Jump to content
zaceman

Cleveland: Midtown: Development and News

Recommended Posts

The most successful nabes in Cleveland have wide income distributions, with wealthy people living in close proximity to people of VERY limited means, and that lack of pretention is one of the things I love about this city. The last decade has seen a steady investment in places in downtown, Tremont, Ohio City and Detroit Shoreway, despite the abundance of public housing projects, social service organizations and low-income populations; meanwhile, Bratenahl lost more than 5% of its population. I'm not saying that the presence of disadvantaged populations has made them more desirable. But I am saying that an area can still be desirable even with these residents, and that the absence of these residents hardly ensures success for the corridor.

 

Some could argue the success of these neighborhoods.  I know many see the abundance of public housing etc., as having really held these neighborhoods back, and a deterrent to moving into a home there.  I know many from out of town (while loving the city) have had a hard time looking at these neighborhoods as livable places due to this.  I have witnessed since the 80's people screaming about gentrification.  Yet why is w. 25th street basically the same as when I was interning for Ohio City Developement 15 yrs ago?

 

8shades you make some good points, but when you say "representative population of the city, I think that way of thinking is only helping to determine what the population will continue to be (the population is not representative of the people employed in the city, most of those people live in the suburbs).  With what seems like an overabundance of public and subsidized housing everywhere, and poor and rundown neighborhoods, and social service agencies, how could the city be anything but representative of a poor population.  I guess because I have seen the opposite here in DC and witnessed the MASS gentrification that DC has experienced in order to cater to its white collar crowd, and while succeeding in drawing large scale development into the city, and lowering the murder rate by shifting some of that population to PG county (MD), there really is nowhere affordable here unless you live in a dangerous, non-gentrified area.   

 

Cleveland is not in danger of such things since it is a totally different set of dynamics, but I also don't think that everything has to cater to the poor population, or that it is elitist to want different or to change the dynamic of some of these areas (that have so much potential).  I for one would like to see the day when Cleveland is not on the list of poorest cities.  I realize shifting this around isn't really changing anything (although there is a pretty big disparity, between the city and the suburbs), but you also don't have to only cater to that population.     

 

Bratenahl losing population doesn't really tell me anything since most every part of the Cleveland area has lost population.  I think the most significant loses have been in inner ring "former" mid income areas due to the influx of "lower incomes".  Why do you think Medina and Loraine County's have continued to grow when the region has not?

 

There needs to be a balance.                           

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with any of that. I am equally hopeful about a repopulation of the city. I guess my confusion lies in forumers' seeming belief that a mental health facility and SEVENTY units of transitional housing are going to deter development of a six-mile corridor (or even the one-mile section between E. 55th and E. 81st). I absolutely understand people's concerns that this will stigmatize Euclid Ave. (or the upper Midtown component of it), but it just seems like a disproportionate response to the scale of the project. 70 units of housing. To people who will be receiving significant support services and will very likely appreciate moving from shelters or the streets into new and clean units. Who will likely maintain the units and be good neighbors and citizens. 70 units on a street that could pretty easily accommodate a couple thousand additional residents. A fraction of the units that are going up in the Uptown area. A fraction of the units in the new apartment complex near CSU in Lower Midtown. A fraction of the units getting built out along Lower Euclid. About equivalent to the new luxury condos and apartments going up in "Collegetown".

 

I wholeheartedly believe everyone here is welcome to their opinions on the topic; from my perspective, I just want to make sure that when we hear words like "mental institution" or "housing for the formerly homeless", we're not being reactionary or losing a sense of perspective about the development happening elsewhere along the corridor. It is and will be mixed-income. Given the current market environment, I applaud that projects are moving forward downtown and University Circle, let alone in a less-proven area for residential properties. 

 

And willyboy is right ... we don't have to worry about mass gentrification anytime soon ... barring some gigantic shift in demographic patterns, not in the next next several decades. But I continue to believe that this is the upside of the slow market growth of the industrial Midwest; we have the opportunity to plan for gentrification well before it happens and to ensure that low-income individuals are not pushed out of areas with the strongest potential for out-pricing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think demanding good design is elitist ... particularly when that design has the interest of a cross-section of society in mind (thinking of the "Design for the Other 90%" concept). But there is a big difference between demanding good design and outright protesting particular lot uses. Everyone here is entitled to their personal opinions about best use and about best location for the proposed projects. But saying "Transitional housing doesn't belong on Euclid Avenue period" is not the same as saying "Said housing should front the sidewalk and be between 5 and 7 stories in height", etc. And yes, sorry, but I do think it's elitist to say, yes, we want a row of million-dollar townhomes here, but no, all people with mental health issues and who are homeless, go directly to Cedar Avenue, do not pass Go. I absolutely understand your points, and maybe you're right that your views are just in the best interest of the corridor ... but you can be right and still be elitist :)

 

Frankly, I don't want another Millionaire's Row. The most successful nabes in Cleveland have wide income distributions, with wealthy people living in close proximity to people of VERY limited means, and that lack of pretention is one of the things I love about this city. The last decade has seen a steady investment in places in downtown, Tremont, Ohio City and Detroit Shoreway, despite the abundance of public housing projects, social service organizations and low-income populations; meanwhile, Bratenahl lost more than 5% of its population. I'm not saying that the presence of disadvantaged populations has made them more desirable. But I am saying that an area can still be desirable even with these residents, and that the absence of these residents hardly ensures success for the corridor. Personally, I would rather show off a main street that welcomes everyone, regardless of their background, than to hold land fallow with a dream of creating a Magnificent Mile or recreating a Millionaire's Row.

