April 17, 20214 yr 57 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said: These hot neighborhoods that are seeing development are fill up quickly which is why we see other development follow. No developer is going to invest in a neighborhood they don't see growth or potential in. So yes I'm sure. So then it’s just a wash since I’m sure you don’t want these people living in the city.
April 17, 20214 yr I read all the threads and see a lot of really nice developments that are met with fierce opposition and it just baffles me. The "NIMBY's" move into a neighborhood, gentrify it, and then want to keep it the way THEY want it. They seem to want a quiet piece of the suburbs right in the city. Do they take into consideration what those who live/lived in these neighborhoods felt before they moved in? Do they realize this is an URBAN area? I am starting to see a Chicagoesque vibe starting in Cleveland, it's unfortunate that NIMBY's want to stop it. The city should weigh the investments being made in the city that may bring IN population against the whining of these block associations that want to either downsize or scrap any plan that comes along just to keep their perceived Mayberry on their block.
April 17, 20214 yr Interesting that you call it a "Chicago-vibe" considering all of the Chicago developers who want to invest here. Maybe they see it too. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 17, 20214 yr Fwiw I haven't seen any on the ground evidence that the demand for parking spaces is going down over the apartments I lease in Tremont. Only one unit out of like 180 is car-less. Most are 1 or 1 + and nearly all are one bedrooms or studios. Now...that could be ineffective marketing on our part. Our parking lots may repel sustainably minded people so perhaps that skews the data. And offering this does not imply parking codes are somehow not out of date or suggest that too much of a parking requirement produces desirable outcomes. I just thought people might find it interesting. Edited April 17, 20214 yr by misterjoshr
April 17, 20214 yr 41 minutes ago, cfdwarrior said: I read all the threads and see a lot of really nice developments that are met with fierce opposition and it just baffles me. The "NIMBY's" move into a neighborhood, gentrify it, and then want to keep it the way THEY want it. They seem to want a quiet piece of the suburbs right in the city. Do they take into consideration what those who live/lived in these neighborhoods felt before they moved in? Do they realize this is an URBAN area? I am starting to see a Chicagoesque vibe starting in Cleveland, it's unfortunate that NIMBY's want to stop it. The city should weigh the investments being made in the city that may bring IN population against the whining of these block associations that want to either downsize or scrap any plan that comes along just to keep their perceived Mayberry on their block. I'd be careful to over-generalize. I know a lot of people who for example support the Treo development or some of the ones I've been associated with but not this one. I don't think it is purely a NIMBY thing. Opposition to this development may indeed be misguided but I think dismissing it as NIMBY-ism is too simplistic for this forum
April 17, 20214 yr 2 hours ago, gg707 said: One of the best ways to counteract that is for pro-walkable development people to start speaking up in favor of buildings so that there are at least a few voices on the other side that the various review committees are hearing. The address for BOZA is: [email protected]. The city code is very outdated on parking. Although it reduces parking requirements in urban overlay areas, it still requires a significant amount of parking for buildings. Much more than is generally accepted as conducive to good walkable neighborhoods. There are also much more creative ways to address the parking issue. For example, we could require developers to include units affordable to different income levels or provide subsidies to RTA in exchange for removing parking. I also think that reducing the number of committees that have broad discretion over approval or denial of developments would help to limit NIMBYism. People should have their voices heard, but all of the difficult to predict committees make developers less inclined to invest capital in the city. Does anyone know the email addresses for the individual board members? Here is the list, assuming they follow the standard Cleveland email address format I've made guesses at what they should be underneath: Board Members Carol A. Johnson (Chairman) Tim Donovan Myrline Barnes Kelley Britt Alanna Faith [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
April 17, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, misterjoshr said: Fwiw I haven't seen any on the ground evidence that the demand for parking spaces is going down over the apartments I lease in Tremont. Only one unit out of like 180 is car-less. Most are 1 or 1 + and nearly all are one bedrooms or studios. Now...that could be ineffective marketing on our part. Our parking lots may repel sustainably minded people so perhaps that skews the data. And offering this does not imply parking codes are somehow not out of date or suggest that too much of a parking requirement produces desirable outcomes. I just thought people might find it interesting. I don't find this strange or out of the ordinary at all. Cleveland is still a car centric city and will be for a long time. My first three apartments were all on Van Aken and I took the rapid to work downtown every day. My car sat in a heated underground garage all day most days. However, I still needed a car for 90% of my other travels and would not have picked a building without parking even though I am the most pro transit person in my family. My objection is not so much providing parking in new developments but the unfortunate designs which put the parking front and center (with huge surface lots of course being the worst). I do understand the added cost to hide parking but at least try.
