The row house/brick apartment building slaughter on the east side has continued unabated for 70 years. 

God damn a great development but i wish it was housed somewhere else i love those little row houses.

 

Honestly id complain less of these damn architects actually had a single ounce of taste and individuality

19 hours ago, KJP said:

Thanks again @tykaps!!

 

 

Stokes West: 2-to-1 apartment-parking ratio

By Ken Prendergast / March 26, 2022

 

If you have a car collection and want to live next to it, then the proposed Stokes West development isn’t for you. But if you’re new in town and will be working or studying at one of University Circle’s many growing employers and institutions, then real estate developer Brent Zimmerman says he has something in mind for you.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2022/03/26/stokes-west-2-to-1-apartment-parking-ratio/

 

 

 

Love the look of this one and great to see even more development but....am I reading this floorplan right? Out of this whole project there's 600sqft of ground floor retail? I get that not every project needs lots of retail space but I'm hoping this isn't a trend for this area that is already underserved in terms of walkable retail.

7 hours ago, FutureboyWonder said:

God damn a great development but i wish it was housed somewhere else i love those little row houses.

 

Honestly id complain less of these damn architects actually had a single ounce of taste and individuality

I remember those row houses when they were occupied over 20 years ago (there used to be a small neighborhood bar/club right across the street called the Togo) and I think even then they were starting to need some tlc. I think they’ve been vacant for over a few years now. 

 

I can agree with you regarding the continued loss and neglect of the city’s historic apartment stock on the east-side… the city is continuing to lose its potential human density through the neglect of its current built environment. Hopefully the city isn’t too far away from ground-zero when it comes to what needs to be demolished. There will come a point where the private sector can step in and rehab instead, and that may already be happening increasingly.  But to get back on topic, my view this project is definitely a win. The city is losing six row houses which have been in bad shape for a while and the site will become 255 apartments. 🙂 That’s a great outcome. I wish there was a market for this in other parts of the East-side that have seen disinvestment and neglect.

God damn a great development but i wish it was housed somewhere else i love those little row houses.
 
Honestly id complain less of these damn architects actually had a single ounce of taste and individuality

We can always build more row houses - but I agree it would be great to see more architects and developers embrace historic influences. This particular building style isn’t complex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does anyone have any insight on how economically feasible to move buildings?   General cost?

 

Cleveland developers in recent decades doesn't appear to have been interested in saving anything by relocation.

 

Again for example: https://www.wolfehousebuildingmovers.com/house-building-moving/

I love the row houses, too, but I'll gladly swap them for some serious density in CLE's second downtown.

 

This kind of foresight may save us from another 10-stroy parking garage on CCF's main campus a decade from now.

Another nice thing about the development is how it flashes out that part of the neighborhood. Heading east on Carnegie then turning right to head up to the Heights you go from buildings to...nothing really. It's an abrupt transition. Now,with this latest addition the road up will be a more seamless cruise. 

 

It's not a big deal but one of those little things that fill out a neighborhood and sorta says "Yeah, this is a large intact area, not two separate entities connected by urban wasteland." Just another sign that Cleveland is back.

^100% it will have a nice impact and add density in an area that it is needed.

 

One thing I will say in regards to this development and the rowhomes is how disappointing that they will tear them down in place of a surface lot fronting Cedar Avenue according to their site plans in KJP's article.  Wish the could incorporate them somehow and hide the surface lot some.

Edited March 28, 20223 yr by MissinOhio

Stokes West and the rowhouse demo are both on Design Review for this week.....

 

EUCLID CORRIDOR DESIGN REVIEW

 

1.                  EC2022-009 – Proposed Demolition of a 2-Story Apartment Building: Seeking Final Approval per §341.08 of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances

Project Addresses: 10713-10723 Cedar Avenue

Project Representative: Steve Jennings, LDA Architects

 

2.                  EC2022-010 – UCI Development | Stokes West New Construction: Seeking Schematic Design Approval

Project Location: NW corner of Cedar Avenue and Stokes Boulevard

Project Representative: Steve Jennings, LDA Architects

1 minute ago, KJP said:

Stokes West and the rowhouse demo are both on Design Review for this week.....

