OK then.  I'll need a bushhog and one hell of a Slip 'N' Slide.

So, does anyone know about a timeline in regards to the Hope VI Riverview housing project.  So many nice ideas on the Ohio City/Near West website, but when will it happen?

The only timeline I know about is the one concerning actual HOPE VI funding.  That is $8.5 million from the government that has to be used by 2006 (beginning or end, I don't know).  As for a construction timeline or the more realistic question of whether or not they intend to use the money...I've tried to get in touch with the Ohio City Near West Development Corporation and have gotten zero response.  I even tried to get buddy-buddy with them, being a CDC worker myself!  No dice...

Well, this article says that they should be doing some things this spring/summer.  Hope to see some construction by the time that I move back.  This article is from last Spring.

 

Developers reveal Riverview Hope VI plans

by Chuck Hoven

 

The Hope VI Riverview development seeks to dramatically transform the east side of W. 25 th Street from Bridge Avenue to Detroit Avenue .

 

On Tuesday May 18th, development partners Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA), Ohio City Near West Development Corporation (OCNW) and Washington,D.C.-based Telesis Corporation presented plans for the long-awaited development at a public meeting held in the cafeteria at Riverview Towers , 1725 W. 25 th Street .

 

The first phase of the development calls for 416 units of new housing, 10,000 square feet of new commercial space, 267 new surface parking spaces and an underground parking garage with 480 parking places. Riverview senior towers with 501 units of housing will be integrated into the site.

 

Phase I targets the east side of W. 25 from Bridge Avenue to just north of Franklin Avenue . The 12-acre site extends east to Franklin Avenue behind the Riverview towers. As part of the development, W. 25 th Street will be narrowed from Bridge to Detroit to the same width as W. 25 th south of Bridge Ave.

 

The 416 units of housing will consist of 81 public housing units, 35 affordable housing units and 300 market rate units. William Whitman of Telesis Corporation said that once the development is completed, “You will not be able to tell the market rate from the affordable and public housing units.”

 

“That’s what nice about this project,” said Laura Noble, acting executive director of OCNW, referring to the plans for people of widely-differing incomes to live side by side. All of the public housing residents will be required to have income below 60% the median family income in Cuyahoga County (currently $36,000 for a family of four). The 35 affordable units and 300 market rate units will range in price from $126,000 to $400,000. The housing units will be composed of one, two, three and four bedroom apartments and condominiums. There will be a condominium association to represent residents and Telesis Corporation or an affiliate management company will manage the entire new development.

 

CMHA will continue to manage the Riverview Towers . Residents who were displaced when the 135 units of public housing at Riverview were demolished in 2000 to make way for this project will have the first choice to come into the new public housing units being created as part of this project.

 

The first phase of the project is expected to cost $110 million, including $20 million for the infrastructure and garage; $15.3 million for the public housing units; and $73.5 million for the affordable and market rate housing units. Under CMHA’s Project Area Resident (PAR) program, hiring employment goals include jobs for CMHA residents, according to CMHA Hope VI Coordinator Michael Bowen. Asked whether the developer will work with the local building trades council to provide training that would lead to union apprenticeships and eventually a skilled trade, Telesis Corporation’s Whitman said an employment training program and outreach to the construction trades is “certainly something we have done in the past. It is something we take seriously and hopefully will make happen.” CMHA’s Bowen said one of the reasons Telesis Corp was chosen for this job was their track record in this area.

 

Plans call for the commercial portion of the development to be on the northeast corner of W. 25 th and Bridge Avenue . It would extend the already existing commercial strip on W. 25 th Street north in front of the south tower of Riverview . Parking spaces would be located behind the retail space in front of the tower in what is now a green space with benches for residents. When residents expressed concern about losing the green space and benches, developers said other public spaces would be created for sitting areas throughout the new development. The plans call for the current turnaround now in front of the south tower to be moved to the front of the north tower. Developers promised to discuss these changes with residents of the towers.

