^ Here's Litt's article on that from 2013: http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2013/06/a_new_rta_plan_for_transit-ori.html

^Tunnels to transit stops that are of any great length are never perceived as safe by the user, or potential user.  Getting up out of the station and into the street by the shortest distance is best, in my opinion.

 

Never? I agree that it isn't the preferable approach, but if done correctly it can be a huge (massive) complement.

I saw a couple tweets last night saying the financing for West 25th street lofts closed Wednesday. I will try to track down a link.

 

 

Increasing the capacity for more cars is anti-pedestrian and anti-urban. Neighborhoods thrive because more people live there, not because more people visit there. Visitors are great, but they're gravy. The foundation is the residents.

 

Not necessary.  Recall the Gateway area during the late 90s, or for that matter the Flats.  Thriving urban districts, to be sure.  Not a lot of residents. 

 

A lot of people prefer density in smaller doses.  They contribute to the neighborhood while they are there, then go home.  They can help keep it fresh and current, but don't want it 100% of the time. 

 

OC is an area full of destinations, which appeal to those who don't have any desire to live there.  That's what makes it unique.  Making it easier to get in and out when they desire may increase the frequency of visits.  Perhaps some people move in, eventually. 

 

But if neighborhoods are geared strictly to their residents, eventually they end up having the same things and lose their uniqueness.

Increasing the capacity for more cars is anti-pedestrian and anti-urban. Neighborhoods thrive because more people live there, not because more people visit there. Visitors are great, but they're gravy. The foundation is the residents.

 

Not necessary.  Recall the Gateway area during the late 90s, or for that matter the Flats.  Thriving urban districts, to be sure.  Not a lot of residents. 

 

A lot of people prefer density in smaller doses.  They contribute to the neighborhood while they are there, then go home.  They can help keep it fresh and current, but don't want it 100% of the time. 

 

OC is an area full of destinations, which appeal to those who don't have any desire to live there.  That's what makes it unique.  Making it easier to get in and out when they desire may increase the frequency of visits.  Perhaps some people move in, eventually. 

 

But if neighborhoods are geared strictly to their residents, eventually they end up having the same things and lose their uniqueness.

 

I'd say your last sentence applies more to flash-in-the-pan places like the Flats. Regional destinations are fine, but they eventually suffocate with traffic and eviscerate themselves with surface parking. Eventually they become little more than a few buildings surrounded by an ocean of parking lots (see the old Flats East Bank or the Warehouse District). In short, their own success kills them -- even though the remaining businesses cling to those lots like heroin. Those neighborhoods lack the staying power, self-policed accountability or intimate feel of resident-based neighborhoods which is what Ohio City and Tremont are and should remain.

 

But you can keep the mix of regional draw and true neighborhood with parking garages, housing, regional businesses (ice cream factory + tours), neighborhood businesses (dry cleaners, convenience store, bank), with a great walking, biking and transit experience for all.

 

EDIT: how timely...

"Successful cities are where people stop, says Gehl, not where they keep moving" https://t.co/iq3p9rhShq @NextCityOrg http://t.co/GkzYy43KO7

I agree with E Rocc. A parking garage on the rectangular lot between W. 24 St. and W. 24 Pl. would be beneficial for the neighborhood, if it's done right. It could include some retail spaces (on the Bridge Ave. and Market Ave. sides), while still largely remaining tucked away from the rest of the neighborhood. This would also leave the large triangular lot available for future development. Most cars would leave the parking garage through W. 24 onto Lorain, which is separated from the pedestrian traffic of W. 25th.

 

We have to realize that, on most given days, a significant percentage of the people walking around W. 25 are not from Ohio City. It is a destination neighborhood. Most people still drive in Cleveland - that's just a reality. I am usually against catering toward cars, but this parking garage would be tucked away in the back, and would only bring more people into the neighborhood. It would also reduce the current footprint of parking lots, while incentivizing people to stay longer (after paying a few bucks to park).

I'm also for the parking garage. I'm against the surface lot.

Increasing the capacity for more cars is anti-pedestrian and anti-urban. Neighborhoods thrive because more people live there, not because more people visit there. Visitors are great, but they're gravy. The foundation is the residents.

 

Not necessary.  Recall the Gateway area during the late 90s, or for that matter the Flats.  Thriving urban districts, to be sure.  Not a lot of residents. 

