10 hours ago, Terdolph said:

I agree with you and am willing to admit that most poor people are going to stay poor.  I really don't have a problem with segregating them if, repeat if  the payoff is large enough.  Example: I think the payoff from making the Valley View apartments on W 25th would be enormous.   The value of that property would finance some very nice buildings elsewhere and programs that might help those people rather than letting them rot where they are.

 

I would disagree that there is a general benefit to income diversity in a neighborhood.  

 

It's "politically incorrect" to say it around here, but it's my job to say those sorts of things so I'll proceed.

 

There are cultural things that are common in lower income neighborhoods, particular dense ones, that higher income people are not going to be comfortable with.  They aren't necessarily illegal, or even inherently wrong.   Noise late at night, congregating on street corners, storefronts, or other potential choke points (particularly at night), calling out to passerby (known or not).   These things are not wrong in themselves.  But the people who don't want to be around them are going to find other options, and if they can't find them in the city they will find them in the suburbs.

 

People won't choose to live where they are uncomfortable.   Many won't admit it but that doesn't make it less true.

 

 

Yikes. 

 

Poor people need not not be treated like leper’s. I’m tired of the narrative that if your city has poor people are homeless, it’s an inferior city.  I hear that all the time “San Francisco is a great city, but man the amount of homeless people”. Yeah, so? So people that have had a really rough go at life and live on a park bench make a city worse.  The good thing about San Fran is they seem to embrace and want to help those in poverty.  Cleveland needs to adopt that philosophy more.  Once you find your prosperity in life, work to be the change you want to see.  Help people, integrate, elevate. Etc. I think Detroit shoreway neighborhood does a good job of marrying old and new and making it a neighborhood for everyone

13 minutes ago, BelievelandD1 said:

Yikes. 

 

Poor people need not not be treated like leper’s. I’m tired of the narrative that if your city has poor people are homeless, it’s an inferior city.  I hear that all the time “San Francisco is a great city, but man the amount of homeless people”. Yeah, so? So people that have had a really rough go at life and live on a park bench make a city worse.  The good thing about San Fran is they seem to embrace and want to help those in poverty.  Cleveland needs to adopt that philosophy more.  Once you find your prosperity in life, work to be the change you want to see.  Help people, integrate, elevate. Etc. I think Detroit shoreway neighborhood does a good job of marrying old and new and making it a neighborhood for everyone

In all fairness i dont actually think they are helping the people in San Francisco, I was there for a while..  by just turning your back on these people you arent helping them.  The laws in San Fran are basically doing this.  Those people have no recourse to better their lives because they dont need to.  I do not want Cleveland to turn into San Fran, I want to help people bnetter themselves not encourage them to not try... 

On the contrary, I think that Downtown Cleveland, Ohio City, Tremont, and other rapidly growing cities need MORE affordable housing. They're in job rich areas with strong transit access. If we want to improve social mobility we cannot remove people from the resources they need, especially when 25% of our city doesn't own a car, 37% are below the poverty line, and all investments are occurring in a select few areas. E Rocc and Terdolph are wrong in every single way, and they're part of the problem of why cities have many of the issues they have. Poor people deserve to live in quality housing in good neighborhoods. That's all there is to it?

 

Edit: Also, people are choosing to live in the Quarter, and all the the condos and apartments in Flats West Bank even though they're directly adjacent to a large concentration of low-income housing. Snavely is putting affordable housing in the Forest City trust building right in the middle of a booming neighborhood. If people are going to forgo choosing to live in Hingetown because of the concentration of poor people, then they should maybe look into Strongsville. 

Edited May 23, 20196 yr by imjustinjk

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

I would disagree that there is a general benefit to income diversity in a neighborhood.  

 

It's "politically incorrect" to say it around here, but it's my job to say those sorts of things so I'll proceed.

