That cul-de-sac at the end of W.6th was nixed since they couldn't acquire the privately owned property. It's just a regular right-hand turn now. The cleveland.com article posted above had the newer plan.

 

 

6 hours ago, NorthShore647 said:

TL;DR - The city should reduce road capacity in neighborhoods whenever they can. In nearly every case, reducing roadways = a more livable city. 

 

That's a broad brush to paint with. Reducing capacity with road diets and streetscape projects, sure, but there's no benefit in forcing a circuitous path through an already winding neighborhood.

7 hours ago, Mendo said:

 

That's a broad brush to paint with. Reducing capacity with road diets and streetscape projects, sure, but there's no benefit in forcing a circuitous path through an already winding neighborhood.

If people want it to be easy to drive through, they should live in the suburbs, or outer ring neighborhoods. A vibrant and bike/ped centric neighborhood literally right across from downtown should be the ultimate goal. People concerned with traffic and tough drives should be pushing for more mobility options - increased bus routes, shuttles, scooters, whatever. As more 'outsiders' with money move into the Ohio City/D-S/Tremont's they're going to have to learn to reduce their dependence on cars - and a dense neighborhood would help with this greatly.

Actually, the nixing of the cul de sac is even better. I like the improved plan!

1 hour ago, GISguy said:

If people want it to be easy to drive through, they should live in the suburbs, or outer ring neighborhoods. A vibrant and bike/ped centric neighborhood literally right across from downtown should be the ultimate goal. People concerned with traffic and tough drives should be pushing for more mobility options - increased bus routes, shuttles, scooters, whatever. As more 'outsiders' with money move into the Ohio City/D-S/Tremont's they're going to have to learn to reduce their dependence on cars - and a dense neighborhood would help with this greatly.

 

Cul-de-sacs and circuitous driving are about as suburban as it gets. City street grids are supposed to be highly connected. Eliminating routes doesn't make it less suburban, it makes it more so. Those mobility options we should be pushing for can't use the towpath so they'll be forced through the center of the neighborhood.

 

This shouldn't have been an either-or decision. The bike path and road could have coexisted, even if it were one-way the entire way.

 

Edited October 4, 20195 yr by Mendo

31 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

Cul-de-sacs and circuitous driving are about as suburban as it gets. City street grids are supposed to be highly connected. Eliminating routes doesn't make it less suburban, it makes it more so. Those mobility options we should be pushing for can't use the towpath so they'll be forced through the center of the neighborhood.

 

This shouldn't have been an either-or decision. The bike path and road could have coexisted, even if it were one-way the entire way.

 

Suburban cul-de-sacs and circuitous driving are bad because they're designed around low density sprawl housing, require cars to be practical, and typically ignore or break pedestrian and bike connections. This change increases connectivity for everyone but drivers, adds more public park land, still allows access for emergency vehicles and such, and barely inconveniences drivers at all. It's not even close between the two.

2 hours ago, GISguy said:

If people want it to be easy to drive through, they should live in the suburbs, or outer ring neighborhoods. A vibrant and bike/ped centric neighborhood literally right across from downtown should be the ultimate goal. People concerned with traffic and tough drives should be pushing for more mobility options - increased bus routes, shuttles, scooters, whatever. As more 'outsiders' with money move into the Ohio City/D-S/Tremont's they're going to have to learn to reduce their dependence on cars - and a dense neighborhood would help with this greatly.

 

Will the path be a transportation option, though? Can people turn off it onto all the numbered streets? Or will be isolated from the street grid, meaning its not transportation--just a pathway NEXT to it?    Your post has a lot of things in it. I'll comment on one thing:  "As more 'outsiders' with money move into the Ohio City/D-S/Tremont's they're going to have to learn to reduce their dependence on cars - and a dense neighborhood would help with this greatly."  A big issue nationally---as suburbanites are moving into urban neighborhoods--is that they want that suburban convenience that they're used to---so that reduced dependence on cars---while i agree is a worthy goal---is about more than just eliminating streets, as you can't just force desires. 