April 18, 20214 yr 10 hours ago, misterjoshr said: I'd be careful to over-generalize. I know a lot of people who for example support the Treo development or some of the ones I've been associated with but not this one. I don't think it is purely a NIMBY thing. Opposition to this development may indeed be misguided but I think dismissing it as NIMBY-ism is too simplistic for this forum What do you think is driving opposition to this project but not others? Is it a parking thing? Is there something about this developer that they don't like?
April 18, 20214 yr 11 hours ago, gg707 said: What do you think is driving opposition to this project but not others? Is it a parking thing? Is there something about this developer that they don't like? Most of the opposition centers around the parking; and yes there's a sense of NIMBYism but it's not from relatively new residents. A lot are people who have been in Tremont for decades. It sounds like the block clubs are organizing against; I don't know about other parts of the city but in Tremont - if the block club is opposed, that's one tough hill to climb for any developer. clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
April 18, 20214 yr I really think if they had proposed some parking that was less than 1:1 (20?) this would have found a more amicable resolution. I think part of the issue is that there is no parking AND they aren't making an affirmative case about what they are investing in in lieu of parking. I think this all happening near a church that serves many poor people hot meals in the community and is seen as infringing on them /their needs foments a bit more outrage than it might otherwise. I think also people haven't seem impressed by the project done by this group on 41st street which according to folks is mostly airbnb. I am not validating or agreeing with all of this -- just sharing what I have heard and that the very same block club members have managed to get ok with a lot of development over the last few years. Can you divorce Nimby-ism entirely from this? Of course not. Do I think that a lot of neighborhood groups fail to see their new neighbors as middle class/working class like them? I do. I also disagree with a lot of the process, I think block clubs are a terribly misguided way to determine what should be built, think politicians give way too much deference to them etc. I think not building parking is terribly misguided but it wouldn't be a reason not to proceed. I mostly think the building isn't high caliber enough from a design perspective and how it holds an important street corner. It is just to say on hierarchy of values, you can believe in density as a guidepost (I do) and still think this project should go back to the drawing board until it achieves other ideals as well. In other words, it is complicated and I think oversimplifying the motives of the opposition isn't helpful to the process, just like demonizing the development also doesn't really get us closer to common ground.
April 18, 20214 yr On 4/17/2021 at 12:42 PM, Htsguy said: I don't find this strange or out of the ordinary at all. Cleveland is still a car centric city and will be for a long time. My first three apartments were all on Van Aken and I took the rapid to work downtown every day. My car sat in a heated underground garage all day most days. However, I still needed a car for 90% of my other travels and would not have picked a building without parking even though I am the most pro transit person in my family. I am extremely anti-giving space in this city to storage of cars...but until we get the proper investment in making transit convenient and frequent, as well as neighborhoods with amenities nearby (I.e 15- minute cities), it’s hard to expect the average person to change their habits.
