^ Let's hope apartments get a big boost, even though KJP makes the point about the busy rail lines and noise... Then again, Coltman 27 is directly across the narrow parking lot from this ROW, and those are luxury condos.

luxurious townhomes. :)

 

 

big distinction to lenders.

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:

 

Maybe the city could re-use those bricks? Some brick streets that get rebuilt have their bricks removed, the street's base is excavated, a layer of concrete is poured, and the bricks are put back on top of the concrete. But if transit buses are to use an extended Circle Drive, I doubt bricks could be used. Perhaps they could be re-used instead as decorative elements such as crosswalks, planters, streetscaping, etc?

 

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)

 

I'll bet someone at University Hospitals has dreams about that site, too. I wonder what those might be?

 

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

 

That's the "curse" of a district with so much going on! :)

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

 

MuRrAy, if you're referring to the section titled "Cornell/Euclid Hotel", it DOES seem to show that the area in question at least minimally fronts onto Mayfield; it may be nothing more than a driveway, but it's there. I'm also curious about a couple of things:

 

what the distinction is between the blue-green area and the striped-out red area in that image?

 

the image seems to show that the Charter One/Starbucks building is in the area for the hotel -- I hope they're planning on replacing/re-siting those properties

Apparently, my Google-fu is weak this morning. Now that I've seen this:

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/11/marriott_courtyard_hotel_desig.html

 

all is much clearer.

While the entire hotel is a bit of a disappointment (thank god it is only an infill building) the Mayfield side really sucks, especially since it is right across the street from MOCA.  A weak little side entrance with the garbage bin right next to it.

 

One of the only times I can say I am glad the building does not go right up to the street.

Brief article pointing out that anti-urban zoning near transit stops often prevents the density that's necessary to really make TOD work.  His example is DC, where TOD housing comes at a huge premium because the demand is strong but the supply is artificially restricted.  That isn't so much a problem in Cleveland, where we're more concerned with generating street life than affordable housing, but the principle remains.  Anti-urban planning and zoning can reduce the returns on our investments.     

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/01/05/the_metro_premium.html

 

"But to maximize the value you get for your expense, you really need to unlock the potential for densty created by the high demand for these locations. If you build the lines but don't allow the density, you've really just created a private benefit for people who happen to live near the stations."

 

 

Good read.  I'd say a prime example of missed opportunity here is W117.  It is a "mecca" of fast food, but all of it is a good deal separted from the Rapid. Not sure how to do it from a planning perspective;  the area is currently so scaled to car traffic. But it could be much more walkable. In theory it would be nice to have all of that retail in one large complex attached to the RTA station.

 

But anyhow, when close proximity to RTA is recognized as a valuable thing, can't the RTA simply generate revenues by leasing out retail space on its premises? I mean, how much of a killing would a Starbucks Phoenix Coffee kiosk make inside there?

 

Even today you should be able to buy an RTA pass from every business in the area, right along with your Whopper and fries transaction. It just seems like common sense to me.

 

what the distinction is between the blue-green area and the striped-out red area in that image?

 

the image seems to show that the Charter One/Starbucks building is in the area for the hotel -- I hope they're planning on replacing/re-siting those properties

 

If I remember correctly..

 

-the red area is owned by UH and was slated for an expansion of the adjacent parking garage.

 

-originally, UCI thought that the hotel would want an entrance onto Euclid and therefore the charter one/starbucks was to be taken out. None of the RFP finalists wanted to extend the hotel onto Euclid and therefore this concept was taken out of the plan.

Good read.  I'd say a prime example of missed opportunity here is W117.  It is a "mecca" of fast food, but all of it is a good deal separted from the Rapid. Not sure how to do it from a planning perspective;  the area is currently so scaled to car traffic. But it could be much more walkable. In theory it would be nice to have all of that retail in one large complex attached to the RTA station.

 

But anyhow, when close proximity to RTA is recognized as a valuable thing, can't the RTA simply generate revenues by leasing out retail space on its premises? I mean, how much of a killing would a Starbucks Phoenix Coffee kiosk make inside there?

 

Even today you should be able to buy an RTA pass from every business in the area, right along with your Whopper and fries transaction. It just seems like common sense to me.

 

Yeah, this intersection has so much potential it just hurts.

