, but the population in West Park went UP 5% between 2000 and 2010. It has long been one of Cleveland's most stable neighborhoods, but now it is also one of its fastest growing. And the market is there to keep seniors in West Park -- the housing isn't.

The sprawly layout remains questionable.  As for the senior aspect... there are plenty of ways we can serve their needs without having our major TOD projects revolve around them.  If we're building housing next to a rapid station, we should probably target it toward demographics that are more likely to frequent the central city, whether for work or for play.     

I like it for the most part but it could be more dense.  Instead of having parking lots , there could be one garage....    Hopefully this is the start of TOD around all RTA stations , looking at Google Maps and Chrome shows me there is alot of room to work with.

Languishing Shaker Heights condos may see new life

By STAN BULLARD

4:30 am, September 12, 2011

 

Avalon Station, a long-stalled condominium project next to the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority rapid line in Shaker Heights, may start rolling again after its lender gained ownership of the project from its builder, Heartland Development Co. of Cleveland.

Residences at Avalon Station LLC, a corporation formed by Southern Financial Group LLC of Waco, Texas, received the deed to the property Aug. 31 from Heartpoint Devco LLC, the entity that Heartland used to develop the multimillion-dollar project at 1678 Van Aken Blvd. The project sold a dozen units but was left with 39 unsold condos when the market tanked in 2008.

 

(The link doesn't work so google the title Languishing Shaker Heights condos may see new life

and the first result should take you to the rest of the article.)

 

I like this plan. It actually seems reasonably plausible, which is a big plus.  And the density isn't that low.  It's always bugged me how much land near RTA stations was taken up by RTA facilities rather than trip generating uses, so building on that bus training course there will make me happy.

 

I like it for the most part but it could be more dense.  Instead of having parking lots , there could be one garage....    Hopefully this is the start of TOD around all RTA stations , looking at Google Maps and Chrome shows me there is alot of room to work with.

 

Unfortunately (or fortunately, if you're a rider), the parking is all free at the stations and land sales wouldn't bring in all that much money given our cheap real estate, so there really isn't any money to finance a garage.

At least there's some momentum for some kind of TOD in West Park, which has a ton of obstacles (despite having a Red Line stop and a walking district in Kamm's Corner ... albeit a mile separating the two)... It would have been better had RTA not built (and then rebuilt, in 1997) the friggin' West Park station so far away from the street; RTA just compounded the error.  And in between (RTA and Kamm's), you've got to overcome all the strip-suburbanish crap like the big-box K-Mart and the umpteen Ganley car lots which pock mark the corridor... Still, this is better than nothing, and it least it shows an interest in creating a walkable district near the Rapid station... Recognition of the problem/solution is always a necessary 1st start.

Languishing Shaker Heights condos may see new life

By STAN BULLARD

4:30 am, September 12, 2011

 

 

Good to hear!

 

I like it for the most part but it could be more dense.  Instead of having parking lots , there could be one garage....    Hopefully this is the start of TOD around all RTA stations , looking at Google Maps and Chrome shows me there is alot of room to work with.

 

I wouldn't call this a start of TOD around stations. I would call it following the lead of others. Avalon Station, Uptown, Circle 118, 27 Coltman, Market District, Warrensville/Van Aken District, heck even the Flats East Bank are either TOD or at least transit-supportive development. There is a lot more planned.

 

But all of it is bringing ridership to the doorstep to the rail system rather than undertaking more costly route extensions to ridership generators farther out. We all want to see the urban core strengthened, as well as the rail system's core be stronger. Otherwise, who would want to see the rail system extended out to their neighborhoods when the existing model needs more spin-off development to prove its value? So once the urban/rail cores are strengthened with TOD/TSD, then Cleveland has a stronger foundation for extensions.

Sounds similar to NJT in the LRT dept , Extensions only happen once the Ridership levels reach there goals.    But where now seeing TOD going up in a fast pace along lines that are not built yet , but we be.    Most of this is happening in the Suburbs , which is interesting to see.    Ridership Goals are usually met and them some like with the HBLR and Riverline....    Hopefully Cleveland and its Suburbs start to see a TOD boom over the next 2 decades and then alot of extensions get built.     

Redirected from the general Cleveland development thread.... Here's my idea for reducing the demand for parking downtown: Start by putting more housing units (what's the goal? 500? 1,000? 2,000?) with neighborhood retail within 1,500 feet of all RTA rapid stations, and add a downtown rail loop. This would have to be a joint effort by the city and RTA to offer incentives to developers to do this, including offering free land, low interest loans, tax abatement and provision of utilities to make it worth their while.

^ Would LOVE a downtown rail loop!

unfortunately with our commuter rail style light rail system, going through a fairly abandoned industrial rail trench.... most of the stops aren't exactly in particuarly desirable areas. It is hard to image much more than placing low with some mod income units around existing stations. And most of those poorer residnets that would live there aren't the ones driving downtown anyway. the wealthier suburban/ exurban residents are the ones using the dt parking, and they probably aren't too interested in living at e. 116/ e. 93/ e.79/ e.55, etc. Outside of some opportunities around the blue line which is being discussed, and w. 25 which is being discussed... I don't know how much tod you could do that would truly put a dent in that parking demand.

