It would be great WHEN this gets built if RTA could extend the platform a bit south and add another station entrance.  as it stands, as with many redline stations, the staircase is too narrow for two people (moving opposite directions) to be using it at the sametime!  hard to believe.  yet the platform appears to narrow to accomodate a wider staircase, hence adding another one further south would increase capacity.

 

anyone know why rta builds new stations with such  narrow staircases?  kjp?

I suspect it goes back to the line's original design, which had narrow platforms, but were wide enough for design standards of the day (1950s and 60s). Since then, federal regulations addressing disabled access require that there be enough space between the platform's tactile edge (the warning strip next to the edge to warn blind patrons of its presence) and fixed objects on the platform so that wheelchairs can move by them safely. RTA didn't spread the tracks farther apart for the rebuilt stations due to the cost.

 

A second entrance is a good idea, as is offering direct pedestrian access to the east side of the station site.

This is a rather odd station that was built towards the front end of the recent era of Red Line station rebuilding.  Too bad for that, 'cause it's a really shoddy station!  Access is odd...with the site pretty isolated from the neighborhoods on either side...and you're right, Guv, that the stairs are quite narrow!

 

In other news, has anyone heard anything about the OCNW Board voting not to back the current CMHA proposal?  If this is true, this close to the deadline, would it effectively kill the project?

From the PD:

 

Ohio City development panel won't support CMHA project

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Angela D. Chatman

Plain Dealer Reporter

The Ohio City Near West Development Corp. Housing Committee voted Wednesday to withdraw support for public housing officials' plan for a project in Ohio City and Tremont.

 

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

 

[email protected], 216-999-4115

 

 

Yuck.

YSOH brought this to my attention...very interesting letter posted on the Ohio City Yahoo groups site (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ohiocity).  The discussion surrounding Riverview and other assorted issues on that sight is completely ridiculous:

 

...

 

RE: CMHA Hope VI Proposal at West 28th St. And Detroit Ave.

 

To All It May Concern,

 

To introduce myself, I am Tom Gillespie.  I have been a business

owner, employer, and owner of a property located at the corner of West

28th St. and Detroit Ave for more than ten years.  I have recently

been in negotiations and community discussions with CMHA and their

partner Telesis Corporation in regards to proposed development at the

intersection of West 28th St. and Detroit Ave and along Church Ave.

CMHA's original proposal entailed a housing distribution of 85% market

rate to 15% subsidized in this area.  This plan included a total of 20

subsidized units with 8 located on the corner of West 28th St.  and

Church Ave and 12 units along West 28th, South of the existing CMHA

offices.  The remainder of the proposed development consisted of 48

units along Detroit Ave and extending approximately 150 feet South of

Detroit along W 28th St. and the balance of the market rate (62 units)

was to be retrofitted into CMHA's current offices.  This was the

latest plan, as presented in September 2005 to Ohio City Near West

Corporation (OCNW), the city, and the community,  with varying levels

of support.  Issues with the entire Hope VI  Development have been

many and varied but in general the community supported the development

surrounding the 28th/ Detroit/ Church portion of the project.

 

On March 9th, nearly six months after the previously submitted plan

and with less than two weeks left to CMHA's filing deadline,  this

proposal was radically changed.  The changes have resulted in a

concentration of subsidized housing in the area of West 28th St. and

Detroit Ave., which is located within a few hundred feet of the

existing Lakeview Housing Project.  Additionally, the new proposal

includes subsidized housing units which extend from approximately 150

feet South of Church Ave all the way to Detroit Ave, acting to connect

to the existing Lakeview CMHA Project.  The end result is 35

subsidized units and 50 market rate units on this portion of the

project and a 60%/40% market rate to subsidized distribution, a far

cry from the 85%/15% previously proposed.

 

 

As the owner of the parcel located along Detroit Ave, I was and still

am willing to sell my property for the market rate development that

would help offset this concentration.  Alternatively, I was and still

am willing to purchase the corner lot from CMHA and complete the

development through my T.E.G. Properties Company.  Throughout

conversations with George Phillips and his staff it was clearly

expressed that either party, myself or CMHA, should sell their

property to the other party or to a third party so market rate

development could be possible at this location.  The reversal of this

opinion, especially introduced at the eleventh hour, shows that it is

not the intent of our Housing Authority to work with the community in

an attempt to adhere to the plans which were originally proposed and

supported.