 

The parking garage will be built under the hillside in the rear of Riverview (between Riverview and Franklin), said Telesis Corporation’s Whitman. Residents will access the garage by means of a new road that will run parallel with Franklin . Whitman says the top fifteen feet of the hill will be removed to add stability to the hill.

 

Developers hope that Phase I construction will begin in the spring of 2005 and be completed within 5 years. Developers are under pressure to proceed with the housing portion of the development because the $8.5 million in HOPE VI funding targeted for the project’s public housing must be spent by December of 2006.

 

Members of the Riverview Local Advisory Council, led by President Clara Bell, asked for an opportunity to meet with developers soon to discuss some of their concerns, including proposed changes for the exterior grounds and increasing resident input on maximizing use of first floor community space. A number of residents expressed concern that an effort be made to include restaurants and other commercial ventures that cater more to low-income residents. Residents raised concerns about a proposed joint community center to be shared by current (mostly elderly) residents and the new families. Residents asked that a separate community facility be created for families with children to avoid conflicts with seniors.

 

Members of the Bridge/Carroll/Jay/Riverview block clubs of OCNW were also in attendance. They asked about when updated plans would be available for the public to view. Developers promised another large public meeting in the fall of this year.

 

CMHA initially received funding for the Hope VI Riverview and Lakeview proposal in 1996. In 2000, 135 units of public housing at Riverview were demolished to make way for the new development. In 2001 a public charrette was held to allow public participation in the design of the new development. In the interim plans were drawn up by Goody, Clancy & Associates, a Boston-based architecture and planning firm and the new development partnership was formed.

 

CMHA’s Bowen says there is no current timetable for Phase II. Current plans call for a $70 million-development which would include 266 housing units and a park at the corner of W. 25 th and Detroit . CMHA currently owns all but three parcels in the proposed target area. They are negotiating with Transitional Housing to help find a new home for the facility. The eight units of public housing north of Franklin will be demolished. CMHA’s Bowen says the new housing in this area will include eight units of public housing to replace them.

 

 

 

 

I would have to think that people are aprehensive to put affordable housing in an area that is turning into a nice happening spot with yuppies moving in.  I like the developement, but I think you could build 200 high end condo's in this area and have no problem selling them.

Read the article again. They're planning 300 high-end residences, or 72 percent of the total....

 

 

"The 416 units of housing will consist of 81 public housing units, 35 affordable housing units and 300 market rate units."

 

That's what "market-rate" means. Sometimes people hear about this project, that a public housing entity is pursuing it, and automatically assume it's going to be another public housing project. That's not what CMHA is doing anymore. They realize the folly in building warehouses for poor people and instead need to mix them into a built environment where they can break the cycle of poverty....

 

KJP

 

 

Thank you for clearing that up KJP...I feel like I've been saying this over and over again throughout this thread and that it just hasn't registered! 

 

This is NOT going to be a public housing project in the traditional/stigmatized sense.  The affordable units will be mixed throughout and will look JUST LIKE the market rate units.  And when the price is between $126k and $400k, we're talking a nice variety with some high-end stuff in there!  Phase II will concentrate even more heavily on he market-rate, to my understanding. 

 

And think of the park overlooking the valley and downtown and the new retail that will connect the Detroit end of West 25th to the Lorain end...

Chicago has been real successful in this type of development.  At least that is what I have heard (I aint go no facts)

Also, aren't there set asides in the WHD apartment buildings for low income residents.  (that is how servers get into these places)

The Boston group that is doing the planning for this project is the same one that did the Cabrini Green  Here is a link to their site.  There is also some info on the project:

 

http://www.gcassoc.com/html/market_specialty.asp?pageid=1032

The same group, Goody Clancy, also designed the new Case dorms.  The website says that Case's plan is to replace all the undergraduate housing in 10 yrs. 

Some not so good news from today's PD

Unstable land further delays CMHA project

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Angela D. Chatman

Plain Dealer Reporter

Plans for a multimillion-dollar development behind Riverview Tower will be revised because much of the land where it was to be built is unstable.

 

The problem will further delay the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority project, which faces a deadline for using federal grant money.