 

 Street closures, in general, make the city LESS urban. Giant blocks are what characterizes suburbs. Cities should have many small blocks that make it easy to walk. Forcing people into dead ends or circling back to where they just came from is silly, un-urban, and as smart as RTA destroying density to build giant concrete bus plazas in the name of supporting transit (like at 22 and Prospect).

Edited October 4, 20195 yr by Pugu

Retrofitting the roadways within an existing urban environment can come in degrees. There is a big differences between taking a few blocks away form a primarily one way road on the periphery of a neighborhood for the extension of a core piece of the regions bicycle/trail network and placing roadblocks in the middle of the street (ie. Shaker Heights/CLE border). An issue of street network connectivity needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Sometimes it makes no sense at all and serves to reduce the urban character of a neighborhood, while in other cases (like this case in Tremont) it can greatly improve the neighborhood. In my opinion though, there is a relationship that still holds true: an increase in car infrastructure = a decreases in livability 

 

The discussion over the merits or theoretical implications of roadway reductions can continue, but maybe not this thread. If it isn't about Tremont or this particular phase of the towpath, it should probably continue elsewhere. 

In regards to the current form of the proposal, @Mendo is correct, there isn't going to be a cul-de-sac on W 6th (as of the ~2017 revisions to the plan). That'll be a nice property once developed. There aren't many empty lots left in Tremont. 

 

 

19 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

Retrofitting the roadways within an existing urban environment can come in degrees. There is a big differences between taking a few blocks away form a primarily one way road on the periphery of a neighborhood for the extension of a core piece of the regions bicycle/trail network and placing roadblocks in the middle of the street (ie. Shaker Heights/CLE border). An issue of street network connectivity needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Sometimes it makes no sense at all and serves to reduce the urban character of a neighborhood, while in other cases (like this case in Tremont) it can greatly improve the neighborhood. In my opinion though, there is a relationship that still holds true: an increase in car infrastructure = a decreases in livability 

 

The discussion over the merits or theoretical implications of roadway reductions can continue, but maybe not this thread. If it isn't about Tremont or this particular phase of the towpath, it should probably continue elsewhere. 

 

I don't think anyone here is advocating for widening university, only keeping it to not make Tremont into a suburb.    

 

What happened on the CLE-Shaker Hts border--what trail is that?

 

 

I was referring to those roadblocks placed on the CLE-Shaker border. This is an example of needless reduction in street network connectivity. These kind of barriers (motivated for more nefarious reasons) do not improve the neighborhood. This shows how there are varying degrees to road network interference which may or may not benefit the neighborhood. The Tremont towpath extension benefits the neighborhood in my opinion. 

 

There are no dead ends (in the previous cul-de-sac proposal, and in the current revised one). The only reductions in connectivity to the neighborhood for vehicles are:

1. Cars on 1 block of W6th cant turn right onto Univeristy. This is the alternative route. 

 

2. Cars on W7th and W10th will need to go via Farfield to get to Abbey vs. going via University:

 

Almost every house but those on the west side of W10th has vehicle storage in the back accessible via an alley way. 

 

Edited October 4, 20195 yr by NorthShore647

So you're saying a LOT more driving is better from what were simple street connections.  Its a waste of gas, adds more carbon emissions to the environment, adds more vehicular traffic (more potential for injuries for kids playing in the street), AND makes the area more suburban. as I said earlier, when suburbanites move into the city---they bring their "values" with them.

Quote

So you're saying a LOT more driving

 

For the route via Fairfield, adding 0.3 miles is not "a LOT more driving."

For the route via Literary , adding 0.1 miles is also not "a LOT more driving." 

 

Sometimes the safer option may add 0.3 miles of vehicle travel, as it gets rid of the currently dangerous intersection at W10th, W7th and University. People who want to enjoy one of the best vistas in the entire city will also no longer have to stand in the street to take picture or admire the view. The towpath phase 4 proposal is definitively safer for all road users. 

 

Edited October 4, 20195 yr by NorthShore647

1 hour ago, NorthShore647 said:

 In my opinion though, there is a relationship that still holds true: an increase in car infrastructure = a decreases in livability 

 

 

That is very true. But I don't think an urban street grid fits into that broad statement. Any urban design that increases vehicle-miles-traveled probably does.