 

When they cleared out that neighborhood a few blocks south a few years ago to build the Target/Giant Eagle, they capitalized on the I-90 intersection, which in turn today has created a new commercial hub for the west side. The walk from this rapid stop to the big boxes (Staples, Home Depot, Target, Giant Eagle) isn't very pleasant, but it's doable for those who really want to.

 

First of all, this part of the county is quite far from "mall" type shopping. I'll say it ... but this would have been the ideal place to build the Crocker Park development or a Crocker Park type development. It could have spanned from the I-90 exit up to Berea Rd and the rapid stop. This would have been a best of both worlds for urbanists and car loving suburbanites. Those who just want to shop at a mall right off the interstate, can just park (for free), shop, and leave. Those who enjoy an urban setting can arrive by multiple forms of transit, walk around, shop, dine, live there in an urban but new build setting, etc.

 

I would love to see a plan that sort of connects the big box that's there already and transforms it into a more walkable, pleasant, dare I say Crocker Parkesque setting all the way up to Berea Road. Let's face it, this interstate exit is arguably the most suburban feeling in the entire city of Cleveland. Might as well take a fake suburban urban Westlake potemkin village and plop it here. Put in a huge park and ride garage right off 90 connected to the rapid stop for those who refuse to let go of the wheel and encourage them to train into downtown and do some shopping on the way home. And then of course, from Berea north on 117th, I'd love to see historic rehabs and industrial conversions take place as the gradient between industry/sprawl and dense residential is demarcated by the rapid line.

 

 

First of all, this part of the county is quite far from "mall" type shopping. I'll say it ... but this would have been the ideal place to build the Crocker Park development or a Crocker Park type development. It could have spanned from the I-90 exit up to Berea Rd and the rapid stop. This would have been a best of both worlds for urbanists and car loving suburbanites. Those who just want to shop at a mall right off the interstate, can just park (for free), shop, and leave. Those who enjoy an urban setting can arrive by multiple forms of transit, walk around, shop, dine, live there in an urban but new build setting, etc.

 

 

Awesome development concept! And it would have been interesting to see what the occupancy rates would have been over an extended period of time at the transit/north end vs. the highway/south end.

 

The city developed a land use guideplan for the area north of the I-90 Big Boxes along West 117th to Lake Avenue. But it's just a plan and has no money behind it.

Cross-posted in the Cleveland Random Developments thread. This is across the street from the West Boulevard RTA station..........

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/bbs/agenda/2012/AGENDA01182012.pdf

 

BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS AND BUILDING APPEALS

ROOM 514 – CITY HALL

216-664-2418

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2012

 

Docket A-188-11 10107 Detroit Avenue WARD: 17 (Dona Brady)

 

Boulevard Terrace Apartments, Ltd., Owner of the R-2 Residential – Non-transient; Apartments (Shared Egress Two Story Masonry Property appeals from a NOTICE OF VIOLA-TION—INTERIOR/EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE, dated May 11, 2011; appellant states that they are in the process of assembling and closing the financing for a total rehab of the property; that on March 30, 2011, PNC Bank issued a signed letter of intent to invest a total of approximately $9.8 million as the low income and federal historic tax credit investor in this project and in a “sister” project (Boulevard Terrace Apartments) in a multi-million dollar redevelopment of the two projects. All items listed in the Notice of Violation will be addressed as part of the total rehab.

Nice.  Lot's of nice old buildings there waiting to be rehabbed.

Cross-posted in the Cleveland Random Developments thread. This is across the street from the West Boulevard RTA station..........

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/bbs/agenda/2012/AGENDA01182012.pdf

 

BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS AND BUILDING APPEALS

ROOM 514 CITY HALL

216-664-2418

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2012

 

Docket A-188-11 10107 Detroit Avenue WARD: 17 (Dona Brady)

 

Boulevard Terrace Apartments, Ltd., Owner of the R-2 Residential Non-transient; Apartments (Shared Egress Two Story Masonry Property appeals from a NOTICE OF VIOLA-TIONINTERIOR/EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE, dated May 11, 2011; appellant states that they are in the process of assembling and closing the financing for a total rehab of the property; that on March 30, 2011, PNC Bank issued a signed letter of intent to invest a total of approximately $9.8 million as the low income and federal historic tax credit investor in this project and in a sister project (Boulevard Terrace Apartments) in a multi-million dollar redevelopment of the two projects. All items listed in the Notice of Violation will be addressed as part of the total rehab.