 

A preliminary geotechnical study has found that the hillside stretching from behind the tower on West 25th Street down to Riverbed Road along the Cuyahoga River is shifting.

 

The study said some sort of stabilization with anchors across the site - for about $15 million - would be needed...

 

more at: http://www.cleveland.com

 

 

 

ouch...that doesn't sound too good.  that's an extra $15 million to a project that might not justify that.  I guess the worst case scenario is that we'll see less density on the site.  and if they can't build out on the east end of the site, I guess they'd have no choice but to turn it into a big park/promenade along the bluff!  of course I'd rather see the aforementioned public agencies put all the money up for the necessary engineering, but how long would that take to get approved?  probably longer than a year-and-a-half, which would mean we'd lose the HUD $$$...

There is a church tucked in behind the WSM, maybe the diocese will be interested in selling it and the land?

They should probably undercut the slope about 10' and inject lime in it.  Fairly cost effective.  With the density they assume to have here, it would pay off in the long run.  If you can build a shopping center on a sloped landfill (CityView Center in Garfield Heights) I'm sure you can do this.  Believe, this is what I do for a living, and if they cancel the project because of this, it would have never gone in the first place.  There are always soils issues on  sites, especially in the city. 

Not exactly the news I wanted to hear..

Can't say I'm surprised by this turn of events....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2492.msg26230#msg26230

 

I feared this would happen. If it wasn't for the short timeline, they could probably find the funds for stabilizing the hillside. Otherwise, CMHA will probably have to scale back the project. No matter what they build, I suspect they'll need some sort of slope stabilization work. Even several small, recently built townhouses in Rocky River, at Wooster and Detroit roads, had to be built on caissons to support their weight. The shale slopes around here just don't make hillside construction, be they of buildings, roads or whatever, very affordable.

 

KJP

update:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1123061929160110.xml&coll=2

These low-income housing advocates make me mad. I'm sick of them proposing more warehouses for poor people and arguing against private investment in the neighborhood. Un-freaking-believable.

 

Give them job training and a rent voucher to help them get out of poverty, and bring more market-rate homes to the neighborhood so that there's more wealth. More wealth means more stores and businesses. More stores and businesses means more jobs. More jobs means fewer people having to depend on public assistance and dispersing those concentrations of poverty.

 

Three cheers to Joe Mazzola for stating what apparently isn't so obvious to these short-sighted people.

 

KJP

I'm with you KJP.  I am very curious to see which alternative sites are offered today. 

I agree as well..  Im more or less like "Whats the point?

These low-income housing advocates make me mad. I'm sick of them proposing more warehouses for poor people and arguing against private investment in the neighborhood. Un-freaking-believable.

 

Give them job training and a rent voucher to help them get out of poverty, and bring more market-rate homes to the neighborhood so that there's more wealth. More wealth means more stores and businesses. More stores and businesses means more jobs. More jobs means fewer people having to depend on public assistance and dispersing those concentrations of poverty.

 

Three cheers to Joe Mazzola for stating what apparently isn't so obvious to these short-sighted people.

 

KJP

 

Most of those assholes don't live in central Cleveland anyway (along with the homeless rights advocates, who I think need a fucking punch in the mouth).  I say if they want to make more segregated low income housing projects, and want people to be allowed to panhandle freestyle, then they should be happy to have it in their own neighborhoods.

So, has anyone heard of the alternative sites?  Why does the PD run a story saying that alternate sites will be announced, and then never announce those sites? 

^honestly what did you expect out of the PD?

I can't think of a site in OC for a development of this scale...unless there's some industrial property along Detroit or something south of Lorain that they're talking about.  All the recent development has been rehabs or one side of a block...a lot of scattered stuff, but nothing monumental.  This, I'm assuming, is going to be the size of a Battery Park or thereabouts. 

 

Also, what will the future of the Riverview site be?  There's so much land to be developed both around the towers and behind the market, all the way from Lorain to Detroit.  But with the status of the hillside, what will it take to develop it?  What if we just built closer to West 25th and made the easternmost portion a winding park???  Sounds good to me!

