^^^^

 

Why does it have to be mixed income? This area, and Cleveland in general, needs more upper income people and Detroit-Shoreway has the amenities to attract those type of people. It would be one thing if the area was gentrified to the point where it was out of reach to lower income people, but the fact is the area still has tons of housing that is cheap.

 

Yeah I know thats often my initial response, but unfortunately most of these projects wouldnt be moving forward right now otherwise.  Between the tax credits that specify mixed income/lower income, and the fact that they are using NSF funds which also have those specifications as a condition of their use. 

How long will they have to stay that way?

 

Money's hard to come by, but not that hard.

 

When Zone Recreation Center's 22 acres of green space reopen next year following a $2.5 million "green" facelift, the rainwater that falls there will be reused on site, rather than being funneled into sewers to pollute our lake, rivers and streams.

 

"We're using it to rehydrate the park," explains Ward 15 Councilman Matt Zone, who allocated funding for the park's revitalization.

 

We just spent almost $3 million to "rehydrate" a park.  Think what that money could have done for our actual cityscape, had different choices been made.  I like Matt Zone, but when you have dilapidated buildings sitting around in your hot neighborhood... that should take precedence over watering some grass.  I don't care how profound the grass-watering method might be.  Priorities.

What building is this anyways?

It is on Franklin Blvd between 65th and 58th, but closer to 58th. Before it closed, it was a problem property for the neighborhood. This is huge win for the area.

^^^^

 

Why does it have to be mixed income? This area, and Cleveland in general, needs more upper income people and Detroit-Shoreway has the amenities to attract those type of people. It would be one thing if the area was gentrified to the point where it was out of reach to lower income people, but the fact is the area still has tons of housing that is cheap.

Yes, the city needs more upper income people, but there is a way to do that without being exclusionary. That's not who we are, nor should it ever be. Cities are an amalgamation of people of all different income levels, races, ethnicities, etc. That's what makes cities DIFFERENT from suburbs. Any good urban city is both racially diverse and economically diverse. Without that, you're not an urban city. You're Pepper Pike. Not that there's anything wrong with Pepper Pike per se, but I live in an urban city for a reason. If I wanted to live in Pepper Pike, I'd MOVE to Pepper Pike.

 

The other point is you have to remember what is still there. That neighborhood is not completely upper income. So if you want to be able to get a kind of project like this done, it's smart to attempt to get buy-in from the rest of the neighborhood. If the people already in the neighborhood believe that a project is best for EVERYONE in the neighborhood, they'll fight for it and advocate for it and support it and, most importantly, protect it. Thumbing a nose at the people who currently live there and saying basically "screw you. This isn't for you" is not a good way to win friends and influence people. (And I'm not saying that you're doing that. I'm just stating in general)

 

Also, whats WRONG fundamentally with mixed income? If you're an upper income person and your neighbor is a good neighbor, doesn't tear stuff up, isn't disrespectful, and is a decent person, why should you care if they make less than you do or vice versa? The point is not the income of the people who will live in this project. It's the character of the people that matters. It shouldn't matter if its mixed income. I remember someone from Chicago telling me that the best thing about Cleveland is that, with some exceptions, the people don't tend to segregate themselves like that. You can go downtown and, for the most part, see upper income and low to moderate income people frequenting the same establishments, going to the same places, etc. That's partially because of our low cost of living, but its also because of our attitude. That's a good thing. I don't want to be just one large Pepper Pike. So this being mixed income should be looked at as a good thing (depending on the TYPE of people that come there) and its better than it being completely lower income.

 

And before anyone asks, no I don't think that every neighborhood should be mixed income. Edgewater is Edgewater for a reason and it should keep being Edgewater. Downtown is downtown for a reason. Adding mixed income projects downtown would probably be a bad idea. But in some of these other individual neighborhoods like a Gordon Square, I see no problem with it. There's a lot of things about Chicago that I think we as a city should replicate. What's not one of them is some of the cultural and economic divides they have among their own people. No we aren't perfect either, but that kind of divide creates more problems than it fixes.

