Unfortunately, people in this city have become so accustomed to living in a 2/3 abandoned city, they can't handle the idea of it only being 1/2 abandoned in some of the more popular neighborhoods.

1 hour ago, gg707 said:

Unfortunately, people in this city have become so accustomed to living in a 2/3 abandoned city, they can't handle the idea of it only being 1/2 abandoned in some of the more popular neighborhoods.

 

Yup. This would be hilarious if it wasn't exactly true. 

I love the Fulton House project and think its very appropriate for a mixed use street like Fulton.   I see the approval was tabled and I hope the architect doesn't gingerbread it up.   I don't think buildings should try to replicate the past like a Disney world solution but they should move forward with a nod to the past which this building does.   

Still, neighbors in the city don't desire housing that looks like a medical office office designed for an off-ramp.

It would be nice of us (right, equity planners?) to consider what residents want for their own communities.

 

To my eye Fulton House looks cheap because it is so positively bland and void of human scale and texture.

It's not shockingly modern or inviting to view, or groundbreaking in any way; it's just shockingly boring.

 

I agree with those who don't like Fulton House. Everyone isn't a slave to the Modern. Opinions will vary, but modern done well beats the appearance of cheap.

Gingerbread? No, but how about adding some contemporary techniques that include texture, flair, color and visual interest to sidewalk passers-by and even those who view it from 70 feet away.

 

I laugh because the #1 complaints I see on UO is "Why such bland color?" and "Don't put a glass box on Public Square!" 

Public square is where most  of us look frequently.  The Fulton House is where those community neighbors must look every day. They would like something that matches their neighborhood identity. They deserve a listen.

 

100 people may have 100 different ideas, but if nearly all 100 neighborhood stakeholders disagree with the overall plan and seek to regulate it, that should offer some clues.

Those clues about what neighborhood residents are seeking will positively shape development in the years ahead.

 

 

Edited March 26, 20214 yr by ExPatClevGuy

We should not block developments from getting building permits because we disagree with their chosen form of art. A 100 people have 100 different opinions as to what constitutes "good" art. They should be blocked because they dont meet the zoning code, which desperately needs to be updated citywide after 91 years so we can avoid these silly situations again.

Worrying about the lipstick and not the pig is the problem with our City's design review process.  We should review designs for how they interact with the sidewalk, how they lay out public and private spaces in relation to each other, how they handle pedestrian and vehicular interactions, and other functional aspects of the design.  Ultimately these things are far more salient to urbanism than material choices and cornice design.

On 3/12/2021 at 6:21 AM, YABO713 said:

Really coming along. It looks like it will have a nice relationship with Franklin

What project is this?

35 minutes ago, walkability said:

What project is this?

 

4815 Franklin Boulevard Apartments

To KJP's point about opinions being like a-holes, I happen to like the Fulton House design. The breadbox with large subtly ordered window is kind of Horton-Harper's style, which I think they do well. Only complaint might be the dark color which I'm tiring of. Otherwise it would look great on that block.

 

And please don't look to Grosvenor Place as some kind of standard to look up to. The Landmark commissioner that made that comment often has decent commentary, but I disagreed there.

Not everything has to be starchitecture, and boring can be perfectly fine. We spend way too much time nitpicking over the most minute of details, costing developers and taxpayers time and money, and less worrying about how to resolve the underlying issues that plague Cleveland (and really, many other cities).

12 minutes ago, Mendo said:

To KJP's point about opinions being like a-holes, I happen to like the Fulton House design. The breadbox with large subtly ordered window is kind of Horton-Harper's style, which I think they do well. Only complaint might be the dark color which I'm tiring of. Otherwise it would look great on that block.

 

And please don't look to Grosvenor Place as some kind of standard to look up to. The Landmark commissioner that made that comment often has decent commentary, but I disagreed there.

