We should get rid of both houses, and their yards, and maybe some more houses and yards, and construct dense TOD by that rapid station

There’s no shortage of green space by that intersection, it’s across the street from a pretty large park which connects to the Red Line Greenway, and it’s only a mile away from Edgewater.

Just because I like historic maps...as of 1898, this parcel (00228088) was your typical Cleveland 0.10 acre lot with two houses on it and a back alley for access It was never subdivided and the new house is not an accessory structure. It appears to be a single family, infill home, in a multi-family zoning district.

1 hour ago, ASP1984 said:

Private property right discussions aside (obviously we all get it), quality of life goes down with less green space.

I grew up in rural Maine with a 6.5 acre, partially forested backyard next to oceanfront hiking trails. My quality of life improved significantly when I moved to an apartment in Cleveland without a yard, because it meant I was constantly close to other people. Affordability heavily affects quality of life as well. So the relationship cannot be observed in isolation.

Access to greenspace is important, but some people prefer neighborhood parks and trails to small, private lawns.

1 hour ago, X said:

The vast, vast, vast majority of single family home in Cleveland, and even more so, Greater Cleveland, have backyards. And low property values means that densification is unlikely to occur in most areas of the city. Accessory units are one way to improve affordability in the very rare Cleveland neighborhoods that are getting denser and fairly expensive.

Yeah - and if you zoom out far enough, we could include all of Ohio! My focus is on the near west side.

58 minutes ago, Henke said:

We should get rid of both houses, and their yards, and maybe some more houses and yards, and construct dense TOD by that rapid station

There’s no shortage of green space by that intersection, it’s across the street from a pretty large park which connects to the Red Line Greenway, and it’s only a mile away from Edgewater.

Sick - let's wage a war on yards! Screw any semblance of privacy, dignity, or connection to nature in your own living space. Let's forego factoring this in to any future development that couldn't possibly be bothered to concede square footage because clearly, anyone who chooses to live on the west side of Cleveland hates all of these things.

Edited Wednesday at 05:55 PM2 days by ASP1984

4 hours ago, ASP1984 said:

I'm in the minority here but I don't consider the elimination of back yards a win. The west side offers little in the way of attractive housing stock with back yards big enough to meaningfully enjoy.

I'm not sure this is the property to complain about.

1: it is a 3 minute walk from a 25 acre park and rec center. That park is also the terminus of a bike trail that can get them to CVNP. Why have a 1000 sq ft private backyard when you have a 1.2 million sq ft shared backyard nearby? Are you even "connecting with nature" in a yard that small? That's the balance of living in a city. A good park/plaza/square network becomes your backyard. Edgewater is also less than 10 minutes away on bike.

2: the areas around train stops should be as dense as possible. Since we aren't trying to tear down the existing homes, densifying the single family units is the best option.

3: anyone deciding to live and/or build in Ohio City/Gordon Square/Tremont obviously doesn't care about or want a backyard.

Edited Wednesday at 07:05 PM2 days by PlanCleveland

Capitol Theatre may need a new plot written

By Ken Prendergast / June 11, 2025

It's a tough time for the film industry, and an even tougher time for historic theaters like the Capitol Theatre, 1390 W. 65th St., trying to pay its bills. The 104-year-old venue in Cleveland's Gordon Square Arts District has an uncertain future regardless of its owner trying to spin the creation of a Capitol Theatre Stewardship Board as "an exciting new chapter" in a press release issued today.

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/06/11/capitol-theatre-may-need-a-new-plot-written/

What a tragic loss that would be. It is an incredible asset for the neighborhood, let alone the most affordable movie ticket you can find.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Capitol Theatre may need a new plot written

By Ken Prendergast / June 11, 2025

It's a tough time for the film industry, and an even tougher time for historic theaters like the Capitol Theatre, 1390 W. 65th St., trying to pay its bills. The 104-year-old venue in Cleveland's Gordon Square Arts District has an uncertain future regardless of its owner trying to spin the creation of a Capitol Theatre Stewardship Board as "an exciting new chapter" in a press release issued today.

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/06/11/capitol-theatre-may-need-a-new-plot-written/

Very sad. I go a few times each year myself.

NWN does great work, especially on the housing side of things, but their annual revenue is $1.6M from all sources and just the debt on this theater alone is $1.5M. I would hope one or a combination of the larger foundations or deep pocket donors we are lucky to have in this area could step up to help get them out of the hole. It's a great asset in a great neighborhood.