Yes, the city needs more upper income people, but there is a way to do that without being exclusionary. That's not who we are, nor should it ever be. Cities are an amalgamation of people of all different income levels, races, ethnicities, etc. That's what makes cities DIFFERENT from suburbs. Any good urban city is both racially diverse and economically diverse. Without that, you're not an urban city. You're Pepper Pike. Not that there's anything wrong with Pepper Pike per se, but I live in an urban city for a reason. If I wanted to live in Pepper Pike, I'd MOVE to Pepper Pike.

 

The other point is you have to remember what is still there. That neighborhood is not completely upper income. So if you want to be able to get a kind of project like this done, it's smart to attempt to get buy-in from the rest of the neighborhood. If the people already in the neighborhood believe that a project is best for EVERYONE in the neighborhood, they'll fight for it and advocate for it and support it and, most importantly, protect it. Thumbing a nose at the people who currently live there and saying basically "screw you. This isn't for you" is not a good way to win friends and influence people. (And I'm not saying that you're doing that. I'm just stating in general)

 

Also, whats WRONG fundamentally with mixed income? If you're an upper income person and your neighbor is a good neighbor, doesn't tear stuff up, isn't disrespectful, and is a decent person, why should you care if they make less than you do or vice versa? The point is not the income of the people who will live in this project. It's the character of the people that matters. It shouldn't matter if its mixed income. I remember someone from Chicago telling me that the best thing about Cleveland is that, with some exceptions, the people don't tend to segregate themselves like that. You can go downtown and, for the most part, see upper income and low to moderate income people frequenting the same establishments, going to the same places, etc. That's partially because of our low cost of living, but its also because of our attitude. That's a good thing. I don't want to be just one large Pepper Pike. So this being mixed income should be looked at as a good thing (depending on the TYPE of people that come there) and its better than it being completely lower income.

 

And before anyone asks, no I don't think that every neighborhood should be mixed income. Edgewater is Edgewater for a reason and it should keep being Edgewater. Downtown is downtown for a reason. Adding mixed income projects downtown would probably be a bad idea. But in some of these other individual neighborhoods like a Gordon Square, I see no problem with it. There's a lot of things about Chicago that I think we as a city should replicate. What's not one of them is some of the cultural and economic divides they have among their own people. No we aren't perfect either, but that kind of divide creates more problems than it fixes.

 

Well I'm glad that you love Cleveland and wish that more people did, but I have to disagree with much of what you said.

 

First of all, being urban has nothing to do with demographics. It has to do with built density and being structured on a human scale where a person can walk around and be part of a community. There are plenty are areas in this country that have diverse populations of people that are sprawling suburbs. Ever been to LA? If all of the rich people from Pepper Pike moved to Gordan Square then it would be every bit as urban as it is now, as well as probably safer and more bland. It would be more like Lincoln Park in Chicago, which is obviously an urban neighborhood.

 

Second of all, people with means would prefer not to live in a mixed income scenario because they would be taking a greater risk of having a problem neighbor. Mixed income developments (especially individual buildings) usually work better in expensive cities where people are more readily willing to take that risk in order to get a better deal. Maybe that is not the reality that you think should exist or the politically correct answer you want, but it's the realty of that person who spending their hard-earned money on a home. That person wants to live someplace with less of a risk factor and is not going to move into a mixed income place in the name of social justice when it comes down to it.

 

Thirdly, this area has a long way to go before we have to start making accommodations for poor people. It already does that in the form of cheap housing that exists all over the neighborhood. I'm not a big fan of hyper socioeconomic homogeneity like one would see in places like Lincoln Park in Chicago or Georgetown in DC; however, this is the last thing we have to worry about in Gordon Square, or in any Cleveland neighborhood for that matter. All mixed income developments will do at this point is discourage upper income people from moving into the the neighborhood, which is what it needs most at this point in its redevelopment.