 

There are cultural things that are common in lower income neighborhoods, particular dense ones, that higher income people are not going to be comfortable with.  They aren't necessarily illegal, or even inherently wrong.   Noise late at night, congregating on street corners, storefronts, or other potential choke points (particularly at night), calling out to passerby (known or not).   These things are not wrong in themselves.  But the people who don't want to be around them are going to find other options, and if they can't find them in the city they will find them in the suburbs.

 

People won't choose to live where they are uncomfortable.   Many won't admit it but that doesn't make it less true.

 

 

 

The direct benefits to the poor are well documented and researched. People being relegated to “ghettos” or high crime neighborhoods enforces the cycle of poverty and crime that stems from it.

 

Children raised in “good” neighborhoods have better educational achievement, make more money, are more likely to be employed and less likely to be incarcerated.  

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/upshot/maps-neighborhoods-shape-child-poverty.html

 

And people not in poverty then reap the societal benefits of this upward economic mobility.

Development threads are for discussing actual or proposed developments, not wide ranging discourse on the sociology of poverty.

Rejection of Little Italy project is part of development backlash that could hurt NEO - Steven Litt

by Steven Litt The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Some of the hottest urban neighborhoods in Cleveland and similar areas across Northeast Ohio are sick of being revitalized.

 

Having seen a wave of new apartment projects fueled by in-migration of millennials and empty nesters after decades of white flight, longtime residents in parts of Cleveland, Lakewood, Cleveland Heights and other communities are saying: Enough.

 

MORE

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2019/06/rejection-of-little-italy-project-is-part-of-development-backlash-that-could-hurt-neo-steven-litt.html

 

^ It really is fascinating the amount of needle-moving projects being rejected led by local residents of NEO. 

3 hours ago, MuRrAy HiLL said:

^ It really is fascinating the amount of needle-moving projects being rejected led by local residents of NEO. 

Maybe this attitude puts pressure on these projects to hit up the next neighborhood that needs and/or wants this type of development?

20 hours ago, MuRrAy HiLL said:

^ It really is fascinating the amount of needle-moving projects being rejected led by local residents of NEO. 

Right, I get that most of these new developments are concentrated in very specific parts of neighborhoods, but I'd also argue that there has not been enough new development in some of these areas. Little Italy definitely has character, but as mentioned in another thread (maybe it was this one), a lot of those buildings and houses are old and worn and at or past their useable life, specifically the wood framed houses. You don't want to lose everything, but a lot of those buildings need to go. Selfishly, I'd argue make sure we keep all the brick and stone buildings and let the market decide what to do with the rest.

Edited June 3, 20196 yr by Mov2Ohio

After living in D.C. and Northern Virginia where literally entire neighborhoods of rowhouses and light commercial are being replaced with "luxury" housing blocks, it's really hard for me to see Cleveland-area residents having problem with these scattered new developments.  I'd think we should build anywhere we can, assuming that the new residents are actually contributing to the tax base.  There is so much available land--even in desirable neighborhoods and suburbs--that I almost think gentrification is a nonissue.

 

But like I said, I was living on the east coast where you can't buy a disheveled hovel for less than half-a-mil or rent a 1-br for at least $2K a month.  So much so that upon hearing the NYC rejected Amazon HQ2 in part due to housing costs, I completely understood.

Edited June 3, 20196 yr by PaxtonMarley

1 hour ago, PaxtonMarley said:

After living in D.C. and Northern Virginia where literally entire neighborhoods of rowhouses and light commercial are being replaced with "luxury" housing blocks, it's really hard for me to see Cleveland-area residents having problem with these scattered new developments.  I'd think we should build anywhere we can, assuming that the new residents are actually contributing to the tax base.  There is so much available land--even in desirable neighborhoods and suburbs--that I almost think gentrification is a nonissue.

 

But like I said, I was living on the east coast where you can't buy a disheveled hovel for less than half-a-mil or rent a 1-br for at least $2K a month.  So much so that upon hearing the NYC rejected Amazon HQ2 in part due to housing costs, I completely understood.

well, they aren't contributing to the tax base. new construction gets a massive 15 year tax abatement, plus developers might get additional incentives. residents will flee the new construction once the abatement ends and go to the next development. who benefits from this? mostly the developers and investors, not the people or the city.