 

Good news. I'm pretty sure this is the Marous project my buddy is working on. He described the place as being near Berea and Detroit.

Good to hear Marous is going to be the one working on it. I see this includes the building that's one building away from the corner of West 101st and Detroit. But I wish it also included the red brick and sandstone building at right at the corner -- 10101 Detroit, called the Shamrock West Apartments. It's such a beautiful building but in a declining condition. The owner is Stephen Cabot of Lakewood who bought this building in 1987 for $25,000 and hasn't found a user for it since.

 

EDIT: this is the Shamrock West building that I'd love to see rehabbed. The building at the right (and long, Philly-style apartment buildings behind them) are what's going to be rehabbed....

 

The Red Line goes through some not-so-aesthetically pleasing parts of the city and doesn't run along the main thoroughfares of the city.  While I'd prefer it to be rerouted near or under Lorain and Euclid Aves (probably prohibitively expensive), the discussion on Shaker/Opportunity Corridor TOD got me wondering - could we invert the idea of placing transit along existing roads and instead build a new road along existing transit to boost ridership?

 

My thought is to extend Berea Road along the west side Red Line so that it actually connects Hopkins Airport/Berea to the West Shoreway.  This road would open up places along the Red Line to more traffic and possibly more riders, especially if the new road and transit together can spur mixed-use development on formerly industrial land.

 

- Red is the Red Line

- Yellow is Berea Road as it exists now

- Light blue is a possible 1st-phase extension of Berea Road through current industrial areas

 

From Google Maps, it looks like that some of these places that look like industrial wastelands are still places of employment.  Somehow developing this land for mixed use would have to account for where these jobs would go.

 

- Pinkish-purple is the 2nd-phase, much more speculative extension

- Green are neighborhoods that the new road would affect (through demolition, road widening, increased traffic) and would probably oppose this project

 

The area around Mohican Park/Triskett Station has two possible routings because one route would cut through the park and the other would require building a bridge over the tracks to avoid the park.  The former would be cheaper but would probably face more opposition.

 

The routing south of Puritas is very much speculative.  Part of it is currently an industrial parkway, and if the road is not connected to the Berea Freeway or the Brookpark Rapid Station, the whole segment of the road south of W 150th Station probably won't get much traffic.  A connection to the freeway and the station is needed to bring in more traffic from Berea and the airport that add to the use of the street.

 

New road to spur development - cheaper than re-routing the Red Line along existing traffic patterns?

Sorry DontGiveUpTheFight, I don't believe you need to build roads around rapid transit in order to enhance TOD -- that's only a Cleveland thing, in all other cities, the rapid transit, alone, is enough to stimulate TOD growth.  In fact, in Cleveland given the current mentality of planners, they would just as soon run BRT in competition with the rapid with the idea of replacing rail with the buses to 'save money.'  I'm sure planners are thinking this for the Opportunity Corridor, which I'm opposed to ... I'd prefer we work on developing TOD rather than enhancing our already overly built road system.

I'm with clvlndr. New roads aren't needed (except for the Opportunity Corridor, apparently!) to spur development along the RTA rail lines. There is enough vacant land along the Red Line from older abandoned industries that moved to the suburbs, Sun Belt or overseas. If cleaned up and developed, these lands would provide a stronger traffic base for the Red Line. Considering that Cleveland isn't a high-growth metro area, redevelopment occurs slowly. But it is starting to occur around some stations including Ohio City, Tower City, Flats East Bank, University Circle-Cedar and University Circle-Mayfield. Those advances will someday create pressure to develop around the other stations.

I'll third the motion.  Since we cannot afford to maintain our current lane-miles of roadway, so we certainly can't afford to build more.  Maybe if we built more TOD around these stations (if the neighborhood is in bad shape, the land ought to be cheap, right?  Developers?  Beuhler?) then in 20 years or so these neighborhoods won't be as blighted as they are now.

The Red Line goes through some not-so-aesthetically pleasing parts of the city

 

You're being way too polite.

