1 minute ago, X said:

 

Yup, more NIMBY rank scaremongering.

Not a NIMBY. I also work in the AEC industry, but thanks, Moderator. 

Why single out people who can afford micro units? There are no statistics that prove that tenants of micro units are robbed at a higher frequency over other tenants of other similar building types (e.g. micro units versus 1 bedroom apartments, not micro units versus suburban single-family homes). And sustainable is a charged term - one can argue that developing single family housing in much of Cleveland was unsustainable as a considerable chunk of the city is now riddled with abandoned single family homes. Development trends fluctuate over time and perhaps in 30 years, these micro units could be renovated (or the building redeveloped) into other purposes. Nothing is permanent.

28 minutes ago, Ashbury Resident said:

agreed that regulation on short term rentals needs to happen, but I can assure you that a lot of people don't love them. The market for college residential living in this neighborhood is over inflated. Micro units are charging as much as 2 bedroom rentals on the same block. The institutions in the area (CIA, CWRU, CIM) all put in new housing accommodation/buildings. CWRU is in the process of fleshing out concepts for their south residential district to completely revamp south campus. 

These micro units are not sustainable for the neighborhood long term, and right now, in this neighborhood, they're acting as a beacon for theft.  

I would hope there's accessible management for the micro units, but so far I have yet to read anything about the developer's plan for managing those units. 

Yeah, going to pull rank here. I work for a property manager and developer as part of their in-house design team. We have thousands of units under our belt in essentially every major and secondary market in the US with around 20,000 units coming in the next couple years. We poll our tenants and have market data and direct feedback from our tenants and those on the ground managing these, and have information such as churn, average days on market, price per square foot compared to traditional units, average lease length, etc. and can absolutely tell you that in every market we've looked, which includes Cleveland, they perform better than traditional studios. NIMBYism doesn't outweigh actual data.

Walkable, transit connected neighborhoods are the locations they perform the best, including in Cleveland. University Circle is absolutely a product that should be developed at a higher rate.

Edited February 18, 20214 yr by jmicha

@Ashbury Resident From a planning & policy standpoint, your concerns seem spot on to me.  I am a former resident at the corner of Ford @ Hessler Street back in the 90s (whew, party time!), and remain a booster of this nabe from many miles away.  Good planning and responsive management of micro-multifamily doesn't seem a bad thing to me, ever. 

 

Also Micro-residents aren't discussed as the target of crime, but rather the steady stream of AirBnBers.  I get that.

 

Edited February 19, 20214 yr by ExPatClevGuy

3 minutes ago, seicer said:

Why single out people who can afford micro units? There are no statistics that prove that tenants of micro units are robbed at a higher frequency over other tenants of other similar building types (e.g. micro units versus 1 bedroom apartments, not micro units versus suburban single-family homes). And sustainable is a charged term - one can argue that developing single family housing in much of Cleveland was unsustainable as a considerable chunk of the city is now riddled with abandoned single family homes. Development trends fluctuate over time and perhaps in 30 years, these micro units could be renovated (or the building redeveloped) into other purposes. Nothing is permanent.

I will say that I loved reading that these Hessler micro units can be converted into larger units if they find that the market won't support the current number. 

For the record, I'm excited about the renovation of the existing building and welcome that. I'm not excited about the trend of micro units because practical application in the area has left a lot of vacant micro units. Not sure if that's more of a management problem, a City problem (lack of regulations for short term rentals), or possibly both. 

7 minutes ago, jmicha said:

they perform well. 

Sure, they perform well for the developer. On paper, micro units seem great for this area. However, the practical application (or "reality") of the existing micro units in the area are not performing well for the community (some concerns have already been addressed earlier in this thread). 
 

Its great that they're developing the vacant lot into housing. It's great that they're renovating the existing buildings. What I have yet to see/hear is how they will address the management of the new micro units - especially since they're putting in a larger number of them compared to the existing micro unit buildings in the area which are experience problems. Would have loved to see the article discuss the game plan, especially since the existing proof of concept for the neighborhood isn't that great. 

2 minutes ago, Ashbury Resident said:

Sure, they perform well for the developer. On paper, micro units seem great for this area. However, the practical application (or "reality") of the existing micro units in the area are not performing well for the community (some concerns have already been addressed earlier in this thread). 
 