There's no abatement on income tax, and the people moving in would be high income.
 - Also, what property tax is coming in from that vacant lot as it stands today?

19 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

well, they aren't contributing to the tax base. new construction gets a massive 15 year tax abatement, plus developers might get additional incentives. residents will flee the new construction once the abatement ends and go to the next development. who benefits from this? mostly the developers and investors, not the people or the city.

This hasn’t happened in Tremont. That was the first major wave of 15 year tax abatement builds in the 90’s.

Edited June 3, 20196 yr by marty15

Or Ohio City. 

Also the tax abatement is only on the structure not the land. And trust me, the land has definitely appreciated in those neighborhoods. 

47 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

well, they aren't contributing to the tax base.

 

That's just plain false information.

To say the city hasn’t benefited, well, I’m not sure what to say to that. That’s crazy talk. The people that bought in the 90’s in Tremont, Ohio City, Detroit-Shoreway, Little Italy, UC, is why we’re where we’re at with development now. Those people stabilized some pretty rough and desolate areas in the wake of urban flight. Offering the 15 year tax abatement was literally the best and most beneficial move the city has made in a generation. 

The question is (and I don't have the answer) - now that those rough/desolate areas have not only stabilized but grown, should the abatement be retooled or eliminated?

5 minutes ago, MayDay said:

The question is (and I don't have the answer) - now that those rough/desolate areas have not only stabilized but grown, should the abatement be retooled or eliminated?

I wouldn’t touch it. We still have a long way to go. Meanwhile, every year now we get a crop of homes falling off the abatement and paying in full. 

2 minutes ago, marty15 said:

I wouldn’t touch it. We still have a long way to go. Meanwhile, every year now we get a crop of homes falling off the abatement and paying in full. 

 

I agree.   People who think these areas are getting "too hot" or have self-sustaining development need to spend some time in cities that are actually seeing growth.  We are just now seeing the benefits of these programs and pulling the cord on them would be seriously short-sighted.  The massive amount of new housing being built in the suburbs v. the tiny amount in Cleveland proper pretty clearly depicts how any benefits to building in Cleveland shouldn't be taken away any time soon.

1 hour ago, gg707 said:

 

I agree.   People who think these areas are getting "too hot" or have self-sustaining development need to spend some time in cities that are actually seeing growth.  We are just now seeing the benefits of these programs and pulling the cord on them would be seriously short-sighted.  The massive amount of new housing being built in the suburbs v. the tiny amount in Cleveland proper pretty clearly depicts how any benefits to building in Cleveland shouldn't be taken away any time soon.

Im assuming you mean single family homes, because from a sheer total units standpoint I believe Cleveland is putting up more units or very close to the same amount of units than the suburbs combined. 

10 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

It should, but we don't have the political will to make those neighborhoods "developable".

It’s not political will, it’s where can developers build to get their money back. Rents have appreciated enough in certain areas to spur this boom. 

And it’s having a positive spillover effect. Cleveland is growing from the core outward. That’s healthy. 

Some political will is required for some of these projects to make the numbers work.  While there may or may not be abatements depending on the project, one thing to know is that the City of Cleveland and the Port Authority regularly lend directly or guarantee financing for apartment developments.  I know for sure that The Athlon and the Euclid Grand are both being financed that way.

Edited June 4, 20196 yr by PaxtonMarley

It is absolutely time to pull back on tax abatement in Tremont and Ohio City, at least for single family housing (attached or detached).  At this point, the policy is only juicing land prices there or encouraging especially large/expensive houses. 

32 minutes ago, StapHanger said:

It is absolutely time to pull back on tax abatement in Tremont and Ohio City, at least for single family housing (attached or detached).  At this point, the policy is only juicing land prices there or encouraging especially large/expensive houses. 

