Jump to content
Guest zaceman

Cleveland: Midtown: Development and News

Recommended Posts

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.

 

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.


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -- Lady Liberty

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

I agree with everyone about design principles ... proper frontage along the street, properly placed (and visually minimized) parking, mixed uses, etc. And I think blinker's comments about reuse of existing building stock are spot-on. Those are all valid concerns, the really proper concerns for all of us to be having.

 

But if we're just talking about integration into the neighborhood fabric and other urban planning concerns, then I think we should apply the same degree of rigor to reviewing every Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals project along Euclid. Definitely, I have heard people on this forum talk about poor design principles with these institutions (the Sight Center comes to mind). But I don't recall any substantial discussion about the design principles of UH's Cancer Center going up or anyone suggesting that it didn't belong on Euclid Ave. And yet we have multiple pages of discussion about the proposed psychiatric hospital being detrimental to the corridor before we see a single rendering. If it's urban design we're talking about, any number of buildings along Euclid Ave. need to be considered ... from the hospitals to the setbacks and fences around Zaremba's townhomes to the suburban-style drugstores. If we're talking about a psychiatric hospital being bad because it provides mental health services, that's a different story ... and there I would definitely challenge anyone who says the use itself is undesirable.

 

In the end, I'm much more concerned about seeing a Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Landmarks, Design Review Boards, etc. that have teeth and will hold property developers accountable for the planning requirements already in place than I am about subsidized housing or mental health services being on Euclid Ave.

 

And I think that if we go to Bob Brown as citizens and say "social services like that don't belong on our storied street", the response is going to be "hey, determining use (outside of zoning requirements) is beyond our purview". If our e-mail campaign focuses on preventing needless demolitions and rejecting plans that don't live up to existing planning requirements, I think we have a much better opportunity for action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The zoning overlay along the Midtown section of Euclid requires development up on the sidewalk, with the ground-floor frontage being of mixed-use. But zoning is only as good as the boards and commissions charged with enforcing it. We need to watch this closely and speak up if the submitted plans don't conform to code.


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -- Lady Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I don't recall any substantial discussion about the design principles of UH's Cancer Center going up or anyone suggesting that it didn't belong on Euclid Ave. And yet we have multiple pages of discussion about the proposed psychiatric hospital being detrimental to the corridor before we see a single rendering. If it's urban design we're talking about, any number of buildings along Euclid Ave. need to be considered ... from the hospitals to the setbacks and fences around Zaremba's townhomes to the suburban-style drugstores. If we're talking about a psychiatric hospital being bad because it provides mental health services, that's a different story ... and there I would definitely challenge anyone who says the use itself is undesirable.

 

Actually there has been lots of talk on here about the cancer hospital and how it doesnt fit/setback/belongs in the suburbs.  As well as the drugstores etc.  We all know that the Clinic has a bad urban design concept, and they have been getting a pass because of their influence.  But yes that shouldn't be the case with everything/anything else, just because the city is trying to show progress.

     

Personally the cancer hospital setback in that spot didn't bother me as much since it is basically in an area of setbacks (museum/campus/park setting)  The rather suburban looking design and how badly it connects with the other building is another story.

 

     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected :) I will admit, I didn't take the time to do a search to see what had been said about the Cancer Hospital. Still, and correct me if I'm wrong, I cannot recall a single time that anyone has suggested that any Cleveland Clinic or UH building didn't belong on Euclid (barring discussions of design principles associated with those buildings or demolishing existing structures to put them up). The only example of I can think of, where forumers objected to the USE rather than the DESIGN is the Clinic's massive parking garage along Chester, and the Clinic's plan to shut down Euclid to through-traffic (including the Healthline).

 

A healthy discussion about design principles of hospitals is cool for me, but catering to the belief that it's a bad project because "psychiatric hospitals scare suburbanites" seems ridiculous. And that's not aimed at any forumer ... just a general disgust at how much we as a country stigmatize mental health services, remove it from general health insurance coverage, etc., despite the fact that not treating anxiety, depression, etc. leads to serious physical conditions that we foot the bill for later. Ugh. I digress :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this on the Euclid Corridor Design Review District notes Aug 20th meeting.  Pierre's Ice Cream expansion sounds interesting.

 

http://www.universitycircle.org/userfiles/file/Design%20District%20Agendas/Agenda%20082009.doc

 

 

EC 2009-022 Salvation Army renovation              ©    

                      5005 Euclid Ave Mark Pearson - Schopfer Architects

 

 

 

EC 2009-014 Pierre's Ice Cream expansion            ©

                      6200 Euclid Ave  Mike Novachek - Ray Fogg Building Methods, Inc.

 

 

 

M 2009-001 Rainbow Place Renovation                                                          (N) 

                    1946 E 79th Street  Anthony Hiti & Johnathan Cana -

                    Herman, Gibans, Fodor Inc. Architects

                    Chuck Ackerman - Cleveland Housing Network

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A major demolition proposed on the Landmarks Commission site:

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/photo/081309/index.php

 

Dunham_Tavern_IMG_07.jpg

 

Dunham_Tavern_IMG_11.jpg

 

Dunham_Tavern_IMG_10.jpg


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -- Lady Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, has anybody ever even considered going to Dunham Tavern? This is a g0d d@mn shame.

 

If they had fried asparagus like Parkview, then I'd be there in a flash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually happy to see this demolition.  All distinguishing architectural features had already been taken off to give RTA the extra 6" or whatever they needed, and all that is left is a massive shell.  The Dunham Tavern itself may not be open all the time, but the grounds are nicely maintained.  If (and sometimes this feels like a big if) we are smart as a community, we will use this space not only as grounds for the museum, but as a nice central park for eastern Midtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...