 

As for being worried about design, I am too. We should definitely be demanding the utmost design standards possible, both to begin to build a contiguous corridor of mixed uses AND so that all residents, employees, etc., along Euclid Avenue enjoy the maximum benefit they can from the street and from other tenants.

 

Who is talking about having a millionaires row? I only referred back to that era to illustrate what the difference is between 'elite' and an upper middle to middle environment--or above average and mediocrity---which is all I suggested that should be the aspiration for this avenue. That is hardly elitist.

 

I am really discouraged how many people have bastardized that word and associated it with all that is bad or 'somehow' anti-lower income....... Just as I dislike how the word "liberal" has been bastardized to associate anything left of center as being the road to hell. It is not being 'elitist' as in your use of that word, to aspire for more than mediocrity. I don't have a stupendous income, and one does not need to have one to have higher aspirations than mediocre.

 

Personally, I am not flat out opposed to such places you are saying people are flat out opposed to. I just feel that in a well planned environment, they could stand to occupy not the showcase avenue that will define a lot of what Cleveland is, or aspires to be, no matter what walk of life the participants who make it happen, come from.

 

I understand about stronger neighborhoods encompassing a diverse income make-up, etc, but we can have that on this avenue....without placing some of these institutions right on it.

 

I agree with you a thousand percent that if such will be the happening on Euclid, that it should be well designed as you so well outlined. But the bottom line is...that if we want to make this a diverse avenue in every stretch of the way...Future plans cannot keep catering to mostly one half, and the half that is often catered to is not offering the broader and diverse demographic I would envision for this or any segment of the avenue. But like you said.. if it is bound to be what it will be, then by all means, promote well designs....not 'suburbs-in-the-city' designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most successful nabes in Cleveland have wide income distributions, with wealthy people living in close proximity to people of VERY limited means, and that lack of pretention is one of the things I love about this city. The last decade has seen a steady investment in places in downtown, Tremont, Ohio City and Detroit Shoreway, despite the abundance of public housing projects, social service organizations and low-income populations; meanwhile, Bratenahl lost more than 5% of its population. I'm not saying that the presence of disadvantaged populations has made them more desirable. But I am saying that an area can still be desirable even with these residents, and that the absence of these residents hardly ensures success for the corridor.

 

Some could argue the success of these neighborhoods.  I know many see the abundance of public housing etc., as having really held these neighborhoods back, and a deterrent to moving into a home there.  I know many from out of town (while loving the city) have had a hard time looking at these neighborhoods as livable places due to this.  I have witnessed since the 80's people screaming about gentrification.  Yet why is w. 25th street basically the same as when I was interning for Ohio City Developement 15 yrs ago?

 

8shades you make some good points, but when you say "representative population of the city, I think that way of thinking is only helping to determine what the population will continue to be (the population is not representative of the people employed in the city, most of those people live in the suburbs).  With what seems like an overabundance of public and subsidized housing everywhere, and poor and rundown neighborhoods, and social service agencies, how could the city be anything but representative of a poor population.  I guess because I have seen the opposite here in DC and witnessed the MASS gentrification that DC has experienced in order to cater to its white collar crowd, and while succeeding in drawing large scale development into the city, and lowering the murder rate by shifting some of that population to PG county (MD), there really is nowhere affordable here unless you live in a dangerous, non-gentrified area.   

 

Cleveland is not in danger of such things since it is a totally different set of dynamics, but I also don't think that everything has to cater to the poor population, or that it is elitist to want different or to change the dynamic of some of these areas (that have so much potential).  I for one would like to see the day when Cleveland is not on the list of poorest cities.  I realize shifting this around isn't really changing anything (although there is a pretty big disparity, between the city and the suburbs), but you also don't have to only cater to that population.     

 

Bratenahl losing population doesn't really tell me anything since most every part of the Cleveland area has lost population.  I think the most significant loses have been in inner ring "former" mid income areas due to the influx of "lower incomes".  Why do you think Medina and Loraine County's have continued to grow when the region has not?

 

There needs to be a balance.                           

 

This is basically what I am saying, all you mention above.

 

 

Many seem to forget... How was the stigma attached to low income housing, etc. born? Every legend has a basis of truth.

 

People, no matter what color, race, income level.... feared dropping property values and safety, when they witness the behavior associated with some people...and NOT all.. (so PLEASE.....don't anyone draw the profiling card...but it only takes one or two apples to spoil a bunch) who are often a part of such communities.

 

I have lived next to this many times and it is undeniable.....you cannot pretend like it is not a concern or factor in influencing where people want to live. Everytime I was near this..... noise at totally inappropriate hours, inappropriate behavior, lack of simple maintenance on a property, throwing trash on the street, pelting my poor dog with rocks....or worse.

 

So, maybe a good institution along Euclid should be started to teach some people, who obviously had no parental guidance... how to be good neighbors and behave properly in a communal setting...and not use their freedoms to harm and impose their anti-social behavior upon others---but to help them instead. If people don't respect basic respect unto thy neighbor... I don't want to invest thousands to live next to that.

 

Again, I am not saying all the above do not know how to function in a healthy functioning neighborhood, but it takes a small spark to start a fire....and to start the attached stigmas. Yes, there are idiots who live everywhere... But I can't deny the fact that I have experienced more of this when I live near low income.

 

Many will attribute such behavior with the fact that someone is poor..  I agree, it can walk hand in hand (cause/effect)...but maybe it is more about upbringing. When I traveled around the world, I discovered many poor communities that were actually some of the best and charming places--great food too! Just because one is 'poor' does not mean one has to be the kind of persons who are a part of the problems I mentioned above. Pride is free. Doesn't cost a dime... But if you wonder why their is a stigma placed on the lower income, it is obvious.