 

Furthermore, neighborhoods are dynamic and ever changing. People move and things change, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. My Grandparents used to live in Hough, walk to games at League Park, and take the streetcar downtown to work every day. Maybe in 50 years Gordon Square will be filled with "Pepper Pike types," with all of the bohemians settling into to Glenville. What's wrong with that scenario? I would actually see this as ideal and a sign that the city is improving and growing.

 

 

To respond:

 

You say being urban has nothing to do with demographics. Technically, you're right. Culturally, you're absolutely wrong on that. Crocker Park in Westlake, for example, is astroturfing an urban setting. Does that make it "urban" in the cultural sense? Of course not. There is a difference in CULTURE between urban cities and suburban cities, in most cases. You can't deny that. That's what makes them different. They're SUPPOSED to be different. As I said before, I want to live in Cleveland. Not Pepper Pike or Westlake. If I wanted to live in Westlake, I'd move to Westlake.

 

Second, I have a fundamental problem with the idea that you shouldn't build a mixed income development in a mixed income community. That doesn't make sense to me. It'd be different if this was Edgewater or downtown, where more wealthy people tend to live. I'd be against a mixed income development there because it doesn't fit the community there. Here it does. So it makes no sense to say, "no you shouldn't have a mixed income development in a mixed income community". That's what it is! That doesn't make sense to me.

 

Third, I laughed when you made the "social justice" comment. I am far from a social justice person. You have no idea. I'm not an ultra right wing Rush type, but I'm probably more center-right than half of the people on this site. It's not about that. It's about being disrespectful to the people that already live here and treating them like characters on "Cityville" that can be rearranged at will instead of real people. Figuratively speaking, if, say, a family member wanted to come into your house, you'd be generally okay with that. But if they start rearranging your furniture and telling you, "This is my house now. You have to go", you're going to have a problem with that. That's what I'm saying. I'm for development. You're not going to find many more development-friendly people in this town than me. I support development projects that even many on this forum do not support and I've gotten into tussles with them over it. So I don't fundamentally have a problem with development or building things to bring people back to the city. I do, however, have a problem with people coming back and then giving the middle finger to those that never left.

 

You'll probably disagree with this as well, but I believe that the people who want to live only around people in their own income bracket will probably never want to move to Cleveland anyway. I never remember judging my neighbors by, "gee I wonder if Jane Doe next door makes more or less money than me?" Its always been about, "I wonder if Jane Doe is a good person". Income has little to do with that. I've met some nice middle and lower class people and I've met some rich jerks and vice versa. So I again say that those who judge their neighbors by what income bracket they're in will likely never move to Cleveland anyway.

 

Finally, the debate has never been about whether we should be attracting wealthy people AT ALL. Of course we should. That's a no-brainer. There shouldn't be any debating that. But the issue is, what do you do with the people that are left? Do you do things like build mixed income developments in mixed income neighborhoods and allow a rising tide to lift all boats? Or do you tell those people, "sorry, but this isn't for you"? I don't think that's who we are. We weren't that when Rockefeller was here. And we shouldn't be that now. We're better than that. I want Cleveland to be a better Cleveland, not a bigger Beachwood. And if you see it differently, then we just have a fundamental difference of opinion. And that's okay too. :)

I agree with inlovewithclevel.  I find it offensive how you speak of people with less means Rustbelter. So you are saying that my mother, who you would call a poor person because she has to work 60 hours a week to survive and keeps an immaculate house, would not deserve to live in a nice development??  Do you honestly think that just because someone may have to work harder for the money that they have that they shouldn't be able to live in a nicer building? I don't see anywhere that said this was turning into a section 8 mixture, and even if it were, what is wrong with that? Drive or walk through Tremont...this is how development is going and it is working. I don't see less people buying the new townhomes a few roads down from Tremont Pointe. The people who live there take pride in their nicer surroundings.    Bringing different income types together is fine.  They both spend money and have pride in their neighborhood. I see this thread getting pruned quickly, but seriously, think before you type.

