I actually kind of agree with one of the comments on cleveland dot bomb.  Why do we need to start a new program and lend an agency $400K to get this started?  Why not just change the law to allow vendors to grill on the street?  This should increase the number of carts while allowing current vendors to add to their menu.  I feel like this influx of 30 vendors could hurt current vendors more than they think. 

 

No doubt this is a great idea, but I think changing the law and allowing the number of food carts to grow naturally is a better way to go about it.

Video rundown of some projects from cleveland.com - not a whole lot of new information, but a good overview of recent developments:

 

http://videos.cleveland.com/plain-dealer/2009/06/development_in_cleveland_more.html

Is Mike McIntyr serious?

 

Also, as much as I have knocked the PD (I do think they've been better recently), Michelle Jarobe is a solid reporter.

I love that report, lets me know the same, things are moving along very slowly. Don't get me wrong I love the fact that i actually got to see a video of a Cleveland report on construction/renovation.

 

I don't know if its been asked yet but, has anyone seen those hastily made tourism videos of Cleveland? 

Thoughts on it if you have?

Yes, the videos are being discussed in the "Marketing the City Thread".

This sounds like this is quickly becoming only a CC project:

 

Cleveland Clinic's stance on crime lab puzzles Cuyahoga County Prosecutor William Mason

Posted by Sarah Jane Tribble/Plain Dealer Reporter June 16, 2009 20:49PM

Categories: Cleveland Clinic, Crime, Cuyahoga County government, Real Time News

 

 

 

When the Cleveland Clinic announced plans this year to build a $25 million medical testing lab, regional officials lauded the institution for its bold entrepreneurial spirit and the promise of hundreds of jobs.

 

Behind the scenes, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason was scratching his head. The Clinic was supposed to be a partner with the county, Cleveland State University and the development company The Ferchill Group to build a combined crime and medical lab in Cleveland's blighted Midtown district. That project, which was expected to bring 1,000 jobs and help revitalize a key development district, was suddenly in limbo.

 

More at

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/06/cleveland_clinics_stance_on_cr.html

"This is Cleveland, things sometimes move slowly," Bonder said. "The right set of partners need to come together with the right financing."

 

Again the PD can't go one article without their typical, unnecessary jabs.  The fact that this is Cleveland has nothing to do with the problems in this situation.  Glad to hear we have such positive people being part of running major local institutions.

I don't think it's an unnecessary jab.  It's the truth.  Calling a spade a spade is necessary.  Shedding light on the inefficiencies of this city is a good thing.  I have two friends that do big real estate projects around the city and both say the city is an absolute nightmare to get things done with.

 

My other buddy owns a bar on W.6th and said it was a nightmare getting all the necessary inspections, etc. 

This sounds like this is quickly becoming only a CC project:

 

 

Sure sounds that way. I'm starting to think that CC doesn't mean "Cleveland Clinic" anymore, but "Consolidate Control." And if this does become a CC-only project, I guess now we'll have to put up with a dead-at-sidewalk, setback from street, monolithic bunker like every other structure they've built.

All the better that all this stuff goes down by the Clinic, rather than on Euclid.  The crime lab should be on Cedar too, since the coroner's office is already there.

<a href=http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20090615/SUB1/906129945>Tax abatement changes seen as home run for Cleveland condo market</a>

By JAY MILLER

4:30 am, June 15, 2009

 

Changes in state and local tax abatement policy are expected to make condominium ownership in Cleveland more affordable for urban dwellers who’d rather own than rent, while easing the way for landlords of properties financed with historic tax credits to convert their apartment buildings to condo units...

 

 

Changes in state and local tax abatement policy are expected to make condominium ownership in Cleveland more affordable for urban dwellers who’d rather own than rent, while easing the way for landlords of properties financed with historic tax credits to convert their apartment buildings to condo units.

 

This sounds like a win-win for everybody.

 

Owners of downtown apartments already are assessing whether to make the switch to condo buildings.

Among them is Ari Maron, a partner in MRN Ltd., which owns five rental properties in the East Fourth Street area downtown.

 

Maron's are quickly moving up the list of great developers for downtown. 

Maron's are quickly moving up the list of great developers for downtown. 

