^Exactly.

Don't know if there is a better place to talk about the Mayor's "Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan" that was debuted today!

 

There's some good stuff in here. What do you think? http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us

 

I'm still reading through this whole thing! It's 123 pages!

Sun didn't even get a press release about Connecting Cleveland.

^^I'll post the Crain's article about it here, but I agree jamiec, this probably warrants a new thread.  It seems to be pretty extensive.

 

^I didn't see anything on the PD website about it either, which was surprising because Crain's had a blurb.  Obviously, this plan was selectively debuted.

 

 

________________________________________________________________

Mayor announces redevelopment strategy

By JAY MILLER

3:14 pm, January 22, 2007

 

 

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson today announced a long-term redevelopment strategy that includes a $1.6 billion capital improvements program.

 

The strategy focuses on creating an environment that is attractive to new business investment in the city and its neighborhoods.

 

More at:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20070122/FREE/70122022

PDF overview:  http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/pdf/Development%20Plan%20Exec%20Summary%201-22-07.pdf

This may deserve its own thread.  There are lots of little nuggets in there, for instance, over $500 million for port operations.  How much of this is for the port of Cleveland, and how much for the airports?

Give Mayor Jackson's new plan it's own thread!!!

I think that UC will grow big time once the CC and UH complete their expansions, around the same time that the Euclid Corridor will be completed. Also with the CC/CWRU shared facility, "The Triangle" and the re-location of MOCA, we should see some housing thrown into all of that. Good examples of UC's bright future can be hinted by looking at how Woodhaven and Beacon Place are just about fully sold out.

 

I agree, I think UC will be the booming hood which is why I voted for it.  However, I disagree that the growth of either CC and UH will help UC's success.  In fact, I feel exactly the opposite.  I think these huge, souless institutions have snuffed out too much residential/commercial life as it is, esp UH, which has gobbled up a ton of old apartment buildings and houses (often to parking garages!) and, now, my beloved Club Isabella is succoring to UH expansion.  Actually, I really don't consider CC in UC anyway.  I also disagree that ECP is going to have much positive impact on the neighborhood.  I think the Red Line Rapid, w/ the E. 120 relocation near the Triangle, will have a much bigger and better impact.  I also don't consider Beacon Place in UC either -- it's in Hough, really.  I think the Triangle (if we can ever get a solvent developer and if we can ever put a leash on the Hessler NIMBY/BANANAs) will be the lynchpin in UC's success.  I also think the development of the quadrangle, the Park Lane Villa and E.105/108 housing rehab, along with greater linkage with Little Italy, will also push the UC area forward.

This thread is four years old.

 

People still feeling good about then-predictions?

 

I would say the Detroit Shoreway folks or UC folks are probably the front runners right now.

Currently, I think Tremont is blowing away the competition. They have quietly been adding a lot of infill housing recently. I think that Ohio City will do well. I think Detroit-Shoreway gets more attention than it deserves for its housing progress.

 

UC/Little Italy will probably look the most different because of Uptown.

I think that UC will grow big time once the CC and UH complete their expansions, around the same time that the Euclid Corridor will be completed. Also with the CC/CWRU shared facility, "The Triangle" and the re-location of MOCA, we should see some housing thrown into all of that. Good examples of UC's bright future can be hinted by looking at how Woodhaven and Beacon Place are just about fully sold out.

 

I agree, I think UC will be the booming hood which is why I voted for it.  However, I disagree that the growth of either CC and UH will help UC's success.  In fact, I feel exactly the opposite.  I think these huge, souless institutions have snuffed out too much residential/commercial life as it is, esp UH, which has gobbled up a ton of old apartment buildings and houses (often to parking garages!) and, now, my beloved Club Isabella is succoring to UH expansion.  Actually, I really don't consider CC in UC anyway.  I also disagree that ECP is going to have much positive impact on the neighborhood.  I think the Red Line Rapid, w/ the E. 120 relocation near the Triangle, will have a much bigger and better impact.  I also don't consider Beacon Place in UC either -- it's in Hough, really.  I think the Triangle (if we can ever get a solvent developer and if we can ever put a leash on the Hessler NIMBY/BANANAs) will be the lynchpin in UC's success.  I also think the development of the quadrangle, the Park Lane Villa and E.105/108 housing rehab, along with greater linkage with Little Italy, will also push the UC area forward.