This has less to do with accommodating poor people and more to do with being able to finance the renovation of a neighborhood eyesore.  I'm sure that Detroit Shoreway would love to develop more market rate apartments in the area, but there simply isn't enough money to be made to justify conventional financing.  I own a home in the area.  It's 130 years old but was basically rebuilt in 2001.  The first owners built a garage, put in top of the line appliances (Wolf stove, etc.), installed a koi pond, some other frivolous/awesome improvements.  My mortgage (incl. taxes ((abated)), insurance) is $800 a month.  Good luck financing your market rate apartments when the market permits single family home prices that are that low.

I agree with inlovewithclevel.  I find it offensive how you speak of people with less means Rustbelter. So you are saying that my mother, who you would call a poor person because she has to work 60 hours a week to survive and keeps an immaculate house, would not deserve to live in a nice development??  Do you honestly think that just because someone may have to work harder for the money that they have that they shouldn't be able to live in a nicer building?

 

I never said any such thing. I said that a person buying into a community would prefer to be around others in a market rate scenario. I also said that this neighborhood does not need any such developments because it's not an exclusive community. Frankly, your comment was reactionary and taken out of context.

 

This has less to do with accommodating poor people and more to do with being able to finance the renovation of a neighborhood eyesore.  I'm sure that Detroit Shoreway would love to develop more market rate apartments in the area, but there simply isn't enough money to be made to justify conventional financing.  I own a home in the area.  It's 130 years old but was basically rebuilt in 2001.  The first owners built a garage, put in top of the line appliances (Wolf stove, etc.), installed a koi pond, some other frivolous/awesome improvements.  My mortgage (incl. taxes ((abated)), insurance) is $800 a month.  Good luck financing your market rate apartments when the market permits single family home prices that are that low.

 

Thanks for an actual answer from someone who has experience in the neighborhood.

 

 

Community organizations and other non-profits don't build high income housing or offices.

^I dare not add fuel to this (I think bumsquare described the situation well), but I'm pretty sure that OCNW was responsible for some market rate developments in Ohio City, including the Fries and Schuele apartments/condos and the West Virginia apartments renovation.

I should have used the quote function, but I was responding to the initial post that was wondering why this can't be "upper income"

My mortgage (incl. taxes ((abated)), insurance) is $800 a month.  Good luck financing your market rate apartments when the market permits single family home prices that are that low.

 

That's a great point but doesn't account for all the people who just don't want to own a home, have the maintenance requirements, or be tied to a location in today's economy that might prevent them from pursuing a career in another city or state... 

 

Back to the topic, I think there is a strong demand for upscale rentals in Detroit Shoreway.  Condo units in Battery Park are getting snapped up as rentals - depending on the size, they are going for $1200, $1400, and over $1800 per month...

My mortgage (incl. taxes ((abated)), insurance) is $800 a month.  Good luck financing your market rate apartments when the market permits single family home prices that are that low.

 

That's a great point but doesn't account for all the people who just don't want to own a home, have the maintenance requirements, or be tied to a location in today's economy that might prevent them from pursuing a career in another city or state... 

 

Back to the topic, I think there is a strong demand for upscale rentals in Detroit Shoreway.  Condo units in Battery Park are getting snapped up as rentals - depending on the size, they are going for $1200, $1400, and over $1800 per month...

 

But if you own a condo, you're still paying for "maintenance" via HOA fees.  And in a Condo, for value you need to keep it better maintained than a SFM for resale and appraisal purposes since there are x number of like units.  You need to do things to differentiate your unit from others in the same line.

I certainly think there is demand for more upscale apartments in the neighborhood.  But demand for apartments and the ability find financing to provide those apartments don't always go hand in hand. 

I think that one important note here is that, regardless what you think of mixed-income housing, DSCDO has a very long-standing mission of revitalizing the neighborhood as one that is not income exclusive ... I would not expect that to change anytime in the forseeable future, regardless of what the market dictates. All moves by the CDC around housing, organizing and Gordon Square rebranding have showcased a desire to make the neighborhood more appealing to private high-income investment but to balance this against the ability to continue to serve the needs of low- and moderate-income residents.