 

A lot of people prefer density in smaller doses.  They contribute to the neighborhood while they are there, then go home.  They can help keep it fresh and current, but don't want it 100% of the time. 

 

OC is an area full of destinations, which appeal to those who don't have any desire to live there.  That's what makes it unique.  Making it easier to get in and out when they desire may increase the frequency of visits.  Perhaps some people move in, eventually. 

 

But if neighborhoods are geared strictly to their residents, eventually they end up having the same things and lose their uniqueness.

 

I'd argue that Gateway is thriving much more, by far, today than it was in the late 90's. Back then, "thriving" was only for the few hours before and after a sold-out Indians game when the Tribe was rockin'. Man, I do miss those days.

 

The folks that want in and out as quickly as possible are very important as a complement to urbanization, but not as a driving force. Their needs should be towards the very bottom of the totem pole when making urban development decisions.

^I think KJP's comments are buttressed by the Flats East Bank itself... In the 80s and 90s it was a pure destination neighborhood -- few people lived there and they only thrived on Friday and Saturday night -- otherwise, it was dead.  Chain bars and fly-by-night clubs opened cheaply in warehouses often with little adornment-- not all of course, like the Watermark or Fagans, but it was still not a neighborhood... and of course, it died...  The reconstituted FEB seems sterile to some, but planners learned their lesson, or so it seems, because residents, both in apartments and the hotel, and permanent offices have developed around much more substantial buildings with clubs and restaurants.  As Gertrude Stein might say: there's more there, there... Hopefully people will want to live in FEB and even more high-density developments, both commercial and residential, will spring up in future FEB phases ... And as we know, Ohio City is so popular right now, there's no room to fit all the people who want to live in the neighborhood... Apartment, condo and townhouse buildings are springing up left and right and more are on the drawing board.

 

A great formula for a truly hot "urban" neighborhood, is one that is attractive to both visitors and residents.  And yes, E Rocc, people with cars just have to deal with limited parking ... or try transit, bikes, cabs, of foot-power ... or, if you're really indifferent about the urban thing and see parking as too much of a hassle, there will always be malls, strip malls and big box stores where the auto is welcome.  But for people looking for urban excitement, a neighborhood's scarcity of parking has it's own cache'. 

 

 

The folks that want in and out as quickly as possible are very important as a complement to urbanization, but not as a driving force. Their needs should be towards the very bottom of the totem pole when making urban development decisions.

 

Point well taken. I just want to be mindful that many retailers in Ohio City do benefit from those quick, in and out customers. And I am a bit concerned that conversion to paid lots is going to exacerbate the awful parking bottleneck that now exists. 

:clap:

 

Construction set to begin on long-planned West 25th Street Lofts project

Comments Email Print

July 23, 2015 UPDATED 5 HOURS AGO

By STAN BULLARD   

 

Look for construction of the long-planned West 25th Street Lofts to begin Monday, July 27, after a development team led by Chris Smythe and Rick Foran closed Wednesday, July 22, on $15 million in funding for the project. All told, the project is a $27 million development.

 

The lofts project received a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 221 loan, little used in the region, for the project. Through Love Funding, a HUD designated lender, the 40-year, nonrecourse FHA-insured loan covers both construction and permanent funding, The loan carries a 3.9% interest rate.

 

The loft developers originally planned to close the loan in 2014. However, they got sent back to the drawing board by the closing of a charter school that operated a portion of the complex at 1526 W. 25th St.

 

MORE:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20150723/NEWS/150729905/construction-set-to-begin-on-long-planned-west-25th-street-lofts

So excited for this. As I've said before, this will go a large way to increasing connectivity. I can't even begin to say how many times I've been walking with people from my place in Stonebridge to the Market Square area and been asked is it "safe" to walk down that stretch. I've always had to explain about the different project that would be starting soon, and how the other side of the street cant be redeveloped due to the hillside. Soon no more!

 

Just hopefully demolition on those properties on the east side of 25th will start soon. Talk about eyesores...

Yes, my friends and I walk from the Warehouse District to W25th breweries and Mitchell's and frequently note how unsightly the stretch of W25th between Detroit Avenue and Riverview Towers is. Way too many surface parking lots and abandoned buildings for an otherwise lively neighborhood. Hopefully W25th Lofts and construction on the NW corner of Detroit and W25th improve this. Is there any sort of timeline for demolishing abandoned structures for a park on the unstable hillside along W25th overlooking downtown? Or is that project still years and millions of dollars in funding away?