 

clvndr FTW... spot on with the predictions, so far.  Euclid Corridor overrated, hospitals unhelpful, loss of apartment stock hindering growth, solvent developer appears for Uptown but full potential is frustrated by Hessler NIMBYs.

 

A lot of time has passed since the last post.

 

We're past the half way point (2011) and only 4 more years left.  :lol:

 

The US Census was updated... http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map

 

Looking back on this, the economy and the foreclosure crisis slowed residential growth, or accelerated its decrease, in most Cleveland neighborhoods.

Detroit-Shoreway's population as a whole isn't growing: each of the census tracts' 2000 population there had decreased by 10% in 2010, including Battery Park's (Tract #1012).

 

UC: Increased from 2000, [although I wonder how much of it is from CWRU's growing enrollment) and will continue to do so.

[side note: Could a Spartan check out what the enrollment for Spring 2010 is ? http://www.case.edu/registrar/stats.html requires a university log-in :(

 

 

Although depending on the economy recovers, some neighborhoods [slavic village] could be be booming [experiencing an increase in residents] compared to 2007/2008.

 

 

Interestingly, Downtown wasn't even included in this poll and that would get my vote.  :wink2:

 

 

Count some of the inner east side hoods as down and out- Kinsman/MtPleasant, St Clair/Superior, South Collinwood, much of Glenville and Hough [north of Hough Ave.]. The sooner the vacant and abandoned properties come down, the quicker home prices in these neighborhoods can begin to bounce back, finally creating more of a market to redevelop in. As of now, there's very little hope for rebound in these areas.

I still think that even Tremont and Ohio City have a long way to go. Progress has been great, but there is still plenty left to do. I think those neighborhoods need to top off before we see any major boom in any down and out neighborhood.

I do regret not putting up a fuller list of neighborhoods in the poll, which reflected some biases about what neighborhoods already WERE booming residential centers. But looking at Ohio City and what's happened there over the past year, or what's been happening around downtown, we could have probably also surveyed where the "established" nabes would be :)

 

Looking at the Census maps, I think it's also interesting to see that where visual evidence of investment is the greatest and where population is gaining are not necessarily the same thing. Downtown and University Circle saw big residential booms, but other areas of population growth were in the southwest neighborhoods (Kamm's, Riverside and the near east neighborhoods (Asiatown, Midtown/Central, parts of St. Clair Superior and Euclid-Green). My guess is that these areas are disproportionately drawing larger households than the near west nabes are ... larger families, immigrant households, multi-student units, etc.

I think the reason Cleveland neighborhoods haven't been improving faster is the housing stock. Very little extent stock meets the tastes of upper- or even middle-class people of today. Much was built fast and cheap for working-class immigrants. We'd have to seriously incentivize redevelopment of these old houses (i.e., restrict new development) to get them into use again. Slavic Village is a case in point. Breathtaking commercial district at Broadway and E. 55th, but the middling housing stock outweighs that.

 

I disagree: invest more into the commercial streets and then worry about housing. People in Portland will pay $200,000-$200,000 a small, old and ugly house. It was funny to see homes on House Hunters that are maybe $100,000 in Columbus twice or triple that price in Portland, because those homes in Columbus are in areas that don't have shit to do. That: all just to be near a happening commercial strip. Provide incentives to fill in the rest, along with starting a few business incubators, and I think you'll see Slavic Village and North Collinwood pick up some serious steam. With that said however, I went with the majority here: I'm guessing Detroit-Shoreway. Not bad for a longtime Columbus resident with only a passing knowledge of C-town.

Not bad for a longtime Columbus resident with only a passing knowledge of C-town.