 

Connecting to an existing housing project, and concentrating new

subsidized housing through CMHA's latest plan has a profound effect on

the future of the Knitting Mills, Detroit Lofts, the Painter's

Project, and numerous other development initiatives  which are in

various stages of completion. The appropriate development along

Detroit Avenue is clearly market rate housing.  That was the original

and supported plan set forth by CMHA Market rate development at the

gateway to Ohio City provides an opportunity to help revitalization of

the neighborhood and support existing development underway at this

vital intersection.  This opportunity is not just being overlooked,

but is being actively suppressed.  CMHA has the ability to achieve a

net gain in monetary return and zero loss in subsidized housing, while

coming closer to adhering  to their original plan, but is choosing not

to at the expense of a crucial development to the area.

 

To achieve the property development goal and galvanize community

support, CMHA needs only to relocate one or two subsidized units to

the Columbus Road Site.  Two subsidized units added to the Columbus

Road Site would result in a ratio of 136 market rate to 37 subsidized.

This is less than 0.9% change in distribution at the Columbus Road

Site.  While the change in planning at the Columbus Road Site is

negligible, the net result for the Detroit/West 28th St. area is

tremendous.  Relocating 2 units from the proposed 9 (originally eight) at

the corner of West 28th and Church Ave. allows  for a 40-unit market

rate housing development, virtually identical to the September plan.

The redistribution of units from the original 8 to 7 also allows for

the park envisioned on the corner of Church Ave and West 28th St. (as

shown in the March 9th plan).  This proposal not only benefits the

efforts and investments of committed developers, but also results in a

market rate to subsidized distribution of 74% to 26%, compared to the

existing plan of 59% to 41%.  This proposed distribution, although

still falling short of the original goal is clearly more in line with

the intended Hope VI vision.

 

 

It is almost unconscionable to undermine an existing, well conceived,

extensively planned development that achieves long sought after goals

of community development for the retention of 2 subsidized units which

could easily be absorbed at the Columbus Road Site.

 

The opinions of this correspondence are held by the vast majority of

the community, including our residents, elected  officials, employers,

and developers.  I implore all who have an investment in our city and

our future to help CMHA amend their plan and improve our neighborhood.

 

I appreciate your attention and support in this matter and look

forward to working together to help revitalize our community.  Please

sign below in a show of support to amend the proposed development in

our Ohio City Gateway.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Thomas E. Gillespie, CPG

President

Principal Geologist

Ohio EPA VAP Certified Professional #234

At this point, I am really confused about this project. 

and today's the deadline, right?  i guess we'll find out soon enough!

In regards to the orientation of the redline station at w. 25th and the capacity limitation induced by the narrow staircases, what is the feasability of increasing capacity via the addition of a second entrance.  it should be noted that RTA plans to gradually change all fare collection to the "honor based system" that will be used on the silver (ECTP) line.  this, of course, would reduce the necessary size and complexity of a secondary station entrance.

 

take a look at the attached  aerial.

 

first off, we all know cleveland rocks and here we have the opportunity for an abbey rd station! 

the existing platform extends along the drawn red line.  therefore, it would seem relatively easy to add a second entrance. 

furthermore, the land below columbus and left of abbey (in the trench) would seem to be great for development.  take a look next time you are in the station.  KJP, perhaps you know what the regulations are in regards to how close residential development can be to tracks?

last, anyone know, where on this map the proposed CMHA development would be??

 

dude, I totally posted pictures on here earlier!  They'd be lining Columbus, south of the L-C Bridge.

okay dude.  sorry for not doing my hw.

 

the drawings that are shown on page 4 of this thread certainly support the development of a second station entrance that lines up with the current platform extension.  the second entrance would increase capacity in a system currently limited by very narrow staircases.  thanks for posting the drawings.

To my knowledge, you can build a development as close to the tracks as the transit agency will allow you. As long as the transit agency's property line isn't crossed and the trains don't hit the building, I think they're OK.

When are we going to hear the outcome of this? Did they meet the deadline?