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2015/06252015/index.php

 

CLEVELAND LANDMARKS COMMISSION

AGENDA - June 25, 2015

 

Ohio City Historic District: Case: 15-038

3703-07 Clinton Avenue

New construction of condominiums

 

A few pics....

 

 

 

 

 

Another step forward....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/agenda/2015/crr08-17-2015.pdf

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

AUGUST 17, 2015

 

9:30 Ward 3

Calendar No. 15-159: 3703-07 Clinton Avenue Joe Cimperman

18 Notices

Triban Investment, LLC., owner, proposes to construct a new six suite condo building in a B1 TwoFamily

Residential District. The owner appeals for relief from the following sections of the Cleveland

Codified Ordinances:

 

1. Section 335.03 which states that in a Two-Family District multi-family units are not permitted.

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

one-half the lot area; the total lot area is 7,590 square feet and approximately 11,532 square

feet are proposed.

3. Section 353.01 which states that a general 35’ height limit is established for a ‘1’ Height

District and a height of 42’ is proposed.

4. Section 357.04(a) which states that the required front yard is 18’ and 15’ are proposed.

5. Section 357.08(b)(1) which states that the required rear yard is 42’ and 32’ are proposed.

6. Section 357.09(b)(2)(A) which states that no building shall be erected less than 10 feet from a

main building on an adjacent lot in a Residence District and 9’ are proposed.(Filed July 15,

2015)

 

Side note, Leisy Brewing on Vega is set to become Gypsy Brewing. So that's what was behind the Ohio City brew farm LLC..

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/03/leisy_brewing_co_building_will.html

 

Sad to see what that building once looked like, but exciting to see what is left get rehabed and generate 50 jobs for the SoLo neighborhood.

 

City Planning Commission

Agenda for August 7, 2015

 

Ordinance No. 879-15(Ward 3/Councilmember Cimperman): Authorizing the Director of Economic Development to enter into a forgivable Vacant Property Initiative with Gypsy Real Estate Holding, or its designee, and a non-forgivable EDA Title IX loan with The Gypsy Brewery LLC, or its designee, to provide economic development assistance to partially finance the acquisition and renovation of a vacant building located at 3506 Vega Avenue, related soft costs, and other associated costs necessary to redevelop the property, and for acquisition of equipment at the project site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I noticed recently placed jersey barriers around the bath house on 32nd and Detroit this week.  Demo may be on the horizon. 

I noticed recently placed jersey barriers around the bath house on 32nd and Detroit this week.  Demo may be on the horizon. 

 

Worst. Building. Ever.

I noticed recently placed jersey barriers around the bath house on 32nd and Detroit this week.  Demo may be on the horizon. 

 

Is that what that is?  I was wondering a few years back.  Looks like a 1960s era indoor swimming pool building designed by the school superintendent's nephew.

That building is only a decade or so old.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/08/state-of-the_art_replaces_anti.html

Has the old Max Hayes been offered up to a charter schools and if so are any charters willing to acquire it? I hope not. That building needs to come down and be redeveloped with a mix of uses to energize that stretch of Detroit Avenue. It's a large (5.7-acre) and highly visible development site, between the Shoreway/Boulevard and Detroit.

That building is only a decade or so old.

 

I would have sworn disco era. 

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/clevelands-ohio-city-neighborhood-fights-re-zoning-on-multi-family-projects

 

Wow, disturbing to see that some Ohio City residents don't realize that more residents/density correlates to more security and neighborhood amenities...

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/clevelands-ohio-city-neighborhood-fights-re-zoning-on-multi-family-projects

 

Wow, disturbing to see that some Ohio City residents don't realize that more residents/density correlates to more security and neighborhood amenities...

 

Be active in the comments sections of those articles.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/clevelands-ohio-city-neighborhood-fights-re-zoning-on-multi-family-projects

 

Wow, disturbing to see that some Ohio City residents don't realize that more residents/density correlates to more security and neighborhood amenities...

 

Density for the sake of density and development for the sake of development aren't necessarily good things. 

