^ Alot of those places are big vacation spots or party spots where people go to party. I would bet a large portion of their clients are not locals. Cleveland just doesnt have that scene IMO.

 

And I totally understand the need for places that I or anyone personally dont participate in. I dont eat meat but I get excited when I hear a new steakhouse is opening. Or when I heard Chipotle was opening I knew that would be good for the neighborhood. I dont drink coffee but like to see coffee shops open as well. My main concern is the neighborhood, not what I personally would use. IMO nightclubs have had a negative impact on the Warehouse District as an urban neighborhood. Id rather see nightclubs in more of a non residential area/downtown neighborhood where they wont have that negative impact.

 

 

Cleveland's current night life scene may not be 'there' but it was 15 to 20 years ago with the Flats. I don't see how anyone can forget about that!

 

Having a night club scene is an important part of keeping new college grads and younger people in general, which is something Cleveland needs to quickly get better at.

This is why a place like Metropolis (or the Lift even further back in time) was great.  They provided that club niche, but weren't dropped right in the middle of a neighborhood which inevitably leads to problems.

There's so much residential there now that nightclubs don't seem like the best possible fit.  WHD needs to transition beyond entertainment.  The spaces are large enough for a variety of uses, and they already have the look and feel that suburban lifestyle centers try to mimic.  So...

This is an interesting discussion, so much so that I've chimed in on it. But we're heading off into the future speculation direction rather than posting, sharing news of, or discussing actual development projects. Thanks.

 

EDIT: Here is a good thread for such discussions:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,23450

Folks, when a mod asks nicely to get back on topic, and even posts a link to a more appropriate thread, please follow it if you really must continue.

 

As a resident of the WHD I agree with 327.  This is a real downtown neighborhood. There are some people who have lived here for 15 to 20 years. I love the bars and restaurants but the truth is, the neighborhood is changing. We need more amenities to support a population of over 4000 people in an 8 block area! Tomorrow is our street fair.  I hope everyone will come and enjoy our neighborhood. All of the great restaurants will have food booths.  There will be bands playing at both ends of east 6th. Local artists will be showing their works.  It is a great time for all.

^ I think its more like 2,000 but I agree. But we should agree to move this discussion elsewhere, although not necessarily the provided thread as we are discussion neighborhood makeup, not safety concerns.

Does anyone have pictures of the new W. 6th streetscape? I haven't been able to find any.

 

Pics taken this morning while I was out for a run.

As a side note, I was in the Warehouse District with the girlfriend a couple weeks ago. They really need to upgrade the lighting along W 6th and 9th. The yellow-orange light from the sodium vapor lamps is really dingy and depressing for this area.

That stretch looks really nice!  I'm glad to see that they included benches... They're surprisingly uncommon around Cleveland, although they have been included in some of the more recent streetscaping projects, so maybe that's changing.

Spoke to one of the bar managers down there on Sunday.  He said the bars are totally frustrated with the amount of underage kids that show up down there on the weekends to just hang out & start trouble.  The police are right there but they aren't doing anything to enforce curfews, loitering, etc and this is part of what's driving off customers.  He said the bars are putting a formal complaint together to the Warehouse District Board and the Downtown Cleveland Alliance.  Stay tuned

Spoke to one of the bar managers down there on Sunday.  He said the bars are totally frustrated with the amount of underage kids that show up down there on the weekends to just hang out & start trouble.  The police are right there but they aren't doing anything to enforce curfews, loitering, etc and this is part of what's driving off customers.  He said the bars are putting a formal complaint together to the Warehouse District Board and the Downtown Cleveland Alliance.  Stay tuned

 

I'm commenting on this here - http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,23450.175.html - which is the more appropriate thread for these concerns.

It's a little funny to have the "amenity strip" (trees, benches, etc) right in the middle, but I kind of like its quirkiness.  And much better to keep the mature trees and save the money it would have taken to rebuild the whole sidwalk.  Looks great.

 

I still remember the excitement of the first streetscaping theme on that block when it was new.  Early 1990s, I think. A definitely feeling old moment.

