Jump to content
zaceman

Cleveland: Tremont: Development and Construction

Recommended Posts

Just when I thought they couldn't squeeze any more into Tremont......

 

We want density, right? :wink:

 

Not necessarily. We want quality structures that will benefit the long term value of the neighborhood.

 

They can be dense, but they shouldn't be a stack of small squares four stories tall built out of questionable materials.

 

Density has it's pros for sure and projects like Gospel Press have been great for the neighborhood. But don't forget, the neighborhoods of Cleveland that once burned to the ground were very dense. Obvisously, one can point out a multitude of factors and I'm not trying to start a history debate, but we should always learn from our past. Just saying density is good isn't enough. It's good for the developers trying to squeeze every penny out of their parcels, but is it good for everybody?

 

Density is great when executed properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just when I thought they couldn't squeeze any more into Tremont......

 

We want density, right? :wink:

 

Not necessarily. We want quality structures that will benefit the long term value of the neighborhood.

 

They can be dense, but they shouldn't be a stack of small squares four stories tall built out of questionable materials.

 

Density has it's pros for sure and projects like Gospel Press have been great for the neighborhood. But don't forget, the neighborhoods of Cleveland that once burned to the ground were very dense. Obvisously, one can point out a multitude of factors and I'm not trying to start a history debate, but we should always learn from our past. Just saying density is good isn't enough. It's good for the developers trying to squeeze every penny out of their parcels, but is it good for everybody?

 

Density is great when executed properly.

 

So you want "old timey" as opposed to contemporary (meaning, current time).

Also, what materials are "questionable". From the rendering it looks to be a lot of masonry. Doesn't get any better than that for this climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Historic Tremont religious campus reborn as an urban business complex

 

While it's nice that they've added a business and saved the church, even if it isn't actually that old, they tore down a perfectly nice home next to it to make way for the parking lot. This is actually the second time a nice old house has been torn down to make way for a parking lot opposite Lincoln Park. The first being an historic home torn down to next to the Ukranian Museum/Archives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just when I thought they couldn't squeeze any more into Tremont......

 

We want density, right? :wink:

 

Not necessarily. We want quality structures that will benefit the long term value of the neighborhood.

 

They can be dense, but they shouldn't be a stack of small squares four stories tall built out of questionable materials.

 

Density has it's pros for sure and projects like Gospel Press have been great for the neighborhood. But don't forget, the neighborhoods of Cleveland that once burned to the ground were very dense. Obvisously, one can point out a multitude of factors and I'm not trying to start a history debate, but we should always learn from our past. Just saying density is good isn't enough. It's good for the developers trying to squeeze every penny out of their parcels, but is it good for everybody?

 

Density is great when executed properly.

 

So you want "old timey" as opposed to contemporary (meaning, current time).

Also, what materials are "questionable". From the rendering it looks to be a lot of masonry. Doesn't get any better than that for this climate.

 

Not at all. I like modern. I can point out multiple great contemporary examples built in Tremont in the last few years that are beautiful and fit well into the neighborhood without disrupting the fabric. Two are one story. Another one is two stories. Many are three stories. And a few are even four.

 

There isn't a drop of masonry in the Tremont Black project outside of the foundation as yet. Not sure what what your definition of masonry is, but poured concrete walls is not masonry.

 

Maybe I'm wrong--I'm always open to that. But please don't frame my tastes as ole-timey based on my opinion of density. Dismissing and framing others arguments is a poor way to have a dialogue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm sure we can all agree that things are better when "executed properly" but that just begs the question. You haven't really explained why you think this particular project will detract from the "long term value" of the neighborhood. Do you think these houses will physically deteriorate? That they are so unsightly that other potential residents will be less interested in surrounding houses? That there is going to be too much traffic congestion in these particular roads? What exactly is the problem you see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Do you think these houses will physically deteriorate? That they are so unsightly that other potential residents will be less interested in surrounding houses? That there is going to be too much traffic congestion in these particular roads? What exactly is the problem you see?