 

There really is a lot of parking lot space behind the market.  I wish that the parking could be consolidated in a garage fronting Lorain and housing placed on the existing lots.  It would be nice to create a pedestrian space along the produce alley from W. 25th leading into a new housing development. This would give the market square area even greater life.

 

The Ohio City newsletter said that the alternatives would be discussed at a meeting on wednesday night.  I haven't heard anything in the PD.  I wish I could have gone to the meeting, but I was not able to go.

West Side Housing Plan To Be Reviewed   

08-23-2005 8:25 AM

 

(Cleveland, OH) -- Planners of a public housing complex on Cleveland's west side are on a tight deadline. They want community response this week before submitting final plans to the federal government at the end of September. There are four sites under consideration in the Ohio City neighborhood. The original site near Riverside Towers was scrapped because of unstable ground. The public meetings are tomorrow and Thursday nights at Lutheran Hospital.

 

 

Copyright 2005 Metro Networks Communications Inc., A Westwood One Company 

I saw this yesterday.  I hope this project succeeds.  The potential for greater high-density housing is very important for a flourishing area like Ohio City which, believe it or not, still has a ways to go before become that bustling, true 24-hour neighborhood we seek.  I, like you, hope that since development behind Riverview Towers was squelched b/c of the unstable hillside, building can be in tighter to the WS Market/Market Sq location.  The previous Hope VI development appeared a tad sprawling and more weighted toward the Detroit end where, of course, there's far less commercial activity and is cut off by Lutheran Hosp.

 

I hope people are not a little lackluster b/c of the public housing aspect, cause the far greater percentage of housing are market rate units.  I've really got my fingers crossed than this project can go forward and that all the neighborhood factional yelpers can cool it and work together.

 

I went to the meeting last night. It was pure chaos.  It was sad.  Many people were openly belligerent about the project--especially the West Side Market merchants. People fear density.  I hope that some people could go tonight and voice opinions in favor of higher density.  Or, at least send emails to OCNW ( [email protected] ) saying that you support this project. I'll explain my thoughts more thoroughly at a later time.

I'll be attending tonight and will do my best not to sit on my hands...  more later!

OK, last nights meeting---round two in this stage of public meetings about the project---was MUCH better, for what I understand.  I attended this meeting and there was never any feeling of things being out of control, though there were comments made with passion and unease and maybe a little bit of anger.  I'm pretty sure that OCNW, CMHA and Telesis went back to the office and said, "We've got to take control of the next meeting."  They brought in a facilitator who's lived in the neighborhood for nearly 30 years and the whole thing went a lot more smoothly.  That's not to say that people didn't get to speak their minds.  The difference, in my understanding, is that they were able to lay out more of the "givens" and "not givens" at the beginning, so that people would understand that the plans before them were not already set in stone, but merely the first version of a potential plan. 

 

That being said, the presentation went well (I'll post more on this when I'm at home) and the questions/comments/response were, for the most part, intelligent and well-answered (in my opinion).  The major concerns at this meeting were not about density, but about the urgency of the planning for this version and the rapidly-approaching deadline.  That deadline is the end of September and $8.5 million in federal dollars are attached to that date.  The question then becomes: do we rush into this proposal for the sake of keeping that funding or do we run a much greater risk of making a much more costly mistake if we don't take our time and get it right??? 

 

That's the most important question that I took out of this meeting.  Everyone's being rushed here...the developer, the CDC, the public...is it possible to get an extension? will the money definitely get pulled if we don't meet the deadline? will a plan thrown together in this short amount of time even get approval from HUD???  It's drastically different from the initial plan that CMHA received funding for in 1996, so there's still the possibility that HUD will say, "we understand that the parameters changed, but this isn't nearly what you proposed 9 years ago, so we are pulling the funding."  That's my understanding.

 

I'll post images, "givens" and "not givens" and other details later.

I've been wondering this for a while... but can anybody tell me why the hell it took them so long to get moving in the first place?  I remember seeing plans for this site maybe five years ago.