 

Is it a fair label? Probably, probably not...Will I get accused of being a "profiler", "racist", "anti poor", "elitist" etc..etc?"...Just because I have a certain standard that desires a more harmonious and peaceful socially redeeming community? Probably...but only by those who do not take the time to actually think about any validity in what I am saying. I will not give up my right to have my thoughts on such an issue, just because they do not conform to what someone else's view of a non elitist, profiler, and the rest of those words above, is.  It is easier to label someone than to think. Having said that, I did not label anyone in what I wrote here. I simply pointed out a social stigma attached to low income, etc... that people want to tip toe around and not address as part of an underlying cause why a lot of people have their opinions about low income housing---and the rest of the associated mix---people are concerned of happening on Euclid. I didn't label anyone unfairly....  no more than it is a fair label to label someone else 'elitist' just because they aspire for their neighborhood to have a bit of a higher standard and be a positive example, that would attract those from all walks of life to want to be a part of.

 

Deer fear humans... and have pretty much become nocturnal animals. Why? Because they fear the hunter, and thus, humans in general. They learn through experiences, just like many people have learned through experience that too often, there are negative attachments to low income housing. Sometimes we can be too politically correct until many of the obvious truths get buried, ignored, and left unabated.

 

Bottom line.. You are a good neighbor, respect my right to reasonable peaceful living, take pride in your home/neighborhood.. I will do the same. I don't care who you are or where you are from or how much you make. But if not, and you chose to behave poorly. I don't want it. This stuff factors in someone's decision to locate anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, agreed. And sorry if anyone feels I was using the term "elitist" in a derogatory way. I honestly wasn't. I simply mean favoring the interests of relatively wealthy and secure populations to the exclusion of those of relatively poor and vulnerable populations. Not assigning any negative connotation to wanting to focus attention on the "upper half" ... there are definitely some potential positives to wanting to recruit a group of people with means to this section of Euclid.

 

But I do feel like the assumption that poor individuals equal noisy, littering and/or criminal residents is a little overarching. The success of this particular model suggests that these particular residents will not likely be "problem residents". And maybe many, many greater Clevelanders DO have these preconceptions and prejudices ... but I don't think that means we should cater to them. There are a variety of avenues for addressing problem residents if they show up ... avenues that are a little less far-reaching than redirecting the project elsewhere.

 

As for the "good neighbor" program ... Ugh ... Presupposing that poor people need to learn about noise control and proper upkeep of facilities is pretty patronistic. Why people in affordable housing but not people who live in lower Euclid? Or at the very least, a student population that has a lot less vested in maintaining property or curbing their volume? Cleveland Heights tried to launch a very similar "Good Neighbors" program aimed at Section 8 residents (but overlooking the student population in the very same neighborhood) and it was quickly and rightly abandoned. These individuals will already have much in the way of training as a component of the housing program itself; I would recommend we not begin assuming they're going to wreak havoc on the E. 70s before they move in (or before ground is even broken on their building).

 

I promise to try to be quiet on this thread now (at least for the remainder of the day :)). And sorry if I've hijacked it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion; I guess I've just been discouraged not so much by what people on here are advocating but more by 1. how vehement people seem to be about the projects' dire consequences and 2. how one-sided the discussion seems to be. I guess I'm just surprised is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 Shades...You have not hijacked the thread. I think you make some points well worth discussion. I am not having a go at you. Nor am I saying what I say is the gospel. Your thoughts just sparked a lot of semi-counter thoughts.

 

Students, section 8, monetarily rich, or challenged, low income, red, white, black, purple, yellow and strawberry, right, center, left of center, right of center...up and down...No matter what the case, indeed, bad neighbors and things that are associated and proven to devalue property, can come from all angles and directions. And, while I acknowledge that, at the same time I cannot, from over and over and over and over experience, deny the reality right before my very eyes... that the places I have most experienced this behavior is near the low income areas. The behavior becomes disproportionate to the population in that given area. I did not profile them ALL to be this way, if you read what I posted. I have friends who have nothing and are wonderful.

 

If I were a good neighbor living in a low income situation, that defies all these stereo-types, I would be ashamed of those around me who are acting this way making it look bad for many others at the same level. At the same time, I would feel compelled to try and do something about taking responsibility to curb such behavior--because I would not want to be thrown into the mix. And I would not blame someone else, for formulating a negative opinion about that particular environment, if they witness it all the time. I would not blame them or think they were profiling. Those who behave the worse are profiling themselves with their bad behavior that draws negative attention. People judge by actions....all of us have done this, it is only natural. Sometimes it is about being cautious and smart...sometimes it can be presumptuous...but the fact remains, it happens.

 

When people are given a lot of things without having worked hard to earn it...There tends to be a less than enthusiastic ambition to maintain it. (indeed, this happens at the white collar level too when corporate welfare is abused) I am different because I feel if I do not own something...if I were renting...I would want to take all the better care of it just because of the fact it does not belong to me. And, I would take full responsibility and accountability for any friends I may invite over who may cause any kind of trouble. The reality is, however, I know those with that attitude are the exception when it comes to the average renter..or low income purchaser. They have the money for the payments, but struggle to get what is needed for ongoing upkeep. Should such deny a place to live? No...  But...