Really hoping Capitol can stay afloat - the box office has shown a strong rebound in Q2 2025 and is significantly improved yoy. Some box office analysts are even predicting that 2026 and 2027 could be record-breaking years for theaters, potentially surpassing pre-COVID numbers. Exciting times ahead if the momentum keeps up.

The idea of the Capitol Theater is perfect- Funky old neighborhood theater with beer and a quirky layout.

As a theater experience it totally sucks compared to any modern spot. The lower theater seats are unbearable, it’s dirty, empty, the concession stand closes before the movie is half over, and 2/3 screens are the same size as my home.

I think it’s better off redeveloped as a neighborhood bar that shows flicks with rentable areas for parties and stuff.

8 hours ago, ITakeTheRapid said:

The idea of the Capitol Theater is perfect- Funky old neighborhood theater with beer and a quirky layout.

As a theater experience it totally sucks compared to any modern spot. The lower theater seats are unbearable, it’s dirty, empty, the concession stand closes before the movie is half over, and 2/3 screens are the same size as my home.

I take the fam to Capitol pretty often, it's kind of our go-to spot. Always a solid experience.

We’re heading there Friday night for HTTYD.

If all goes well (and it usually does), I might even post pics of a clean, non-apocalyptic, actually pleasant theater. Stay tuned.

Edited Thursday at 11:20 AM2 days by Clefan98

17 hours ago, ASP1984 said:

Sick - let's wage a war on yards! Screw any semblance of privacy, dignity, or connection to nature in your own living space. Let's forego factoring this in to any future development that couldn't possibly be bothered to concede square footage because clearly, anyone who chooses to live on the west side of Cleveland hates all of these things.

It's an example of "Sim City Syndrome". Pushing density for its own sake can go off the rails rather quickly, making an area not only unattractive to new people but less comfortable for the current ones. It's one of the most important characteristics of a neighborhood, and while "NIMBY" is often problematic, its kind of fair when one is discussing something that impacts the comfort of existing residents.

Also, we should probably keep in mind that the appeal of NYC style residential density among those who live in this area is limited. For everyone who thinks "my quality of life improved significantly when I moved to an apartment in Cleveland without a yard, because it meant I was constantly close to other people.", there's at least one person who feels the opposite, and probably more than one. Especially after the virus when being what is sometimes called an introvert became way more socially acceptable.

The direct consequence here is with a limited number of people who crave density, densifying new areas can lead to an outflow from the existing, and inevitably stagnation and blight. You need to plan for the people you have, not the ones you wish you did.

"Why have a 1000 sq ft private backyard when you have a 1.2 million sq ft shared backyard nearby?". Because not everyone wants to be around a lot of people all the time.

8 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

It's an example of "Sim City Syndrome". Pushing density for its own sake can go off the rails rather quickly, making an area not only unattractive to new people but less comfortable for the current ones. It's one of the most important characteristics of a neighborhood, and while "NIMBY" is often problematic, its kind of fair when one is discussing something that impacts the comfort of existing residents.

Also, we should probably keep in mind that the appeal of NYC style residential density among those who live in this area is limited. For everyone who thinks "my quality of life improved significantly when I moved to an apartment in Cleveland without a yard, because it meant I was constantly close to other people.", there's at least one person who feels the opposite, and probably more than one. Especially after the virus when being what is sometimes called an introvert became way more socially acceptable.

The direct consequence here is with a limited number of people who crave density, densifying new areas can lead to an outflow from the existing, and inevitably stagnation and blight. You need to plan for the people you have, not the ones you wish you did.

"Why have a 1000 sq ft private backyard when you have a 1.2 million sq ft shared backyard nearby?". Because not everyone wants to be around a lot of people all the time.

How's it SimCity syndrome? This is private development. I thought libertarians liked the free market?

And what are the odds that the person that doesn't like being around people all the time is going to move to an urban neighborhood? I'd say not good.

9 hours ago, ITakeTheRapid said:

The idea of the Capitol Theater is perfect- Funky old neighborhood theater with beer and a quirky layout.

As a theater experience it totally sucks compared to any modern spot. The lower theater seats are unbearable, it’s dirty, empty, the concession stand closes before the movie is half over, and 2/3 screens are the same size as my home.