A poster above stated the building looked "cheap".  That is a term that is often thrown around when you don't like a particular style or design.  You might not like this design for one reason or another but in my mind Horton-Harper rarely does cheap.  This building would have lifted up this particular intersection.

2 hours ago, X said:

Worrying about the lipstick and not the pig is the problem with our City's design review process.  We should review designs for how they interact with the sidewalk, how they lay out public and private spaces in relation to each other, how they handle pedestrian and vehicular interactions, and other functional aspects of the design.  Ultimately these things are far more salient to urbanism than material choices and cornice design.

^This 100%. I do find it funny how these residents feel they should have any say at all in the architecture of the project. At the risk of sounding like one of those people who references their "rights" all the time (which I am not), I am sorry, but if I want to paint my house bright pink with a blue trim, then I don't give a F&@% what my neighbors say unless their name is on the mortgage. Now if I want to affect everyone else's safety on the sidewalk by removing my entire front yard and making a parking lot, then by all means, I should have to answer to my neighbors. At what point in city history did we put so much emphasis on what the neighbors opinions are? This attitude is what creates bland places like subdivisions

Cheap looks cheap in any design language. There are cheap "Victorian style" windows too.

If it were in my own neighborhood yep, I would nit-pick like crazy about any building going up on my block, so developers beware.

I suppose other folks just lay down and accept whatever comes their way. Note: The manner of living that we desire for others may not be the same that they desire for themselves.The folk in this community are rallying for a higher standard and using the tools that are legally available to them to do so.
 👏 Applause!

 

Also, Modern & some contemporary are actually awesome. The developer is free to keep exploring in that vein.

I hope they get it just right for everyone, not just themselves.

 

Fortunately I bought my own home in a protected historic district. Early on I would have never guessed myself to move into an urban Georgian Revival community in Northern Virginia, I'm more of a modern design guy, believe it or not. At least here I won't have to suffer the indignity of some selfish anti-community neighbor going all "pink & blue" across from my native plant garden on my patio. Neither will a split-face cinder-block Dollar General darken my shopping experience, and no tire burning plant will darken my sky.

 

On a recent vacation in Vermont, I noticed a Dollar General that was nicely finished on all four sides of the building. 

I was shocked and pleased, and thought to myself. - " So it CAN be done! This community must have stood up for what is best & didn't just take it."

Edited March 26, 20214 yr by ExPatClevGuy

17 hours ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

I’m sure there’s another neighborhood (or two, or all of them besides OC) who wouldn’t mind this development. If Ohio City doesn’t want it, fine. The more the neighborhood pushes back against development the more it could spread out into other areas. 

Do you think these neighbors don't want development, or do you think they don't want a poor design choice for their community? 
Those two ideas should not be artificially conflated.

 - Down to the last person, I doubt that any of these community folk wants nothing to happen in the available space. 

I think they don't want multi-family development at that location or anywhere near them.  I think they want more single-family homes, with many of them not even wanting townhomes (because those have too urban of a form).  If you asked them, they wouldn't admit they are opposed to renters/multi-family, because they know better than to say that, but they will also oppose any and all building formats that would practically allow for a multi-family building to go in there.  This is the same as the opposition of the 47th street block club to townhomes on a vacant lot at 47th and Bridge.

Edited March 26, 20214 yr by gg707

I think you nailed it, gg.  These were somewhat smaller apts, too.

1 hour ago, gg707 said:

I think they don't want multi-family development at that location or anywhere near them.  I think they want more single-family homes, with many of them not even wanting townhomes (because those have too urban of a form).  If you asked them, they wouldn't admit they are opposed to renters/multi-family, because they know better than to say that, but they will also oppose any and all building formats that would practically allow for a multi-family building to go in there.  This is the same as the opposition of the 47th street block club to townhomes on a vacant lot at 47th and Bridge.