 

This sort of decline has started all over again in Warren, Ohio with new low income, less than fair market value homes that were built less than 12 years ago. Already, they are looking shabby (not just because of lack of upkeep..but because they were just downright crapola in quality)..and the behavior follows. Sad for those who are just wanting a clean, safe, comfortable reasonably peaceful place to live. Anti-social illegal neighbor behavior can get you kicked out of the neighborhood in England. And until those who cause a problem learn how to act, they may not return. Imposting bad neighbor behavior on others is not an entitlement, freedom, or right. Its just illegal and wrong.

 

I think how this relates to this thread is learning why many are opposed to certain kinds of projects along Euclid...and what are some of the breeders of those concerns. At the end of the day, I think everyone, no matter who we are, wants to be proud of Euclid. Those who don't care..well that is what fuels the potential problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: I don't think I've ever heard a fiery Sound of Ideas (as "fiery" as Sound of Ideas can get, anyway .. maybe a bit of an overstatement) like this one. It's a pretty hot-button issue, but I'm glad discussion is being opened up about this because I think it's necessary.

 

 

The Sound of Ideas®

Where is Euclid Avenue Headed?

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Topics: Economy, Politics, Health, Other

 

<a href=http://audio2.ideastream.org/wcpn/2009/07/0728soi.mp3>Download MP3</a> / RSS / Podcast

 

Cleveland's Euclid Avenue facelift and the corridor's Health Line were originally pitched as economic catalysts that would bring people, money and jobs to the city. Development is happening, but it has taken a turn many didn't expect: Where city business leaders imagined new retail, restaurants and condos, they're instead seeing housing for the homeless and for the elderly and a 14-acre psychiatric hospital. To put it mildly, not everyone's excited. Tuesday morning at 9, we're searching for Euclid Avenue's new identity.

 

Guests

Tom Bier executive-in-residence, Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University

William Denihan CEO, Cuyahoga County Community Mental Health Board

Chris Warren Chief of Regional Development, City of Cleveland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good stuff jpop. Its good finally hearing the argument from the people actually involved... I have to say that I was not very receptive to the Hospital when first proposed, but I'm certainly warming up to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't have a problem with mental care facilities. However, I have a serious problem with Bill Denihan not understanding that the same reasons for them deciding to locate there is why it's a horrible choice.  Leave our "shovel ready" land alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't have a problem with mental care facilities. However, I have a serious problem with Bill Denihan not understanding that the same reasons for them deciding to locate there is why it's a horrible choice.  Leave our "shovel ready" land alone.

 

there wasn't exactly a line around the block of businesses waiting to develop that shovel ready land. I understand the ultimate vision for the area but while the free market was just, 'dipping it toes in the water' (Bier) the state was ready jump in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how hard they tried, there is no getting around the stigma associated with a mental hospital.  Those are real concerns... the woman who stated she would be scared to ride her bike from Cleveland Heights to downtown is just one voice of likely many.  Some suburbanites are already "afraid" to be in Cleveland in the first place; well, here's another reason to be afraid- this time, on our grand corridor, which was recently rehabbed to draw and attract businesses and residents.  500 jobs or not, I guess I'm still not convinced that the general public will buy into this as being a good idea.  But time is a tool, and we shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how hard they tried, there is no getting around the stigma associated with a mental hospital. Those are real concerns... the woman who stated she would be scared to ride her bike from Cleveland Heights to downtown is just one voice of likely many. Some suburbanites are already "afraid" to be in Cleveland in the first place; well, here's another reason to be afraid- this time, on our grand corridor, which was recently rehabbed to draw and attract businesses and residents. 500 jobs or not, I guess I'm still not convinced that the general public will buy into this as being a good idea. But time is a tool, and we shall see.

 

I totally agree. I'm so against both of these going here, it's not even funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, if designed well (big if), I doubt most of the general public will even know what it is.  I grew up by a mental hospital.  It had zero negative impact on anything.  The only thing it did was give the local kids fodder for jokes, about where so and so is going to end up, or jokes about mass break outs by the crazy people... which obviously never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subsidized housing is far more troubling than mental hospitals.  That's my real fear.

Why?  Not everyone who lives in subsidizing housing or owns subsidized housing is bad, careless or doesn't care about the property that they live in or own.

 

That's like me saying to you, "you didn't grow up in the manner, type of home, neighborhood or status in which I did, so who are you to be worried?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subsidized housing is far more troubling than mental hospitals.  That's my real fear.

Why?  Not everyone who lives in subsidizing housing or owns subsidized housing is bad, careless or doesn't care about the property that they live in or own.

 

That's like me saying to you, "you didn't grow up in the manner, type of home, neighborhood or status in which I did, so who are you to be worried?"

 

As opposed to going through all of the reasons again, See the previous 5 pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subsidized housing is far more troubling than mental hospitals.  That's my real fear.

Why?  Not everyone who lives in subsidizing housing or owns subsidized housing is bad, careless or doesn't care about the property that they live in or own.

 

That's like me saying to you, "you didn't grow up in the manner, type of home, neighborhood or status in which I did, so who are you to be worried?"

 

As opposed to going through all of the reasons again, See the previous 5 pages.

WillyB, my friend, we're going to have to disagree.

 

I do think that the "development" plans for Euclid along with Prospect and Chester need to looked at again with a fine tooth comb, but I personally think mixed income and diverse areas are much more vibrant appealing and stable than exclusive neighborhoods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know what? speaking ideally of course, if the psych hospital uses new, cutting edge urban design, including euclid street level businesses in front like a cafe and shop that perhaps are tied into the hospital and put those folks into public work experiences in them, and if the building form/materials just looks good in general, this can actually be something all clevelanders could be proud of.

 

i realize that is asking a lot, but as of now the potential is there.

 

otoh, if they just take some old hospital plans off the shelf and slap it up there, well that's another story and yet another lost opportunity.