As a side note, I was in the Warehouse District with the girlfriend a couple weeks ago. They really need to upgrade the lighting along W 6th and 9th. The yellow-orange light from the sodium vapor lamps is really dingy and depressing for this area.

 

(Moderately off topic...)

My section of pearl rd in the last two weeks had the new LED streetlights installed. They are a nice bright white and a huge improvement. I assume they will be coming to the warehouse district soon.

Had lunch in the WHD during a warm/sunny workday a week ago and noticed how crowded the restaurants were.  It appears the new FEB development is pumping in many new customers into eateries in that corner of downtown.

^ I agree. Came home last night and saw all of the restaurants crowded and tons of people on the street. It was also a perfect night out.

More Downtown apartments?

 

Cuyahoga County council approves sale of three buildings for $3.4 million

 

Andrew J. Tobias, Northeast Ohio Media Group By Andrew J. Tobias, Northeast Ohio Media Group

on September 24, 2013 at 7:45 PM, updated September 25, 2013 at 1:18 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- As part of an ongoing process to consolidate its offices, Cuyahoga County Council on Tuesday unanimously approved selling a trio of buildings in downtown Cleveland to a private developer.

 

Weston Inc. is considering converting one of the buildings -- the Marion Building in the Warehouse District at 1276 W. 3rd St.-- into apartments, company CEO T.J. Asher told The Plain Dealer last month.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2013/09/cuyahoga_county_council_approves_sale_of_three_buildings_for_34_million.html

I wish Weston would develop its many parking lots in the Warehouse District, but we don't offer historic tax credits for converting those!

^LIGHTBULB IDEA!

 

A parking lot tax that goes into a special development fund for building on surface parking lots. 

^LIGHTBULB IDEA!

 

A parking lot tax that goes into a special development fund for building on surface parking lots. 

 

Make sure it's Draconian.

^LIGHTBULB IDEA!

 

A parking lot tax that goes into a special development fund for building on surface parking lots. 

 

Make sure it's Draconian.

 

I actually like the idea.  One way to subsidize some new housing since the market won't raise rents to allow developers to build.  And the city gets new residents, payroll taxes, etc....

^LIGHTBULB IDEA!

 

A parking lot tax that goes into a special development fund for building on surface parking lots. 

 

Make sure it's Draconian.

 

I actually like the idea.  One way to subsidize some new housing since the market won't raise rents to allow developers to build.  And the city gets new residents, payroll taxes, etc....

 

So do I. Let's start working on/against those who are bound to oppose this. 

Oh yes, there would bound to be those Cleveland.com posters who allegedly run huge businesses downtown and threaten to move their 1000 employees to the suburbs over a 35 cent a day tax on parking.

Oh yes, there would bound to be those Cleveland.com posters who allegedly run huge businesses downtown and threaten to move their 1000 employees to the suburbs over a 35 cent a day tax on parking.

 

My friends family owns a restaurant on W. 6th. I hate this, but they - and other business owners - have very shortsighted views on developing the parking lots.

^^That's an easy exemption. If you are a business owner and you own a lot to provide parking for employees, you're exempt. If you are a parking lot operator, and your lot is less than 'X' number of lots, you are also exempt. Anything over say, I don't know, 50 lots, the tax kicks in. You don't want to ding smaller lots that really aren't immediate contenders for development, nor employers that are using their lots for employees. It's the big lots (cough cough, Warehouse District) that I'd think we'd want to target.

A tax cannot be punitive. One can argue that such a parking tax would be punitive. An alternative would be an impervious surfaces tax as the city is required to maintain aging, costly storm sewers -- especially downtown where there is so little greenspace. This tax serves a purpose to encourage the construction of structures with green roofs, rain barrels etc. Oh by the way, gravel or dirt parking lots should not be permitted downtown for ADA purposes..... :)

^^That's an easy exemption. If you are a business owner and you own a lot to provide parking for employees, you're exempt. If you are a parking lot operator, and your lot is less than 'X' number of lots, you are also exempt. Anything over say, I don't know, 50 lots, the tax kicks in. You don't want to ding smaller lots that really aren't immediate contenders for development, nor employers that are using their lots for employees. It's the big lots (cough cough, Warehouse District) that I'd think we'd want to target.