 

And that's a bad thing because? I'd rather have large/expensive homes getting built in Tremont/Ohio City than places such as Avon and the likes.

^I think it's bad policy for the school district and city to be writing checks to those homebuyers so they outbid someone willing to buy a slightly less fancy house on that same lot. That's one economic effect of the abatement policy. At this point, though, I'd guess most of the benefit is going to the owner of the vacant lot, so it's the school district and city are writing checks to land speculators. 

I have nothing against using tax breaks to move the needle on development when it's required for something good to pencil out, but that's no longer the case in Tremont and Ohio City for single family houses and townhouses. The high cost of vacant land is solid evidence of this.

If people think this is even an issue yet in Cleveland they need to go to places that are showing real growth. We’ve just started to stop the bleeding and people are acting like we’ve arrived. Incredible

3 hours ago, StapHanger said:

It is absolutely time to pull back on tax abatement in Tremont and Ohio City, at least for single family housing (attached or detached).  At this point, the policy is only juicing land prices there or encouraging especially large/expensive houses. 

 

I think that it could be a rotating program by census tract for example as one stabilizes. It could also be income and home value based. Cleveland Has has a pretty solid property tax abatement program - Community Reinvestment Area. I don't think a 100% abatement is really quite appropriate in already well developed areas.

It’s funny that 4 years of moderate construction in any neighborhood of the city is cause to eliminate a program that, first of all has worked,  second of all is copied throughout the larger region, thirdly is used, in nearly every instance, in neighborhoods that continue to lose population, and finally that have average incomes well below the metro average. These new residents pay income taxes that often tripled any income made off of existing home property taxes. The idea put forth by “long time” residents and the politicians that are forced to listen to them that new residents get a free ride is hilarious and not surprising in the post truth scenario we live in.

No way we should mess with it. I’d even go so far as expanding it.  30 year abatement for Glenville, Hough, Mt. Pleasant, Slavic Village. But with a 5 year window. Then scale it back to 15 after that period.  Juicing these neglected areas to jump start em. 

Edited June 5, 20196 yr by marty15

Marty15, totally agree.

I don't understand why you all have such a low opinion of the housing market in Tremont and Ohio City. The sales prices for new construction are extremely healthy. The sales prices for existing houses now paying full taxes are healthy. The market isn't going to tank if the abatements for new construction  in these areas (and only these areas) are  phased out.  And the wave of new construction is more like 25 years old, not 4 years old (I was slightly involved in the early 1990s). 

Edited June 5, 20196 yr by StapHanger

^A line of experienced developers, real estate professional and architects that live in this environment would tell you you're incorrect.

Now, this is completely wild speculation. But had a conversation with someone with ties to the airport this evening. The speculation is that the IX Center will be replicated on the old Ford foundry land, and our new airport will be built on the IX space. Now, this is possibly years out, but I think we all know that our current airport setup doesn’t work. 

6 hours ago, marty15 said:

Now, this is completely wild speculation. But had a conversation with someone with ties to the airport this evening. The speculation is that the IX Center will be replicated on the old Ford foundry land, and our new airport will be built on the IX space. Now, this is possibly years out, but I think we all know that our current airport setup doesn’t work. 

 

This post made me curious about the relative sizes of IX vs downtown convention center, so I looked it up. IX claims 1m in “exhibition and conference space” (out of 2.2m sq feet - hmm, what’s the rest used for?) while the downtown convention center’s show floor is 225k.  How often is the entire IX center completely full? I’d rather spend money on expanding the downtown convention center - the show floor could be doubled by expanding it under Mall C, then build a new Ballroom in @KJP ‘s land bridge over the RR tracks and Shoreway (along w the transit center, of course).

 

i realize that doubling downtown still isn’t anywhere near as big as IX center, I’m just assuming that the whole 1m sq ft in IX is not used very often. 