 

Additionally, I think there are some problems with how zoning variances are being granted.  There are certain criteria that must be met in order to be granted a variance and the City wasn't holding people to those criteria.  You could just show up and say "I'm a developer and I want to build this to maximize my profits" and the Zoning Board would say "Great!".  So the neighbors fighting this would just like Zoning Board to act right.  And it's my understanding that Cimperman and OCI are trying some shenanigans to get around the issue.  I hope there is nothing unethical going on there...

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/clevelands-ohio-city-neighborhood-fights-re-zoning-on-multi-family-projects

 

Wow, disturbing to see that some Ohio City residents don't realize that more residents/density correlates to more security and neighborhood amenities...

 

Density for the sake of density and development for the sake of development aren't necessarily good things. 

 

Additionally, I think there are some problems with how zoning variances are being granted.  There are certain criteria that must be met in order to be granted a variance and the City wasn't holding people to those criteria.  You could just show up and say "I'm a developer and I want to build this to maximize my profits" and the Zoning Board would say "Great!".  So the neighbors fighting this would just like Zoning Board to act right.  And it's my understanding that Cimperman and OCI are trying some shenanigans to get around the issue.  I hope there is nothing unethical going on there...

It's an industrial property, the mediation costs alone make it difficult to redevelop that lot with single family homes or even townhouses, never mind the acquisition, design, and development costs. That is a legitimate argument for having a higher density project on that parcel. Plus, it is totally in character for that neighborhood. Just a block or so away there are TWO walk-up apartment buildings about 4-5 stories high, plus there are several nursing homes near by that are like 3 stories tall. Not to mention, Detroit is lined with taller, more substantial buildings and there's a large institutional use near by (the hospital). The neighborhood is a mix of densities and building types, that is the historic nature of this neighborhood. These NIMBY residents do not have a substantial argument, they just don't want more people in the neighborhood and think density is scary.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/clevelands-ohio-city-neighborhood-fights-re-zoning-on-multi-family-projects

 

Wow, disturbing to see that some Ohio City residents don't realize that more residents/density correlates to more security and neighborhood amenities...

 

Density for the sake of density and development for the sake of development aren't necessarily good things. 

 

Additionally, I think there are some problems with how zoning variances are being granted.  There are certain criteria that must be met in order to be granted a variance and the City wasn't holding people to those criteria.  You could just show up and say "I'm a developer and I want to build this to maximize my profits" and the Zoning Board would say "Great!".  So the neighbors fighting this would just like Zoning Board to act right.  And it's my understanding that Cimperman and OCI are trying some shenanigans to get around the issue.  I hope there is nothing unethical going on there...

It's an industrial property, the mediation costs alone make it difficult to redevelop that lot with single family homes or even townhouses, never mind the acquisition, design, and development costs. That is a legitimate argument for having a higher density project on that parcel. Plus, it is totally in character for that neighborhood. Just a block or so away there are TWO walk-up apartment buildings about 4-5 stories high, plus there are several nursing homes near by that are like 3 stories tall. Not to mention, Detroit is lined with taller, more substantial buildings and there's a large institutional use near by (the hospital). The neighborhood is a mix of densities and building types, that is the historic nature of this neighborhood. These NIMBY residents do not have a substantial argument, they just don't want more people in the neighborhood and think density is scary.

 

Difficult, maybe, but not impossible.  I think the NIMBYs do have a substantial argument against a 70 unit building in that location.  I think even the YIMBYs would recognize that the character and scale of Detroit Avenue is drastically different from the character and scale of Clinton Avenue and that a project that may be perfectly appropriate on one may not be appropriate on the other.  Can you cite any projects not on a major road in Ohio City that has the level of density of this project?  Not the number of floors, or the width of the building, but the density?

Citing precedents in Cleveland as guidance on how to the right thing may not necessarily be the right thing.

Citing precedents in Cleveland as guidance on how to the right thing may not necessarily be the right thing.

 

I agree.  And in the cases where it isn't the right thing and since we've already thrown the guidance from the zoning code out the window, we should turn to common sense and good taste.  And both of those tell me that Clinton is the wrong location for that project.  It doesn't help that the design is so fugly.

"In 1940 the population of Ohio City was 28,000," said McNair. "The population of Ohio City today is 9,700."

 

That's quite a statistic. Especially for a neighborhood that's still very much intact. Where did those people live?

"In 1940 the population of Ohio City was 28,000," said McNair. "The population of Ohio City today is 9,700."