Its great that they're developing the vacant lot into housing. It's great that they're renovating the existing buildings. What I have yet to see/hear is how they will address the management of the new micro units - especially since they're putting in a larger number of them compared to the existing micro unit buildings in the area which are experience problems. Would have loved to see the article discuss the game plan, especially since the existing proof of concept for the neighborhood isn't that great. 

What does that even mean? A poorly managed building is a poorly managed building. That has nothing to do with unit types located within it. You can have a poorly managed building with all micros or a poorly managed building with multi-million dollar luxury units.

 

If you have issues with property management, take it up with the property manager. Don't take it out on the unit type or those they attract. You seem unable to separate design from management which is silly.

 

One of our biggest partners in the micro game is a group that developed thousands of micros on the west coast who hired crappy property managers. They did poorly and had issues. They dumped them, hired us, we reworked how the buildings are managed, redesigned some things like amenity spaces, and rebranded them, and they're great properties now. They're still 250 sf micros. That didn't change nor was it the cause of the issues.

 

The same thing might be happening here. If you're unhappy with how the existing handful of micros are being managed, complain to the management company. Hold them accountable. But that doesn't mean that micros as a product type are unsustainable or not good for the neighborhood.

3 minutes ago, jmicha said:

If you're unhappy with how the existing handful of micros are being managed, complain to the management company. Hold them accountable. But that doesn't mean that micros as a product type are unsustainable or not good for the neighborhood.

 

So what you're saying is that we should actively build more short term rentals despite a lack of regulations on short term rentals? Brilliant! 

32 minutes ago, ExPatClevGuy said:

...  I am a former resident at the corner of Ford @ Hessler Street back in the 90s (whew, party time!), and remain a booster of this nabe from many miles away. 

 

Wait, did you live with Harbaugh? His parties at the corner of Ford and Hessler are a fond memory of the mid to late 90s. 

10 minutes ago, Ashbury Resident said:

 

So what you're saying is that we should actively build more short term rentals despite a lack of regulations on short term rentals? Brilliant! 

This is in no way, shape, or form what @jmicha said. 

2 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

This is in no way, shape, or form what @jmicha said. 

 

Being misleading is SOP in the NIMBY playbook.

9 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

This is in no way, shape, or form what @jmicha said. 

the real-world application of the micros that already exist in this area don't have renters, they have weekenders via air bnb. They haven't supported the demographic of tenants that everyone says would benefit from these types of units (like students, residents at CCF/UH, etc for 1 year, or more, leases). The "build it and they will rent" model hasn't been validated by the existing proof of concept buildings in this area. 

jmicha said that I shouldn't "take it out on the unit type or those they attract." 

The current model isn't even attracting who OP says they're trying to attract. They're operating as hotels without on-site management. It's valid to question why we would continue to build more of these buildings (bigger, even) and how the community would benefit from them long term. 

24 minutes ago, Ashbury Resident said:

the real-world application of the micros that already exist in this area don't have renters, they have weekenders via air bnb. They haven't supported the demographic of tenants that everyone says would benefit from these types of units (like students, residents at CCF/UH, etc for 1 year, or more, leases). The "build it and they will rent" model hasn't been validated by the existing proof of concept buildings in this area. 

jmicha said that I shouldn't "take it out on the unit type or those they attract." 

The current model isn't even attracting who OP says they're trying to attract. They're operating as hotels without on-site management. It's valid to question why we would continue to build more of these buildings (bigger, even) and how the community would benefit from them long term. 

You know full well that isn't what I'm saying. In my first response I literally posted Cleveland needs to do a better job at regulating short term rentals. That shouldn't mean that a unit typology that serves a very useful purpose in transit oriented, dense, urban neighborhoods shouldn't be built. It means there needs to be better regulations to stop crappy short term rentals from gobbling them up instead of them going to who they are designed to serve.

But the fact that you functionally believe that a micro is the same thing as a short term rental is exactly the problem I'm trying to point out. You aren't separating design from operations, which is ridiculous.

Edited February 18, 20214 yr by jmicha

4 minutes ago, jmicha said:

I literally posted Cleveland needs to do a better job at regulating short term rentals. That shouldn't mean that a unit typology that serves a very useful purpose in transit oriented, dense, urban neighborhoods shouldn't be built. It means there needs to be better regulations to stop crappy short term rentals from gobbling them up instead of them going to who they are designed to serve.

so... again, we should actively build more short term rentals despite a lack of regulations on short term rentals? Brilliant! 