 

We we were discussing the downtown convention center a few weeks ago on that thread:

 

 

 

The City owns the I-X center, right? I doubt they would buy land in Brook Park (outside of the City) and build a new facility there which would be very expensive.  The city bought the I-X center years ago as part of its plans to expand things at Hopkins.

1 hour ago, Pugu said:

The City owns the I-X center, right? I doubt they would buy land in Brook Park (outside of the City) and build a new facility there which would be very expensive.  The city bought the I-X center years ago as part of its plans to expand things at Hopkins.

However, stranger things have happened.  If the city and county were smart, they would move that square footage downtown.  Building onto the current center north would have a multiplier affect on conventions and events currently held at the IX center.  The amount of business that relocating the centers BUSINESS downtown would be astronomical and something positive for Cleveland's tourism and convention business.

18 hours ago, marty15 said:

Now, this is completely wild speculation. But had a conversation with someone with ties to the airport this evening. The speculation is that the IX Center will be replicated on the old Ford foundry land, and our new airport will be built on the IX space. Now, this is possibly years out, but I think we all know that our current airport setup doesn’t work. 

Strange you should have that convo, because I actually posted a similar idea here about 3 or 4 years ago. My thought was to use the existing IX Ctr as the new terminal. Can't find the original post but here is the graphic.

If you’re going to rebuild something, rebuild the existing terminals. That would make much more sense and be less expensive than making the IX center into a terminal. The reason for the IX discussion is because that would be a good place for a brand new terminal, built from scratch. 

I'm just gonna go out on a leg and put all speculation out to shame here because there are plenty of uses for the building and the land itself, but mostly everything has its drawbacks.

 

I can see the IX being a major cargo holding center for FedEx, UPS, and USPS if they choose to leave it up. Hopkins is more of a Cargo airport than a passenger airport anyways, we see alot of cargo in and out of the area, it would make sense if we had a larger facility for that sort of stuff. Holiday rushes aside.

 

If they do plan on building more terminals they better acquire some more airlines, it's just not that busy of an airport like Newark, Detroit, or Chicago. However I applaud Hopkins on picking up Iceland. It would make sense for them to demolish the IX and shuttle people over for additional terminals for overflow. I like Vegas' McCarran Intl Airport because they've kept their airport small, and have different terminals on either side of the runways. They use a tram system underground to take you to your terminal, certainly unique.

 

I can also see them acquiring to demolish, and start a new central point for the airport. Since both are relatively closer to one side or another, I could definitely see different airport terminals for East or West departure shortening aircraft taxi times. This doesn't mean the property from Ford would be acquired, but if so there would need to be some sort of resort, parking, or office space. But Hopkins is never short on parking. Especially on those pay by day lots around Snow Rd which get shuttled to the airport. So what could possibly entice people to come closer to the airport and bring extreme land value to the condemned land. Maybe a business park, more hotels, an outlet mall, an indoor water park, NASA Glenn use, maybe some hangars, an Air National Guard unit, or even a place to put a windmill.

 

Now there is no way Hopkins would demolish the IX to pave another runway. Having been in the Air Force, it's easy to see why airports are situated the way they are. They use runways depending on weather, and fly into the headwind to help the aircraft take off. If there was a runway that ran perpendicular at Hopkins, planes landing and taking off North/South would be in for one hell of a ride. In our climate, wind and weather almost always wind run West to East if not SW to NE. Very rarely will you get anything from South to North. The only thing heading in that direction would be lake effect snow and the arctic wind stream dip. So if Hopkins builds another runway, it would almost never be used.

 

There are plenty of things you can do with the IX. As a former aircraft hangar maybe it will return to its roots. It's certainly big enough for depot maintenance; for multiple planes at that fact.

Edited June 10, 20196 yr by tastybunns

2 hours ago, tastybunns said:

If there was a runway that ran perpendicular at Hopkins, planes landing and taking off North/South would be in for one hell of a ride.