And completely opposite of what the City Planning Commission wants for Fulton (a mix of home types) to increase density in conjunction with infrastructure improvements the city has made and is going to make in the area (specifically Lorain Avenue).  Matt Moss articulated the vision very well.  He also made an excellent point about retail in the area and how most of the customers are/will be local residents.  A lack of density is going to kill that retail so these NIMBYS are actually shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to such conveniences that most people in a urban area desire and the reason they are there in the first place rather than Streetsboro.

Edited March 26, 20214 yr by Htsguy

Such an interesting topic.   I do think there should be a vested interest in having developers spend some (more) money on the skin of their building, as part of a larger development agreement.    That doesn't mean I will like the design necessarily, but often times literally the amount you spend PSF on it does correlate. That building in Tremont being proposed (by the church) isn't just that there's a subjective design debate -- it is that they needed to hit a very low budget number and the skin suffered.   I don't think being unable to eliminate some subjectivity in aesthetics means you don't value it at all. 

 

That said, in no way do I find the aesthetic critiques of the Fulton House at all reasonable.  This design seems like a reasonable, thoughtful approach.      And I think the parking critique are more a red herring then anything else.  Like, there seems to be a wide swath of space to agree on between no parking and 2 or even 1.5 spaces per unit. 

 

What I find so sad about all the dialogue is the amount of oxygen these sort of issues take up as opposed to the education disparities over the last year, stagnant wages  etc.  It is like we can't make sense of the macro-economic trends around us and their implications, so instead we blame developers and multi-family housing.   It feels really over-heated and not proportional to the problems the region faces  

I also wanted to add that so much of the critiques from older people towards younger renters are really bizarre -- they wouldn't want to rent a 1500 apartment so therefore there is something less about those people.   The reality is most of my tenants are solidly working class. They make between 40-60k a year.   Sure they aren't getting off an assembly line, but they work 40 hours a week, deal with student loan debt etc.  No different really then the other middle class folks around town.   Not wanting them in your neighborhood is about as noble as someone saying they don't want Ford workers in their neighborhood or some other middle class group

I've followed discussion of development in Ohio City for years and am struck by how quickly discussion turns to those who oppose a particular development as NIMYs or "out of touch" or, even, an out of place suburbanite lost in an urban neighborhood.  Perhaps this is true from time to time, but by and large my experience in living in Ohio City for the last 15 years is that the number one  factor that drives opposition to any development is the poor quality of the architecture and how it fits within the context of the historic district.

 

Too often, these discussions laud development because its development; others because its "better than what's there now."  (Some have recently applauded "The Exchange" on Clinton - perhaps one of "cheapest" examples of poor "architecture" in the neighborhood; why should we applaud this?) Architects, perhaps more than most professions, affect our daily lives in how we interact with our built environment; architecture can show the values of a community; it can uplift or, in the case of 1970's architecture, depress.  It is all together proper that people should be concerned about their built environment.  Indeed, it is why many of you are reading this; you are concerned about your built environment.  Let's ascribe to one another the same laudable desire, and see if we can't find a way of getting there together. 

 

People I've spoken with do not oppose Fulton House because it is multi-family, or dense, or because they don't want it in their back yard.  Those who oppose the Fulton House, as drawn, are not lost suburbanites.  Rather, like you, they care about the architecture and the architecture here is lacking.  Pick up that rendering and drop it in Anywhere USA.  There is nothing whatsoever that acknowledges that it is on Fulton Avenue in Ohio City.  Not the massing, not the fenestration, not the materials, not the detailing.  For sure, there is no need to mimic or, as one commenter put it, make it look like a Disneyland main street.  But I think we can all agree that there is a large different between asking that context be reflected in the architecture, on one hand, and the inappropriateness of Disneyesque designs on the other. We do ourselves no favors by rushing to extremes or by conflating one with the other.

 

Historic district guidelines serve as guardrails.  They acknowledge the importance of our built environment.  They acknowledge that development for the sake of development is not enough.  The acknowledge that architecture matters. They call for a higher standard. 