 

I love Cleveland so much. But along the Red Line the aesthetic message our city sends is

 

"Welcome to the ugliest place in America."

The Red Line goes through some not-so-aesthetically pleasing parts of the city

You're being way too polite.

 

I love Cleveland so much. But along the Red Line the aesthetic message our city sends is

 

"Welcome to the ugliest place in America."

 

I found this really funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Rapid transit lines in other cities that parallel RR lines suffer the same problem... Have you ridden Chicago's Orange Line?  It takes Chicago visitors from Midway Airport through that city's industrial underbelly which mirrors the similar aiport-to-downtown run on our Red Line.  New York, Boston, St. Louis (and others with paralleling rapid rail lines) have the same issue.

Between decline and the use of industrial ROWs, I don't think there's much question that Cleveland's rail lines have the most unfortunate routing of any US rail system.

 

You're being way too polite.

 

I love Cleveland so much. But along the Red Line the aesthetic message our city sends is

 

"Welcome to the ugliest place in America."

 

Have you ever taken the train from the Newark Airport into Manhatten?

^ yes. I'm actually from NJ. Newark has been a bad joke for years. Whether talking here or there, in either case I just hope that most people haven't simply fallen into an "acceptance" stage. I'm entering cranky-old-man status and it's depressing to start realizing that you might not see changes occur in your lifetime.

 

Further discussion on the proposed Lot 45 Transit Oriented Development next to the funded/planned University Circle-Mayfield Red Line station has been moved to:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,26994.0.html

 

Which means we now have an actual development project here! Woo hoo!!

 

Ah well. But yes, you're right - our metro area (and nation as a whole) does have too many roads to maintain.  I'm just hoping that there'd be some reason to get more people around these Red Line stations.  I hope what KJP said about rail by itself being able to generate TOD in other cities will hold true for Cleveland.  I had thought that the lackluster TOD along west side Red Line stations were due to geographic constraints, and I'd like for these to be overcome.  That being said, a place like Tremont doesn't have major avenues running through it, so creating a sense of place along these stations should be possible.  I'm just impatient when it comes to city revitalization.  :roll:

 

I haven't looked at other case studies of industrial rail ROWs being taken for transit and the resulting TOD.  My limited experience has been based on transit that connects already existing places.  In a city like Cleveland where neighborhoods have been emptying out, I do think that creating "some place" out of "no place" is definitely something worth doing, but I think it's much more difficult than connecting places that already exist.  Instead of harnessing existing energy, it's trying to create that energy elsewhere.

 

The Red Line goes through some not-so-aesthetically pleasing parts of the city

You're being way too polite.

 

I love Cleveland so much. But along the Red Line the aesthetic message our city sends is

 

"Welcome to the ugliest place in America."

 

I found this really funny. Thanks for the laugh.

 

I enjoyed the laugh too.  :laugh:

Now it's called the Intesa development.....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,26994.msg606761.html#msg606761

Great photos and discussion of the Boulevard Terrace Apartments and the Shamrock Apartments getting renovated at the West Boulevard station.......

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,27421.0.html

 

You're being way too polite.

 

I love Cleveland so much. But along the Red Line the aesthetic message our city sends is

 

"Welcome to the ugliest place in America."

 

Have you ever taken the train from the Newark Airport into Manhatten?

 

Manhatten? 

^ yes. I'm actually from NJ. Newark has been a bad joke for years. Whether talking here or there, in either case I just hope that most people haven't simply fallen into an "acceptance" stage. I'm entering cranky-old-man status and it's depressing to start realizing that you might not see changes occur in your lifetime.

Too me the ride over the swamps, into Newark and Harrison are just as ugly at riding the red line.

 

 

 

You're being way too polite.

 

I love Cleveland so much. But along the Red Line the aesthetic message our city sends is

 

"Welcome to the ugliest place in America."

 

Have you ever taken the train from the Newark Airport into Manhatten?

 

Manhatten? 

^ yes. I'm actually from NJ. Newark has been a bad joke for years. Whether talking here or there, in either case I just hope that most people haven't simply fallen into an "acceptance" stage. I'm entering cranky-old-man status and it's depressing to start realizing that you might not see changes occur in your lifetime.

Too me the ride over the swamps, into Newark and Harrison are just as ugly at riding the red line.