We have the perpendicular runway 10/28 but it’s only 6,000 feet long, and only occasionally used in bizarre weather and shifty winds. Agreed that the IX Center is not a good choice for a terminal—it’s  quite unfit. Even the general shape doesn’t accommodate  aircraft well and focus should be elsewhere if looking at potential terminal options for the master plan. Also, Hopkins might be somewhat of a cargo airport, but is nowhere near the other 2 C’s cargo hubs. CVG being an international DHL & Amazon hub; LCK with similar FedEx operations but also hosts Cathay Pacific/Cargolux/China Airlines/Emirates/Etihad 747s with direct service to cargo hubs in Europe, Hong Kong, and Moscow.

 

Lots of good points though—we should probably relocate this to the Hopkins thread.

Edited June 10, 20196 yr by Boxtruffles

I've heard recently from an airport official that they are doing long term master planning and the expectation from that effort is that they will recommend tearing down the concourses 1 by 1 and rebuilding one at a time. They've invested to much in everything they've done recently to start all over with a new terminal.

From my experience with the airport, the 2 most pressing issues are 1. The severe lack of screening points. You have 3 at the south end, 1 TSA Pre checkpoint in the middle, and 1 regular checkpoint at the north end. This has led to massive lines snaking all through ticketing. Ive legit arrived at the airport 2 hours early my last 2 trips and barely made it to my gate in time. 

 

2. The departures/arrivals area is completely inadequate. Hopkins as a hub was mainly a connecting airport.  We’ve since transitioned largely to an airport with the majority of flights beginning and ending here.  Which is posing a major problem traffic wise. Traffic routinely backs up to the Berea freeway now, and it’s complete mayhem at the terminal. 

 

These need to be the first to be addressed. 3rd would be a legit Rideshare terminal instead of a tent. But I believe they’re working on that situation now.

Not to change the subject,

 

So I know this is old news from an article from 2016, but I haven't read anything about it on here in a long while, and I'm probly posting this in the wrong thread anyway.

 

Saving the Waters of Lake Erie  about the Dugway Storage Tunnel currently under construction, and how massive and expensive this project is.

 

There are some really interesting articles on webuildvalue that show what infrastructure projects some global cities are planning.

Not sure if posted yet, but: DCA is pushing for a Downtown playground, which is extremely super long overdue. Idk where my brain is at, but I missed the cycle event this past weekend for it. It seems like they're having a series of events to raise funding for one. If a trend is really starting for downtown developments for sale continues, they really need to incorporate a lot more family amenities.

 

Pour for a Playground - June 27th.

 

 

Edited June 12, 20196 yr by imjustinjk

Where is the playground planned? Or are they still scouting the best location?

22 hours ago, imjustinjk said:

Not sure if posted yet, but: DCA is pushing for a Downtown playground, which is extremely super long overdue. Idk where my brain is at, but I missed the cycle event this past weekend for it. It seems like they're having a series of events to raise funding for one. If a trend is really starting for downtown developments for sale continues, they really need to incorporate a lot more family amenities.

 

Pour for a Playground - June 27th.

 

 

Not sure why there isn't  one on The Malls. One was originally planned and then all plans were halted because planners decided to wait and see how the area was used once The Drury and The Hilton opened. Now that those are open, it is time to refocus efforts onto this area. Too much energy and focus was placed onto Public Square for activities.  I would also like to see some sort of playground at Voinovich Park

On 6/12/2019 at 9:16 PM, dave2017 said:

Not sure why there isn't  one on The Malls. One was originally planned and then all plans were halted because planners decided to wait and see how the area was used once The Drury and The Hilton opened. Now that those are open, it is time to refocus efforts onto this area. Too much energy and focus was placed onto Public Square for activities.  I would also like to see some sort of playground at Voinovich Park

 

I just spoke with councilman McCormack at the DCR event, and there’s going to be a playground by the science center, and in the mall. The one by the science center will be a more traditional playground while the one in the mall will be a larger contiguous “playscape” with like mounds/obstacles and stuff. 

Edited June 15, 20195 yr by imjustinjk
Clarification