KJP, thanks for finding the right thread!

 

 

I agree the Mixed use developments alone the line would be good -- but the simplest (so to speak) way would be to create a looped downtown line.  Completing the Waterfront Line by bringing it through downtown near the Ave. District, CSU, Theater District, and Gateway would make the RTA line much more useful.  To add one other "dream" line I believe  a streetcar/BRT that went from W25 to E40 on Superior would allow the Light Rail lines to service/criss-cross much of the CBD and connect Ohio City.

 

Developing the areas around the stations would be a good longer term goal, but for now parking lots near them allow them to be alternatives to driving into downtown, and with a Loop that services more businesses we could convert more drivers into riders. 

Yep, agreed, McCleveland. There's a large segment of the commuter population you're just not going to get on the Rapid, or to move to TODs built around the Rapid. But it doesn't take much to make a noticeable difference.....

 

Consider this, based on something I put together a few years ago for a regional commuter rail presentation:

 

One three-car commuter train carries 450 people (that's three two-car Red Line trains with no standees);

One three-car commuter train takes up to 375 automobiles off the road;

375 autos x 300 sq ft per car of parking = 112,500 sq ft;

One regional train reduces the need for 2.5 acres of parking lot...

 

 

 

 

unfortunately with our commuter rail style light rail system, going through a fairly abandoned industrial rail trench.... most of the stops aren't exactly in particuarly desirable areas. It is hard to image much more than placing low with some mod income units around existing stations. And most of those poorer residnets that would live there aren't the ones driving downtown anyway. the wealthier suburban/ exurban residents are the ones using the dt parking, and they probably aren't too interested in living at e. 116/ e. 93/ e.79/ e.55, etc. Outside of some opportunities around the blue line which is being discussed, and w. 25 which is being discussed... I don't know how much tod you could do that would truly put a dent in that parking demand.

 

I agree if the only goal is decreasing parking demand downtown, but I think several of the west side rapid stations are viable TOD opportunities that could be marketed to west side commuters.

 

I think re-imagining the EcoVillage concept at W. 65, improving connections to existing apartment buildings (and building more amenities) at West Boulevard, and even adding housing near W. 117 aren't completely out-of-this-world ideas.  Those are probably listed in decreasing order of "selling potential" (at least, as those neighborhoods stand now,) but I think they could all be marketable to middle- and even upper-income buyers.  It would take an effort by the city and RTA, and of course the developer, but they're the biggest pipe dreams we've seen on this board!

Since I've been on this forum I don't recall seeing any plans for a downtown light-rail or streetcar loop. Has anything of that nature been seriously discussed recently?

Since I've been on this forum I don't recall seeing any plans for a downtown light-rail or streetcar loop. Has anything of that nature been seriously discussed recently?

 

Define "recently" ;)

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17056.0.html

I agree that much of the west side Red Line would be well suited for TOD. I think it should be a priority for RTA to develop strategies for TOD at the following stops:

 

25th

65th (Eco Village)

West Blvd

117th

West Park

*A new 85th Street stop with TOD built on the land between Madison Ave and the rail right-of-way.

 

The other west side stops are probably better suited for park n' ride given their locations and surroundings.

 

On the east side Red Line I really only see immediate TOD potential around University Circle/Little Italy. The Van Aiken light rail seems well suited for TOD just about anywhere east of Shaker Square.

 

As far as new lines go, I definitely like the idea of extending the Shaker light rail to create a downtown loop and also a west extension from downtown out through Lakewood. I could see the downtown loop being a centerpiece line for a vibrant new neighborhood north of CSU (think Portland's Pearl District). The Lakewood line would serve what is already the densest urban corridor in the region as well as link it to the progressing Detroit-Shoreway and Ohio City areas.

 

I don't think anything I mentioned is all that crazy, and in fact it appears that the infrastructure for much of it is already in place.

 

 

 

*A new 85th Street stop with TOD built on the land between Madison Ave and the rail right-of-way.

 

 

Oooh, that's a really intriguing idea!  I've always liked the density of residential that exists along Franklin over there, and a couple apartment or condo buildings would fit in well.

 

 

As far as new lines go, I definitely like the idea of extending the Shaker light rail to create a downtown loop and also a west extension from downtown out through Lakewood. I could see the downtown loop being a centerpiece line for a vibrant new neighborhood north of CSU (think Portland's Pearl District). The Lakewood line would serve what is already the densest urban corridor in the region as well as link it to the progressing Detroit-Shoreway and Ohio City areas.

 

My own personal pipe dream has always been a subway line running under Detroit Avenue to West Boulevard, serving the growing communities along that corridor, that would continue above ground west of West Boulevard and act as a commuter line going out through Lakewood along the freight ROW parallel to and north of Detroit.

If/when East Cleveland becomes a viable development option again I could see that parking lot in front of the the Windemere station on the redline become a TOD. Put it shops, residences, maybe even a department store or Two-story target set-up. I'm assuming GCRTA already owns the land.