 

Thanks for asking. On your first question, yes. Aside from being built from minimal building supplies--kiln dried lightweight pine studs, foam board and OSB floor joists [TJIs]--all unproven materials--the height of the structure is very difficult to maintain. The vertical nature and small floor plans of the four units in current build almost guarantees a young, single or couple--nothing wrong with that demographically, these are welcome additions to the nieghborhood--but these aren't they types that tend to have the time to do a lot of high wire exterior maintenance. These units will sell easily off the bat and probably change hands a few times at good prices. It's after 15 years I am worried about. Once the owner has to pay full property taxes and maintain a very tall structure, I fear the they may have trouble getting what they paid in purchase price and may need to turn to renting. I have absolutely nothing against renters, but it isn't their responsibility to maintain. Again, the maintenance will be expensive and out-of-neighborhood landlords have earned their reputation...

 

I don't have any issue with building contemporary structures in the neighborhood on vacant lots, but this should NEVER happen at the expense of solid buildings that have stood for nearly a century or longer. That does disrupt the fabric of the neighborhood and is frankly wasteful. The greenest building is the one that is already built...

 

As far as your last question regarding congestion the answer is no. I have no issue with density when it brings foot traffic. If anything, the more folks we get, the less space for cars, the more demand for mass transit, bike infrastructure, etc..., the better. I'd love to live in the 21st Century with a good portion of the developed world.

 

Don't get me wrong, just because developers squeezing too much onto parcels is my major qualm here, I am pro-density. Developers and TWDC seem to want everyone who gives a darn about these crowded projects a broad brushstroke of not being for density. It's wrong and dishonest.

 

Again, density is good, but not when it is at the expense of smart growth, good sense and the long-term health of the neighborhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that you're concerned about the physical stability of new construction housing when these structures are no less solid than the older structures.  I don't need to get into a conversation about global natural resources for the reasoning of TJI's, but 16" TJI's and open web joists (typical contemporary framing members) are no worse than the 2x8's that most of these old buildings had for floor plates, for example.

And in response to your comment of maintenance on higher structures, we can just clad everything in vinyl and nobody will have to maintain it for 15 years.  Buildings need maintenance, there is no reason to assume otherwise when buying a house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You lost me on the TJI comparison. You can't possibly know the longevity of a glue & wood chip structural element because no one even thought to do such a thing until recently. Furthermore, suggesting an unproven product can stand up to the strength of an old-growth 2x8, is absurd. If you've ever cut into old-growth pine 2x4s--and I suspect you may have--you know the difference between modern lumber and what was available 100 years ago.

 

Tremont Black is a go. I'm not fighting this project. There's a very similar project on West 7th. I'm not fighting it either. I'm trying to fight the mindset that will see the demise of the historic housing stock of Tremont. You may not see the value or beauty in these "old-timey" structures. I don't see the beauty in Tremont Black. We should both be aware that there is unseen beauty in every structure and tastes change. Build these new "ugly" structures on empty lots if you must. But please don't demo what exists just so you can squeeze as many units as possible on to one parcel. That's not pro-density, that's greed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You lost me on the TJI comparison. You can't possibly know the longevity of a glue & wood chip structural element because no one even thought to do such a thing until recently. Furthermore, suggesting an unproven product can stand up to the strength of an old-growth 2x8, is absurd. If you've ever cut into old-growth pine 2x4s--and I suspect you may have--you know the difference between modern lumber and what was available 100 years ago.

 

Tremont Black is a go. I'm not fighting this project. There's a very similar project on West 7th. I'm not fighting it either. I'm trying to fight the mindset that will see the demise of the historic housing stock of Tremont. You may not see the value or beauty in these "old-timey" structures. I don't see the beauty in Tremont Black. We should both be aware that there is unseen beauty in every structure and tastes change. Build these new "ugly" structures on empty lots if you must. But please don't demo what exists just so you can squeeze as many units as possible on to one parcel. That's not pro-density, that's greed.

 

Actually squeezing more units on smaller land is pretty much the definition of density. You can look at "greed" however you want, but developers don't create new projects so they can loose money.

 

Just because a building has old lumber, it doesn't mean that it's in good condition. Things can happen like dry rot, termites, etc... I've been in plenty of basements and seen cracked joists.