1 hour ago, NorthShore647 said:

 

For the route via Fairfield, adding 0.3 miles is not "a LOT more driving."

For the route via Literary , adding 0.1 miles is also not "a LOT more driving." 

 

Sometimes the safer option may add 0.3 miles of vehicle travel, as it gets rid of the currently dangerous intersection at W10th, W7th and University. People who want to enjoy one of the best vistas in the entire city will also no longer have to stand in the street to take picture or admire the view. The towpath phase 4 proposal is definitively safer for all road users. 

 

 

I'm talking relatively, not absolutely.  10 or 20 feet is now 0.3 miles---thats substantial.  Are the residents of Tremont using this path? probably 99% will be non-Tremont people. So yeah, screw them and lets make the city a big suburb.

Quote

That is very true. But I don't think an urban street grid fits into that broad statement. Any urban design that increases vehicle-miles-traveled probably does.

Yes retention of street grids could be separate from complete streets design. This project just happens to reduce a very small segment of the street grid, creating what I believe to be a safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists. If adding both a multi-use path and retaining University as a road could be done so cost effectively, then I would be completely fine with such an arrangement. In this case it doesn't seem to be cheap or easy though do to the site specific conditions of being along a steep hillside. The construction of such a system would not be worth the marginal benefit of keeping a few connections in the street grid. 

 

Reducing VMT should always be a factor in urban design and policy decisions. The removal 350 yard of roadway (that is all this proposal affects) will not dramatically increase VMT though. Anyone south of Fairfield/Professor or Literary will have there routes marginally affected if at all. The people who live north of Fairfield/Professor of Literary will have their routes affected by a maximum of 0.3 miles. Personally I see the small inconvenience of a few residents in the neighborhood adding a maximum of 0.3 miles to their vehicle route as a worthwhile sacrifice for completing one of the last missing links in the towpath. 

 

Outside of this discussion over neighborhood grid connectivity, I can't wait for the towpath to be finished in Cleveland. Of the many improvements to the city over the past 10 or so years, theses trails in and around the valley are some of my favorite. It will make Cleveland, and Tremont even more special. 

 

@Pugu I agree to disagree with you over the merits of this project. We (and I'm assuming others) evidently have different measurements for what getting screwed over is or what can be good for Tremont and Cleveland. 

Edited October 4, 20195 yr by NorthShore647

25 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

I'm talking relatively, not absolutely.  10 or 20 feet is now 0.3 miles---thats substantial.  Are the residents of Tremont using this path? probably 99% will be non-Tremont people. So yeah, screw them and lets make the city a big suburb.

 

Seems a touch dramatic.  And I seriously doubt this is going to be used by 99% non-Tremont residents.  I bet a substantial percentage will be from Tremont, and a substantial percent will be from surrounding neighborhoods as well.

Lincoln Park Flats on the CLC agenda for the 10th

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2019/10102019/index.php

Wow, they're really squeezing density into just about every lot in Tremont. 

What do you mean?  This rendering clearly indicates that this apartment building will be the only building on it's block.  I believe it is on the edge of a horse pasture.  I think I see grazing cattle in the background. ?

That looks pretty good. I wish it were for-sale condos though.

just call it Tree-Mont already ?

It is too bad that has no commercial component on the first floor/mix of uses.  That is a good corner for that.

Any new updates on the planned 75-unit apartment project at West 11 & Fairfield Avenue? 

 

Mike Tricarichi bought the three-quarters of an acre property in 2008.

 

This is a Plain Dealer article from Apr 28, 2017:

 

https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cleveland.com%2Frealestate-news%2F2017%2F04%2Fproperty_owner_plans_75-unit_a.html&psig=AOvVaw0KlXMOQK4nU3IgxQm8DaNP&ust=1570571586632288

 

Edited October 7, 20195 yr by Larry1962

Looks like Symon's Lolita space is under new ownership. Transferred to 3004 St Clair LLC in September. For whatever it's worth, that address is a Crust in midtown.

On 10/7/2019 at 6:05 PM, Larry1962 said:

Any new updates on the planned 75-unit apartment project at West 11 & Fairfield Avenue? 

 

Mike Tricarichi bought the three-quarters of an acre property in 2008.