 

 

Wetlands MTS. Horribly polluted wetlands.

That red line trench has the potential to be very cool looking.  A little TOD residential would go a long way... but please, not in the form of "cluster homes" or seniors-only crapola.  TOD planning exemplifies RTA's knack for missing the point on an epic scale.

That red line trench has the potential to be very cool looking.  A little TOD residential would go a long way... but please, not in the form of "cluster homes" or seniors-only crapola.  TOD planning exemplifies RTA's knack for missing the point on an epic scale.

So what exactly do you see fit for making the red line cool looking?

Legitimate TOD, with all the density that concept typically entails.

Legitimate TOD, with all the density that concept typically entails.

So say the Tech Park in Midtown, Uptown, and the New PNC Business on E.83rd and Chester had been built along the red line route would that be something you would enjoy seeing or just businesses, or green space, or some other mixture?

Uptown is the sort of thing I'm talking about, though it's an especially high-end example.  "Tech parks" are practically the opposite of TOD.  I'm not familiar with the PNC project... but if it's a secured single-use office structure, then I would not call it a sterling example of the form. That would not be likely to increase transit utilization or to gain significant value from its transit proximity. 

 

If your workplace is next to transit, but your home and regular shopping destinations aren't, you're probably still gonna drive to work.  That's why residential and retail are critical factors in TOD, and why private secured workplaces don't really fit within the paradigm.  Again, look to virtually any TOD-related publication for examples.  These examples are very unlikely to include tech parks and office campuses, because their usage is limited to employees during business hours.  That doesn't provide enough dedicated transit use to really count as TOD. 

 

If your home is near transit, you could potentially use transit for anything night or day.  A store that's near transit has access to customers throughout the transit system.  Meanwhile, a non-public workplace involves only one aspect of the lives of a strictly limited number of people, only on certain days and only at certain hours.  That's the difference.

Uptown is the sort of thing I'm talking about, though it's an especially high-end example.  "Tech parks" are practically the opposite of TOD.  I'm not familiar with the PNC project... but if it's a secured single-use office structure, then I would not call it a sterling example of the form.

It's on E.83rd and Carnegie my mistake but it's an under the radar development that is almost completed... It was built on the old swift dry cleaner space.

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/forgood/pncfairfaxconnection032212.aspx

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3594.3750.html

 

 

Uptown is the sort of thing I'm talking about, though it's an especially high-end example.  "Tech parks" are practically the opposite of TOD.  I'm not familiar with the PNC project... but if it's a secured single-use office structure, then I would not call it a sterling example of the form. That would not be likely to increase transit utilization or to gain significant value from its transit proximity. 

 

If your workplace is next to transit, but your home and regular shopping destinations aren't, you're probably still gonna drive to work.  That's why residential and retail are critical factors in TOD, and why private secured workplaces don't really fit within the paradigm.  Again, look to virtually any TOD-related publication for examples.  These examples are very unlikely to include tech parks and office campuses, because their usage is limited to employees during business hours.  That doesn't provide enough dedicated transit use to really count as TOD. 

 

If your home is near transit, you could potentially use transit for anything night or day.  A store that's near transit has access to customers throughout the transit system.  Meanwhile, a non-public workplace involves only one aspect of the lives of a strictly limited number of people, only on certain days and only at certain hours.  That's the difference.

So basically you want housing with retail at the bottom like Uptown or the Phase II residential in the flats East Bank I get what your saying now.

Exactly.  Residential and retail offer far more potential for transit utilization than do office and industrial.  Of course, the more residents you have near transit, the more utilization you're likely to get for the office and the industrial.  But that only emphasizes the main point.

Exactly.  Residential and retail offer far more potential for transit utilization than do office and industrial.  Of course, the more residents you have near transit, the more utilization you're likely to get for the office and the industrial.  But that only emphasizes the main point.

Now it does seem like that is happening slowly though with Coltman 27, and Circle 118 being built along the Euclid 120th Rapid station route. (You can directly see Coltman 27 at the stop) Also if the Itsea development goes through with offices and residential goes through along with the new Mayfield road rapid transit station that could be a MAJOR boost to ridership. The parking deck though tells a different story but not everyone will be a transit user. The developments I mentioned though gives me some hope of future TOD.