April 19, 20214 yr On 4/17/2021 at 12:41 PM, dastler said: Does anyone know the email addresses for the individual board members? Here is the list, assuming they follow the standard Cleveland email address format I've made guesses at what they should be underneath: Board Members Carol A. Johnson (Chairman) Tim Donovan Myrline Barnes Kelley Britt Alanna Faith [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] The following addresses were incorrect and returned as undeliverable, does anyone have a staff directory for all city members so that guesses don't have to be made in the future? [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
April 19, 20214 yr Watching the BOZA meeting. Matt Moss put together a pretty detailed analysis of available parking, and places the city can add more street parking and it was just ignored, or dismissed with the pandemic as the excuse. Edited April 19, 20214 yr by Mendo
April 19, 20214 yr Well the 1415 Kenilworth project went over like a lead balloon. After councilman McCormack's testimony all I kept thinking was: I also picked up on the same thing Mendo did... there's 35-40 spaces of on street parking underneath the highway and no one at the city can explain why it's signed as no parking 🤦🏻♂️
April 19, 20214 yr We've got to get rid of parking minimums from the city's zoning code. It's killing investment here. Meanwhile, regarding contacting BZA members, the best e-mail is: [email protected] +++ mark in your e-mail's subject line "Attn: BZA" +++ In addition to the above, here are three board members e-mail addresses: Tim Donovan: [email protected] Alanna Faith: [email protected] Kelley Britt: [email protected] "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 19, 20214 yr 18 minutes ago, KJP said: We've got to get rid of parking minimums from the city's zoning code. It's killing investment here. Meanwhile, regarding contacting BZA members, the best e-mail is: [email protected] +++ mark in your e-mail's subject line "Attn: BZA" +++ In addition to the above, here are a two publicly available e-mail addresses: Tim Donovan: [email protected] Kelley Britt: [email protected] I'm just summarizing, but Kerry's argument was that a recent update (2017 maybe?) to the city code reduced the parking minimums in this area. I got the sense from Kerry's comments that he opposed this variance specifically because the parking minimum had already been reduced and that the code is a recent update, not something that's 100 years old. Does anyone have more info on that? Edit Found some more info in the form based districts update: https://planning.clevelandohio.gov/zoning/pdf/348_Form_Based_Districts.pdf Parking requirements in 348.04-3A state only 65% of the normal code requirements are applicable in urban form overlay districts. Normal code is one space per unit, so 65% would be 32 spaces for this building. I think that matches with what Kerry was stating in his testimony. Edited April 19, 20214 yr by dastler
April 19, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, dastler said: I also picked up on the same thing Mendo did... there's 35-40 spaces of on street parking underneath the highway and no one at the city can explain why it's signed as no parking 🤦🏻♂️ Nobody really seemed moved by that at all, which I found odd. That seemed a pretty easy way to mitigate the impact of this building. Not a long-term solution to the amount of parking that should be required going forward, but I wouldn't be surprised if we found a significant number of spots around the city that could be freed up and that would reduce the impact of low or no parking developments. I also didn't realize that they have overnight parking for all the required spaces, so this is purely daytime spaces at issue.
April 20, 20214 yr Really, I should prefer to not be one or the other. I oppose hypocrisy and support the needs of current residents while seeking to promote wise growth in the neighborhoods. The two need not be at odds and the happiness of existing and new residents needs not be mutually exclusive. The anti-current-resident bias on U.O.NEO is strong. This should be kept in mind as armchair-anybodies express the manner in which development should proceed in any area of the city. The very definition of gentrification is people moving into an area and seeking to shape and change it to meet their own needs without respect for the lives and culture those who were there first. Progress with balance is a rare bird - seek it still. Edited April 20, 20214 yr by ExPatClevGuy
April 20, 20214 yr @ExPatClevGuywhat's your concern with this project being approved / built without minimum parking? Trying to read into the "promote wise growth" comment: is it a concern on new apartment residents taking up street parking from other residents? Or is the concern that too many units are being built in the near vicinity or near west side in general? Something else?
April 20, 20214 yr Right, I am confused too. I understand current residents who rely on scarce on-street parking opposing something like this because they don't want the competition (even if we should debate how much we should defer to their supposed claim to a public resource), but I don't get the general concern about future residents of this building with cars. This isn't a symmetrical debate. One camp thinks it knows better than the developer and lenders. The other side is willing to let developers and lenders decide for themselves and take chances. If you let them take a chance, the worst case scenario would be a building that can't charge anticipated rents because it doesn't offer off-street parking, so it gets foreclosed on and a new purchaser charges lower rents closer to all the older units in the neighborhood that don't offer off-street parking. What's so bad about that? Edited April 20, 20214 yr by StapHanger
April 20, 20214 yr A five story apartment building planned with zero parking is my concern. Perhaps 30 spaces aren't needed, but Zero? Any parking provided under agreements is also more than 400 feet away. This means support for limited mobility individuals, deliveries, errands, and the need for vehicles by families with young children are also zero. - Is this developer anti-family or anti-adaptive mobility vehicles for the handicapped? Even if America is at 95% autonomous vehicles by 2030, that zero stands out as extreme. As this neighborhood builds and becomes more dense, each building needs to be able to support a limited amount of parking. Some parking should be accommodated. Wouldn't we like to see another building rise on the parking lot proposed off-site by agreement for this developer? A limited amount absorbed by each builder is the better way to go. This keeps streets open for visitors of neighborhood residents, plus visiting patrons to the areas attractions and services. This also leaves room in the future for whatever forms of transportation are developed (expected and unexpected.) - Parking not needed in 20 years will make great space for gardens or storage. Note: New residents have no less claim to public resources like street parking than those who dwell here currently Edited April 20, 20214 yr by ExPatClevGuy
April 20, 20214 yr My take for what it is worth; 1. Based on yesterday's presentation there is clearly enough parking in the neighborhood to support this building and despite the hysteria, current residents and businesses should not be inconvenienced, 2. If the developer thinks he can market this building with somewhat "inconveniet" parking (meaning not right on site or a five minute walk away) more power to him. It is his money and business model. Why the hand wringing for potential renters (expressed at previous meetings by Landmarks officials) who decide they have no problem with this type of lifestyle for what ever reason. 3. I find the design kind of "meh" so I am not personally that bummed (unlike Fulton House which I really like-and others on the forum hate so it is all subjective when it comes to design).