 

That's quite a statistic. Especially for a neighborhood that's still very much intact. Where did those people live?

 

Every family in every home then was probably mother/father + 4-5 children.   

Ohio City needs as much density as it can get – this will only make the neighborhood safer and as a resident – I am telling you we need that.  Clinton Ave is not some sleepy, historical back alley or a small one way street - it is one of the major roads through Ohio City and I say this as a person who lives very close to this proposed development.  There is already a precedent of large apartment buildings in the immediate area: Clinton & W38th, Franklin & W29th, Franklin & Fulton/W28th, not to mention Mariner’s Watch & Foran’s development on W25th stretching to W28th (they just started gutting that place by the way).  All these places literally surround this proposal – Clinton Ave can handle this no problem. 

 

The alternative is that it remains an industrial lot and eye sore but plenty of parking will remain for the law firm next door.  Its beyond me to consider that industrial use is the best use of that location because that’s all it will ever be if an apartment building is rejected.  Quite honestly this is the perfect development for that spot and Geis is a top notch firm to boot.  I know they will do it right.   

 

I find my self asking, why did these people move here in the first place? Was it not an urban enclave that they were going after.  Was it not gentrification of their neighbor hood that they wanted to see.  I find it so odd that people in Ohio City want to see it continue on as a single family home neighborhood.  It just seems like the location that people go to that want to experience growth and dense urban living. 

I find my self asking, why did these people move here in the first place? Was it not an urban enclave that they were going after.  Was it not gentrification of their neighbor hood that they wanted to see.  I find it so odd that people in Ohio City want to see it continue on as a single family home neighborhood.  It just seems like the location that people go to that want to experience growth and dense urban living. 

 

Absolutely. I have to wonder if the increased traffic on W. 25 has helped to spur some anti-growth sentiment.

 

My guess is that most of the new residents are going to be adding their own cars to the mix.

Motorist, even though I am generally pro-density, I think you are dead on about the problems with the current zoning/variance regime in the city. Everything is spot zoning. There's no attempt to telegraph to developers ex ante what level of density to pursue, which is important for setting land prices. The whole goal of zoning is avoid perceived land use conflicts and to allow land owners and residents to self select into different sub-neighborhoods. If Clinton Ave is OK for large multifamily projects, the city should just rezone it that way, and throw historic district protections on any areas where it doesn't want demo.

Motorist, even though I am generally pro-density, I think you are dead on about the problems with the current zoning/variance regime in the city. Everything is spot zoning. There's no attempt to telegraph to developers ex ante what level of density to pursue, which is important for setting land prices. The whole goal of zoning is avoid perceived land use conflicts and to allow land owners and residents to self select into different sub-neighborhoods. If Clinton Ave is OK for large multifamily projects, the city should just rezone it that way, and throw historic district protections on any areas where it doesn't want demo.

 

Agreed.  The Cleveland zoning code is a mess.  I would go further and work on liberalizing the whole zoning system though.

 

Right now, the code telegraphs a false sense of security to current property owners and incredible uncertainty to prospective owners and developers.  As it stands now, NIMBYers and the BZA/Council People have too much power over individual property rights.  Cimperman is on board now but can you imagine what would happen to development if you had a Councilperson presiding over the near west side who sided with NIMBYism?  It's just too sketchy to have that amount of power in the hands of government who arbitrarily manipulates the zoning code.  Democratic control over property rights is immediately suspect to me.

While on the topic of density and infill, I'm happy to announce as a neighbor of this property that construction started this morning to demolish the old "Club Cleveland" bathhouse and build another luxury apartment complex.

 

Vintage Development Group plans Ohio City apartment project as new construction heats up

By Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer

on July 28, 2014 at 7:00 AM, updated July 28, 2014 at 7:06 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- New apartment construction is spreading west on Detroit Avenue in Cleveland's Ohio City neighborhood, where Vintage Development Group plans to replace a shuttered bathhouse with a 60- to 75-unit residential building.

 

The development is part of a burgeoning wave of investment along one of the West Side's key corridors. Just east of the Vintage site, the new Mariner's Watch apartments are set to open in October or November. Small retailers have repopulated a nearby stretch now known as Hingetown. And a recent rezoning indicates that more mixed-use projects could be brewing.