 

Really??

Strongly agree with Keith M. on this.  Cleveland needs to focus on getting retail into its commercial strips.  Retail is what makes an urban neighborhood liveable.  Without that it's effectively just another suburb... with more crime, smaller yards, and a longer drive to the mall. 

I am not sure if there is a single neighborhood or City which does not want retail on their commercial strips.  The issue becomes how much does the City, which is already cash strapped, incentivize the retailers to get on board with a "if you build it, they will come" strategy.  The acclaimed urban utopia of Minneapolis, I believe, really throws a lot of cash at some of their big name retailers, which is demanded in spite of its much larger population base near the city's core.  You also have to be careful and strategic in your planning.  The domino effect can work both ways.  If you jump the gun and some large retailer has a massive failure (even with incentives), that will only discourage other prospective retailers from setting up shop.  IMHO, there is no simplistic approach.  Too many complexities are involved and the groundwork has to be laid first.  Only big box developments just magically pop out of the ground.  Vibrant retail strips evolve.

When looking at individual neighborhoods, as we are here, I don't believe large retailers are all that important.  Most never had one to begin with and couldn't really accommodate one today.  If we're comparing to M/SP, the smaller units along its commercial strips are mostly full, and this is throughout the metro rather than just downtown near the major stuff.  Point is, getting those shops open along our main streets will pay residential dividends down every side street.  It's the most direct way for any Cleveland neighborhood to take a quantum leap forward.

 

What I'm getting at is that if some neighborhood with a reasonably intact commercial district (like Slavic Village) were to focus its funding on retail offerings, rather than curbs and planters and the like, rather than acres of retail-free housing developments... it would likely see residential and office demand start growing on their own.  You could call it a multiplier effect.  When your obvious gaping deficit is retail, so much so that the neighborhood has ceased to function as designed, improvements in retail will produce the most growth/dollar.

You have to have people living somewhere before retail can operate.  Most Cleveland neighborhoods have half or less of the population they once had.  Districts that have retained more population (Cleveland Hts., Lakewood, West Park) have more well populated commercial corridors. 

Putting aside the chicken and egg thing, which I believe you have backwards, I still think your approach is too simplistic.  Several questions need to be asked and answered. 

 

How much money does any given store need/demand to locate where you deem it will have this multiplier effect?  Surely, any such effect will not happen with the wave of a wand, so the retailer will have to anticipate some significant loss in revenue until the residential streets and offices fill up providing the necessary market demand. 

 

How does that amount of money compare to the amount being spent on curbs and planters? 

 

How do you choose which retailers get these incentives and which do not?

 

What do you do when the existing, faithful retailers approach the City looking for their own hand out?

 

Will retailers agree to relocate to neighborhoods with failing infrastructure and no curb appeal since all of that money is being re-directed to private hands? 

 

Can the money for infrastructure and streetscape lawfully be re-directed to whatever incentive you want to hand out? 

 

How much of the absence of small retailers in lower income neighborhoods can be blamed on the City spending money on curbs and planters and not on the rise of the big box stores and discount retailers where the lower income families prefer to shop?

 

It's definitely ideal to have your main thoroughfares covered with vibrant shopping districts.  I don't think you will get any argument on that point.  It goes without saying.  But manipulating that environment with an overly aggressive approach is both expensive and can seriously backfire.  I think the sentiment which you hold is due to frustration.  But I believe if you look at the bigger picture, we are headed in the right direction in nearly all of our core neighborhoods.  However, when you headed in the wrong direction for half a centure, the turn around is not as easy in application as it is on paper.

It's amazing what can change in 5 years.  When the voting occurred, I said the Flats, because Stonebridge, the East Bank, and some towers planned for Columbus all looked like they were going to being racing into production.  Five years later, the obvious answer is University Circle with Uptown, Intessa, and Hazel Apts chugging along, let alone a few smaller townhouse developments on the fringe.  Hopefully Downtown and the Flats will see their residential construction markets revived shortly, but they won't catch up by 2016. 