 

realistically, perhaps something like that could at least be met halfway?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subsidized housing is far more troubling than mental hospitals.  That's my real fear.

Why?  Not everyone who lives in subsidizing housing or owns subsidized housing is bad, careless or doesn't care about the property that they live in or own.

 

That's like me saying to you, "you didn't grow up in the manner, type of home, neighborhood or status in which I did, so who are you to be worried?"

 

As opposed to going through all of the reasons again, See the previous 5 pages.

WillyB, my friend, we're going to have to disagree.

 

I do think that the "development" plans for Euclid along with Prospect and Chester need to looked at again with a fine tooth comb, but I personally think mixed income and diverse areas are much more vibrant appealing and stable than exclusive neighborhoods.

 

Disagree?  You asked why, which has been debated for the past 5 pages.  The reasoning why many people don't see this as a good fit is given there, the reasons are not suddenly going to be different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subsidized housing is far more troubling than mental hospitals.  That's my real fear.

Why?  Not everyone who lives in subsidizing housing or owns subsidized housing is bad, careless or doesn't care about the property that they live in or own.

 

That's like me saying to you, "you didn't grow up in the manner, type of home, neighborhood or status in which I did, so who are you to be worried?"

 

As opposed to going through all of the reasons again, See the previous 5 pages.

WillyB, my friend, we're going to have to disagree.

 

I do think that the "development" plans for Euclid along with Prospect and Chester need to looked at again with a fine tooth comb, but I personally think mixed income and diverse areas are much more vibrant appealing and stable than exclusive neighborhoods.

 

Disagree?  You asked why, which has been debated for the past 5 pages.  The reasoning why many people don't see this as a good fit is given there, the reasons are not suddenly going to be different. 

 

What the hell just happened here?  :wtf:  Something been misinterpreted.  oye!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, ok...... you guys lost me w/ all that quoting, but McCleveland said it best. If its designed well, most wont even know what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, ok...... you guys lost me w/ all that quoting, but McCleveland said it best. If its designed well, most wont even know what it is.

 

Which was referring to the hospital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, ok...... you guys lost me w/ all that quoting, but McCleveland said it best. If its designed well, most wont even know what it is.

 

Which was referring to the hospital.

 

as was I.... and I understand that those quotes were in regard to the public housing (which I'm not thrilled about either) However, many on this page, including myself, were very harsh to the Mental Hospital proposal. My point was that if the Hospital is designed right, most won't even know what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same is true of the public housing. As I indicated previously, CHN's previous transitional housing projects have had relatively high design standards (at least relative to subsidized housing design in general), and I know that they are definitely giving considerable consideration to design standards with this project. Just as with the hospital, the vast majority of commuters are not going to distinguish this housing from student housing around CSU, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably going to repeat what some of the posters have already said, but my problem with subsidized housing is that they seem have a disproportionate amount of problems than other properties.  And it would just be nice to have a really nice area without any fears of that kind of disruption, which I had believed was the point of the Euclid Avenue Project.  When I think mixed use neighborhoods, which was what this project was supposed to encourage, I do NOT think of housing projects.  I would never move my fledgling business into an area where my employees and I would have, in addition to other stresses, to worry about our neighbors.  A lot of money went into this project, and it was supposed to cater to the middle and upper class for once.

 

Of course lots of nice people live in Section 8 housing and lots of jerks live in private residence.  But let's be realisitic.  A lot of these criminals, certainly a disproportionate, get to go home to their subsidized housing at the end of the day.  I just want somewhere classy and safe that doesn't have to cater to the poor.  Just ONE place.  I want the OLD Euclid Avenue, the kind I was not around to experience, and subsidized housing is the opposite that.  I mean, look at the dump on West 25th -  I have friends in that area that tell me all kinds of horror stories about  that building and its residents, and I'm just tired of it. 

 

It seems like a lot of Cleveland caters primarily to those who need subsidized housing, and I just wanted Euclid Avenue to be something different:(  Maybe it will, but this is a terrible terrible start, and since the project was mostly federally funded, I wish someone in DC would take notice and perhaps do something about it i.e. "Dear Cleveland, we didn't spend all that money for this.  Regards, Hillary"  Something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like a lot of Cleveland caters primarily to those who need subsidized housing, and I just wanted Euclid Avenue to be something different.

 

You hit the nail on the head.  The city is only going to be what it makes itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably going to repeat what some of the posters have already said, but my problem with subsidized housing is that they seem have a disproportionate amount of problems than other properties. And it would just be nice to have a really nice area without any fears of that kind of disruption, which I had believed was the point of the Euclid Avenue Project. When I think mixed use neighborhoods, which was what this project was supposed to encourage, I do NOT think of housing projects. I would never move my fledgling business into an area where my employees and I would have, in addition to other stresses, to worry about our neighbors. A lot of money went into this project, and it was supposed to cater to the middle and upper class for once.

 

Of course lots of nice people live in Section 8 housing and lots of jerks live in private residence. But let's be realisitic. A lot of these criminals, certainly a disproportionate, get to go home to their subsidized housing at the end of the day. I just want somewhere classy and safe that doesn't have to cater to the poor.   Just ONE place.   I want the OLD Euclid Avenue, the kind I was not around to experience, and subsidized housing is the opposite that. I mean, look at the dump on West 25th - I have friends in that area that tell me all kinds of horror stories about that building and its residents, and I'm just tired of it.

 

It seems like a lot of Cleveland caters primarily to those who need subsidized housing, and I just wanted Euclid Avenue to be something different:( Maybe it will, but this is a terrible terrible start, and since the project was mostly federally funded, I wish someone in DC would take notice and perhaps do something about it i.e. "Dear Cleveland, we didn't spend all that money for this. Regards, Hillary"   Something like that.