 

EUCLID CORRIDOR DESIGN REVIEW

 

1.                  EC2022-009 – Proposed Demolition of a 2-Story Apartment Building: Seeking Final Approval per §341.08 of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances

Project Addresses: 10713-10723 Cedar Avenue

Project Representative: Steve Jennings, LDA Architects

 

2.                  EC2022-010 – UCI Development | Stokes West New Construction: Seeking Schematic Design Approval

Project Location: NW corner of Cedar Avenue and Stokes Boulevard

Project Representative: Steve Jennings, LDA Architects

I take it the project is not in an area over which Landmarks has jurisdiction.  Demo approval might be more difficult from them than PC

Gotta say, I really don't care about the demo. I've lived in this area for 8 years. For half that time, I lived right up Cedar hill. I've driven past this lot many times. Literally never given a thought to the rowhomes.

 

In Cleveland, every block is either historic or used to be historic. There are some real tragedies and some gems that I'm glad were saved, but I'm not gonna get worked up about some random rowhomes. I'm all for historical preservation of the genuinely outstanding, which we have a lot of. But we also have a lot of the historical but unremarkable. It's not all gonna make it and that's ok.

I know this is an old article, but it's still a feel good story from Forbes...

 

https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/ohio/cleveland/university-circle-cleveland/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=pinterest&utm_campaign=newsletter

 

 

 

As the University Circle garage turns
By Ken Prendergast / March 31, 2022

 

A proposed demolition of a parking garage at 1980 Ford Rd. in Cleveland’s University Circle area is already causing negative impacts in the area — and the garage hasn’t been razed yet. But officials at University Circle Inc. (UCI) which owns the 54-year-old garage are hoping that a new parking deck to be built in its place will help boost the neighborhood.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2022/03/31/as-the-university-circle-garage-turns/

1.  After all the meetings, hearings, design revisions and approvals the Hessler Road project went through it is crazy that it will not be going forward.  The NIMBYS won after all although not due to their efforts.  Hope they enjoy their gravel lot.  Maybe one of them can plant some flowers on it.

 

2. NIMBYS will go nuts if somebody proposes a development of any height over a new parking garage.

 

3.  Parking is indeed scarce in that area.  I know it would cost a fortune but they should explore going a couple of levels underground to increase the number of spots in the new garage.

 

4.  It will be interesting to see what solution they come up for parking during the two years it will take to rebuild the garage.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

As the University Circle garage turns
By Ken Prendergast / March 31, 2022

 

A proposed demolition of a parking garage at 1980 Ford Rd. in Cleveland’s University Circle area is already causing negative impacts in the area — and the garage hasn’t been razed yet. But officials at University Circle Inc. (UCI) which owns the 54-year-old garage are hoping that a new parking deck to be built in its place will help boost the neighborhood.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2022/03/31/as-the-university-circle-garage-turns/

 

58 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

1.  After all the meetings, hearings, design revisions and approvals the Hessler Road project went through it is crazy that it will not be going forward.  The NIMBYS won after all although not due to their efforts.  Hope they enjoy their gravel lot.  Maybe one of them can plant some flowers on it.

 

2. NIMBYS will go nuts if somebody proposes a development of any height over a new parking garage.

 

3.  Parking is indeed scarce in that area.  I know it would cost a fortune but they should explore going a couple of levels underground to increase the number of spots in the new garage.

 

4.  It will be interesting to see what solution they come up for parking during the two years it will take to rebuild the garage.

Wow that’s awful. A project that shouldn’t require any parking is now dead because of parking. 
 

We desperately need zoning reform. Buffalo already eliminated parking requirements. Maybe if we get zoning reforms we could end up with a bigger building there someday. 

Ah, many a law school memory I have from that garage. Stumbling in at 3 am after a night in the law review office. Sobbing in my car for no good reason. This garage really is the gift that keeps giving!