Sounds like a submission was made on time...but not clear when this will all be sorted out.  What a disaster.

 

 

West Side housing plan up to HUD, up in air

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Angela D. Chatman

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Public housing officials met Wednesday's federally imposed deadline to submit a new plan for a $58.8 million development on Cleveland's West Side despite opposition from some people in the neighborhoods.

 

The Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority's revised Riverview HOPE VI revitalization plan is now under review by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, even as a community development corporation submitted its own plan to the federal housing agency.

 

[link to remainder of article unknown]

Thanks for posting, Straphanger!  This is such a mess... I'm glad that the proposals are in.  I don't know whether or not to be at all optimistic about this, so we'll just have to wait and see. Amazing to think that the final buildout would be by 2011...a mere 15 years after initially tearing down the 81 units!

A little change of pace (and perhaps a lead-in to a new topic)...

 

I was just visiting a thread on our Southwest Ohio neighbor (http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=339.0) and was both reminded and amazed at the amount of hillside and hilltop development that has gone on in Cincinnati for over 100 years.  The inclines originally made all this happen, but neighborhoods like Mount Adams continue to flourish with new, densely packed and ultra-expensive housing built into hillsides and on bluffs overlooking the city. 

 

The reason I'm posting this on the Riverview thread is that the hillside issue is what killed the initial proposal for the beautiful, cohesive development that would've replaced the now-demolished public housing with a mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhood overlooking the Cuyahoga and Downtown Cleveland.

 

So, my question while reading that thread was why haven't we/can't we build on some of our most prominent hillsides and bluffs?  The profitability has to exist in a location like Riverview.  Is it that in Cincinnati they've had massive public investment in securing the hillside dating to the construction of the interstate at the foot of the hill some 30 years ago?  Perhaps the same opportunity exists for us here in Cleveland with forthcoming ODOT investments in Riverbed Street and necessary work that must be done to repair/replace the bulkheads along the Cuyahoga?

 

Thoughts, comments, new thread anyone?

I posted this much earlier in this thread, but they have the same slope instability issues along the Rocky River valley (loose shale, etc). That didn't stop developers from building two condominimum/townhouse projects at the top of the slopes. One is in Rocky River on Wooster Road immediately south of Detroit Road. The other the Emerald View condos on Lorain Road at the east end of Fairview Park. The Fairview condos are selling in the $200K-300K range, while the Rocky River townhouses sold in the $300-$400K range. These price points are very similar to those of similar construction in/near downtown Cleveland.

 

How were they able to do it from an engineering point of view? In both cases, the developers built each housing unit on a concrete caisson, but I don't remember how far down the caissons went. I don't think it was to bedrock. In the case of the Fairview Park condos, the patios/decks weren't built on the caissons and instead have their footers in the soil. That's resulted in them moving a few inches and causing some angst among the residents. But the housing structures are sound for both developments.

 

The caissons were expensive of course, but not so much that they caused either project's price points to be out of line with other offerings in the area. I suspect that may be the case with a new Riverview development. I vote for a high-rise market-rate condo tower, which would require caissons down to bedrock anyway.

The park would become the first on the rim of the Cuyahoga Valley in Cuyahoga County, and the first in downtown Cleveland.

 

 

A New Park Overlooking Downtown Cleveland?

By Steven Litt

Plain Dealer Architecture Critic

 

The Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority could create within a year the first public park in Cleveland overlooking the Cuyahoga Valley and the city skyline.

 

For years, the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority dreamed of building a new, mixed-income, high-rise apartment complex on the 17.3- acre property in question, located off W. 25th St. in Ohio City.

 

Aside from an address just south of the landmark Detroit Superior Bridge, the land boasts the skyline view made famous in a 1928 photograph by Margaret Bourke-White, which shows a smoke-shrouded Terminal Tower under construction.

 

But having decided it would cost too much to stablize the land, which is sliding slowly downhill towards the Cuyahoga River, the housing authority now wants to turn the site into a park...

 

 

more at:  http://www.cleveland.com

Well, well!