 

And I think that the majority of high-income residents that already live in the neighborhood LIKE that philosophy. I would describe the existing community as being very social justice in nature ... You don't get anchors like WSEM and the LGBT center and Cleveland Public Theatre without engendering some sense of socioeconomic responsibility.

 

And for those who are not drawn to this philosophy, which I can completely understand, there are many, many Cleveland neighborhoods and many, many CDCs where income sensitivity is a far lower priority. These places would probably be a better fit, and I seriously don't mean that in either a sarcastic or derogatory way. 

And for those who are not drawn to this philosophy, which I can completely understand, there are many, many Cleveland neighborhoods and many, many CDCs where income sensitivity is a far lower priority. These places would probably be a better fit, and I seriously don't mean that in either a sarcastic or derogatory way. 

 

"many many Cleveland neighborhoods and CDC's where income sensitivity is a far lower priority".... really in Cleveland?  Are you talking about the same Cleveland?

 

Hopefully :) Not saying the city is facing any affordability threats or that CDCs don't provide substantial (and substantive) service to low-income residents. What I'm saying is that few have expressed the deep level of commitment to maintaining mixed-income affordability that DSCDO has ... Whether because they don't think it's likely to be an issue any time soon or income sensitivity is just literally not a top priority for them. But I can't think of anyone that's maintained the sheer quantity of CDC-controlled apartments as low-income units that DSCDO. Or started a fund to mitigate the fallout of any gentrification that might occur. Or codified it in their statement of values. My main point not being to pick on other Cleveland neighborhoods here, nor people who would prefer not to live in mixed-income settings ... My main point being that regardless of what you think about the issue, DSCDO's track record suggests that that's not a priority that's going away anytime soon, so if I wanted to avoid a neighborhood where a CDC is active in the development of mixed-income units, I'd probably avoid Detroit Shoreway altogether.

there is a crew redoing the facade  of a building on the corner of detroit/lake at w73rd..anyone know the details?

I think you're talking about the "Cheerios" building. There's a discussion upthread.

Might this be the Blazing Saddles relocation to the old Lakefront Hardware space?

This is the Cheerios building. Search upthread, I believe they are planning loft apartments on the upper floors and storefronts on the first floor. There should be a FreshWaterCleveland article detailing the project

No it's not the Cheerios building, this is at 76th & Lake.  Blazing Saddles is located in the rear of this building.  Cherios is at 74th & Detroit and hasn't had any activity in some time...

Might this be the Blazing Saddles relocation to the old Lakefront Hardware space?

 

I will rephrase what I just wrote: Blazing Saddle Cycle is relocating from the rear of the building at 76th/Lake to the former Lakefront Hardware space at 7427 Detroit.  I haven't been by this week, but I'm assuming they're doing some facade work.  I haven't seen any activity at Cheerios in some time.  But again, it could certainly be happening without me knowing!

This is pretty far west in Ohio City, but I think this is still in the Ohio City planning area....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2011/12162011/index.php

 

NEAR WEST DESIGN REVIEW

 

NW2011-024: Waverly Station Housing Development

Project Location: 5700 Bridge Avenue

Project Representative: Michael DeCesare, Case Development LLC

 

 

Existing conditions:

 

 

 

Check out the detail photos of the condition of these houses. They're in bad shape....

 

 

 

 

 

That's hideous.  Why don't they have the North Building parking access be on the same alley they created for the South Building parking access?

Yeah they should move all of the parking to the alley

You can pull into the garage right off of the street, i dont see anything wrong with those.  On the other side, the units have the garage in the back...give options depending on what people like.

Giving people options is one thing, but what should it matter if the parking is in the front or the back?  The buildings facing Bridge should have the parking in the back.  The garages in the front kill the street presence of the buildings and force a very long curb cut.  It creates a vast area of concrete right in front of these homes.  It wouldn't be pleasant for those living their or walking by.

 

This seems like a no-brainer type of design change.  But what do I know?

 

Which would you prefer in your neighborhood?  The second one would be nearly identical to this development as they have two main buildings both of which have parking coming off the alley in the back.