 

Bravo. NO ONE is saying that ALL people who live in section 8 are bad people.  However, and this cannot be disputed, they do commit a disproportionate amount of crime.  Not exactly the mid-town some of us envisioned, or desire. 

 

And in regards to the design, I liken it to putting a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not Section 8. It is also not a housing tower like is on W. 25th. It will be a mid-level apartment complex for people with chronic homeless problems. Participation in the program is contingent on being a good neighbor in the community. The program has previously had a 95% success rate in keeping people off the street. Crime does indeed fester in some public housing projects, but they tend to be the monolithic structures like Caprini Green. This is 70 units of housing, a reasonable number for CHN to be monitoring for any problems that might arise with the residents.

 

I work next door to a very similar project downtown (1850 Superior ... adjacent to the Tower Press Building and across the street from the Plain Dealer). In four years, I have never once experienced a single problem with any resident of the building. I have walked around the neighborhood at 10 p.m. at night and felt relatively safe; I have certainly never had a single concern for my safety associated with 1850. Meanwhile, professionals are paying anywhere between $750 and $2000 per month to live and/or operate small businesses next door in Tower Press; it is always at near-full occupancy. A full-service dry cleaner and car rental firm are on the other side of the building and don't seem to have experienced any problems with the property.

 

All of this seems to indicate that the transitional housing has done little if anything to hamper development in this particular neighborhood. Euclid Ave. could be a different case, for sure; it's a different environment. I think all of you are entitled to be opposed to this project, but I do feel that people are overreacting to the scale of what it will do to the avenue and prejudging a population based on their impressions of 1960 and 1970 layouts for subsidized housing (not based on any experiences with scattered site, mid-scale or other models that have been much more successful and have generally not been bastions of crime). 70 units! In 5 years, this is going to be a mere footnote in the redevelopment of Euclid Ave.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8Shades, thank you for your calming words. One of the things I like about UO is that, while we all have our concerns, there are always people who provide a different point of view that keeps those concerns from turning into hysteria. I, like others who care about this city, will remain watchful of this project. But thank you, 8Shades, for making me think about this project than merely reacting to it.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably going to repeat what some of the posters have already said, but my problem with subsidized housing is that they seem have a disproportionate amount of problems than other properties.  And it would just be nice to have a really nice area without any fears of that kind of disruption, which I had believed was the point of the Euclid Avenue Project.  When I think mixed use neighborhoods, which was what this project was supposed to encourage, I do NOT think of housing projects.  I would never move my fledgling business into an area where my employees and I would have, in addition to other stresses, to worry about our neighbors.  A lot of money went into this project, and it was supposed to cater to the middle and upper class for once.

 

Of course lots of nice people live in Section 8 housing and lots of jerks live in private residence.  But let's be realisitic.  A lot of these criminals, certainly a disproportionate, get to go home to their subsidized housing at the end of the day.  I just want somewhere classy and safe that doesn't have to cater to the poor.  Just ONE place.  I want the OLD Euclid Avenue, the kind I was not around to experience, and subsidized housing is the opposite that.  I mean, look at the dump on West 25th -  I have friends in that area that tell me all kinds of horror stories about  that building and its residents, and I'm just tired of it. 

 

It seems like a lot of Cleveland caters primarily to those who need subsidized housing, and I just wanted Euclid Avenue to be something different:(  Maybe it will, but this is a terrible terrible start, and since the project was mostly federally funded, I wish someone in DC would take notice and perhaps do something about it i.e. "Dear Cleveland, we didn't spend all that money for this.  Regards, Hillary"  Something like that.

 

 

I am not a fear monger...But, one can sugarcoat the public/transitional housing/mental hospital all they want...But, it will not change the fact that their will be a negative stigma attached to this sort of thing. I do not fear a break out....and other hysterical fears out there associated with such projects... But, what I am concerned with the most is the stigma..the negative perception. Perception is 90% of it all.. Look what the negative perception of the river fire did to Cleveland, and we still have not quite had that let go.

 

Now, here is a chance to lure a broader demographic of people in town....the supposed higher incomes we need to show a starting movement to offset the constant tired reminder that we are the 'poorest' major us city just because we do not fit into what many perceive as well off (having it all, appearing well off..but owning noting, and strapped out with debt) Ok, we want to attract people..make the city a place of choice... Then, we use the main corridor we hoped to be the lure, as a tribute to what we already have enough of. I am not saying these projects are not needed.. I am asking, however, why must they be on Euclid? It sets a  precedent as well. In fact, precedent is my biggest concern.

 

And  let's pull our heads out of our tails... Yes, there is all too often problem residents in low income housing...stigmas that are detracting. True or not...It is making me nauseated to see people in denial about that. Life experiences have taught some lessons...to ignore them, is silly. Elder low income...ok.. but mixed age... You can count on inviting a few idiots who make it a problem for most of the good, especially if they don't take responsibility for friends they may have over who do not know how to behave in a communal setting. Transitional housing? Sounds like a kind word for something else...But 8 Shades  made a good explanation and even so... I would not want such housing to be placed on the main avenue.

 

Maybe if the screening was better, I don't know. I do know, that here is a time to really plan well...and projects like this simply appear to me as development at any cost.  "The New Midtown-A tribute to social dysfunction"  Great centerpiece on your main thoroughfare! Again, not opposed to the project...Rather in great question in placing it on the avenue that is supposed to be a big selling point for your city...and, the precedent factor for what else now? Still not sold...  Sell me!  :-D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$5 says people that oppose this project have A) not called or written city hall to express their views, or B) not tried to launch their own development. 