They brought in a facilitator who's lived in the neighborhood for nearly 30 years and the whole thing went a lot more smoothly.

 

That facilitator was there the first night too. Didn't make a lick of difference!

 

Do we rush into this proposal for the sake of keeping that funding or do we run a much greater risk of making a much more costly mistake if we don't take our time and get it right???

 

I say submit the proposal; we can tweak it later. It calls for developing primarily vacant space and parking lots -- always a good idea IMO. Who knows when we'll get another chance at $8.5 million?

 

My current concerns would be in two areas: One, design -- but those details can be worked out later. I believe City Architecture is slated to be the designer of this stuff, and I trust them to turn out something decent. Two, I'm not sure Ohio City can sustain 300+ new units of market-rate housing. I live in the OC, and see lots of "for rent" signs in even the most desirable areas. Perhaps the number of market-rate units could be reduced before the project is actually built.

 

Oh, by the way, the plans and community feedback have been posted on a special page on the OCNW site: http://www.ocnw.org/index.cgi?id=130&p=5151

The person to send feedback to is Sheri Fointno, [email protected]

good lookin out, blinker.  they're taking comments up until September 1 or 2. 

 

I agree that there is concern over whether 300+ new market rate units can be absorbed in OC.  This was voiced at the Thursday night session and the response was that this will not all be built at once.  It can be done in phases and a schedule will be layed out after more studies of market demand, etc.

 

This is one of the things that has surprised me so much about the nearby Stonebridge development.  As unique and exciting as it is, it's pretty isolated in relation to existing neighborhoods, yet they've built several hundred units there over the past 4 years.  I don't know what their vacancy rates are, but I would say that if they can rent/sell all those units over on the Viaduct in that short period of time, then they should certainly be able to rent/sell the same amount located behind the West Side Market and in such close proximity to the Red Line, Dave's and all the other OC amenities. 

 

Another of the preferred elements of the original proposal, in my opinion, was that their units were a much easier sell.  It seems that townhouses are the way to go right now and so many of those units were townhouses on streets overlooking Downtown and the river.  The plan did much more to create a contiguous urban fabric, whereas the primary element of the current plan (the site behind the WSM) will just plop down a few towers and a garage without doing much for the street level.  This, of course, all remains to be seen in the design phase...

The original plan, scrapped due to unstable terrain:

 

 

 

 

The new plan, which is still highly conceptual, features:

  48 units at Detroit Avenue & West 28th Street (8 affordable)

  74 units at Church Avenue & West 28th Street (12 affordable)

  268 units at Bridge Avenue & West 24th Street (49 affordable)

  12 units at West 41st & Lorain Avenue (all affordable)

 

I have more details on these sites and they are not necessarily the only ones being considered.  The following are two images from the meeting.

 

This map shows the locations of the four sites proposed above (I've highlighted them for you!):

 

This is a perspective view of what the building heights and density would look like:

 

 

CMHA officials will ask to extend deadline on delayed Riverview project

Sunday, September 11, 2005

 

Angela D. Chatman

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Local housing officials will ask for an extension on the long-delayed Riverview HOPE VI project even as they prepare to meet a Sept. 30 deadline for revised plans.

 

The request means asking the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to agree to revised "locked" checkpoints for the project, said Scott Pollock, director of real estate and development for the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority.

 

For instance, CMHA would ask for a deadline of June 30, 2006, for finishing project financing. The original deadline was June 30, 2003...

 

more at:  http://www.cleveland.com

 

 

It ticks me off that the Hicks lot was ruled out just because some West Side Market tenants were worried about losing overflow parking. A real example of how the WS market (especially longtime tenants) views itself as separate from the neighborhood -- since maintaining parking is about continuing to accommodate commuters, while new construction would be about building the neighborhood consumer base.

I won't be able to go to this tomorrow night...who's gonna step up???

 

CMHA plans will be aired

Thursday, September 15, 2005

By DAVID PLATA

West Side Sun News

 

Councilman Joe Cimperman said he will object to plans by Cleveland Metropolitan Housing Authority _ still to be made public _ to build up to 350 mixed-income housing units in the area of Columbus Road.