 

This sounds like a reasonable starting point for a conversation like this to happen.  Of course the large lot owners will howl, but they've had a couple decades time to bank soaring profits off these lots with no valuable return for the city.

Does Weston even "own" those lots?  My undestanding is that the company held an "option" on them.

 

I'm not sure I'm in favor of a tax targeting surface lots and it seems like nothing more than a UO pipedream anyways.  But what I think would could gain some traction in Council and what I would like to see the City do is ramp up enforcement (i.e. the issuance of notices and fines) for poorly maintained properties.  If a building looked as bad as half of the surface lots, it would get fined.  I also like the idea that any NEW lot must have a permeable surface.  It helps lower other costs (as KJP pointed out) and it makes the cost-benefit analysis a bit more difficult for those wishing to own/operate the lots.

Does Weston even "own" those lots?  My undestanding is that the company held an "option" on them.

 

Yes, Weston owns most of the lots east of West 6th via paper companies with names like "West 6th-St. Clair Partnership" etc. The same LA-based company that owns the lots around East 4th and Prospects owns the lots over by West 9th and St. Clair.

Oh yes, there would bound to be those Cleveland.com posters who allegedly run huge businesses downtown and threaten to move their 1000 employees to the suburbs over a 35 cent a day tax on parking.

 

My friends family owns a restaurant on W. 6th. I hate this, but they - and other business owners - have very shortsighted views on developing the parking lots.

 

I get that--bus as a part of our development we can make sure the bottom floor is retain, then 5-6 floors of parking, with residential on top.  Win-win-win for all parties involved.  Suburbanites can still park plus the restaurant owner has new residents as customers.

Oh yes, there would bound to be those Cleveland.com posters who allegedly run huge businesses downtown and threaten to move their 1000 employees to the suburbs over a 35 cent a day tax on parking.

 

My friends family owns a restaurant on W. 6th. I hate this, but they - and other business owners - have very shortsighted views on developing the parking lots.

 

I get that--bus as a part of our development we can make sure the bottom floor is retain, then 5-6 floors of parking, with residential on top.  Win-win-win for all parties involved.  Suburbanites can still park plus the restaurant owner has new residents as customers.

 

FYI........

 

Friday, May 17, 2013 7 Comments

Businesses Win When Cars and Parking Give Way to Peds, Bikes, and Transit

by Steven Vance

 

....There’s another way to approach the problem: Giving priority to the most efficient modes of transportation, which would address both the need for people to travel and the need to create a desirable urban environment. More people will be able get to and through the place, even as the pedestrian environment improves thanks to the decline in car traffic.

 

This more rational option is paying dividends for American cities. Reallocating urban street space from cars to pedestrians, bikes, and transit has shown time and time again to improve the efficiency of the street and enhance retail performance. A recent analysis of sales receipts and real estate data in New York City found that streets where traffic lanes and parking had been re-purposed for bus lanes, bike lanes, and pedestrian space performed better economically, overall, than streets that saw no changes. San Francisco recently eliminated left turns and increased enforcement on its transit-only lanes on Church Street: travel times dropped, reliability increased. These changes are good for business in part because they make the street more accessible to pedestrians and cyclists, who tend to make more frequent trips to retailers than car drivers.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/05/17/businesses-win-when-cars-and-parking-give-way-to-peds-bikes-and-transit/

Or at least look at what more progressive neighboring states have done.  Like several Pennsylvania cities have done with its "two tier approach".  They also call it an "Upside-Down Property Tax", since it taxes land at a higher rate than buildings.

 

"Taxing land more and buildings less takes the profit out of speculation, putting land users rather than land holders in the driver's seat. Unlike taxes on most anything else, taxes on site values reduce land prices. Good things flow from this remarkable fact, as these examples show."

 

"Opting for the so-called 'two-rate' or 'split-rate' property tax, these cities are lowering taxes on buildings, thereby encouraging development, improvements and renovations, while raising the tax on land values, thus discouraging land speculation. The resulting infill development as indicated by increased building permits means downtown jobs, efficient use of urban infrastructure, an improved housing stock, and less urban sprawl."