Look, we both agree that CLE has a problem with unregulated short term rentals. I doubt we're going to come to an agreement on whether or not we should continue to build them without successful local proof of concepts and municipal oversight. 

15 minutes ago, Ashbury Resident said:

so... again, we should actively build more short term rentals despite a lack of regulations on short term rentals? Brilliant! 

Look, we both agree that CLE has a problem with unregulated short term rentals. I doubt we're going to come to an agreement on whether or not we should continue to build them without successful local proof of concepts and municipal oversight. 

Micros =/= short term rental. Those are two separate ideas. One is physical, one is how something is rented and functions. They are not synonymous.

 

A micro is a studio under a certain size (varies dramatically by market). A short term rental is any unit rented for, typically, less than a month, regardless of what its physical composition is.

 

The fact you can't separate those shows a deep inability to understand A) what a micro even is and B) what the source of the problem is that you're bringing up.

8 minutes ago, jmicha said:

Micros =/= short term rental. Those are two separate ideas. One is physical, one is how something is rented and functions. They are not synonymous.

 

A micro is a studio under a certain size (varies dramatically by market). A short term rental is any unit rented for, typically, less than a month, regardless of what its physical composition is.

 

The fact you can't separate those shows a deep inability to understand A) what a micro even is and B) what the source of the problem is that you're bringing up.

Yes, I'm well aware of the definition of both concepts.  The problem, as stated many times before, is that the real-world application of the micros in this area are not operating as micro units or attracting the tenants they were designed to attract. Building owners are using them as hotels via air bnb. 

If you're going to make a dig at my reading comprehension, I would advise you to actually read the posts first. Your after-the-fact edits are cute, too. 

With how the existing micros have fared in the area, it's valid to question why we would continue to build more of these buildings (bigger, even) and how the community would benefit from them long term. 

Edited February 18, 20214 yr by Ashbury Resident

48 minutes ago, X said:

 

Being misleading is SOP in the NIMBY playbook.

 

Yes, exactly. 

 

NIMBY:  "We should stop approving new buildings because developers are building all luxury units that only the rich can afford."

 

Developer proposes building with smaller units that are cheaper, but still allow people to live in the same immediate neighborhood that has become more expensive.

 

NIMBY gets upset because they don't want the kind of people who live in smaller (i.e. cheaper) units in their neighborhood.  (Which they don't expressly say, and instead dress up with other concerns.)

3 minutes ago, gg707 said:

 

Yes, exactly. 

 

NIMBY:  "We should stop approving new buildings because developers are building all luxury units that only the rich can afford."

 

Developer proposes building with smaller units that are cheaper, but still allow people to live in the same immediate neighborhood that has become more expensive.

 

NIMBY gets upset because they don't want the kind of people who live in smaller (i.e. cheaper) units in their neighborhood.  (Which they don't expressly say, and instead dress up with other concerns.)

I would normally agree with you, but the market rate for the micro units in this area is on par with the cost of 1-2 bedroom apartments, so it's really a decision between smaller, but furnished and new  - or - older, slightly bigger, and unfurnished. They're not really cheaper, they're just a different option and 100% valid. 

What's going on is that they're not attracting tenants in practice in this area. So those Residents at CCF/UH or the students at CIM, CIA, CWRU aren't signing leases with these existing micro unit buildings. The buildings then subsidize that they don't have tenants by listing units on air bnb, which causes a whole host of other problems. 

If these micro units were operating how they were intended to when designed (with actual tenants), this would be a different conversation. We don't have a successful proof of concept in this area for micro units. 

Look, I'd love to eat my hat on this in 3-5 years time. I'd love for this building to be operating at 100% occupancy, full of first year residents and freshman cello players. 

That's just not the experience this neighborhood has had with micro units and it begs the question whether Hessler would benefit from other housing options for the new construction component of the development. 

You've made lots of assertions about what's happening, but provided no proof.  And frankly, there's too long of a history of NIMBY's making up "facts" to argue that more apartments shouldn't be built in their neighborhood for any of us to take it for granted that what you say is true.  And even if we were to take what you say at face value, it's one building, and not a lot of evidence of how micro-units overall would work in the neighborhood.

Can we stop the name-calling. Derisively labeling someone a 'nimby' and obliquely calling them a racist is no way to moderate

I didn't obliquely call anyone a racist, although I will say directly that classism is at the heart of NIMBYism.  And I will stand by my assertion that what we are seeing from Ashbury Resident are variations on the standard attacks that NIMBY's use to attack projects in their neighborhood, and stand by my posts calling out the same.  And frankly, that to me casts a pall on their assertions about what's happening at the building in question.