 

It is my hope that we can all agree on that much.   

^ Welcome to the forum. In your post you pointed out an example of bad architecture. So can you point out an example of good architecture; like an example that, in your opinion, would garner support from the people you know? 

2 hours ago, Palladio said:

I've followed discussion of development in Ohio City for years and am struck by how quickly discussion turns to those who oppose a particular development as NIMYs or "out of touch" or, even, an out of place suburbanite lost in an urban neighborhood.  Perhaps this is true from time to time, but by and large my experience in living in Ohio City for the last 15 years is that the number one  factor that drives opposition to any development is the poor quality of the architecture and how it fits within the context of the historic district.

 

Too often, these discussions laud development because its development; others because its "better than what's there now."  (Some have recently applauded "The Exchange" on Clinton - perhaps one of "cheapest" examples of poor "architecture" in the neighborhood; why should we applaud this?) Architects, perhaps more than most professions, affect our daily lives in how we interact with our built environment; architecture can show the values of a community; it can uplift or, in the case of 1970's architecture, depress.  It is all together proper that people should be concerned about their built environment.  Indeed, it is why many of you are reading this; you are concerned about your built environment.  Let's ascribe to one another the same laudable desire, and see if we can't find a way of getting there together. 

 

People I've spoken with do not oppose Fulton House because it is multi-family, or dense, or because they don't want it in their back yard.  Those who oppose the Fulton House, as drawn, are not lost suburbanites.  Rather, like you, they care about the architecture and the architecture here is lacking.  Pick up that rendering and drop it in Anywhere USA.  There is nothing whatsoever that acknowledges that it is on Fulton Avenue in Ohio City.  Not the massing, not the fenestration, not the materials, not the detailing.  For sure, there is no need to mimic or, as one commenter put it, make it look like a Disneyland main street.  But I think we can all agree that there is a large different between asking that context be reflected in the architecture, on one hand, and the inappropriateness of Disneyesque designs on the other. We do ourselves no favors by rushing to extremes or by conflating one with the other.

 

Historic district guidelines serve as guardrails.  They acknowledge the importance of our built environment.  They acknowledge that development for the sake of development is not enough.  The acknowledge that architecture matters. They call for a higher standard. 

 

It is my hope that we can all agree on that much.   

 

Fulton Ave. has tons of different architectural styles, materials, etc represented along its length.  It's actually one of the thing I love about Ohio City as opposed to newer neighborhoods that don't have so much architectural diversity.  So I'm not sure what things stylistically, make a building belong.  Better to focus (imo) on functional things about Fulton Ave that matter- pedestrian oriented ground floor uses, parking in back or structured, mixed uses, etc.  But we're back to my point about worrying over the lipstick not the pig.

Lets be real, the NIMBY's ultimate concerns are either over parking, OR disdain about living next to renters.
 

They like to hide behind the "quality of architecture" excuse. 

What aspects of the architecture of the busted out windows and weed riddled parking lot that currently occupy the site are the residents of Ohio City so fond of? Something something cutting off your nose to spite your face...

Edited March 26, 20214 yr by Ineffable_Matt

7 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

Lets be real, the NIMBY's ultimate concerns are either over parking, OR disdain about living next to renters.
 

They like to hide behind the "quality of architecture" excuse. 

As evidenced by the comments of the Ohio City design review rep at the Landmarks meeting.  Height (even though taller builders are nearby and the developer cut off a floor) and parking were the first and most significant things brought up.  By the way height is another code word for no multi family housing.

Edited March 26, 20214 yr by Htsguy

The bottom line is if the council person wanted the project enough, it would get built. That’s how it works in Cleveland. For better or (definitely) worse. 

43 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

By the way height is another code word for no multi family housing.

 

Exactly

3 hours ago, Palladio said:

Historic district guidelines serve as guardrails.  They acknowledge the importance of our built environment.  They acknowledge that development for the sake of development is not enough.  The acknowledge that architecture matters. They call for a higher standard.