 

Opinions are convienent, doing something about it... well Obama hasn't made a program for to do that for us...yet.

 

Euclid Corridor is long, this project is small in comparison.  Cranes on Euclid OTHER than Cleveland Clinic, NOW THATS A PRECEDENT TO BE FOLLOWED.

 

P.S., if you ask someone from my city of Shaker or any other Suburb for that matter, their perception of the area in question is already ROCK bottom... "ghetto, twisghlight zone, crack heads...."... *ANY* new consturction will help that... really how much worse could it get?

 

While I honestly tend to agree with you Etheostoma, I am leaning on giving this a chance.  Lets be honest, banks are using TARP funds to expand and buy out each other (PNC<Nat City) and there is still no reason to believe money will be made available in any large amount to gambling commercial developers... and I gotta believe putting some ritzy condos (what we all want) on Euclid and (fill in the blank cross street) in Cleveland, Ohio is about the last place a shy banker will put those funds, if and when they start to "trickle down".

 

Just my opinion but I'm a college drop out so who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Regarding your former point, I, and someone else on these forums, had emailed Robert N. Brown, Director of Cleveland City Planning Commission about our concerns, and he sent us some bush league, POINTLESS, and virtually identical response which reads more like a form than an actual caring message.  So that's at least $10 bucks you owe...

 

I attached his response (juts copy and pasted from a few pages ago)

 

 

'Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the future of Euclid Avenue in Midtown.  The City continues to support the vision of Euclid Avenue in Midtown as a place for mixed-use development, with offices, housing and retail, in a pedestrian-oriented/ transit-oriented development.  We are confident that the recently proposed uses can be designed and sited in a manner that will contribute to realizing this vision for Euclid Avenue.  We will continue working to pursue development that is in accordance with the plan and the zoning for Midtown.  Please feel free to get back to me if you have further comments.  Again, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.'

 

 

 

Robert N. Brown, Director

 

Cleveland City Planning Commission

 

rnbrown@city.cleveland.oh.us

 

Tel: 216-664-3467  Fax: 216-664-3281

 

Web Site:  http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow that is a pathetic response indeed.  Foot in mouth TB!  (knew that was going to happen)

 

Can you post the message you sent him?  What would you do with the site instead? (that would actually have momentum in this lending climate?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleveland's Euclid Avenue development is going in right direction

by Chris Warren

(Cleveland) Plain Dealer

Sunday August 02, 2009, 5:00 AM

 

Contrary to the opinion expressed by Thomas Bier in The Plain Dealer on July 26 ("Euclid Ave. primed for growth -- until City Hall got involved"), the city of Cleveland has not walked away from its long-standing efforts to promote economic development in Cleveland's Midtown neighborhood, nor has it "shattered" the promise that the Euclid Corridor between Cleveland State University and the Cleveland Clinic would be developed for private businesses.

 

More at http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/08/clevelands_euclid_avenue_devel.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know what is missing from this, a quote like "and we will require these institutions to build in accordance to the strict zoning and design standards established for Midtown area.  These new buildings will compliment the work done on the Healthline"

 

He didn't say it, because I doubt it will happen. 

"The daily flow of thousands of people to the district will stimulate new shops, restaurants and the like."

Kind of like how the Clinic stimulates all of that street activity?

 

 

I HOPE HOPE HOPE I am wrong and will gladly hear "I told you so" for years if these buildings are done right.  I just have no faith in the city on this one.

 

For the record, I absolutely no beef with the mental health hospital, there were a few in the Chicago neighborhoods I lived in, and never noticed them.  But, seriously, transitional housing on what is supposed to be our showcase street?  It couldn't go on Superior or Chester?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to weigh in briefly on this. I don't have a problem at all with putting Section 8 housing along the corridor. However, I am frustrated by our community's collective insistence on demolishing historic structures to build new. The Section 8 housing units are replacing two 1920s-era, brick apartment buildings that probably contain a similar number of units to what's required (70). They are certainly in a run-down condition at the moment, but given the state and federal restoration incentives available at the moment (that together can provide 45% of the financing for a rehab project), I find it difficult to believe that there was no option to save these buildings. Chris Warren says they've been vacant for 15 years -- certainly other buildings have been vacant longer and been brought back to productive use.

Regardless, they will go away so that we can make room for (to judge from the renderings) a suburban-looking, set-back-from-the-sidewalk exercise in mediocrity, complete with front lawns. Given what is likely a limited budget, the construction materials and techniques won't be anywhere near the level seen in the old buildings.

Putting aside who will live there for the moment, is this the kind of built environment we want to create on what is supposed to be the City's Main Street? It continues a trend in Cleveland of "throwing away" the old city to create something new, as if new in itself is better. To me, this is not only wasteful (and therefore unsustainable), but a reflection of our poor self-image. If we thought better of ourselves, we would want to honor our heritage -- it's what separates us from and could make us competitive with newer cities like Phoenix and even Vancouver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Regarding your former point, I, and someone else on these forums, had emailed Robert N. Brown, Director of Cleveland City Planning Commission about our concerns, and he sent us some bush league, POINTLESS, and virtually identical response which reads more like a form than an actual caring message.  So that's at least $10 bucks you owe...