May 11, 20214 yr On 3/4/2020 at 6:17 PM, tykaps said: 3074 W 14th Gas Station Plans! http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2020/03062020/index.php Parking and pumps behind the building and 4 streetfront retail spots?? I think this is the first time I can say that I'm actually excited for a new gas station. walked by today and saw this gas station fenced off with with work being done. anyone know if this is starting or is something else going on? Edited May 11, 20214 yr by Whipjacka
May 11, 20214 yr In December, the city authorized the property owner to apply for construction permits but I do not see a record of any permit being issued. The owner had 60 days to apply for the permit. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 14, 20214 yr Couple to turn century-old Byzantine Catholic Church in Cleveland’s Tremont neighborhood into event center Once completed, the ground floor will be able to hold 200 guests, while the basement will be able to hold about 100. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cleveland/news/2021/05/14/byzantine-catholic-church-event-center.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
June 3, 20214 yr "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 4, 20214 yr When you hit the sweet spot of appropriate market, scale and financing, a Cleveland project can move very swiftly. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 5, 20214 yr Gotta admit the Tappan apartments are nice, and the coffee shop/bakery downstairs is solid. But my god is Tremont difficult to get to. Did Esher help determine all that awful highway placement?
June 5, 20214 yr 26 minutes ago, TBideon said: Gotta admit the Tappan apartments are nice, and the coffee shop/bakery downstairs is solid. But my god is Tremont difficult to get to. Did Esher help determine all that awful highway placement? Where are you coming from? 71, 90, and 176 are all right there.
June 5, 20214 yr I find the way that the street grid in Tremont on the western and southern sides of the neighborhood was completely obliterated by the highways makes getting around Tremont confusing. It has also really held back the corridors along Scranton, W25th, and Clark because they are physically disconnected, although all the new development is going to help that.
June 7, 20214 yr Gotta admit the Tappan apartments are nice, and the coffee shop/bakery downstairs is solid. But my god is Tremont difficult to get to. Did Esher help determine all that awful highway placement?Leavened is my obsession. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
June 14, 20214 yr 5th and Jefferson (6-13-21) Grosvenor Place Apartments Gallery 7 Townhomes Electric Gardens Site of new gas station at the NW corner of Clark and West 14th
June 14, 20214 yr @NorthShore647i live about 30 seconds from the new gas station they're building. I kinda wish they just turned it into an overall store but at least it's kinda an urban fit *I meant to add the fact that three gas stations can exist on that corner and be profitable is astonishing Edited June 14, 20214 yr by FutureboyWonder
July 24, 20213 yr The Lincoln progress. This building has such a large presence. Love how Scranton is developing.