1.  After all the meetings, hearings, design revisions and approvals the Hessler Road project went through it is crazy that it will not be going forward.  The NIMBYS won after all although not due to their efforts.  Hope they enjoy their gravel lot.  Maybe one of them can plant some flowers on it.
 
2. NIMBYS will go nuts if somebody proposes a development of any height over a new parking garage.
 
3.  Parking is indeed scarce in that area.  I know it would cost a fortune but they should explore going a couple of levels underground to increase the number of spots in the new garage.
 
4.  It will be interesting to see what solution they come up for parking during the two years it will take to rebuild the garage.

.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Planning Commission members, especially August Fluker, pushed back on the requested demolition of the Cedar Avenue rowhouses, citing its significance to the history of the African-American community. The demolition request was tabled along with the Stokes West schematic design application.

 

EDIT: part of the problem is that this design was introduced to the commission in the schematic phase -- not conceptual. So the applicant has put a lot of design work into this plan to get it to the schematic phase. It should have introduced the commission to this project with a conceptual design to learn if the commission had any concerns first.

26 minutes ago, KJP said:

Planning Commission members, especially August Fluker, pushed back on the requested demolition of the Cedar Avenue rowhouses, citing its significance to the history of the African-American community. The demolition request was tabled along with the Stokes West schematic design application.

 

EDIT: part of the problem is that this design was introduced to the commission in the schematic phase -- not conceptual. So the applicant has put a lot of design work into this plan to get it to the schematic phase. It should have introduced the commission to this project with a conceptual design to learn if the commission had any concerns first.

I wish these could be moved to a neighboring street and rehabbed as apart of the agreement to build this project. 

I was blown away by the reaction.  Why wasn't the plan presented before the demo request as usually happens? It would have answered some of the questions that Fluker was rudely (in my opinion) screaming out.  Also they were barely listening to the UCI rep.  What I find most concerning was how ignorant the Planning Commission was regarding the total project at this point in time.  We on this forum are much more knowledgeable in terms of the details including the fact that it is more of a pedestrian oriented development than we usually see.  The Commission was advocating for this earlier in the meeting in regards to road surfacing.  I know they are busy people but they just didn't seem to have a clue.   Isn't it their job to be some what on top of things development wise in Cleveland.  Also, I was not happy with the reaction of the new director.  Instead of explaining the overall project and answering some of the questions she seemed to be intimidated by the reaction of the two black members of the commission and became very timid.  Again she could have provided answers to their questions.  I hope she did this just because it is her plan to work behind the scenes in the near future to get this thing approved.  In my opinion they should have went ahead with the project presentation instead of tabling it.  I hope this does not kill this project.

Edited April 1, 20223 yr by Htsguy

But the developer is not innocent here either. Why introduce a development at the schematic level when it requires a demolition? Why not introduce a conceptual plan to first get the commission's feedback and then present a schematic plan based on the feedback. It's as if the developer assumed there would be a rubber-stamp approval of the demolition. Instead, they forced the commission to go on the defensive.

I was curious.  Did anyone at the meeting describe the specific nature of the historical significance of the row houses?  For example, were they the site of an historical movement, or did someone famous live there?

22 minutes ago, KJP said:

But the developer is not innocent here either. Why introduce a development at the schematic level when it requires a demolition? Why not introduce a conceptual plan to first get the commission's feedback and then present a schematic plan based on the feedback. It's as if the developer assumed there would be a rubber-stamp approval of the demolition. Instead, they forced the commission to go on the defensive.

Agree with that 100%.  However, Fluker jumped down the developers throat even before he understood what was being proposed.  Again the presentation would have answered a number of his shoot from the hip questions.  Why wasn't the development presentation on the agenda before the demo presentation.  That is how they usually do it.