 

http://www.earthrights.net/docs/success.html

http://webapps.icma.org/pm/9202/public/cover.cfm?author=walter%20rybeck&title=retooling%20property%20taxes

 

Or at least look at what more progressive neighboring states have done.  Like several Pennsylvania cities have done with its "two tier approach".  They also call it an "Upside-Down Property Tax", since it taxes land at a higher rate than buildings.

 

"Taxing land more and buildings less takes the profit out of speculation, putting land users rather than land holders in the driver's seat. Unlike taxes on most anything else, taxes on site values reduce land prices. Good things flow from this remarkable fact, as these examples show."

 

"Opting for the so-called 'two-rate' or 'split-rate' property tax, these cities are lowering taxes on buildings, thereby encouraging development, improvements and renovations, while raising the tax on land values, thus discouraging land speculation. The resulting infill development as indicated by increased building permits means downtown jobs, efficient use of urban infrastructure, an improved housing stock, and less urban sprawl."

 

http://www.earthrights.net/docs/success.html

http://webapps.icma.org/pm/9202/public/cover.cfm?author=walter%20rybeck&title=retooling%20property%20taxes

 

 

Thanks! I was trying to remember what that was called.

Oh yes, there would bound to be those Cleveland.com posters who allegedly run huge businesses downtown and threaten to move their 1000 employees to the suburbs over a 35 cent a day tax on parking.

 

My friends family owns a restaurant on W. 6th. I hate this, but they - and other business owners - have very shortsighted views on developing the parking lots.

 

I get that--bus as a part of our development we can make sure the bottom floor is retain, then 5-6 floors of parking, with residential on top.  Win-win-win for all parties involved.  Suburbanites can still park plus the restaurant owner has new residents as customers.

 

FYI........

 

Friday, May 17, 2013 7 Comments

Businesses Win When Cars and Parking Give Way to Peds, Bikes, and Transit

by Steven Vance

 

....There’s another way to approach the problem: Giving priority to the most efficient modes of transportation, which would address both the need for people to travel and the need to create a desirable urban environment. More people will be able get to and through the place, even as the pedestrian environment improves thanks to the decline in car traffic.

 

This more rational option is paying dividends for American cities. Reallocating urban street space from cars to pedestrians, bikes, and transit has shown time and time again to improve the efficiency of the street and enhance retail performance. A recent analysis of sales receipts and real estate data in New York City found that streets where traffic lanes and parking had been re-purposed for bus lanes, bike lanes, and pedestrian space performed better economically, overall, than streets that saw no changes. San Francisco recently eliminated left turns and increased enforcement on its transit-only lanes on Church Street: travel times dropped, reliability increased. These changes are good for business in part because they make the street more accessible to pedestrians and cyclists, who tend to make more frequent trips to retailers than car drivers.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/05/17/businesses-win-when-cars-and-parking-give-way-to-peds-bikes-and-transit/

 

I like this KJP, but feel we have to remain realistic.  Cleveland is not San Francisco or New York City.  Not even in the neighborhood (pun intended) when it comes to density.  So for the time being, it will take suburbanites to keep downtown viable (and all downtowners to give up their cars).  So why not develop in the interest of all parties, rather than try to force an agenda or social experiment? 

I like this KJP, but feel we have to remain realistic.  Cleveland is not San Francisco or New York City.  Not even in the neighborhood (pun intended) when it comes to density.  So for the time being, it will take suburbanites to keep downtown viable (and all downtowners to give up their cars).  So why not develop in the interest of all parties, rather than try to force an agenda or social experiment? 

 

I knew someone was going to say this. What Weston had recently proposed for its Warehouse District lots provides for both by building restaurants/retail on the ground floors, several levels of parking above and then residential above that. Or... Build a parking deck surrounded by mixed use....

 

 

 

 

At least Weston WANTS to build on those lots.  It will happen, just a matter of time.  I do wish there was some sort of subsidy to give them the push.

^^Boy, this would be a perfect development for those parking lots.... Refresh my memory, is RTA still interested in this and doesn't have the financing or have they passed on it completely?... Seems I recall reading that they were still interested.

^^Boy, this would be a perfect development for those parking lots.... Refresh my memory, is RTA still interested in this and doesn't have the financing or have they passed on it completely?... Seems I recall reading that they were still interested.