I think it’s better off redeveloped as a neighborhood bar that shows flicks with rentable areas for parties and stuff.

I find this comment fascinating ... I'm in my mid-fifties and comfortable seating is an issue for me more than it used to be. But I was most recently at the Capitol a month ago in the big theater and the seats were totally fine. Plus, I've never found it to be dirtier than any other movie theater — and we love its charm and location.

1 minute ago, Paul in Cleveland said:

I find this comment fascinating ... I'm in my mid-fifties and comfortable seating is an issue for me more than it used to be. But I was most recently at the Capitol a month ago in the big theater and the seats were totally fine. Plus, I've never found it to be dirtier than any other movie theater — and we love its charm and location.

The Capitol is great. And the best part? You get like 5-10 minutes of previews then it’s showtime. The last time I went to Regal at Crocker, it was a solid hour of previews before the show. I’ll never go there again.

And the Capitol is always very clean and well maintained. It’s a gem.

33 minutes ago, X said:

How's it SimCity syndrome? This is private development. I thought libertarians liked the free market?

And what are the odds that the person that doesn't like being around people all the time is going to move to an urban neighborhood? I'd say not good.

The key word is "all the time". I live in an urban neighborhood, albeit a lower density one, and there's definitely times I'm that way.

Residential density should not be a holy grail. A viable city should have a mix. Too much high density is likely to end up poaching from existing areas of same.

In the case of this area, I'd recommend expanding the "hot" area block by block rather than trying to pack more in. There's space.

The picture on the previous page of the big house behind a smaller one could be used by suburban anti-density advocates. SimCity syndrome can exist to private development as well, especially if zoning allows or even encourages it.

18 hours ago, PlanCleveland said:

3: anyone deciding to live and/or build in Ohio City/Gordon Square/Tremont obviously doesn't care about or want a backyard.

What a ridiculous generalization - ditch the paternalism. We want outdoor space here (Tremont resident). And will pay for it.

Endless subdividing shouldn't be equated with good urbanism - there are plenty of dense, multi-modal neighborhoods in vibrant cities across this country that still manage to preserve reasonable house lot sizes with outdoor space. This lot and TOD notwithstanding (we get it), seems like a lot of new builds across the west side overlook balancing outdoor space with built square footage. Not everyone weighs things here the same.

Edited Thursday at 01:54 PM2 days by ASP1984

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

The key word is "all the time". I live in an urban neighborhood, albeit a lower density one, and there's definitely times I'm that way.

Residential density should not be a holy grail. A viable city should have a mix. Too much high density is likely to end up poaching from existing areas of same.

In the case of this area, I'd recommend expanding the "hot" area block by block rather than trying to pack more in. There's space.

The picture on the previous page of the big house behind a smaller one could be used by suburban anti-density advocates. SimCity syndrome can exist to private development as well, especially if zoning allows or even encourages it.

Seriously - where do people come up with this stuff?

"You live in a city so you must want to be around people all the time."

"You live in a city so you will always be happy with biking ten minutes to be around a tree."

"You live in a city so you don't care about outdoor privacy."

Do they hear themselves?

Edited Thursday at 02:19 PM2 days by ASP1984

I am confused what the debate is here. That new house is on its own lot. The historic map @Dino posted shows there were 2 houses on that small lot in 1898. Looking on Google maps, there are fewer structures in the neighborhood now vs. back then, so this is surely not a debate about historical preservation.

The way I look at it, if you want land and privacy, you gotta buy it. It's the only way to can really control what happens around (although if the government wants it enough, they can still take it...)) But you can't trust that land you don't control will stay exactly the same in perpetuity.

11 hours ago, ITakeTheRapid said:

The idea of the Capitol Theater is perfect- Funky old neighborhood theater with beer and a quirky layout.

As a theater experience it totally sucks compared to any modern spot. The lower theater seats are unbearable, it’s dirty, empty, the concession stand closes before the movie is half over, and 2/3 screens are the same size as my home.

I think it’s better off redeveloped as a neighborhood bar that shows flicks with rentable areas for parties and stuff.

"Modern" big box theaters suck. I make a point of going to the Cleveland Cinemas theaters whenever possible, the experience is far superior. When I lived downtown I'd go to this theater frequently (or take the rapid to Shaker Square), now I can walk to Cedar Lee, but all of these older theaters are a fantastic shot in the arm to the neighborhoods, we should support them.