 

This is a Plain Dealer article from Apr 28, 2017:

 

https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cleveland.com%2Frealestate-news%2F2017%2F04%2Fproperty_owner_plans_75-unit_a.html&psig=AOvVaw0KlXMOQK4nU3IgxQm8DaNP&ust=1570571586632288

 

 

The city's permit lookup shows a building permit application from January, then some unpaid fees from the housing department in April, then nothing after that.

 

Edited October 12, 20195 yr by Mendo

As stuff heats up in the area of Tremont west of 90 with developments like the Tappan, retail follows behind closely. Chef Rebecca Hess who's worked at restaurants including Urban Farmer, spice, and the Greenhouse Tavern plans to open a chocolate shop in the Fairmount Creamery building.

On 10/7/2019 at 6:05 PM, Larry1962 said:

Any new updates on the planned 75-unit apartment project at West 11 & Fairfield Avenue? 

 

Mike Tricarichi bought the three-quarters of an acre property in 2008.

 

This is a Plain Dealer article from Apr 28, 2017:

 

https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cleveland.com%2Frealestate-news%2F2017%2F04%2Fproperty_owner_plans_75-unit_a.html&psig=AOvVaw0KlXMOQK4nU3IgxQm8DaNP&ust=1570571586632288

 

 

I assume he's been a little busy for several years with his court case with the IRS. (that was, as far as I can tell) finally settled only a couple weeks ago when the supreme court denied his

Writ of Certiorari after 9th Circuit court ruled against his favor in November 2018.

(https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1520.html)

 

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1902360.html

http://woodllp.com/Publications/Articles/pdf/The_Midco_Saga.pdf

(this woodllp has the most info on it)

http://calapp.blogspot.com/2018/11/tricarichi-v-cir-9th-cir-nov-13-2018.html

 

No idea on the guy's net worth either, but he's out of at least $15 million in those back taxes owed and that case was probably tying up some of his capital.

 

Earlier this year, he also unsuccessfully tried to sue the people who had facilitated that midco purchase - https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2019/73175.html

 

Edited October 14, 20195 yr by skorasaurus

On 10/12/2019 at 2:36 PM, Mendo said:

Looks like Symon's Lolita space is under new ownership. Transferred to 3004 St Clair LLC in September. For whatever it's worth, that address is a Crust in midtown.

 

You're welcome for the heads up, Scene.

 

https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2019/10/15/no-a-white-castle-is-not-coming-to-tremont-and-neither-is-sherlas-chicken-and-oysters

 

Quote

Michael Symon Sells Lolita Building in Tremont, Sherla's Chicken and Oysters is Never Happening

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cleveland.com/cityhall/2019/10/cleveland-considers-economic-incentives-for-development-in-tremont-with-access-to-towpath-trail.html%3foutputType=amp

https://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/2019/10/cleveland-city-council-approves-tax-incentives-for-new-apartment-development-in-tremont-with-access-to-towpath-trail.html

 

Try this 

 

 

On 12/1/2015 at 12:47 PM, KJP said:

How about a six-story condo-plex on Scranton? ?

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/agenda/2015/crr12-14-2015.pdf

Board of Zoning Appeals

 

DECEMBER 14, 2015

9:30

Calendar No. 15-247: 2410 Scranton Rd. Ward 3

Joe Cimperman

12 Notices

Scranton Place, LLC, proposes to construct a new six story condominium building in a C2 Local Retail

Business District. The owner appeals for relief from the following Sections of the Cleveland Codified

Ordinances:

1. Section 355.04 which states that the maximum gross floor area of the building cannot exceed

one-half of lot area or in this case 19,738 square feet (29,477/2) where approximately 60,000

square feet are proposed.

2. Section 353.01 which states that a general 60’ height limit is established for a “2” height

district and a height of 64’-5” is proposed.

3. Section 357.04(a) which states that a front yard setback of 27 feet is required and 5’-4” are

proposed.

4. Section 357.08(b)(2) which states that a 31’ rear yard setback is required where zero feet are

proposed. (Filed November 13, 2015)

__________

 

See streetview below. 2410 Scranton is the metal building on the left. Scranton Place LLC owns it and two properties on either side of it -- the wood house with the open lower front porch and, at the corner of Scranton and Willey/Kenilworth, the mixed used two-story brick structure...