 

I am not in love with the siting of this project, especially the surface lot fronting Cedar.  However, I think I understand what they are trying to accomplish given cost considerations which are always a boogie man.  If they have to keep the townhomes (cutting into the already limited parking) and also have to renovate them, I don't see the project going forward.  They might have to slash the number of units as suggested which will cut into margins and could be a deal breaker.  Or they could try to do a small pedestal to make up for the lost surface parking.  However that additional cost plus the cost to renovate the townhomes again would probable kill the project.  UCI has been looking for somebody to develop this lot for ages.  It may be a waste land for many years to come

Edited April 1, 20223 yr by Htsguy

5 minutes ago, urb-a-saurus said:

I was curious.  Did anyone at the meeting describe the specific nature of the historical significance of the row houses?  For example, were they the site of an historical movement, or did someone famous live there?

I believe somebody from the development team mentioned off the cuff that the town homes were not in a historic district and were not Landmarked and that went over like a lead balloon with the two African-American members of the PC.

17 minutes ago, urb-a-saurus said:

I was curious.  Did anyone at the meeting describe the specific nature of the historical significance of the row houses?  For example, were they the site of an historical movement, or did someone famous live there?

 

Fluker and Scott said that Cedar in general is an historic street in the African-American community, but that much of that history has not been documented because it was African-American. I don't know how you counter that.

 

Htsguy is right that this may kill the project. In that case, UCI sits on that land for another decade or two while the rowhouses start falling down and have to be razed anyway.

3 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Fluker and Scott said that Cedar in general is an historic street in the African-American community, but that much of that history has not been documented because it was African-American. I don't know how you counter that.

 

Htsguy is right that this may kill the project. In that case, UCI sits on that land for another decade or two while the rowhouses start falling down and have to be razed anyway.

At some point this entire triangle of land was covered with similar townhomes that slowly fell into disrepair and were demoed and nobody said a thing.  It is ironic that the one lonely, vacant and decayed row of six houses will now stymie a positive move forward.  @KJP is right.  Ten years from now they will have to  be torn down due to further neglect (believe me nobody is coming to their rescue) and all we will have is a weed strewn lot that commuters will rush by on their way to the Heiights.

I'm I the only one that glanced at the site plan and thought the existing structure didn't necessarily need to come down anyways. To me it looked like that area would be parking lot, where the rows houses stand today. Maybe this can turn into a win/win?

6 minutes ago, viscomi said:

I'm I the only one that glanced at the site plan and thought the existing structure didn't necessarily need to come down anyways. To me it looked like that area would be parking lot, where the rows houses stand today. Maybe this can turn into a win/win?

It was explained that keeping the row houses would cut into already very limited parking (now 100 spaces for more than 200 units).  So they would have to cut units which would probably hurt margins and make the project a no go.  Also don't ignore the extremely high cost to renovate when you are already watching pennies.

There's a 70-space parking lot on the south side of Cedar and west of Stokes that is owned by the Cleveland Clinic and used sometimes by the Uqbah Mosque. Perhaps UCI can help the developer establish a long-term lease of that lot and assist the developer to get historic tax credits for renovating the rowhouses?

23 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

It was explained that keeping the row houses would cut into already very limited parking (now 100 spaces for more than 200 units).  So they would have to cut units which would probably hurt margins and make the project a no go.  Also don't ignore the extremely high cost to renovate when you are already watching pennies.

 

Even less parking was part of my win scenario! Fair enough though, looks like there is some dead space that can be utilized and thus free up room on the back side for more parking. My point being, if there is a will there is a way. Also, with the investment right there I would assume that would make the rowhouses a more enticing rehab for another dev.

Edited April 1, 20223 yr by viscomi

The ever-present poor mouthing from a developer.

3 minutes ago, Mendo said:

The ever-present poor mouthing from a developer.

 

And the ever-present misunderstanding of how hard it can be to develop in low-rent Cleveland.

8 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

And the ever-present misunderstanding of how hard it can be to develop in low-rent Cleveland.

 

I roll my eyes when developers poor-mouth because it implies they've penciled a project at the bare minimum required to make it worth their while, and any reduction in scale or product mix would make it unviable.

Edited April 1, 20223 yr by Mendo

31 minutes ago, viscomi said:

 

Even less parking was part of my win scenario! Fair enough though, looks like there is some dead space that can be utilized and thus free up room on the back side for more parking. My point being, if there is a will there is a way. Also, with the investment right there I would assume that would make the rowhouses a more enticing rehab for another dev.