1 hour ago, ASP1984 said:

Sick - let's wage a war on yards! Screw any semblance of privacy, dignity, or connection to nature in your own living space. Let's forego factoring this in to any future development that couldn't possibly be bothered to concede square footage because clearly, anyone who chooses to live on the west side of Cleveland hates all of these things.

That’s obviously an illogical conclusion from my statement.

But if we are going to take things to absurd and illogical conclusions, yes, it’s much better to have density and apartments without yards around the rapid stops and public parks than it is to have sprawling suburban lawns with vast acreage for my stables.

How are we losing sight of the value of density around transit?

I live about a mile away from this spot, and you’re more likely to find a house that bought an empty lot next door and turned it into a garden than you are to find one with a subdivided lot and a home in the back.

Anyways, based on the maps previously posted, you’re arguing for the preservation of an unused, empty lot, and both the houses pictures have yards.

Calling a single family infill development on a standalone lot that formerly had two houses "NYC style density" (or even apartments next to a rail station as suggested) is certainly a stretch. Cleveland's housing prices are rising rapidly because of an abundance of demand, and building additional homes on vacant lots is completely warranted.

Most of us are not advocating for anyone to surrender their backyards and be forced to accommodate dense development. We are simply supporting property owners' rights to develop their own land in a free market.

Edited Thursday at 03:02 PM2 days by sonisharri

1 hour ago, ASP1984 said:

What a ridiculous generalization - ditch the paternalism. We want outdoor space here (Tremont resident). And will pay for it.

Endless subdividing shouldn't be equated with good urbanism - there are plenty of dense, multi-modal neighborhoods in vibrant cities across this country that still manage to preserve reasonable house lot sizes with outdoor space. This lot and TOD notwithstanding (we get it), seems like a lot of new builds across the west side overlook balancing outdoor space with built square footage. Not everyone weighs things here the same.

I get what you're saying and agree to an extent, and there is a ton of nuance and middle ground we're all skipping over here. Sorry if you took that as disrespectful, i didnt mean it that way. But obviously it is not a top priority for the people building this home, and others moving to the neighborhood. Almost ever single family home in the neighborhood does already have some private outdoor space, along with many of the townhomes. This area is, and should return to even more of, a densely populated mixed use urban area. Increasing lot sizes will only make the neighborhood even more unaffordable, and will kneecap it's potential growth in the long run. If this was a more suburban single family style section of the city like West Park, Kamms, etc. I would agree with you.

You just can't have neighborhoods filled with bigger plots of land while also being able to sustain the dense and historic walkability and commercial districts that make the neighborhoods special in the first place. That's when the bad side of gentrification comes in a truly ruins what was a great neighborhood. The only reason we're seeing growth in the Lorain shoppingdistrict for the first time in 70+ years is because the population and density are getting closer to what they were when it was a bustling neighborhood.

If anything, Tremont/Ohio City/Gordon Square need a maximum allowable lot size closer to those historical 4-6k sq ft lot sizes to maintain the character, walkability, and affordability of the neighborhoods. Multi-level apartment buildings and businesses lining the main streets, and dense single family homes or townhomes in the middle. Just like it was 100+ years ago, and largely still is. The neighborhoods like Hough, Fairfax, West Park, Kamms, West Blvd, etc. have the larger lot sizes and lower density.

Edited Thursday at 03:47 PM2 days by PlanCleveland

I'm sure there are plenty of people who enjoy urban living and density. But there are also plenty who like having yards, and space. After freeways were built, people moved to the suburbs in order to have yards and a house. That was considered a "quality of life" improvement. But not everyone wants the same things to improve their QOL. With the city losing over half of its population overt he last 50 years or so, there should be plenty of room for single-family houses with yards and dense apartment living. I think there is a unique opportunity to have a good mix of both. Cleveland needs more residents. Housing should be diverse enough to include something for everyone who seek to live there.

I figured I'd better post this before this thread gets locked.... 😉

Port OK’s $92M for Cleveland, Brecksville projects

By Ken Prendergast / June 12, 2025

A trio of projects — two in Cleveland and one in Brecksville — got a total of $92 million in financing approved by the Port of Cleveland to help get them closer to construction. Two are mixed-use housing developments in Cleveland totaling 355 residential units. The third is a new, 136-room AC Marriott hotel at Valor Acres, the former Veterans Administration (VA) Hospital site in Brecksville.