 

The role that restrictive zoning laws have played in segregating communities can't be ignored. Ohio City wasn't always zoned 2-family housing.  It also shouldn't come as a shock that historic designations are more commonly located in more white and more affluent neighborhoods.  These types of rules help preserve historic architecture, but they also serve to make it harder for undesirable people or buildings to make their way into the neighborhoods.  A handful of NIMBYs going on about parking, building height, and nitpicking design doesn't have the power to block buildings proposed in Fairfax or Lee-Miles.

57 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

Lets be real, the NIMBY's ultimate concerns are either over parking, OR disdain about living next to renters.
 

They like to hide behind the "quality of architecture" excuse. 

 

They usually move down the list.  If the developer changes something to meet their needs, they automatically shift to a new problem.  Parking, traffic, density and so on.... 

4 hours ago, surfohio said:

^ Welcome to the forum. In your post you pointed out an example of bad architecture. So can you point out an example of good architecture; like an example that, in your opinion, would garner support from the people you know? 

I really have the same question. The comment is always that a proposal “doesn’t fit the character of the neighborhood.” What does that mean and what sort of design does fit the character of the neighborhood? 

Perhaps by "character of the neighborhood" they mean that a building is an aspirational step up... Maybe a building design that inspires residents to point it out with pride and say how much they enjoy looking at it, and that it increases the value of their own homes. Those are okay things for people to desire be built on their own block.

 

By the way; Ohio City is affluent? LMAO!  - Ohio City has 1,200 units of public housing, with 37%(!) of the  population living below the poverty line.

Perhaps compared to even more depressed areas of Cleveland it seems affluent, but not by most standards.

Still, O.C. homeowners and voters do still have more dignity than suggested by folk here who paint them as ignorant of the wider world, or style, good taste, or worse.

 

Also, O.C. is very diverse. The 2010 Census data lists the Ohio City neighborhood as one of Cleveland’s most diverse, with 50% being White, 34% African American, 23% Hispanic, 1.5% Asian or Pacific Islander, <1% American Indian, and 14% noted as “other.”

 

I'm a former O.C. resident from 30th & Jay. I kow this neighnorhood well. People here understand things that outside investors do not. Nobody desires to be taken advantage of for someone else's quick buck. Those who earn their real estate dollars through design integrity and thoughtful regard for their established neighbors are always welcome.

 

 

Edited March 27, 20214 yr by ExPatClevGuy

2 hours ago, ExPatClevGuy said:

Perhaps by "character of the neighborhood" they mean that a building is an aspirational step up... Maybe a building design that inspires residents to point it out with pride and say how much they enjoy looking at it, and that it increases the value of their own homes. Those are okay things for people to desire be built on their own block.

 

That's a fair statement, but also completely unquantifiable. 

How many of the Ohio City NIMBYs would say word one if the developer wanted to put this apartment up at 28th and Division?

Long time listener, first time caller:

 

In the past five years, the same Landmarks Commission has approved both phases of the Quarter, Mariners Watch, Edge 32, Church & State, Clinton West, Knez's Condo Block, W 41st & Lorain, and W 44th & Lorain twice (go look at the first design that was approved). All within the historic district. Particularly with the first phase of the Quarter, I think we can all agree that the design quality was lacking. Hell, even its own developer pivoted the design substantially (and for the better!) with the latest phase. For Fulton House, Landmarks praised the design but objected to the height the first meeting, then criticized the design and the height of a very similar design and shorter proposal the second time around. @Cleburgerand @Clefan98hit it on the head - the design critiques from Landmarks and from neighbors are just another roadblock thrown up to continue objection to a project. 

 

As for aspirational design, taking those projects that have happened in the past five years - I'm curious as to which ones neighbors would point to aspirationally? I think most neighbors would point at Clinton West - which was fought tooth and nail by the neighbors around it. Some others might point to Quarter Phase 2 or the Dexter, both of which are monolithic and lacking in warmth - two specific critiques of the latest Fulton House design by Landmarks.  