 

Real estate records show that a Vintage affiliate paid $275,000 for the Club Cleveland property, at 3219 Detroit Ave., in October. Chip Marous, Vintage's managing member, confirmed last week that he aims to start construction in the spring, with hopes of opening the first apartments in fall 2015 and the rest in 2016.

 

READ MORE AT:

I don't think I'll ever be able to truly understand the people who are against this type of development. Ohio City NEEDS density. It's an urban neighborhood, and it's pretty close to downtown. Why would you move there if you were against density? There are already plenty of apartment buildings on this street - there is no precedence for only single-family. I guess I understand if you're opposed to the design, but really, it's not that bad. It's mostly red brick, and has a similar setback as the surrounding houses. It's also not much taller than the surrounding houses. I think it will work rather well on that site (which is currently an ugly industrial building that does the neighborhood no favors).

I agree.  And in the cases where it isn't the right thing and since we've already thrown the guidance from the zoning code out the window, we should turn to common sense and good taste.  And both of those tell me that Clinton is the wrong location for that project.  It doesn't help that the design is so fugly.

 

The problem is that it's hard to write laws or zoning codes around things like common sense, good taste and "fugly".

I don't think I'll ever be able to truly understand the people who are against this type of development. Ohio City NEEDS density. It's an urban neighborhood, and it's pretty close to downtown. Why would you move there if you were against density? There are already plenty of apartment buildings on this street - there is no precedence for only single-family. I guess I understand if you're opposed to the design, but really, it's not that bad. It's mostly red brick, and has a similar setback as the surrounding houses. It's also not much taller than the surrounding houses. I think it will work rather well on that site (which is currently an ugly industrial building that does the neighborhood no favors).

 

it needs density for safety reasons as well.  There needs to be people on the streets at all hours in the neighborhood to start pushing some of this crime out.  Density helps with that

^ Yes, well put. I don't think they realize that. I had a conversation with one of the NIMBYs who was (and presumably still is) against this development. Their side of the argument essentially boiled down to "We don't want rentals here because if this area falls into a decline again, it will bring 'undesirables' into the neighborhood." That's some serious paranoia right there.

^ Yes, well put. I don't think they realize that. I had a conversation with one of the NIMBYs who was (and presumably still is) against this development. Their side of the argument essentially boiled down to "We don't want rentals here because if this area falls into a decline again, it will bring 'undesirables' into the neighborhood." That's some serious paranoia right there.

Then don't allow it to fall into decline. Work with the city and police and neighborhood blocks to help control crime. Active communities are necessary.

There is some irony here that I find a little too delicious to go unnoticed.  During the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century density was often cited as a driver of crime in urban areas and undesirable in and of itself.  Earlier city planners were often obsessed with trying to dedensify urban areas or at least mitigate density's effects.  The planning profession has done an about face on this issue only in the past couple decades. 

 

I know, I know Cities pre-WWII were very different places but the principle remains: how "good" is density as a value in a vacuum?  Density instead, I think, should be viewed as a manifestation of demand to live in a certain area.  If demand is high, then land prices will rise in turn.  With higher land prices, higher density housing makes sense to recoup land costs.  We are seeing this happen in real time in Ohio City and the near west side in general.

 

This brings me to my larger point - Cleveland is playing a very dangerous game with it's current system of zoning and land use.  Most of the zoning code is based on the original code from the 1920s! (I think I'm right about that, if I'm not, none of you will hesitate to correct me).  Anyways, it's horribly out of date and any project with higher density ultimately must get a zoning variance or go through the longer process of amending the zoning maps.  For those to happen, the developer must win the blessing of the Councilperson and/or the BZA.  Regardless, developers and land owners of any scale must be on the right side of democratic politics - a fickle beast indeed.

 

So, where does this leave us?  In a precarious position.  The near west side has been able to absorb new projects because Cimperman has been generally pro-development and the NIMBYs have been relatively quiet.  But we should not expect this to hold.  A new councilperson could effectively cast a moratorium on anything which requires a change to the zoning code (every new project, essentially) by opposing zoning changes.  Cimperman has only so much political capital to burn before the NIMBYs get their way or he is replaced - I don't think either is imminent for the record.  But we are going to see this defect in our system pop up in other places.  I had the pleasure of being briefed on negotiations between a developer and a certain eastside Councilperson which amounted to the Councilperson attempting to essentially extort the developer in exchange the Councilperson's support for a project that needed administrative approval.  That isn't the first and won't be the last time that happens.