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/06/12/port-oks-92m-for-cleveland-brecksville-projects/

19 hours ago, KJP said:

I figured I'd better post this before this thread gets locked.... 😉

On a similar note, I wanted to post this website without wading into the "Great Density Debate of 2025", as future generations will remember it (just me trying to be funny). It let's you map out a bunch of statistical information, including density. It's interesting to see where the density in our City exists.

https://statisticalatlas.com/metro-area/Ohio/Cleveland/Overview

^You can zoom into see statistical information nationwide all the way down to the block level. Looks like I'm not going to get anything done today!

On 6/12/2025 at 9:58 AM, ASP1984 said:

Seriously - where do people come up with this stuff?

"You live in a city so you must want to be around people all the time."

"You live in a city so you will always be happy with biking ten minutes to be around a tree."

"You live in a city so you don't care about outdoor privacy."

Do they hear themselves?

I call it the Elder Pryce (or the No True Scotsman) School of Urbanism. Everyone should take exactly the same view of how living in a city should be, and those who see it differently are Heretics.

That's not how you get people with options to move in.

We both live within the Cleveland city limits so we aren't speaking from an ivory tower in Concord.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

I call it the Elder Pryce (or the No True Scotsman) School of Urbanism. Everyone should take exactly the same view of how living in a city should be, and those who see it differently are Heretics.

That's not how you get people with options to move in.

We both live within the Cleveland city limits so we aren't speaking from an ivory tower in Concord.

Or maybe people who have actually lived off of Detroit in this neighborhood for years, like me, don't want people trying to drop their lifestyle in a neighborhood not built for it. You guys are trying to force your views on a booming neighborhood, we're telling you why the people living and building here are fine with not doing it your way. Just like you wouldn't want a 250 unit apartment building on your neighbors lot. You can't expect to drop a Strongsville lot in Ohio City.

Maybe one of the only neighborhoods in the city that has seen population growth in the last 70 years is seeing that growth for a reason? Because those 4 or 5 neighborhoods aren't like every single other one in the region. The neighborhood as is is bringing young people to the city for the first time in decades, why would you want to kill that growth?

You can find a house with a big yard anywhere in NEO, and all across the city of Cleveland. My sister just purchased one a few months ago in West Park. You can't expect to have your quiet quarter acre private oasis 1 mile from Public Square. That's how you kill growth. There are trade offs to living so close to the city center and inside one of the most popular restaurant and commercial neighborhoods in the state. It's the same in every single major city in the world. Property size is one of those trade offs. I think it is more telling that people got so up in arms over a picture of ONE HOUSE an individual is choosing to build on an available small plot with no backyard. I made the comment that maybe they didn't want a 1000 sq ft backyard because a 1.2M sq ft park was a 3 minute walk away because maybe that's what THEY want, which may not be what you want. 99% of the existing houses here do have their own private yard. No one is stealing back yards. Just like closing 100 feet of W29th to car traffic doesn't mean the government is stealing your car.

You can find legitimate historic walkable/car-free lifestyle neighborhoods like this one remaining on maybe 15-20 sq miles of the 8500 sq miles of land in NEO. And this is one of the only neighborhoods in the region that actually LEGALLY allows you to build a house like this. We should celebrate that and lean into it, not try to stop it. Don't let these neighborhoods be ruined like all of the other ones were over the last 80 years.

Luckily, the people actually moving to these neighborhoods and living in them seem recognize the tradeoffs and appreciate the lifestyle benefits this type of neighborhood allows. My neighborhood is growing for a reason.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by PlanCleveland

On 4/2/2025 at 11:15 AM, Clefan98 said:

This went pending in less than a week!

 

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/7541-Father-Frascati-Dr-Cleveland-OH-44102/2102282704_zpid/

 

Final sale $1,050.000.

We'll break $1.1 in no time.

dubz

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by mrnyc

On 6/11/2025 at 12:53 PM, Henke said:

We should get rid of both houses, and their yards, and maybe some more houses and yards, and construct dense TOD by that rapid station

There’s no shortage of green space by that intersection, it’s across the street from a pretty large park which connects to the Red Line Greenway, and it’s only a mile away from Edgewater.

hear, hear to that. transit adjacent is too valuable a resource for low density.

otherwise, you can always build a small square or park for public greenspace by knocking out a couple adjacent decrepit properties. a neighrborhood association can lead that charge.