I can't remember the name of the church on the east side that one of the hospitals took over, but there was a big uproar about demolishing it. After inspection it was concluded that the wood framing was no longer safe.

w28th is one of the last people on these boards that wants to see old buildings demolished, but sometimes it's necessary to move forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, please. I can point to numerous projects in Tremont where far more units were proposed than actually built. There are three units on what was two parcels on West 8th that was originally proposed as five, but the nearby residents pushed back in large numbers during the variance process. Did the developer "lose money" or just rake in less? I didn't see that project die. There is a current project for three detached homes on Tremont Ave. that was originally five connected town homes on the same plot. Is that developer headed to the poorhouse? No one is losing money.

 

Density is just a word. I'm for it. But there is a threshold. Would a ten story condo-plex on Professor Ave. make sense?

 

Also, no one is saying demolition is never an option, but developers need to make a better case. A good hunk of Tremont is a Historic District or are those signs meaningless? There's plenty of vacant land out there in the City of Cleveland begging for density and contemporary design. Just don't think you can waltz into Tremont and raze and squeeze. Except in the case of Tremont Black, where apparently you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a ten story condo-plex on Professor Ave. make sense?

 

Yes.

 

But it would never fly.

 

"Does it make sense?" and "would it fly?" are different inquiries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. But there's a good reason it wouldn't fly. Tremont has an identity. The key component being the historic nature of the neighborhood. The housing stock and the elevation of the structures are very important. Other neighborhoods would love to have the identity and feel of Tremont. I'm not saying contemporary design has no place in Tremont. I can point out several examples of brand new homes with exceptional contemporary architecture that fit in quite nicely. There are even a few brilliant remodels that maintain the historic portions of the homes while attaching taller & more modern additions. There are rows of attached town homes on Literary built in the last 15 years that look great and fit in aesthetically.

 

For the most part, people who live in this neighborhood understand that this isn't a "new" neighborhood. It's becoming a 21st century neighborhood, but mostly because it has the walkability and design of a 19th Century neighborhood. The Churches, although no longer the focal point of the neighborhood socially, are the focal points of Tremont's skyline. A ten story structure on Professor would interrupt that. It wouldn't make sense, and that's why when it was proposed years and years ago, it died quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a ten story condo-plex on Professor Ave. make sense?

 

Yes.

 

But it would never fly.

 

"Does it make sense?" and "would it fly?" are different inquiries.

 

Can you guys take it to PM and let the thread get back to actual development news? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a six-story condo-plex on Scranton? ;)

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/agenda/2015/crr12-14-2015.pdf

Board of Zoning Appeals

 

DECEMBER 14, 2015

9:30

Calendar No. 15-247: 2410 Scranton Rd. Ward 3

Joe Cimperman

12 Notices

Scranton Place, LLC, proposes to construct a new six story condominium building in a C2 Local Retail

Business District. The owner appeals for relief from the following Sections of the Cleveland Codified

Ordinances:

1. Section 355.04 which states that the maximum gross floor area of the building cannot exceed

one-half of lot area or in this case 19,738 square feet (29,477/2) where approximately 60,000

square feet are proposed.

2. Section 353.01 which states that a general 60’ height limit is established for a “2” height

district and a height of 64’-5” is proposed.

3. Section 357.04(a) which states that a front yard setback of 27 feet is required and 5’-4” are

proposed.

4. Section 357.08(b)(2) which states that a 31’ rear yard setback is required where zero feet are

proposed. (Filed November 13, 2015)

__________

 

See streetview below. 2410 Scranton is the metal building on the left. Scranton Place LLC owns it and two properties on either side of it -- the wood house with the open lower front porch and, at the corner of Scranton and Willey/Kenilworth, the mixed used two-story brick structure...

 

23154587280_6dcaee6850_b.jpgScranton Place-2011 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

 

BTW, in the streetview above,  the brick building on the other side of the intersection on the right looks like a great candidate for conversion. Looking at it from the opposite direction, you can see what the building used to be: "Scranton Ave. Carriage Works"! A Columbus Road resident named Nicholas Kulon bought it in 2012 after resolving a legal problem. While he was trying to buy the property from the prior owners, the Todd brothers, that building was raided on November 5, 2010 by Cleveland police and arrested the brothers. The Todd brothers were convicted for growing "hundreds of marijuana plants" for sale and distribution in that building...