Hi Ashbury Resident.  Where are the micro units you talk about that are not sustainable for the neighborhood long term?  What is the name of the building in your neighborhood, which is acting as a beacon for theft?  Maybe there’s someone on this forum that can help with the problem.  I’m starting to think the building may not exist.

@Boomerang_Brian No, but my roommate dated a South American Feminist Studies student. She and and her friends knew how to throw some swingin' dance parties.  -  There were parties in apartments of neighbors every week, but who knew the hosts names?  Mostly CSU/CIA/CWRU students, hippies and artists.  - I'm still exhausted.

1961 Ford has cavernous apartments. No micro-units in that place! We had four bedrooms (mine with a shaving sink next to my closet) a butlers pantry, a live-in maid bedroom behind the kitchen.  Ritzy place in the old days I'll bet.  Good bones, still, probably.  Our dinner-party-sized balcony overlooked the corner of Ford and Hessler from the 2nd Floor. So crazy!

Forumers here who actually live in a micro-unit. Please tell me why they are awesome.

Edited February 18, 20214 yr by ExPatClevGuy

2 minutes ago, ExPatClevGuy said:

@Boomerang_Brian No, but my roommate dated a South American Feminist Studies student. She and and her friends knew how to throw some swingin' dance parties.  -  There were parties in apartments of neighbors every week, but who knew the hosts names?  Mostly SCU/CIA/CWRU students, hippies and artists.  - I'm still exhausted.

1961 Ford has cavernous apartments. No micro-units in that place! We had four bedrooms (mine with a shaving sink next to my closet) a butlers pantry, a live-in maid bedroom behind the kitchen.  Ritzy place in the old days I'll bet.  Good bones, still, probably.  

Forumers here who actually live in a micro-unit. Please tell me why they are awesome.

Yep, same building he lived in. North corner first floor facing Ford. 

20 minutes ago, ExPatClevGuy said:

@Boomerang_Brian No, but my roommate dated a South American Feminist Studies student. She and and her friends knew how to throw some swingin' dance parties.  -  There were parties in apartments of neighbors every week, but who knew the hosts names?  Mostly SCU/CIA/CWRU students, hippies and artists.  - I'm still exhausted.

1961 Ford has cavernous apartments. No micro-units in that place! We had four bedrooms (mine with a shaving sink next to my closet) a butlers pantry, a live-in maid bedroom behind the kitchen.  Ritzy place in the old days I'll bet.  Good bones, still, probably.  Our dinner-party-sized balcony overlooked the corner of Ford and Hessler from the 2nd Floor. So crazy!

Forumers here who actually live in a micro-unit. Please tell me why they are awesome.

Please please tell me that "South American Feminist Studies" is just a class and not a major at Case.😳

She, and most of her friends were South American, LOL.

 

 

Edited February 18, 20214 yr by ExPatClevGuy

Craaaazy times, amiright?  But how 'bout them University Circle Developments?

Progressing:

 

Personally, I think the park in between the MLK and E 105th Street are a complete waste of space. No parking lots for people to drive to - which is fine, i hate cars anyway. But they're also not near any residential spots where people could walk to them.

Not yet. Some parks are in reaction to residential development. Others instigate them.

11 minutes ago, walkability said:

Personally, I think the park in between the MLK and E 105th Street are a complete waste of space. No parking lots for people to drive to - which is fine, i hate cars anyway. But they're also not near any residential spots where people could walk to them.

There are always tons of people there in the summer. 

There are going to be a lot more people there in coming years.  I think that those parks will make a lot more sense when the neighborhood fills (back) in around them.

3 hours ago, walkability said:

Personally, I think the park in between the MLK and E 105th Street are a complete waste of space. No parking lots for people to drive to - which is fine, i hate cars anyway. But they're also not near any residential spots where people could walk to them.

what would you like there, pavement..??

5 hours ago, walkability said:

Personally, I think the park in between the MLK and E 105th Street are a complete waste of space. No parking lots for people to drive to - which is fine, i hate cars anyway. But they're also not near any residential spots where people could walk to them.

 

MLK is legitimately lined with free on street parking here. There's also metered parking on Wade Oval and East, and there's 2 free parking lots in the park across 105th, and 3 public garages at the museums. There are 6 apartment buildings 6 stories or taller within half a mile of this area (with more on the way). Plenty of parking and people. 