 

I attached his response (juts copy and pasted from a few pages ago)

 

 

'Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the future of Euclid Avenue in Midtown.  The City continues to support the vision of Euclid Avenue in Midtown as a place for mixed-use development, with offices, housing and retail, in a pedestrian-oriented/ transit-oriented development.  We are confident that the recently proposed uses can be designed and sited in a manner that will contribute to realizing this vision for Euclid Avenue.  We will continue working to pursue development that is in accordance with the plan and the zoning for Midtown.  Please feel free to get back to me if you have further comments.  Again, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.'

 

 

 

Robert N. Brown, Director

 

Cleveland City Planning Commission

 

rnbrown@city.cleveland.oh.us

 

Tel: 216-664-3467  Fax: 216-664-3281

 

Web Site:  http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us

 

I write to Bob Brown frequently...and have about this project. I received the same cookie cutter letter. I just question their idea of 'pedestrian friendly/oriented development'  I am not saying it is impossible to get me to warm to this, but it will be difficult. I simply see too often what accompanies such institutions and it is not something I would want to boast about to the world on my main avenue. Besides, maybe people who have to use such institutions would prefer a more private setting before they are ready to be sent back into the world. Nature, trees, and solace does wonders for the body, mind, soul...so maybe a campus just off Euclid..a park like setting would be better. Just NOT on the main avenue.. No..No..No.. No.. No..No!!! Let's not be desperate and whore ourselves out to any old development that comes along for the sake of saying 'we have some development' patience..patience.. Not patients!

 

Naturally, I hope I am wrong if this follows through, and actually hope people like 8-Shades are right..But I have serious doubts....and I will gladly put my foot in my mouth, if I am wrong... and hop around Public Square (then I would be the first to occupy the mental hospital!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to weigh in briefly on this. I don't have a problem at all with putting Section 8 housing along the corridor. However, I am frustrated by our community's collective insistence on demolishing historic structures to build new. The Section 8 housing units are replacing two 1920s-era, brick apartment buildings that probably contain a similar number of units to what's required (70). They are certainly in a run-down condition at the moment, but given the state and federal restoration incentives available at the moment (that together can provide 45% of the financing for a rehab project), I find it difficult to believe that there was no option to save these buildings. Chris Warren says they've been vacant for 15 years -- certainly other buildings have been vacant longer and been brought back to productive use.

Regardless, they will go away so that we can make room for (to judge from the renderings) a suburban-looking, set-back-from-the-sidewalk exercise in mediocrity, complete with front lawns. Given what is likely a limited budget, the construction materials and techniques won't be anywhere near the level seen in the old buildings.

Putting aside who will live there for the moment, is this the kind of built environment we want to create on what is supposed to be the City's Main Street? It continues a trend in Cleveland of "throwing away" the old city to create something new, as if new in itself is better. To me, this is not only wasteful (and therefore unsustainable), but a reflection of our poor self-image. If we thought better of ourselves, we would want to honor our heritage -- it's what separates us from and could make us competitive with newer cities like Phoenix and even Vancouver.

 

Very well stated! If this does happen...No suburban model, please. And yes, the building demolished..... If I am thinking which one you're talking about.....was shameful. But I still don't want Section 8. Are we striving to be mediocre? Are we catering to this and no one else? How then will we get above average... "The New Euclid-A Tribute to Social Failure/Dysfunction" Please come live here!  :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The patients need a wooded environment? really? I'm going to go ahead and take the city at its word (oh boy) and believe this will be a 'state of the art' development. Its a HOSPITAL people, one that will bring 500+ employee's to a region where dozens of the private sector businesses are already prospecting. What are we still complaining about here?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The patients need a wooded environment? really? I'm going to go ahead and take the city at its word (oh boy) and believe this will be a 'state of the art' development. Its a HOSPITAL people, one that will bring 500+ employee's to a region where dozens of the private sector businesses are already prospecting. What are we still complaining about here?

 

 

The fact that it is on the main avenue...500 jobs or not, is not the point of the opposition ....and the opposition is not to the project, but to the location. There is a difference. And yes, nature heals...Have you ever been to a retreat? It really puts us back touch with what is real and what matters...

 

I do wonder where these 500 new employees will live? Mostly here and near... Or out in the burbs....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The patients need a wooded environment? really? I'm going to go ahead and take the city at its word (oh boy) and believe this will be a 'state of the art' development. Its a HOSPITAL people, one that will bring 500+ employee's to a region where dozens of the private sector businesses are already prospecting. What are we still complaining about here?

 

 

The fact that it is on the main avenue...500 jobs or not, is not the point of the opposition ....and the opposition is not to the project, but to the location. There is a difference. And yes, nature heals...Have you ever been to a retreat? It really puts us back touch with what is real and what matters...

 

This location for the hospital is only a 'problem' if it prevents other businesses from coming to the area. The article posted clearly states otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hubz1124, you would have no problem if the hospital was set up in the middle of the property, surrounded by parking, then grass, then a fence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hubz1124, you would have no problem if the hospital was set up in the middle of the property, surrounded by parking, then grass, then a fence?

 

Only if its a barbed-wire fence.....but seriously, It doesn't matter if I approve with your hypothetical layout. It matters only if businesses that are prospecting midtown do. If you take this article at face value, then this hospital, however it's designed, has not deterred the dozens of the businesses which are still interested in the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It matters to me and many people on this board.  This is a discussion group dedicated to urbanity.

Euclid Avenue was rebuilt to connect our two gems, downtown and uptown, University Circle.  Euclid Avenue has the potential to become the main street of the city's residents, not just its businesses.  With the Healthline, the employment centers, the available land and buildings, nearly all the elements to foster a healthy dense mixed use main street over time are there.

What is missing is wise planning and the discipline to not jump at any offer for the land in pure desperation.

Euclid Avenue deserves better than that, Cleveland deserves better than that.

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...