SOURCE: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2013/2013-ohio-1043.pdf

 

23368313631_cbbcc42984_b.jpgScranton Ave Carriage Works-2011 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Awesome! Though, I hope they don't tear down that brick mixed-use building on the corner. It's not particularly beautiful, but it's a classic example of the types of buildings built all along the main streetcar arteries. It's very "Cleveland."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Agreed. It's a pretty big site as described by KJP, so hopefully room (and budget) for new construction and a rehab of that corner building. Great to see the spill-over development from central Tremont continuing. The freeways are a bummer, but the building stock and topography of this little area are pretty cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when that corner brick building was for sale and every time I drove by it I thought about what a good investment that would be given the development in the area.  If only I had the time and money...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The red and green building used to hold a little theater. Luminaire Theater maybe. I saw a play there maybe six or seven years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The red and green building used to hold a little theater. Luminaire Theater maybe. I saw a play there maybe six or seven years ago.

Liminis? Convergence-Continuum is still there I believe. They have a show going through this month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liminis. Love the house behind it too...

 

23369150871_23b8b3fa8e_b.jpgScranton Place-LiminisTheatre-2011 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, Liminis. Luminaires were the neo-folk band that sang the hey ho song. Apparently the theater is still active.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scranton Place, LLC, proposes to construct a new six story condominium building in a C2 Local Retail

 

Keeping that little building on the corner would be problematic for two reasons:

1. The scale would be completely off

2. The corner, is presumably the best selling point of any building / development.

 

While I agree that it is a unique structure, common sense does not leave it in the picture.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That side of the interstate seems like such an odd spot for such a building (seems too gritty).  I could certainly picture it more on the other side.  Very retro though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That side of the interstate seems like such an odd spot for such a building (seems too gritty).  I could certainly picture it more on the other side.  Very retro though. 

 

I'm sure someone once said the same thing about a project on the other side of Tremont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to be taking a cue from Fairmount Creamery just up the hill on Willey. If this scale of development works its way down Scranton and onto Scranton Peninsula, we'll remember this development and Fairmount Creamery as instigators of change.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That side of the interstate seems like such an odd spot for such a building (seems too gritty).  I could certainly picture it more on the other side.  Very retro though. 

 

I'm sure someone once said the same thing about a project on the other side of Tremont.

 

Thats not really what Im getting at though, more of a context thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the Ohio Awning project further south on Scranton. The developers of that are also planning on developing the two adjacent lots as well. Scranton Rd. is quickly becoming a new hot spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking past the grit and tagging, it's a really cool, old street. It was the best way for wagons to get up the hill from the Cuyahoga Valley to the west/south sides using the gradual climb of Walworth Run. It was also the site of the some early saw and grist mills built in the 1810s. Alfred Kelley (first Cleveland mayor and chairman of the Ohio Canals Commission) also chose Walworth Run for his first railroad scheme in 1837 -- a line to Columbus and Cincinnati (the tracks are still there, now owned by Flats Industrial RR). And it was also the route in 1874 for one of the first streetcar lines across the Cuyahoga Valley from the west side (although the first west-side line for horse-drawn streetcars was in 1863 down Detroit Avenue hill, across Center Street bridge, and up Superior Hill before the original Superior Viaduct in 1878). Lots of history along Scranton in Walworth Run.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That crumbling street!

 

Scranton (from Fairfield to Carter) and Carter (from Scranton to Columbus) are getting overhauled starting early next year. New pavement, curbs and sidewalks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That crumbling street!

 

Scranton (from Fairfield to Carter) and Carter (from Scranton to Columbus) are getting overhauled starting early next year. New pavement, curbs and sidewalks.

 

Finally. Good to hear. You think Maker Architects would've been instructed to "pave" that road via photoshop for marketing purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lincoln looks awesome.  BTW, Ohio Awning starts construction next week.

And yeah those two lots across from Awning are on our 2016 plan 2017 build agenda.  As time goes on, we are thinking about something denser then town-homes for these lots.  We'll see. 

Not only are all these prospective developments positive steps but we have a great group of existing neighbors all of whom care about the area and want to see planned growth and improvements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say what now???!!!!

Thought I posted this on Urban Ohio, home of the "I hate contemporary".

Glad everyone is on board (so far). This design really shows that contemporary doesn't have to look out of context if done with thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it because it isn't very contemporary, because it has so many classic elements.

 

This is actually very contemporary. Contemporary is not defined by a look. There are tons of different styles going on right now across the world. I would say that contemporary has more to do with building materials and use even than aesthetic at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...