Design and density issues aside, the developer was poorly advised on the process for generating neighborhood support or at least staving off active or organized opposition.  The property is located on the border of two block clubs, and rather than seek informal input from street level residents, the CDC ran this through the website they're trying to push.  The website allows anyone comment, applies undisclosed moderating guidelines, and OCI tries to characterize the feedback through their own biased lens.  I question what effort was made to vet or approve this newly imposed web-based process by the OCI Board, block clubs, developers or other stakeholders.  

 

Another channel of communication is always helpful, but completely supplanting the past practice for educating neighbors on the project's benefits and attributes did not serve the developers well.   OCI deserves as much criticism and responsibility for this result as the developer, architect and neighborhood opposition.  Hopefully this alternate web based process dies with the pandemic.

Edited March 27, 20214 yr by grayfields

1 hour ago, grayfields said:

Design and density issues aside, the developer was poorly advised on the process for generating neighborhood support or at least staving off active or organized opposition.  The property is located on the border of two block clubs, and rather than seek informal input from street level residents, the CDC ran this through the website they're trying to push.  The website allows anyone comment, applies undisclosed moderating guidelines, and OCI tries to characterize the feedback through their own biased lens.  I question what effort was made to vet or approve this newly imposed web-based process by the OCI Board, block clubs, developers or other stakeholders.  

 

Another channel of communication is always helpful, but completely supplanting the past practice for educating neighbors on the project's benefits and attributes did not serve the developers well.   OCI deserves as much criticism and responsibility for this result as the developer, architect and neighborhood opposition.  Hopefully this alternate web based process dies with the pandemic.

That was one thing that REALLY stood out to me in the meeting. The comments on co-urbanize were distilled into broad, qualitative comments by a representative without any quantitative metrics. In doing so, the representative creates the narrative instead of letting the actual data speak for itself. It's also pretty clear that co-urbanize is an important piece of the puzzle in getting approvals. I hope it goes away or has its process changed because it's a real stinker in its current form.

Ok, from my early morning walk.  Picture on left is the rendering of Fulton House... pic on right is the recently completed 2 story addition plus metal roof of a neighbor 4 houses down the street from proposed development.  It was probably the inspiration for the design.  But let’s keep talking about “architectural integrity “. 

3 hours ago, dastler said:

That was one thing that REALLY stood out to me in the meeting. The comments on co-urbanize were distilled into broad, qualitative comments by a representative without any quantitative metrics. In doing so, the representative creates the narrative instead of letting the actual data speak for itself. It's also pretty clear that co-urbanize is an important piece of the puzzle in getting approvals. I hope it goes away or has its process changed because it's a real stinker in its current form.

That’s a real bummer. As a resident who has sat in on a few block club meetings, I was hoping it would take power out of the hands of a handful of outspoken residents...but it doesn’t sound like that’s the case.

16 hours ago, ExPatClevGuy said:

Perhaps by "character of the neighborhood" they mean that a building is an aspirational step up... Maybe a building design that inspires residents to point it out with pride and say how much they enjoy looking at it, and that it increases the value of their own homes. Those are okay things for people to desire be built on their own block.

This is kind of my point. I wholeheartedly agree that neighbors don’t want a turd. I don’t want a turd either. But Developers/architects are going to get absolutely no actionable  direction from that statement.

On 3/26/2021 at 10:30 PM, ExPatClevGuy said:

By the way; Ohio City is affluent? LMAO!  - Ohio City has 1,200 units of public housing, with 37%(!) of the  population living below the poverty line.

 

On 3/26/2021 at 10:30 PM, ExPatClevGuy said:

Also, O.C. is very diverse. The 2010 Census data lists the Ohio City neighborhood as one of Cleveland’s most diverse, with 50% being White, 34% African American, 23% Hispanic, 1.5% Asian or Pacific Islander, <1% American Indian, and 14% noted as “other.”