 

The traditional residential neighborhoods are nowhere close in terms of # units, though the impact of a smaller number of units can seem large, especially when you're standing in the middle of Battery Park.

University Circle is where Cleveland had its biggest deficit of supply vs demand.  For years there's been a huge untapped market for modern high-end units there.  Kind of a unique situation.

 

As to Hts121's points, neither extreme is sensible... you can't open stores for no people, but you also can't aggregate people with no stores nearby.  Case in point: most of Cleveland.  All these aspects need to develop together.  Cleveland seems to have focused too much on the residential end, meaning that in order to restore the balance needed for meaningful growth, the focus should reverse for a bit. 

 

Besides, it's not like the city hasn't aggressively pursued retail, e.g. Steelyard Commons and Church Square.  Cleveland has actively sought the development of retail-free residential areas served by suburban-style retail plazas.  IMO step one for growing our neighborhoods, any of them, is to step decisively away from that approach.   

University Circle is where Cleveland had its biggest deficit of supply vs demand.  For years there's been a huge untapped market for modern high-end units there.  Kind of a unique situation.

 

As to Hts121's points, neither extreme is sensible... you can't open stores for no people, but you also can't aggregate people with no stores nearby.  Case in point: most of Cleveland.  All these aspects need to develop together.  Cleveland seems to have focused too much on the residential end, meaning that in order to restore the balance needed for meaningful growth, the focus should reverse for a bit. 

 

Besides, it's not like the city hasn't aggressively pursued retail, e.g. Steelyard Commons and Church Square.  Cleveland has actively sought the development of retail-free residential areas served by suburban-style retail plazas.  IMO step one for growing our neighborhoods, any of them, is to step decisively away from that approach.   

 

And in turn, this city needs to work in some logical fashion on both retail and housing that builds CONNECTIONs between neighborhoods. 

 

If I compare Cleveland to other cities in similar straights, the ones I see with the most success are those that have successfully connected pockets of developments and neighborhoods.  I think of Buffalo, where Allentown, Elmwood Village and Delaware Park are all viable neighborhoods connected to each other.  Columbus has the Short North, Victorian Village and Arena District all rubbing elbows.  The people investing in these neighborhoods don't want to feel like they live on an island.  They want to feel free to roam.  I have friends that live in the fringes of Detroit Shoreway that drive 8 blocks to Happy Dog for beers.  Huh?  One exception to this may be Tremont, who's natural barriers have always been an island and somewhat insulate it from less-desirable locations around it.

 

To 327's point once more, UC /Little Italy/Coventry have always had a connection, and this will continue to help the area grow where people feel comfortable from one neighborhood to the next.  Detroit Shoreway and Ohio City come close, but I know many residents with concerns of large pockets of questionable areas in between them.  If I were to offer advice to our cities planners and policy makers, I would recommend they focus on these no-mans lands rather than looking for the cheapest parcel or tax advantage.  Build it between them and they will come from both directions!  ;)

Yes, filling in the gaps between successful areas would improve them and existing healthy areas even more. There is a downside to having all of your best neighborhoods connected: I'd have to say that's the biggest obstacle to Columbus expanding outside of High Street oriented neighborhoods. Aside from Tremont as a successful, yet isolated neighborhood I would add Northside in Cincinnati, which is probably the best recent example to look at for a downtown removed urban neighborhood (OTR has seen significant improvements, but it's obviously due in part to bordering Downtown). The neighborhood offers plenty of bars, restaurants, and other destinations, while also offering businesses for everyday needs. Several commercial blocks were rehabbed and occupied and that not only attracts visitors outside of the neighborhood, but new residents. Did the city provide funding for restoring older, unattended commercial spaces? I don't know, but if they weren't in decent enough condition to be considered by entrepreneurs in their current state then they probably had to. Outside of that, you can look at how neighborhoods from Pittsburgh to Portland revitalized some rather large neighborhoods and a re-occurring factor is that the walkable business districts got serious investment after little to none. The Short North probably wouldn't exist today were it not for a property owner taking initiative to rehab derelict commercial spaces. Commercial property owners elsewhere that own a lot of spots on a commercial strip, like Bob Weiler's properties on Parsons, are all left as blighted as he found them, so expecting these owners to just fix these buildings up and voila, another Short North or Northside, is just living in fantasy land.