This isn't the first we've heard about this idea, but this is the first time I've heard about an actual plan being in the works. I'm a little worried from reading the article that CMHA has something half-assed in mind, though -- picnic benches and a ballfield. We need to make sure the existing cleared land connects with the hillside in a meaningful way, with trails and new plantings. We also need to clear the Transitional Housing hovels that continue to give this stretch of W. 25th a blighted appearance.

Wimwar, I think Parkworks better jump on this one! ;)

^I agree.

For reference, here's a satellite image of the land in question, outlined in red. It is already substantially wooded (at least the riverbank part). It slopes down to the Cuyahoga, and as the article states, has spectacular downtown views.

 

Everytime there is a project near the Flats, the Flats Oxbow Association or some other Flats related association whines about the negative traffic impact it will have.

 

I remember how much of a fit they had when the Detroit-Superior bridge was to be fixed up with wider sidewalks.  It drove whats-her-name (I really don't remember her name, but she was the biggest proponent of the project - the group she worked with has their offices in front of Great Lakes Brewery) into a long "break."

 

They should find something else to complain about.

^i believe that it was a family illness that lead to her break.  She's returned and working for the Cleveland Foundation.

Hmmm...a park...what a novel idea!  I'm all in favor of parks, but I feel that significant public investments like this should be accompanied by larger master plans.  So, if the City, CMHA, the County, and Metroparks (you know they'll be included on this discussion) are all going to collaborate on a significant park, then let's talk about the parking lots across the street that belong to Lutheran.  And yes, B12, we can talk about relocating the THI "hovels" that you so despise.  I wonder, though, if any of that land on the east side of W. 25th is stable enough to build on.  If THI is relocated, can we actually build there? 

 

Anyway, I like this idea.  let's make sure it's done right and that it doesn't become another  liability, but rather, a big asset!

I was thinking the hovels could be demolished and the land become part of the park. I'm pretty sure that whole side of W25 was deemed unstable. As for the assorted parking lots on the west side of W25, I'd like to see that redeveloped as commercial/housing.

 

But yeah, parks done wrong can be scary, forboding places. This spot deserves to be one of the most beautiful and inviting spaces in the city.

^bingo.  If they don't incorporate a dog run/park into this plan, they're missing a great opportunity.  Dog parks are a great lure for area homeowners and a great way to ensure that the place is being used for legitimate reasons.  So, Wimwar, is Parkworks getting involved?

does parkworks even exist anymore?  their website it very outdated.

^Well, there was the big wedding to plan for this past weekend. :clap:

^what? 

 

yes, Parkworks is still very much in existence.  Wimwar should see to it that their website gets updated!

i assumed so, but the website is dotted with © 2001 © 2002 and a lot of press and articles from 2003 and before.  I don't see much current information.

 

http://www.parkworks.org/home.html

 

Examples:

Perk Park/Plaza: Construction will begin early 2004.  Obviously, this isn't the case (anymore), but maybe an updated timeline?  where are we in the process and why the delays?

Huron Point Plaza: Only renderings available, even though park has been completed for at least 6 or 8 months.

Future Projects: coming soon...

Parkworks Playgrounds: only lists 1999, 2000, 2001.  Has this program stopped or are there no updates for 5 years?

 

How about the "Education" section that lists the Summer 2004 Events?

 

I like the mission and the way the site looks, but if we are serious about actually using our parks for education, a 2004 event list isn't going to help.

 

 

 

^what? 

 

yes, Parkworks is still very much in existence.  Wimwar should see to it that their website gets updated!

 

Mr. Cimperman got married to a Parkworks employee.

 

Additionally, Parkworks has moved away from educational programming.  Oh, and the Perk Park project is still alive.

Ok, one thing I've realized in this town - "still alive" can mean catatonic/comatose for a decade. If you know someone, anyone - could you please pass along the message of... well... just hum the theme of "Jeopardy" and I think they'd get the point! Yeesh!

Mayday,

 

If you know anyone who has three million dollars, let Parkworks know.

Yikes! Three million to update a website?  :wink:

Perk Park/Plaza: Construction will begin early 2004.

 

According to Mark Price, owner of Reserve Square, Perk Plazahas been designed but is waiting for funding.

Maybe the Metropark system should just take over all of Cleveland's parks. :-P

 

Mr. Cimperman got married to a Parkworks employee.