 

Scranton Place-2011 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

 

BTW, in the streetview above,  the brick building on the other side of the intersection on the right looks like a great candidate for conversion. Looking at it from the opposite direction, you can see what the building used to be: "Scranton Ave. Carriage Works"! A Columbus Road resident named Nicholas Kulon bought it in 2012 after resolving a legal problem. While he was trying to buy the property from the prior owners, the Todd brothers, that building was raided on November 5, 2010 by Cleveland police and arrested the brothers. The Todd brothers were convicted for growing "hundreds of marijuana plants" for sale and distribution in that building...

SOURCE: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2013/2013-ohio-1043.pdf

 

Scranton Ave Carriage Works-2011 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

MORE

 

On 12/16/2015 at 5:00 PM, KJP said:

Project is moving right along. Some more "graphic" details....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2015/12182015/index.php

 

City Planning Commission

Agenda for December 18, 2015

 

NW2015-035 – The Lincoln Condominiums: Seeking Final Approval

Project Address: 2410 Scranton Road

Project Representative: Westleigh Harper, Horton Harper Architects

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IT'S BACK!!

 

Near West Design Review Case Report

THE LINCOLN (SCA)

 Return to Case List | Start Over | Print Report (PDF format)

Project Information

Near West Case #  NW 2019-036

Address:2410 Scranton Road

Company:Bialosky Cleveland

Architect:

Description:

New construction mixed-use building at the corner of Willey and Scranton

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/brd/detailDR.php?ID=3373&CASE=NW 2019-036

Edited November 25, 20195 yr by KJP

Great! I love the design of this building. I'd been hoping it wasn't dead.

Different project, different architect, different developer.

1 minute ago, w28th said:

Different project, different architect, different developer.

 

After all this time, it's almost a different decade! ?

The design has aged well!

same name.  larger site.  different design but hopefully the same spirit.    it is us.

Edited November 26, 20195 yr by misterjoshr

Larger site?  What did you add to it?

So wait...I am confused. Are there 2 condo developments being proposed here within a block of each other, or is this the same development (The Lincoln) with a new developer taking it on?

12 minutes ago, YO to the CLE said:

So wait...I am confused. Are there 2 condo developments being proposed here within a block of each other, or is this the same development (The Lincoln) with a new developer taking it on?

 

Same development name with a new developer taking it on. Glad to hear it is your group, @misterjoshr. I'm sure it will be a great project.

^Excellent news! These guys do great work and make stuff happen quickly. I have no doubts this will be a class A project.

We picked up some of the APL land.   The street is vacated.  It allows us more space to build a parking lot below grade 

 

83 ish units.  6,000 ish square feet of commercial 

What your group has done to transform Scranton is fantastic!!! Keep it up!!

 

The Grosvenor Place 

Apartment Building is under construction at West 7 & Jefferson.

I drove by it today but didn't get a chance to take a pic.

It's five story with 21 units.

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2018/06152018/index.php

Edited November 27, 20195 yr by Larry1962
More details

On 11/26/2019 at 10:12 AM, misterjoshr said:

We picked up some of the APL land.   The street is vacated.  It allows us more space to build a parking lot below grade 

 

83 ish units.  6,000 ish square feet of commercial 

Seriously, what your group has done to Scranton is fantastic and it’s only getting better.

Edited November 27, 20195 yr by stpats44113

Foundation work on Grosvenor Place at 7th and Jefferson.

 

Pic from a month ago on Electric Gardens off of Literary. I need to get a more recent pic. A lot of dirt was moved for this project, most of it just across the street for the next phase of the Towpath.

 

Edited December 1, 20195 yr by Mendo

Word on the street in Tremont is the lot at West 11th and Fairfield (gravel lot at southwest corner) has finally changed hands. I was told the initial proposal was for around 90 rental units but was revised to around 60. All of this would explain the heavy equipment on the lot immediately south of the Southside as that will be their new parking area.

 

This is the site in question.

Edited December 2, 20195 yr by MayDay