 

I'm not saying, especially in Cleveland's case, that the city pony up dough to rehab every urban commercial block, but rather target at least a few blocks or so on a other choice blocks on business districts that need an extra push and spend revitalization dollars on commercial spaces and housing within in a nearby radius. Even in Columbus someone in the city finally took note and they've applied an incentive zone on the main strip of Downtown to attract businesses to empty storefronts and although it's too early to measure how effective it has been there have been a handful of businesses to move in since that was implemented. And keep in mind this street's problem is that it's too empty and boring, not that it has to deal with a high-crime image problem, and yet the city saw it fit to designate the area as needing incentives for retailers to move in.

 

As for the rhetorical question about what city doesn't want revitalized commercial districts, well, I unfortunately don't see it as rhetorical at all. When you're spending lots of money on less important things: 80s style magic bullet projects (malls ,etc), expanding road capacity when the need isn't there, giving incentives to big boxes vs. small businesses, finding plenty of money for unnecessary projects in healthy neighborhoods vs. those that need it, you can follow the money and see quantitatively if a city doesn't really want to revitalize its commercial districts. If it's not a priority, then you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that the city cares.

1. I was insinuating that Cleveland doesn't suffer from the safe zone mentality to the extent that Columbus does. Both Cleveland and Columbus should have watched what happened in Northside the past decade to see what they can learn from the state's most recent large-scale urban neighborhood success story.

 

2. I was not picking out any specific city when it comes to not prioritizing urban neighborhood revitalization: just about every city is spending or has spent more on frivolous projects than others that will actually improve everyday living in another part of the city. I haven't reviewed all of the city of Cleveland's budget, but I did mention that in the case of a new convention center that is still not as important for the city as the necessities for everyday urban living, of which I still have no doubts. That's why regardless of the effects of that project you're not going to be moving from Shaker Square to Cudell or Old Brooklyn, yet you expect them to be good enough for everyone else in their current state. I know enough that Cleveland residents would like to see a little more bustle on the commercial blocks in areas like these.

 

3. It's a gross assumption that Cleveland doesn't want more vibrant districts? I think if more residents and city leaders knew what would help bring those about that they would focus much more squarely on how to get it done. I know of no city where another new vibrant neighborhood district wasn't welcomed and patronized by other residents from the city *and* surrounding metro.

1. I was insinuating that Cleveland doesn't suffer from the safe zone mentality to the extent that Columbus does. Both Cleveland and Columbus should have watched what happened in Northside the past decade to see what they can learn from the state's most recent large-scale urban neighborhood success story.

 

2. I was not picking out any specific city when it comes to not prioritizing urban neighborhood revitalization: just about every city is spending or has spent more on frivolous projects than others that will actually improve everyday living in another part of the city. I haven't reviewed all of the city of Cleveland's budget, but I did mention that in the case of a new convention center that is still not as important for the city as the necessities for everyday urban living, of which I still have no doubts. That's why regardless of the effects of that project you're not going to be moving from Shaker Square to Cudell or Old Brooklyn, yet you expect them to be good enough for everyone else in their current state. I know enough that Cleveland residents would like to see a little more bustle on the commercial blocks in areas like these.

 

3. It's a gross assumption that Cleveland doesn't want more vibrant districts? I think if more residents and city leaders knew what would help bring those about that they would focus much more squarely on how to get it done. I know of no city where another new vibrant neighborhood district wasn't welcomed and patronized by other residents from the city *and* surrounding metro.

 

You're damn right, I'm the King of Shaker Square and I've held residence in this area my entire life.  What "works" or "fits" for me in regard to why I live in a certain neighborhood is an individual decision.  There are plenty of people who live in Old Brooklyn or Cudell and love their neighborhoods for the exact same reasons I love SS.