 

For sure. They're rock stars. It's nice to see people who actually believe in a city and aren't willing to be swayed by the negativity and the decline in the economy, rather than sit back and point fingers and backbite. Anyone know anyone like that at all in this FOREST of CITY developments? :)

 

Okay, that was bad.

 

I'm not too clear on this whole tax abatement news, though. How is this a positive thing, exactly?

I'm not clear on why a similar program couldn't benefit apartment building owners instead of condos.  This here seems like pre-crash thinking, i.e. everyone must own a home, the more the better.  Change the channel.  Now is the time for 1br apartments, and I mean reasonably priced ones.  The lack thereof is a bottleneck for downtown growth... it cuts off the demographic who wants to live there most, the single & not-ready-to-settle demographic.   

you can't abate property taxes to a renter because they don't pay them.  Building owners are already incentivized to redevelop the buildings because of state and federal tax credits.  At the root of the issue is that until now there was a major incentive to build new because of the abatements... now it offers a similar incentive for repurposing existing older buildings.

Of course we pay property taxes!  It's part of our rent.

Somehow I doubt the landlord will pass any potential profit along to you. :)

Of course not, but my point was that I get tired of the whole "renters don't even pay taxes" line.  I know you didn't mean it as a slam, but many do, and I don't like to let that line persist as if it were true.

No slam intended... I just don't think it really factors into an abatement discussion, that's all...

this is a wonderful, wonderful adjustment that will lend itself to much more redevelopment and condo ownership downtown. the work put into it is a bold sign of the maturity in thinking about downtown residential. not to mention this is a good example of the city listening to and working with developers, you can bet word of that will get around.

I'm not clear on why a similar program couldn't benefit apartment building owners instead of condos.  This here seems like pre-crash thinking, i.e. everyone must own a home, the more the better.  Change the channel.  Now is the time for 1br apartments, and I mean reasonably priced ones.  The lack thereof is a bottleneck for downtown growth... it cuts off the demographic who wants to live there most, the single & not-ready-to-settle demographic.   

 

here is my understanding:

 

the basic situation is that apartment developers were (or are) receiving 10 or 12 year tax abatements at a sliding reduction scale - 100% for x years, 50% for x, 25% for x, or something like this vs. 100%, 15 year abatement for new construction.  Additionally, most of the apartments downtown used federal incentives to redevelop, and those incentives required a building to be rentals for 5 years. 

 

So if you built an apartment in 2001 and decided now to turn to condo (or have been trying to sell condos for the past few years in soft market), 8 years of the abatement (going to the developer) is already gone, and the potential condo owner is left with the 50% or 25% reduction in property taxes for the remaining few years of the original abatement given to the developer.

 

this seems to proposed that if you bought a new condo now in a building that was formally developed as described above, you would qualify for 100%, 10 year tax abatement.  also, there is a difference in appraised value of a building when it is all apartment rentals than when it turns into condos.

 

what i don't know is if it applies retroactively, say you bought a condo in 2006 from one of those buildings, would you then get the 10 years?  or is this just rewarding buyers going forward?

I do think this sounds like a great shift in policy, particularly as it should bring the incentives for redevelopment incrementally closer in line with those for new construction, which is something that should make it more feasible to redevelop some of the old beauties, particularly downtown.

 

A few things do concern me, however. First, IIRC, the city already has an existing structure for tax abatement of redevelopments, but it's traditionally very unclear under what circumstances people can access them, particularly individuals doing more grassroots projects rather than massive mid-rise projects. I have talked about this with others, and I have yet to run across anyone who, as a small or hobby developer, has figured out how to access redevelopment abatements. I hope that this alignment move with the state won't mask problems for how we incentivize people who are working on smaller projects (i.e. 1-4 unit buildings).

 

Second, my primary concern is what this will do to the rental market. Definitely, I think this will stimulate new housing projects, particularly downtown, but in the short run, I wonder what a number of simultaneous condo conversions will do to rent rates, as the demand for rentals continues to increase and the supply of apartments downtown (and presumably on the Near East, Near West, University Circle, Little Italy, Shaker Square, etc.) decreases (as they're converted to apartments. For me, one of the coolest things about Cleveland is how, with a moderate salary, you can live in just about any neighborhood you want to, no problem. As 327 noted above, this is particularly problematic because it disproportionately affects two target markets for living in the city proper ... younger households (who are likely less ready and less inclined to take on ownership) and empty nesters (who are more likely to be divesting assets and limiting liabilities like mortages as they get older).