 

You can see a lovely picture of the couple here:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=150165551&size=m

 

And a picture of the happy couple receiving well wishes form Mayor Jackson here:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=150165443&size=m

 

photos by mistersugar, friend of Joe

I'm not trying to be negative about lack of funding, etc.  I think that what has happened to date with parkworks has been positive.  But, if they do need money, what better place to describe the need, than on the website.

 

I think that if you are going to have a website, you should plan on updating key material yearly, or quarterly, or as appropriate - not a site redesign, just uploading text, photos.  Is there no one on the staff that can upload new text or at least remove dated references?

^Amen - quite a few groups in Cleveland need to be aware of that. Whether you're a non-profit or a for-profit global conglomerate, your web site is your calling card and it should be a one-stop place to get information. It's your press kit, your business card, your resume, your newsletter, it's everything. If Parkworks is a registered 501©3, they could solicit someone to update their site.

 

When I make recommendations to people for just about anything (from restaurants to charitable organizations) - the first thing I do is direct them to a web site. If there's no site, or worse - a site with outdated information, how can I possibly be expected to know what's going on? Don't have a site? Don't plan to get my business (or donations).

wow, we got way off-topic here!  question here should be whether or not Parkworks would be an organization that could get involved with the design and programming of a new park on West 25th...any ideas?  murmurs?

I think it clearly could (though I guess we'll have to wait for details on that from wimwar), and Ohio City Near West and Cleveland Public Art should be involving themselves at an early stage, too.

I sent the following e-mail today. It went to George Phillips (CMHA), Joe Mazzola (OCNW), Greg Peckham (Cleveland Public Art), Ann Zoller (Parkworks) and Jim Kastelic (Metroparks). I urge you to write them as well if you feel passionately about this issue -- as you should! ;)

E-mail addresses are as follows: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

 

 

Dear Mr. Phillips, Mr. Mazzola, Mr. Peckham, Ms. Zoller and Mr. Kastelic:

 

I was thrilled to see an article on Cleveland.com last week detailing CMHA’s plans to use vacant land along West 25th Street as a park. Ohio City has been starved for well-planned green space for years, and few locations in the city are more spectacular than this one, with its panoramic views of downtown and the Flats. I commend CMHA for its decision.

 

However, I am concerned that the new park will fail to reach its full potential unless CMHA partners with local organizations experienced in park-building -- possibly including Parkworks, Cleveland Public Art, Ohio City Near West Development Corporation and/or Cleveland Metroparks. A design competition, suggested by Mr. Litt in the article below, would be an excellent idea. The new park should make full use of this wooded, sloping land, with:

 

*Walking trails to the river

*A bike path connecting to the existing path on the Detroit-Superior Bridge

*A dog run

*Well-placed benches overlooking the skyline

 

It is not enough to simply designate the vacant fields “ballparks” and slap up a few picnic tables.

 

Also, this is a prime opportunity to work with Transitional Housing Inc. to demolish the unsightly low-rise units near Detroit Avenue, which not only block public views of the skyline but also provide ugly, shame-inducing housing for its residents. If the land along the entire east side of West 25th is truly unstable for buildings, as was announced last year as part of the Riverside project, Transitional Housing residents should be relocated anyway, preferably to more equitable and better integrated housing in another part of the neighborhood. The vacant land should then be incorporated into the park.

 

Poorly planned parks inevitably become scary, forboding places. This new park deserves to be one of the most beautiful and inviting spots in the city. It has the potential to be either a blight or a boon for the neighborhood. Please, help it become the latter.

 

Attachment: Cleveland.com article

I'm sure they will get involved.  Website not withstanding, they are an active and engaged group.

I hope they think to incorporate some type of steps from W25th down to the river.

B12,

 

Great letter! 

Agreed. Excellent letter, B12!

wow, great letter!

great letter...I would also copy someone at the botanical gardens.

This is a CMHA park. 

^Has anyone disputed that?

Welcome to the board, by the way.

I thought maybe we could start a discussion exclusively about Ohio City - projects, events, and other happenings in the near west side neighborhood of Cleveland! Maybe we could round up the troops and find out who here on Urban Ohio lives in Ohio City as well as put together a list of all known projects taking place in the neighborhood.