 

RTA did some planning of the West Side Transit Center at the request of the Historic Warehouse District Corp. However there does not appear to be much energy behind this anymore.

I like this KJP, but feel we have to remain realistic.  Cleveland is not San Francisco or New York City.  Not even in the neighborhood (pun intended) when it comes to density.  So for the time being, it will take suburbanites to keep downtown viable (and all downtowners to give up their cars).  So why not develop in the interest of all parties, rather than try to force an agenda or social experiment? 

 

I knew someone was going to say this. What Weston had recently proposed for its Warehouse District lots provides for both by building restaurants/retail on the ground floors, several levels of parking above and then residential above that. Or... Build a parking deck surrounded by mixed use....

 

 

I really don't see anything wrong with it in a smaller city like Cleveland.  Let's make the best of what we have.  As long as there is an interaction with the street, and ideally residential on top of the parking, why not.  Better than the sea of parking lots....

Who would the tenants be? I think thats the biggest issue holding a development like this back.  You can only have so many restaurants and clubs. Without more businesses absorbing office space (at new construction rents none the less) and residents that would be willing to pay for new construction apartments (double the current rents?), its hard for someone to start spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop a plan and get the ball rolling (and find financing).

Who would the tenants be? I think thats the biggest issue holding a development like this back.  You can only have so many restaurants and clubs. Without more businesses absorbing office space (at new construction rents none the less) and residents that would be willing to pay for new construction apartments (double the current rents?), its hard for someone to start spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop a plan and get the ball rolling (and find financing).

 

If you look upthread, someone posted a suggestion to impose a small tax on parking to subsidize developments like these.

 

The demand is there for modern apartments/condos downtown, but developers cannot get the rent needed to finance new construction.  I don't think they'd have a problem filling them if they can just figure out how to build them.

 

 

If you look upthread, someone posted a suggestion to impose a small tax on parking to subsidize developments like these.

 

The demand is there for modern apartments/condos downtown, but developers cannot get the rent needed to finance new construction.  I don't think they'd have a problem filling them if they can just figure out how to build them.

I think you hit on the biggest issue right there, the discrepancy between the costs (and therefore the rents needed) versus the rents that the market will pay.  Anything similar to those renderings would easily be over $2psf in rent, and I'm not sure you could rent out a few hundred units for that much.

 

All that being said, I hope that area does get developed sooner rather than later.

 

 

If you look upthread, someone posted a suggestion to impose a small tax on parking to subsidize developments like these.

 

The demand is there for modern apartments/condos downtown, but developers cannot get the rent needed to finance new construction.  I don't think they'd have a problem filling them if they can just figure out how to build them.

I think you hit on the biggest issue right there, the discrepancy between the costs (and therefore the rents needed) versus the rents that the market will pay.  Anything similar to those renderings would easily be over $2psf in rent, and I'm not sure you could rent out a few hundred units for that much.

 

All that being said, I hope that area does get developed sooner rather than later.

 

Once again, if you take a modest parking tax and put it towards subsidizing construction costs, low interest loans, etc. you could make these more competitive. 

 

What if we were to extend the sin tax?  We're all used to paying that.  I may personally own a corner of Progressive field ;)

I think filling apartments would be easier than filling the retail spaces.

Two thoughts:

 

1. I love the Westin plan, with the exception of the block closest to Publice Square. Call it a pipe dream, but this piece of land is prime real estate for an eventual office tower. While I doubt that it will ever house a structure taller than the Key Tower, imagine a 40 story building there 20-30 years down the road... It is the missing piece in our skyline and I have no problem touching that one small parking lot in the meantime. As for the other lots, develop them ASAP.

 

2. DO NOT PUT A TRANSIT CENTER THERE. It would kill any upscale, new housing and restaurant development.

Two thoughts:

2. DO NOT PUT A TRANSIT CENTER THERE. It would kill any upscale, new housing and restaurant development.

 

Really?  Too many undesirables?

YES

Folks, this thread is getting into speculation *and* being taken off track. Enough.

Aren't most of the plans posted the canceled stark warehouse district plan and not weston