 

If a sizable portion of eligible owners immediately begin to prepare for condo conversion (say, I don't know, 25% of the apartment buildings downtown and 10% in other areas ... just making up numbers here), I would imagine we would see a pretty steep short-term rise in rental rates. In that circumstance, the soft market and a slow absorption of condo units could actually work to our favor ... giving developers more time to react and create new apartment units, thus limiting the fallout for renters.

 

 

It sounds like construction is incentivized with the promise of selling it off as condos after 5 years.  I worry they might run out of people willing and able to buy.  Because of these demographic problems, like the one where the target market doesn't have money sitting around, the model may be flawed.  Why not incentivize what we need, which is apartments?  You can go through the rental ads right now and find all sorts of affordable hi rise apartments in places like Mayfield and Willoughby Hills.  This is what happens when you let your dumb brother play SimCity.  Those ought to be getting built in and around downtown.  If the law tells people not to, the law is wrong.   

I was scrummaging through the Pittsburgh page on skyscraperpage forums and found this.

 

Altmire suggests Pittsburgh-to-Cleveland rail line

Monday, June 22, 2009

By Jon Schmitz, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire said today that he will push to have a Pittsburgh-to-Cleveland line added to a national list of high-speed rail corridors.

...More details in tomorrow's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09173/979148-147.stm#ixzz0JCfULyKt&D

This article was already posted at two different threads in the transportation section, which is a more appropriate place for such postings...

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,15885.msg404979.html#msg404979

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,1414.msg404915.html#msg404915

 

There are also other discussions in the rail section of this forum:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/board,36.0.html

Does anyone know what is going in the former Coakley Real Estate space on w.6 between Blind Pig and RTA? 

Starting on July 5th - Dec, Turner construction will be renovating 3 floors in the Higbee building.  This is part of Key Banks plan to move out of May Co building.  The move involves the relocation of 1,000 workers. 

Well here's a very small bit of good news, though good news none the less... a small local architecture firm is moving from one downtown location to another.  However this relocation I think is going to be very beneficial because they are going to be moving into the point of the ground floor of the Osborn Building.  A space that has been vacant and a big eyesore for going on a decade.  I love architecture firms and ad agencies as ground floor businesses because they typically have very vibrant spaces.  Should make the whole area seem a little better.  I would think work would begin fairly soon as they want to be in the space by the 1st of the year and there is a LOT of work to be done on that space.

Is this the space that used to be a restaurant just west of Winking Lizard?

No, this is the base of the osborn building, the wedge shape building just east of 9th separating huron from prospect.

No, this is the base of the osborn building, the wedge shape building just east of 9th separating huron from prospect.

 

Was on the wrong side of 9th, thanks! Should be a good addition to the neighborhood and already good number of residents there.

Is this the space that used to be a restaurant just west of Winking Lizard?

 

What restaurant used to be west of Winking Lizard?  Isn't that where Forti's is (what used to be Boneyard)?

Is this the space that used to be a restaurant just west of Winking Lizard?

 

What restaurant used to be west of Winking Lizard? Isn't that where Forti's is (what used to be Boneyard)?

 

I forget what the last place was called (was part owned by former browns player), but before that it was Fire.

Is this the space that used to be a restaurant just west of Winking Lizard?

 

What restaurant used to be west of Winking Lizard? Isn't that where Forti's is (what used to be Boneyard)?

 

Fortis is west of Winking Lizard, but there is another restaurant that used to be there that still has all the tables, chairs, some silverware, and other equipment that have been sitting there for over a year now.

You're all thinking of the former Diamondback Brewery, which then became Phil the Fire, which then became the Waterhouse restaurant, and is now vacant.

Can someone give me a google streetview

I had just closed Google Maps after doing Street View on it, haha.