July 27, 20213 yr 2270 W 14th - 8 Unit Apartment building (7-25-21) 2341 Scranton Road - Renovation The Lincoln Cleveland Animal Protective League Renovations
July 27, 20213 yr @NorthShore647 Nice pics. Can I have permission to reprint << 2270 W 14th - 8 Unit Apartment building (7-25-21) >> on NEOtrans? "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 16, 20213 yr WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) announced the National Park Service (NPS) has awarded a $661,724 grant to the City of Cleveland to develop Clark Avenue Park. Funding has been awarded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) as part of the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership (ORLP) program. The project includes landscaping and infrastructure improvements, and will install a splash pad, play equipment, a basketball court, outdoor game tables and park benches. https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-clark-avenue-park-cleveland
August 22, 20213 yr New townhomes in Tremont receive first approval from Cleveland Planning Commission A new townhomes complex called Lincoln Heights Townhomes is coming to the Tremont neighborhood of Cleveland. Architecture firm Bialosky and developer Sustainable Community Associates (SCA) received its first approval on the new project during a Cleveland Planning Commission meeting on Friday. The project, which will include 26 townhomes, have been permitted to move forward into conceptual approval phase. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cleveland/news/2021/08/20/cpc-townhomes-bialosky-820.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
August 22, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, ColDayMan said: New townhomes in Tremont receive first approval from Cleveland Planning Commission A new townhomes complex called Lincoln Heights Townhomes is coming to the Tremont neighborhood of Cleveland. Architecture firm Bialosky and developer Sustainable Community Associates (SCA) received its first approval on the new project during a Cleveland Planning Commission meeting on Friday. The project, which will include 26 townhomes, have been permitted to move forward into conceptual approval phase. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cleveland/news/2021/08/20/cpc-townhomes-bialosky-820.html I don't have access to bizjournals but as someone who watched the meeting: here's some crappy screenshots: Each of the W 17th townhomes has an above grade front patio with a lower public walkway between them. Each first floor is one unit with one bedroom. The second and third floor combined is another unit with 2-3 bedrooms (depending on how you use bonus room). These 20 units are all apparently rentals. There's another site with 3 townhomes (6 units), but they didn't talk much about it at the meeting.
August 22, 20213 yr Yeah,for the record it is 23 units total (13 townhomes). 3 on the land that is currently a lawn across from leavened bakery. Those 3 weren't discussed since they just need administrative approval. The other 10 are across from the creamery on land that was previously approved as surface parking. All are rentals. The idea is to build a pocket park on west 17th street as opposed to just lining it with townhomes. We would then build sidewalks on 17th, so we could add additional street parking for the businesses in the area. Hopefully it will pass though but we may have some objection yet. So far we have had 2 block club meetings, one near west design meeting, one planning meeting and one Tremont west meeting. We will go back to all of them for final approvals, so we shall see. No variances are needed.
August 23, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, misterjoshr said: Yeah,for the record it is 23 units total (13 townhomes). 3 on the land that is currently a lawn across from leavened bakery. Those 3 weren't discussed since they just need administrative approval. The other 10 are across from the creamery on land that was previously approved as surface parking. All are rentals. The idea is to build a pocket park on west 17th street as opposed to just lining it with townhomes. We would then build sidewalks on 17th, so we could add additional street parking for the businesses in the area. Hopefully it will pass though but we may have some objection yet. So far we have had 2 block club meetings, one near west design meeting, one planning meeting and one Tremont west meeting. We will go back to all of them for final approvals, so we shall see. No variances are needed. Did you mean Fairmont instead of Leavened?
August 23, 20213 yr I meant both. 3 are on the lot across from leavened on scranton road (they were always intended to be built there to break up the slew of parking) The rest are across from the Creamery
August 23, 20213 yr 28 minutes ago, misterjoshr said: I meant both. 3 are on the lot across from leavened on scranton road (they were always intended to be built there to break up the slew of parking) The rest are across from the Creamery Ahhhhh. I read that comment five times and it was only now that I realized you said creamery. I am an idiot.
August 24, 20213 yr On 8/22/2021 at 4:01 PM, tykaps said: I don't have access to bizjournals but as someone who watched the meeting: here's some crappy screenshots: Each of the W 17th townhomes has an above grade front patio with a lower public walkway between them. Each first floor is one unit with one bedroom. The second and third floor combined is another unit with 2-3 bedrooms (depending on how you use bonus room). These 20 units are all apparently rentals. There's another site with 3 townhomes (6 units), but they didn't talk much about it at the meeting. I hope there is more to this project than your description. 1st floor - above grade patios, entry as well? 1 bed units 2nd & 3rd floor - 2-3 bedroom units How does any of this meet Fair Housing requirements?
August 24, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, yanni_gogolak said: I hope there is more to this project than your description. 1st floor - above grade patios, entry as well? 1 bed units 2nd & 3rd floor - 2-3 bedroom units How does any of this meet Fair Housing requirements? the units at the ends are ADA accessible on the first floor. Also keep in mind these are townhomes and not a multi-family building Edited August 24, 20213 yr by misterjoshr
Create an account or sign in to comment