 

The power of zoning and more specifically, the power of an out of date zoning code which requires changes every time a new project is proposed is far far far too powerful.  By and large, land owners should be able to do what they want with property they have purchased (maybe subject to some restrictions on "historic" properties).  Planners and urbanists are usually very friendly to the institution of zoning, generally.  I cannot understand why.  The entire institution was created for and by single family homeowners to categorically block higher density projects - and it has worked greatly.  We often overlook how subtle and effective the common law doctrine of nuisance was before it was essentially replaced with the invention of the modern zoning code.  The former is much better settling land disputes and the jurisprudence was so developed that it allowed land owners/developers to pretty effectively anticipate potentially challenges.

 

All of these problems work as an implicit tax and sometimes an outright barrier to new projects.  If we really want to see land use maximized, we need to consider radically liberalizing our land use system and placing greater emphasis on property rights.

I had the pleasure of being briefed on negotiations between a developer and a certain eastside Councilperson which amounted to the Councilperson attempting to essentially extort the developer in exchange the Councilperson's support for a project that needed administrative approval.  That isn't the first and won't be the last time that happens.

 

When doesn't that happen?

I don't want to get too far off topic here, but I saw many development battles in many neighborhoods. If a developer wants a building permit, he/she must get the blessing of the Building Department and/or Planning Commission (BZA, Design Review, Landmarks Commission etc). To get those blessings, you will need the blessing of the councilperson for where you want to build. If you want the blessing of the councilperson, you will need the blessing of the local block club and/or the CDC's design review committee. Fortunately, if you can get the blessings of the block club and/or CDC, the rest will come pretty easy. Unfortunately, if you want to do something transformative, it will be difficult to get the blessings of the block club and/or CDC unless you are building in an area that is receptive or dismissive to transformation because it is either already in progressive transformation or so desperate for investment that most any change is deemed good.

 

A relatively small but troubled property in an otherwise stable neighborhood is probably the most difficult to redevelop. Yet it can become a source of cancerous blight if not addressed. Sounds like development of scale is the only investment that can generate the kind of revenue necessary to overcome the costs of what troubles this site.

I'm going to continue this discussion in the Cleveland Zoning thread to keep this one on topic: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,25222.msg764458.html#msg764458

If a developer wants a building permit, he/she must get the blessing of the Building Department and/or Planning Commission (BZA, Design Review, Landmarks Commission etc). To get those blessings, you will need the blessing of the councilperson for where you want to build. If you want the blessing of the councilperson, you will need the blessing of the local block club and/or the CDC's design review committee. Fortunately, if you can get the blessings of the block club and/or CDC, the rest will come pretty easy.

 

You go down to see Gilhooley

Gilhooley will see Dooley

Dooley will go down to see O’Shea

 

O’Shea will see Regan

Regan will see Keegan

Keegan will go down to see O’Day

 

O’Day will see Sweeney

Sweeney will see Feeney

Tomorrow night at Clancy’s meeting hall

 

And he’ll go see the corker

The mayor, Jimmy Walker

And everything will be OK.

 

I don't think I'll ever be able to truly understand the people who are against this type of development. Ohio City NEEDS density. It's an urban neighborhood, and it's pretty close to downtown. Why would you move there if you were against density? There are already plenty of apartment buildings on this street - there is no precedence for only single-family. I guess I understand if you're opposed to the design, but really, it's not that bad. It's mostly red brick, and has a similar setback as the surrounding houses. It's also not much taller than the surrounding houses. I think it will work rather well on that site (which is currently an ugly industrial building that does the neighborhood no favors).

 

it needs density for safety reasons as well.  There needs to be people on the streets at all hours in the neighborhood to start pushing some of this crime out.  Density helps with that

 

Bingo!  A great read here...Jane Jacobs

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Life-Great-American-Cities/dp/067974195X

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2015/09042015/index.php

 

town homes  up for design review

 

 

Interesting name choice. The Ohio City Townhomes. Even though they are located in Duck Island--in Tremont's service area. not to mention that there is a 10 yr-old development on 32nd that has the same name.

But on the plus side, no street-facing garage doors.  I hope we've seen the last of the curb cut bonanzas, like the towhouse development on Bridge Ave.

 

Although a little more density so close to the rapid station would have been OK, stuff like this going to make the link between OC and Tremont so much less grim.