 

This...

 

http://maps.google.com/?ll=41.489101,-81.731367&spn=0.000008,0.004801&t=h&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=41.489101,-81.731367&panoid=ijvlcNfL9Ax7FHgNUrrB-Q&cbp=12,157.76,,0,0.7

 

Or this...

 

http://maps.google.com/?ll=41.487636,-81.722944&spn=0.000008,0.004801&t=h&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=41.487571,-81.724099&panoid=LASpGF8YtpQRD4N2f0Fvnw&cbp=12,220.17,,0,-0.35

The images don't show up for me.

That's hideous.  Why don't they have the North Building parking access be on the same alley they created for the South Building parking access?

 

My reaction exactly.  The design provides an off-street 6' deep "yard" for both rows, which may be explain the orientation, but that hardly seems worth it.  Aside from aesthetics, the long row of curb cuts on bridge means no on-street parking, which stinks for visitors and deliveries.

most of the houses on this street have driveways coming off bridge.  I don't get what the issue is.  its a residential street, not a commercial one.

The images don't show up for me.

 

This was his first picture...

 

http://g.co/maps/2vj3k

 

And here is what is his other alternative is. I used a different location then what he chose.

 

http://g.co/maps/my6hy

 

You can clearly see that the second one is more friendly to the pedestrian, and has a nicer look to it.

Exactly! The townhomes on Fulton in Ohio City have driveways off the street and they look just fine in my opinion.

Yes, but you have to admit, the second example shown below is much more urban and pedestrian friendly than having to walk across a bunch of driveways. And just because that's the way other townhouses along Bridge were designed, doesn't mean they should continue to be done that way.

 

 

This was his first picture...

 

http://g.co/maps/2vj3k

 

And here is what is his other alternative is. I used a different location then what he chose.

 

http://g.co/maps/my6hy

 

You can clearly see that the second one is more friendly to the pedestrian, and has a nicer look to it.

 

EDIT: thanks Hootenany and ClevelandOhio for posting these.

the sidewalk in the first picture is narrow, right against the street, had telephone poles going through it and were slanted from the driveway entrance.  That sidewalk wouldn't be pedestrian friendly without the driveways.  Hardly the same scenario.

Good thing I wasn't thinking of that scenario. I was thinking of the existing conditions along Bridge.

How about these?

 

http://g.co/maps/fpzs7

 

Still way less pedestrian friendly. But these designs just proposed have indents that will make it hard for a pedestrian to even know if a car is about to come out. In the one I just posted(which I personally dont like), you can atleast see the car coming.

And besides the corners, it looks like it will be all cement with slanted driveway entrances. And the indents make it worse.

 

Yeah, that's terrible.  The driveways need to be in the back if there's an alley.  That's how the older homes on Bridge all are.

Checking the rumor mill, has anyone heard an update on the "Toast" winebar on 65th?  It was close to opening back in 2009, but their liquor permit was scuttled by the church next door.  I heard it's back on now though????

There was an update in Scene last week by Doug Trattner (I think) and sounds like all the permits have passed and it's back on....can't recall what the date they're aiming for, but I think it's in the article.

 

 

 

Checking the rumor mill, has anyone heard an update on the "Toast" winebar on 65th?  It was close to opening back in 2009, but their liquor permit was scuttled by the church next door.  I heard it's back on now though????

http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/dantes-next-step/Content?oid=2772503

^Cool, thanks for the link.  Nice add for Josh Kabat and his latest sandwich venture downtown

Appears to be a modified design. They removed the dangerous driveway setbacks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really don't understand why they're persisting in the Bridge Ave. side drives instead of having the drives go onto the mew that they created.  To me this is the sort of thing design review needs to catch, instead of worrying endlessly about materials and color schemes.

At least these ones are somewhat appealing, as opposed to the crap that was built on the rest of Bridge.  And, as a neighborhood homeowner, I would encourage developers to cram as many $300,000 townhouses into the area as possible.  Gentrification can't happen fast enough for me!