Intesa would be awesome (1st things 1st, though, lets see it get done in U. Circle, which would be awesome)... However, I'm not sure the elements in place in Univ Circle would support something that massive at W. Blvd/Cudell -- major employers (University and U. Hospitals, CIA, CIM, museums, etc., plus restaurants, entertainment etc..  And Intesa also would sit adjacent to dense, exciting Little Italy.  W. Blvd needs to crawl before it can walk... But there is promise.  That huge facroty building to the east was torn down a year or so ago (as well as others in the area), and Chicle, of course, now houses people instead of a gum factory, so the neighborhood character is influx, changing from industrial toward more residential/retail.  (I'm not sure whether there has been/is going to be, soil contamination abatement where the factory was ... this could slow down potential development on this particular parcel whose development could go a long way toward linking the Cudell and Detroit Shoreway neighborhoods not to mention providing significant TOD)... However, the current rehab is a nice start. 

 

There was, a few years ago, some concept drawings by students (IIRC) for large-scale TOD stretching along Detroit from about W. 100 to W. 110.  Wonder what became of that.

Uptown is the sort of thing I'm talking about, though it's an especially high-end example.  "Tech parks" are practically the opposite of TOD.  I'm not familiar with the PNC project... but if it's a secured single-use office structure, then I would not call it a sterling example of the form.

It's on E.83rd and Carnegie my mistake but it's an under the radar development that is almost completed... It was built on the old swift dry cleaner space.

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/forgood/pncfairfaxconnection032212.aspx

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3594.3750.html

 

 

 

How is this project considered TOD???

Uptown is the sort of thing I'm talking about, though it's an especially high-end example.  "Tech parks" are practically the opposite of TOD.  I'm not familiar with the PNC project... but if it's a secured single-use office structure, then I would not call it a sterling example of the form.

It's on E.83rd and Carnegie my mistake but it's an under the radar development that is almost completed... It was built on the old swift dry cleaner space.

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/forgood/pncfairfaxconnection032212.aspx

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3594.3750.html

 

 

 

How is this project considered TOD???

It isn't. However it's not off topic because it's being discussed as an example of something that might or might not work as TOD.

Uptown is the sort of thing I'm talking about, though it's an especially high-end example.  "Tech parks" are practically the opposite of TOD.  I'm not familiar with the PNC project... but if it's a secured single-use office structure, then I would not call it a sterling example of the form.

It's on E.83rd and Carnegie my mistake but it's an under the radar development that is almost completed... It was built on the old swift dry cleaner space.

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/forgood/pncfairfaxconnection032212.aspx

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3594.3750.html

 

 

 

How is this project considered TOD???

It isn't. However it's not off topic because it's being discussed as an example of something that might or might not work as TOD.

 

Thanks....I was just asking.  I thought I missed something.

Here's a helpful graphic that shows the difference between auto-oriented development patterns on one side of the transit station and transit-oriented development patterns on the other side of the station. Note that parking is placed farther from the station with densities growing as you get closer to the station, with streets/pedestrian routes converging at the station and public greenspaces nearby.....

 

 

 

Of course, we do not need to look far for a textbook example of TOD, right MTS?.... ;)

 

 

FYI, regarding Penn Square developments at/near East 55th and Euclid.....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3435.msg624192.html#msg624192

I just love this photo because of what its message says to me: "Once upon a time we didn't extend rail transit service to an area because it has population density. We extended it to an area to CREATE population density." This is Mayfield Road at Ivydale (just east of Lee) in Cleveland Heights in 1929 which is getting a double-track streetcar line to replace the single-tracked interurban (at right) that ran to Middlefield in Geauga County:

 

How's this for a Transit Oriented Development site (on Ontario between Carnegie and Eagle) now that the last section of old Pittsburg Avenue north of the post office is being removed?

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D12/PlanningEngineering/Documents/051911%20Hope%20Memorial%20Bridge%20East%20End.pdf

 

I proposed something similar (and then some!) a decade ago....

 

If only it would have been started a decade ago!!

What's the story here (from Planning Commission)?

 

Waiver for Enterprise Green Community mandatory requirement for compact development – Michael McBride, Community Development

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2012/09202012/index.php

 

Who is Enterprise Green Community?

http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/solutions-and-innovation/enterprise-green-communities