 

To be clear, I said "more white" and "more affluent," so you are changing what I said.

 

Your stats are relevant if you are looking at Ohio City as a whole.  The parts of Ohio City that are primarily owner-occupied historic victorian homes, which is exactly the "character" opponents to these projects are trying to preserve, are predominantly white and more affluent than is typical in Cleveland.

 

 

4 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Dead?! This city is tiring at times......

He's being sarcastic. Look at all the street parking available. 

Parking available at 9pm on a Monday so the concerns are invalid. Of course how silly those neighbors are with their concerns!  What about noon? Doesn’t matter obviously.  Or he weekends? Again who cares as long as there are four parking spaces available at 9pm on Monday!  How FoX News of you KJP

2 minutes ago, Pigmeat said:

Parking available at 9pm on a Monday so the concerns are invalid. Of course how silly those neighbors are with their concerns!  What about noon? Doesn’t matter obviously.  Or he weekends? Again who cares as long as there are four parking spaces available at 9pm on Monday!  How FoX News of you KJP

Isn't 9 pm a typical time when all the residents of this "overly dense" project would be home, entertaining their hordes of visitors, each arriving in separate full sized SUVs requiring 2 spaces?   😜

6 minutes ago, Pigmeat said:

Parking available at 9pm on a Monday so the concerns are invalid. Of course how silly those neighbors are with their concerns!  What about noon? Doesn’t matter obviously.  Or he weekends? Again who cares as long as there are four parking spaces available at 9pm on Monday!  How FoX News of you KJP

6 minutes ago, Pigmeat said:

Parking available at 9pm on a Monday so the concerns are invalid. Of course how silly those neighbors are with their concerns!  What about noon? Doesn’t matter obviously.  Or he weekends? Again who cares as long as there are four parking spaces available at 9pm on Monday!  How FoX News of you KJP

 

The only thing Americans are #1 in anymore is laziness.

9 minutes ago, Pigmeat said:

Parking available at 9pm on a Monday so the concerns are invalid. Of course how silly those neighbors are with their concerns!  What about noon? Doesn’t matter obviously.  Or he weekends? Again who cares as long as there are four parking spaces available at 9pm on Monday!  How FoX News of you KJP

Actually wouldn't the evening be the time when parking would be the most scarce in a residential neighborhood that has little off street parking.  KJP is right on point.

30 minutes ago, Pigmeat said:

Parking available at 9pm on a Monday so the concerns are invalid. Of course how silly those neighbors are with their concerns!  What about noon? Doesn’t matter obviously.  Or he weekends? Again who cares as long as there are four parking spaces available at 9pm on Monday!  How FoX News of you KJP

 

Again - point being - this isn't a suburb. That location is less than a half mile from 5 different bus lines and a rapid station. Not to mention access to bike lanes with a direct link to downtown and other options for multi-modal transportation. 

 

It's just wild to me that we keep referring to "architectural integrity" and the "aesthetic of the neighborhood", yet when pressed, the NIMBYs just end up shouting "EMARGHERED PARKING." I live less than a half mile from 4 apartment / condo projects under construction - some of which are more aesthetically pleasing than others. None of them are a net negative to the community though, as greater density means more safety and a greater sense of community. 

 

I have neighbors that are lawyers, I have neighbors on Section 8. I have neighbors in 3,500 Sq ft Victorians, and I have neighbors in 600 sq ft apartments - it's what we love about the neighborhood. 

 

I understand we don't want "Nashville-chic" BS going up everywhere. But come tf on, let's stop acting like this isn't about a couple dozen residents being angry about having to walk an extra 200 feet to their car. 

Article has a walk-through of the space

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/game-over-for-16-bit-bar-arcade-in-lakewood-will-continue-life-in-ohio-city%3f_amp=true