 

Here you go:

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=44101&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.641855,114.169922&ie=UTF8&ll=41.498165,-81.687161&spn=0.000707,0.001742&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.4982,-81.687119&panoid=qVU0sJwiHP5eomKDIS4DEw&cbp=12,313.45,,0,5.9

FWIW I hear there is a letter of intent signed for a new restaurant to go into the former Phil the Fire / Waterhouse space... and noticed the other day that the "for lease" sign is down.  That doesn't mean it's 100% going to happen... but it's close.  No idea on what type of restaurant they are proposing.

^Hopefully a sports bar!  :wink:

Mayor Frank Jackson unveils new 'sprayground' at Rockefeller Park

 

Posted By: Shane Snider    Updated: 7/6/2009 3:47:19 PM  Posted: 7/6/2009 1:27:37 PM

 

CLEVELAND -- Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson and The Holden Parks Trust celebrated the unveiling of a new "sprayground" in Rockefeller Park.

 

It is the latest addition in a list of improvements to the park which also include four new fountains for the lagoons and new tennis courts... 

 

http://sitelife.wkyc.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/0/15/4073b680-d6d4-4a8a-8f7c-e6e2485cad6d.Large.jpg

 

http://sitelife.wkyc.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/8/2/f87c5a77-10f5-4a48-824f-6a11c6cec82b.Large.jpg

 

http://sitelife.wkyc.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/8/7/78ce0837-07ae-4d19-9740-1a7ec7a97d94.Large.jpg

 

© 2009 WKYC-TV

 

http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/news_article.aspx?storyid=117191&catid=3

 

^Love it... now add these at Edgewater and the Mall please.

Cleveland Heights invests $800,000 to revitalize East Derbyshire

Posted by Sun Press July 09, 2009 01:00AM

 

 

By Lindsay Betz

[email protected]

 

 

CLEVELAND HEIGHTS Things are looking up on East Derbyshire.

 

The city has invested over $800,000 in a plan to revitalize the street between Lee Road and Cottage Grove Avenue.

 

They have bought and renovated houses, offered free landscaping to owner-occupied homes and assisted homeowners in making their own improvements.

 

More info at:

http://blog.cleveland.com/sunpress/2009/07/city_invests_800000_to_revital.html

 

An amazing idea. I hope Lakewood considers a similar project.

$119,000 is a pretty nice price too.

An amazing idea. I hope Lakewood considers a similar project.

 

I believe that not only did they consider it, but they started a pilot project to do the same thing.  I could swear that an article explaining the Lakewood initiative was in a thread somewhere here, but I can't for the life of me find it right now. 

 

I believe that the pilot home was in the block between Franklin and Madison, maybe on Bunts?  It used to have a sign out front.

The lakewood house is on Bunts on the East side of the street two or three houses north of lakewood heights blvd. Lakewood has (or did have) a program that would loan $60,000 with attractive terms towards the conversion of a muliti family to a single.

 

I will try to find a link. I believe that First Federal lakewood was a partner in the pilot house.

 

Edit: Linky below

 

http://www.ffl.net/content.asp?pageid=440&navid=506

Doh, I just read the article. I hope that Lakewood and Cleveland consider facilitating these conversion especially for multi-unit along Lake and Clifton.

I remember an off-line conversation I had with some Lakewood realtors - that Lakewood conversion did not sell for the greatest price, but that's probably because of location, it was two doors from the Bunts-Lakewood Heights- I-90 intersection, and there's a ton of traffic there.

 

A similar project on a quiet side street may be different.

I think that the Lakewood strategy was very poor. They should start in the eastern portion of Lakewood on a street with many duplexes that is adjacent to a street with many single family homes (or on a street with a good mixture of both types of housing). In my opinion, people are moving away from the single-family owner-occupied homes partially because of the proximity to poorly-behaving tenants. Lakewood should try to buy in clusters so that they can 1. change the character of the street, and 2. stop the general decay that seems to be moving slowing west. Once an impact has been made on one street, move eastward and repeat.

http://blog.cleveland.com/sunpress/2009/07/city_invests_800000_to_revital.html

 

Cleveland Heights invests $800,000 to revitalize East Derbyshire

Posted by Sun Press July 09, 2009 01:00AM

 

 

FYI, this situation arose because of Section 8 Voucher clustering.