Keep this thread to development around stations. Where future routes should go, that's best left to:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2768.0.html

 

*A new 85th Street stop with TOD built on the land between Madison Ave and the rail right-of-way.

 

 

Oooh, that's a really intriguing idea!  I've always liked the density of residential that exists along Franklin over there, and a couple apartment or condo buildings would fit in well.

 

 

As far as new lines go, I definitely like the idea of extending the Shaker light rail to create a downtown loop and also a west extension from downtown out through Lakewood. I could see the downtown loop being a centerpiece line for a vibrant new neighborhood north of CSU (think Portland's Pearl District). The Lakewood line would serve what is already the densest urban corridor in the region as well as link it to the progressing Detroit-Shoreway and Ohio City areas.

 

My own personal pipe dream has always been a subway line running under Detroit Avenue to West Boulevard, serving the growing communities along that corridor, that would continue above ground west of West Boulevard and act as a commuter line going out through Lakewood along the freight ROW parallel to and north of Detroit.

 

Love the pipedream.  And sticking with the topic of the thread, the West Blvd intersection is a great place for TOD--already has a fairly high density and room for expansion!

Yes, there are tons of underused industrial areas or brownfields located within a 1/2 mile radius of the West Blvd stop that could be redeveloped as residential some day.

Interesting marketing angle -- toward women only......

 

http://www.clevelandwomen.com/pro/avalon.htm

 

Plus a generalized marketing piece:

 

Anyone interested in buying this land? It already has a recently renovated retail strip topped by apartments along Madison, but lots of junk buildings and poorly maintained surface lots behind it....

 

http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/17370679/11612-34-Madison-Ave-Cleveland-OH/

 

Nice! I wonder if we will see the lot across from Lot 45 get developed, or the one directly across from MOCA, south of Mayfield.

Redirected from the RTA rail capital improvements thread.... Isn't the lot across Mayfield from MOCA going to be the site of the Courtyard by Marriott hotel? I realize it's supposed to front on Cornell. But I wonder how much of a presence it will have on Mayfield?

 

As for the vacant lot across the street from the planned Lot 45 TOD, some of UCI's development visioning has a building proposed for that site, but I can't remember what/if any preferred use they have for it. I just checked the city/county databases, and there are two parcels fronting on the south side of Mayfield between Circle Drive and the railroad tracks -- both are owned by University Hospitals. I just hope they don't build more parking decks there. Perhaps they might put medical residents' apartments or temporary housing for workers hired from outside NE Ohio?  But the busy railroad tracks (160 daily trains between CSX, NS and RTA) might not endear UH to their new employer. Of course, medical offices (like back-office functions) might be a good option to give the area some activity during the day.

^Well, at least the RTA trains are the quieter ones.

^Well, at least the RTA trains are the quieter ones.

 

True, and they account for half of the rail traffic. CSX has about 60 trains a day and NS has another 20 or so.

Redirected from the RTA rail capital improvements thread.... Isn't the lot across Mayfield from MOCA going to be the site of the Courtyard by Marriott hotel? I realize it's supposed to front on Cornell. But I wonder how much of a presence it will have on Mayfield?

 

I don't think it will line Mayfield Rd at all.  They were digging today along Mayfield, but I'm 100% sure it was only for adding infrastructure.  Every picture I've seen shows it butting up against Cornell.

 

Note the blue on this older map of the area on PAGE 18:  http://www.noaca.org/uptowntlci.pdf

 

As for the vacant lot across the street from the planned Lot 45 TOD, some of UCI's development visioning has a building proposed for that site, but I can't remember what/if any preferred use they have for it. I just checked the city/county databases, and there are two parcels fronting on the south side of Mayfield between Circle Drive and the railroad tracks -- both are owned by University Hospitals. I just hope they don't build more parking decks there. Perhaps they might put medical residents' apartments or temporary housing for workers hired from outside NE Ohio?  But the busy railroad tracks (160 daily trains between CSX, NS and RTA) might not endear UH to their new employer. Of course, medical offices (like back-office functions) might be a good option to give the area some activity during the day.

 

This is the only printed news on those parcels is for Lot 45 itself...one thing that bums me a little is most likely losing the all-brick road no E.117:

 

University Circle Inc. is considering proposals from three local developers - Coral Co., Snavely Group and NRP Group - to build on Lot 45, a property on Mayfield Road, west of the railroad tracks that border Little Italy. The land, now a parking lot, could be the site of a $30 million to $100 million development involving apartments, retail, a parking garage and, possibly, offices.

 

The lots across the way, it seems NO ONE ever parks there.  I always dream to what could be built on them every time I walk done Mayfield Rd (which is daily...lol)

 

KJP, my head is starting to hurt with keeping track of threads.  I understand what is being discussed is TOD; however, we already having specific threads that incorporates this land:

 

UPTOWN: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,11359.0.html

 

UC: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2977.0.html

 

even LI: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,6542.0.html

 

or even UH: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,12563.0.html