 

But George Phillips, CMHA director, said the plan has not been finalized, and would call for fewer units than that _ about 100-150.

 

That's one of the sites we're looking at, Phillips said. We're talking with RTA. There's nothing final yet, nothing definite.

 

Neither Cimperman nor Phillips could say how many acres are at the site, on either side of Regional Transit Authority tracks. Phillips said the plan calls for both mid-rise and high-rise buildings.

 

The plans are to be aired at a public meeting at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Castele Learning Center at Lutheran Hospital.

 

What I understand is it's going to call for creation of one big block of housing, said Cimperman, D-13. A lot of people are concerned about that. You don't want to create something that is exactly why you went through the whole HOPE VI process in the first place. The whole idea is to de-densify, to have people living in places that are more _ not single-unit, but certainly less than this massive wall of housing.

 

Residents in the area of West 20th Street and Abbey Road are very, very concerned about the plan, Cimperman said.

 

CMHA faces a Sept. 30 deadline to tell the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development how it will spend some $8.5 million remaining in a HOPE VI grant. The money was awarded in 1996 to build some 420 units on the bluff behind the authority's Riverview Towers on West 25th Street.

 

However, geotechnical studies later showed the land is so unstable that it can't be built upon, and CMHA has been scrambling to find alternate sites.

 

Phillips also said CMHA is asking the federal government for an extension of so-called checkpoint dates in the timeline process, totaling about a year, to find suitable sites and finalize the plan.

 

Cimperman said he also wants a time extension.

 

I don't think we should settle for a plan that comes in second place when, with a little more time, we could get what we want, he said.

 

Councilman Nelson Cintrn Jr., D-14, has said he objects to plans to build three high-rises, totaling 268 units, along with a two- to three-story parking deck, on the so-called Hicks Lot next to the West Side Market.

 

Both Cintrn and Phillips have said they are in discussions with RTA to build a high-rise atop RTA's West 25th Street-Ohio City station. From 120-160 units could be built there, Phillips has said.

 

Joe Mazzola, director of Ohio City Near West Development Corp., noted the Hicks Lot plan has essentially been rejected, and called the plans for Columbus Road Plan C.

 

I'll know more about it when CMHA meets with our board, he said.

 

CMHA is developing the plans with Telesis Corp. of Washington, D.C.

 

In addition to the Hicks Lot, according to preliminary plans, 74 units would be built at West 28th Street and Church Avenue; 48 would be built at West 28th and Detroit Avenue; and 12 would be built at West 41st Street and Lorain Avenue, on land owned by Ohio City Near West Development Corp.

 

[end]

 

it sounds like there's plenty of dissent among the council members that serve this area, let alone the residents and merchants...It's also interesting to hear that OCNW has already declared the Hicks proposal dead...

Weird... I thought they were going to announce new construction over the RTA tracks. Anyway, looks like enough people are up in arms about the Duck Island proposal to through another cog in the wheel of this development. Meantime, only 8 days left til the deadline! Is the whole thing going to die? That would be a real shame...

I don't get these reactions we're getting from neighborhood residents. God forbid we have density in a city neighborhood...  :roll:

 

Housing project too dense, Duck Island residents say

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Angela D. Chatman

Plain Dealer Reporter

Residents of a near West Side neighborhood criticized a mixed-income housing project planned for that area for its high density Tuesday night.

 

Residents of what is known as Duck Island, southeast of the West Side Market, said the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority's proposal to build 242 housing units along Columbus Road would alter the nature of their neighborhood.

 

CMHA and its co-developer, the Telesis Corp., identified the property owned by the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority as the fourth, and largest, site for housing in its long-delayed Riverview HOPE VI project. The CMHA parcel would replace the city-owned Hicks parking lot as the site for the bulk of the housing.

 

The housing authority proposes to build 384 units, including 81 public-housing units, on four sites... 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1127381464308751.xml&coll=2

Let's be honest, it's not the density, it's the CMHA/low income portion that's scaring people.  I wish folks could just be honest.