The developer was already touting this plan as a public transportation oriented development given its location and the fact that there was so little parking given the number of units.  Less than one parking space per unit is almost unheard of in Cleveland and this is way less.  But let's face it.  Its Cleveland.  You can only limited the parking so much in order to be marketable.  In order to keep the townhouse given the current siting (or really any siting that does not include an indoor pedestal garage) you would probably lose as many as 20 spots to make way for a new entry way and room to manuever.  So 80 sports for a building with well over 200 units. I know I sound like a broken record but the numbers probably do not work.  Maybe UCI is in a position to subsidize, but I don't believe that is in their mission statement.

Edited April 1, 20223 yr by Htsguy

42 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

I roll my eyes when developers poor-mouth because it implies they've penciled a project at the bare minimum required to make it worth their while, and any reduction in scale or product mix would make it unviable.

 

But it has nothing to do with Cleveland being a low-rent, high-cost city in which to pursue real estate developments? That's slowly changing, but only in some neighborhoods.

27 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

But it has nothing to do with Cleveland being a low-rent, high-cost city in which to pursue real estate developments? That's slowly changing, but only in some neighborhoods.

 

I have two questions for@KJP and others who may have more info about this info:

 

1- What would you say are the top-five CLE neighborhoods that are increasing rents and will reach national averages first?

 

2- What are some ways that we could lower construction costs in the city?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

My thoughts on this project/situation is that'd be cool if they could keep/integrate the row homes into the development, but I don't think its worth killing a big development over it.... hopefully they can come to a good resolution and we'll see this project rise.

1 hour ago, Htsguy said:

The developer was already touting this plan as a public transportation oriented development given its location and the fact that there was so little parking given the number of units.  Less than one parking space per unit is almost unheard of in Cleveland and this is way less.  But let's face it.  Its Cleveland.  You can only limited the parking so much in order to be marketable.  In order to keep the townhouse given the current siting (or really any siting that does not include an indoor pedestal garage) you would probably lose as many as 20 spots to make way for a new entry way and room to manuever.  So 80 sports for a building with well over 200 units. I know I sound like a broken record but the numbers probably do not work.  Maybe UCI is in a position to subsidize, but I don't believe that is in their mission statement.

 

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

There's a 70-space parking lot on the south side of Cedar and west of Stokes that is owned by the Cleveland Clinic and used sometimes by the Uqbah Mosque. Perhaps UCI can help the developer establish a long-term lease of that lot and assist the developer to get historic tax credits for renovating the rowhouses?

I genuinely think that KJP's solution is the best but while I want the row homes to be saved I do agree that it isn't worth killing a large development over. 

Edited April 1, 20223 yr by MyPhoneDead

1. Downtown/Flats, University Circle/Little Italy, Ohio City, Tremont and portions of Detroit-Shoreway have the best rents but have a long way to go before they reach the median of the top 30 urban markets.

2. Increase competition. We're starting to see that with more non-Cleveland general contractors entering the market like Power Construction and Leopardo Companies, both of Chicago. But it's hard to do with inflation and price volatility in construction materials, fuel, etc.

 

Frankly, I'm amazed that a lender was willing to support this project with its 2-1 apartment-parking ratio. But Zimmerman found a supportive financier who shares his vision for developments that aren't car dependent. I hope the CPC's action today doesn't scare them off.

Let's make sure we're keeping this discussion to UC developments, and not general comparisons of neighborhoods or general discussions of Cleveland's construction costs.

Re: the Ford Road garage across from Hessler, it sounds like UCI was sniffing around about the possibility of building some (residential) height on top of the existing structure?  And the determined that there was no way the current garage could sustain such a project, so the solution is to build new parking?  And said new parking will hopefully include apartments on top?