 

Again, A) you're generalizing about our city b) trying to compare our city/metro to another city/metro and c) I'm not buying that BS!  Give it a rest already!

 

No matter what city you live in, there will be room for improvement.

Yes, filling in the gaps between successful areas would improve them and existing healthy areas even more. There is a downside to having all of your best neighborhoods connected: I'd have to say that's the biggest obstacle to Columbus expanding outside of High Street oriented neighborhoods. Aside from Tremont as a successful, yet isolated neighborhood I would add Northside in Cincinnati, which is probably the best recent example to look at for a downtown removed urban neighborhood (OTR has seen significant improvements, but it's obviously due in part to bordering Downtown). The neighborhood offers plenty of bars, restaurants, and other destinations, while also offering businesses for everyday needs. Several commercial blocks were rehabbed and occupied and that not only attracts visitors outside of the neighborhood, but new residents. Did the city provide funding for restoring older, unattended commercial spaces? I don't know, but if they weren't in decent enough condition to be considered by entrepreneurs in their current state then they probably had to. Outside of that, you can look at how neighborhoods from Pittsburgh to Portland revitalized some rather large neighborhoods and a re-occurring factor is that the walkable business districts got serious investment after little to none. The Short North probably wouldn't exist today were it not for a property owner taking initiative to rehab derelict commercial spaces. Commercial property owners elsewhere that own a lot of spots on a commercial strip, like Bob Weiler's properties on Parsons, are all left as blighted as he found them, so expecting these owners to just fix these buildings up and voila, another Short North or Northside, is just living in fantasy land.

 

I'm not saying, especially in Cleveland's case, that the city pony up dough to rehab every urban commercial block, but rather target at least a few blocks or so on a other choice blocks on business districts that need an extra push and spend revitalization dollars on commercial spaces and housing within in a nearby radius. Even in Columbus someone in the city finally took note and they've applied an incentive zone on the main strip of Downtown to attract businesses to empty storefronts and although it's too early to measure how effective it has been there have been a handful of businesses to move in since that was implemented. And keep in mind this street's problem is that it's too empty and boring, not that it has to deal with a high-crime image problem, and yet the city saw it fit to designate the area as needing incentives for retailers to move in.

 

As for the rhetorical question about what city doesn't want revitalized commercial districts, well, I unfortunately don't see it as rhetorical at all. When you're spending lots of money on less important things: 80s style magic bullet projects (malls ,etc), expanding road capacity when the need isn't there, giving incentives to big boxes vs. small businesses, finding plenty of money for unnecessary projects in healthy neighborhoods vs. those that need it, you can follow the money and see quantitatively if a city doesn't really want to revitalize its commercial districts. If it's not a priority, then you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that the city cares.

 

Thank you for this Keith.  I appreciate the comparisons of neighborhoods in Columbus to those of Cleveland.  There is something to be learned from successes (and failures) in each.

I don't understand the logic in examining Cleveland and its neighborhoods as if they exist in a vacuum.  Potential residents and investors will most certainly perform the sort of comparative analysis that Keith M. suggests.  Refusing to acknowledge the "best practices" of the competition is, IMO, a huge and tragic mistake for Cleveland or any city. 

 

If a forumer's postings are detrimental enough to UrbanOhio that they are no longer welcome to participate in discussion, the admins and mods will make that determination, and will take whatever action is deemed appropriate.  It's not up to forumers to try to shout or bully each other out of participating.

I concur. The best solution is to ignore someone if you think they have nothing to contribute. Don't encourage or otherwise validate them by responding. If you think they are violating the rules of the forum in terms of profanity, or making personal attacks, or saying something generally offensive, then please bring it to the attention of the moderators by clicking that little link at the bottom of every single posting. If you feel someone is full of self-important bluster, that's too bad. It's not against the rules here. Thank goodness or I would have been banned years ago! ;-)