Considering the economic status of Duck Island, I would guess that its more a matter of race than income.

seriously, how many people live in "duck island" and how does this weigh in with the rest of the community?  I had the same question regarding the WSM merchants who were so vocal in opposing the Hicks Lot.  What it comes down to is the final recommendation of OCNW.  If they determine that the 4 or 5 (more or less) Duck Island residents at the meeting are either not representative of the whole of Duck Island and not representative of the whole of Ohio City, then they might just have to say "tough luck, this is for the good of the entire community."  This isn't eminent domain...this isn't a waste facility or a jail...it's HOUSING and it'll add "eyes on the street" and feet on the sidewalk and cash in the registers of local merchants.  Where's the harm in all that???

That's why those of us living in OC or near west should e-mail OCNW with messages of support -- so they know not everyone is opposed to "density." (read: poor people)

[email protected]

From the 9/29/05 PD:

 

 

CMHA plan for Ohio City development wins support

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Angela D. Chatman

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

The Ohio City Near West Development Corp. board of trustees voted Wednesday evening to support a revised mixed-income development proposed by public housing officials.

 

The board said the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority's project is consistent with the community development corporation's strategic plan...

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1127986597318330.xml&coll=2

 

Ok, I agree that the Muni Lot needs to be home to hundreds of units of housing.  If the "tailgating" excuse holds ANY sway in City Hall, then I give up and admit that I will never understand this town....

 

However, this project was intended for the near west side and I feel like that's where it should end up!  I think the market will eventually (hopefully sooner than later) take care of sites like the Muni Lot and the old Riverview site, but I understand that at this point in time, subsidy might be necessary. 

 

On the other hand, I love the idea of extending the Avenue District north to the lake, while at the same time, I can only shake my head at the ineptitude of our efforts in the late 90s in losing the "Davenport Bluffs" to two suburban-style office buildings (WKYC & FBI) that will, for many years to come, serve as another barricade to northward development...

 

At this stage in the game, it is starting to seem like people are just throwing out locations in desperation.  I would not be surprised if next week we hear about a site on stilts in Lake Erie.  I would hope that this project stays in Ohio City.  Something like this could change OC's status from Up and Coming to Established. 

 

I agree with MGD about the 'tailgating reference.  I am glad that we are keeping in mind the highest and best use.  I mean, 8 dates a year for tailgating should definetely take priority over housing. 

 

While I like the idea of connectivity, I would guess that it would be pretty expensive to raise the condo tower over the tracks.  If it is cost efffective, then by all means go for it.

Conceptually I like the idea of a high rise over the tracks, so long as its cost feasable. Plop it down right in front of the FBI and the channel 3 news building. It would connect by eminint domaining some land to make e 13 extend down to the muni lot, and the waterfront line last stop.

hmmm...now which tracks are we talking about here???  I doubt they'll be bridging the downtown tracks with this project.  that seems like a project for much further down the line...but perhaps the Red Line tracks in Ohio City?

They're talking about the parallel sets of tracks belonging to Norfolk Southern Corp. and CSX Inc. (both used by Amtrak), as well as tracks for the RTA Waterfront Line, east of East 9th Street and south of the Shoreway (Route 2).

 

Constructing buildings over busy freight railroad tracks is not advisable. Overhead structures (especially residential) will be adversely affected by the vibrations, exhaust and dust from heavy freight trains. Hazardous materials are also a factor, but their shipments could affect every neighborhood or community along virtually every railroad.

 

Walkways are fine. Buildings? Not a good idea.

 

KJP

Hmmm...never realized that they posted these...there are more at http://www.ocnw.org/index.cgi?id=130&p=5151

 

 

This development is what duck island people are bitching about? It blocks raildroad noise ++, its not as tall as the one in ohio city and better able to blend in. On another note nobody lives in duck island really, the whines of a couple of households on the street should be no concern. If anything it acutally IMPROVES duck island, by actually putting residents there. Most of duck island is vacant land