That parkland would be a lot more useable and pleasant of that segment of MLK were just closed.  The city has already turned 105 into a traffic sewer, so why not use it to its full advantage?  Or if not closed, reconfigured to provide more parking, but not much of a through-route.

Edited March 1, 20214 yr by StapHanger

https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/port-cleveland-will-issue-bonds-298-unit-artisan-apartment-tower-university-circle

@ytown2ctownthere's a specific thread for Circle Square:  

 

This is just as much Hough as it is UC, but the auction listing for this abandoned 10-story building includes a drone video offering some great views of UC's skyline and in one view, of downtown's. Here are a few screen shots from that video available at the listing below....

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/Vacant-Multi-Family-and-18-Acre-Land/22142025/

 

 

 

 

Maltz Performing Arts Center (3-17-21)

 

 

 

 

The Artisan / 10600 Chester

 

 

Townhomes at North Park Place

 

 

 

Weather wrap is always done poorly in these new builds. Often left exposed to the elements far longer than allowed by the warrantee, and when it's flapping in the wind like that for months, instead of replacing it they just staple it back down before putting on the siding. Just look at that mess around the windows.

Update on the Hessler Mikros Development: The new construction building has been changed from 23 units to 12 units and just 3 stories tall.

1 hour ago, tykaps said:

Update on the Hessler Mikros Development: The new construction building has been changed from 23 units to 12 units and just 3 stories tall.

In neighborhoods where there is more pushback by neighbors, how likely is it that developers purposely propose projects larger than what they expect will be approved and/or larger than they actually want, with the expectation that they will trim back the proposal later to show they are responding to the concerns the neighborhood? So in the case of this Hessler building, is it possible that the developer really only wanted a 3 story building, but proposed more so the whole project wasn't axed?

1 minute ago, scg80 said:

In neighborhoods where there is more pushback by neighbors, how likely is it that developers purposely propose projects larger than what they expect will be approved and/or larger than they actually want, with the expectation that they will trim back the proposal later to show they are responding to the concerns the neighborhood? So in the case of this Hessler building, is it possible that the developer really only wanted a 3 story building, but proposed more so the whole project wasn't axed?

I don’t think a developer typically knows what the pushback will be until the project is released. A lot of the time residents find very innovative and unexpected things to criticize.

12 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I don’t think a developer typically knows what the pushback will be until the project is released. A lot of the time residents find very innovative and unexpected things to criticize.

Innovative and unexpected criticisms like "too big" and "not enough parking."

Great addition to the neighborhood.

 

Corner of Mayfield and Euclid, one of the storefronts in that 5-story red brick building.  (Never knew if the building had a name ... also called University East Apartments building):

 

Popular Glenville-Based Capo's Steaks to Open Second Location in University Circle This Spring

By Douglas Trattner

 April 09, 2021 at 8:46 AM

 

For more than five years, Capo's Steaks (10509 St. Clair Ave., 216-721-3219) has been chopping up and dishing out some of the best Philly cheesesteaks in town from its perch in Glenville.

Now, James "Boss of the Cheesesteaks" Muhammad is gearing up to open his second steak shop, this one in University Circle. The shop is located at 11332 Euclid Ave. and is expected to make its debut on May 10. 

 

https://m.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2021/04/09/popular-glenville-based-capos-steaks-to-open-second-location-in-university-circle-this-spring

 

Edited April 11, 20214 yr by MuRrAy HiLL

Updated slides for the Hessler and Ford Project: https://www.universitycircle.org/files/resources/210405hessler-ucipresentation.pdf

Ick.  I hate when apartment buildings try to mask themselves as oversized single family homes.

Ugh.  They slashed a floor to make the NIMBYS happy and this is the result.

BRAVO! I love it. -  Very handsome. YIMBY to this design 😃, and kudos to the neighbors who stood up for excellence.

This new look and size is in excellent context with the balance of the street, (which it should be for this tight knit community.)

As one of the very few mostly intact townhouse row communities remaining in all of Cleveland, this was the successful sensitive choice. 

Hessler Street is practically dripping with human-scaled charm & early 20th Century texture & pedestrian scale, so something way out of tune would never have worked. - I'm super pleased.

 

The street elevation facing out to Hessler is exactly what I would be able to view from the second floor balcony of my former apartment at lovely & historic 1961 Ford across the street.