 

If so, exciting news, as this will only add to an already vital intersection.  More living space in Uptown is great.  On that topic, I'm surprised nothing has happened with the old CDC site on Euclid Ave between East 117th and 118th Streets.  I checked the county's GIS website, and UCI owns the parcel(s).  It would seem that this would be a prime opportunity for some more residential growth, hopefully with a seriously vertical component to it.

Edited April 2, 20223 yr by Down_with_Ctown

Don’t have access but there’s a story in Crain’s about the row houses getting in the way of the Stokes 2 development. 

14 hours ago, OldEnough said:

Don’t have access but there’s a story in Crain’s about the row houses getting in the way of the Stokes 2 development. 

I was able to read the article.  It tracks the above discussion but a few additional points.  The day before Design Review praised and approved the project with only one dissenting vote.  The loss of the townhomes apparently only came up briefly and d*ck Pace did lament the demolition but the committee felt the row houses were isolated and devoid of any historic context.  Pace stated the tradeoff, to get the new apartment building was worth the loss.  Clearly the Design review committee was professional enough to review and understand the project unlike PC.

 

Michelle contacted the UCI rep and he of course was very diplomatic saying they would work with developer to address the PC concerns.  Hopefully that will be possible and it can move forward.  By the way, another great article by Michelle.  Jam packed with information and quotes and coherently reported for those not in the know.  Can't get enough of her reporting.

 

 

Edited April 3, 20223 yr by Htsguy

^LOL.  I notice the forum's swear word auto correct does not allow poor Mr. Pace's first name to be fully spelled out.

Case Western Reserve buying up properties:
 

CWRU to Expand Residential Property

 May 1, 2022

 

On February 25, it was revealed that the university had purchased three housing units on Fairchild, Glenwood, and Murray Hill. This announcement stated that more properties were to be purchased, but did not disclose them.

 

On March 23, CWRU unveiled even more acquired housing options: eight apartments in a 1716 building, five apartments in the Fairchild Apartment building, the upstairs of two Fairchild duplexes, a five-person house on Glenwood, and another duplex on Murray Hill.

https://www.theclevelandobserver.com/western-expansion-cwru-to-expand-residential-property/

11 hours ago, MuRrAy HiLL said:

Case Western Reserve buying up properties:
 

CWRU to Expand Residential Property

 May 1, 2022

 

On February 25, it was revealed that the university had purchased three housing units on Fairchild, Glenwood, and Murray Hill. This announcement stated that more properties were to be purchased, but did not disclose them.

 

On March 23, CWRU unveiled even more acquired housing options: eight apartments in a 1716 building, five apartments in the Fairchild Apartment building, the upstairs of two Fairchild duplexes, a five-person house on Glenwood, and another duplex on Murray Hill.

https://www.theclevelandobserver.com/western-expansion-cwru-to-expand-residential-property/

 

I'll say again that it is amazing we have a growing university in a time when most university enrollments are shrinking. If the trend continues, it's an asset that sets us up really well for decades to come.

While CWRU's enrollment has been steadily increasing since the late 1980s, former President Barbara Snyder really did an impressive job of adding students.

 

 

https://case.edu/ir/sites/case.edu.ir/files/2021-10/TotalEnrollbyLevel_0.pdf

 

 

Case Western is our flagship university located in the heart of one of the most unique areas of the country. The institutions in the University Circle area deserve our attention and support. As they go, so we go. 

5 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 

I'll say again that it is amazing we have a growing university in a time when most university enrollments are shrinking. If the trend continues, it's an asset that sets us up really well for decades to come.

 

Totally agree! I left Cleveland to go to school at Georgia Tech in Atlanta ... at the time (late 80s), the two cities were much more similar in size. When I go back to Atlanta today, it's amazing to see how the city and state have embraced GT and realized its potential as a research center, incubator, and technology/manufacturing hub. The campus is growing in so many directions, even across the connector. I hope that Cleveland takes a cue and does the same with CWRU in the coming years.

State's like Georgia and Indiana do have one advantage though. They only have one big city to focus on. The pie is not cut like it is in Ohio with the 3 C's. We don't receive nearly the percentage of state help that they get. Makes it a lot easier for them to get behind a big project.