Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that the area around Coventry is very attractive, but Severance is too far away from these hubs of activity to warrant a large scale residential project at this point. Personally knock down University Square, and move Target into Severance where Walmart used to be.
Cleveland Heights is going to face some challenges in "knocking down" a development that's actually located in another suburb.
It's nice and modern? Don't make me laugh. What good stores does it have? Target and macys? No more Tops, no more Joann Fabrics. You don't need that much space to have a Target and Macy's/ University Square is a failure.
You forgot Applebee's.
Seriously, though, this complex has new ownership and I'm optimistic that it's going to get some serious renovations.
Cleveland Heights is going to face some challenges in "knocking down" a development that's actually located in another suburb.
I realize that it's in another suburb, but this is just what I think that they should do. That complex is like Bjimmy said a failure. Not only that but it's a monstrosity and does not fit in well with the surrounding neighborhood. Unless they completely knock down and rebuild that garage, I don't see it getting any better. A lot of people don't go there specifically because of that garage. By moving target to severance it would fill a void in a shopping center that is still viable, and we can knock down University Square to make room for something else.
The average home value in Cleveland is $50,000. That is for Occupied homes. The average value of vacant houses is probably somewhere around $10,000. I work in the foreclosure industry, and am in these neighborhoods all the time. People don't want to buy these houses even if they're $5,000, and I can't blame them. Fixing them would cost more than many of the houses are worth, and even if you do fix them, who's going to want to live there? Who wants to live in Glenville for example, or Fairfax, or around Quincy, or in East Cleveland? Now before you tell me I'm some suburbanite who never set foot in the city, let me tell you that I bought a foreclosed house in North Collinwood, fixed it up, and am now living there. But that is only because North Collinwood has some potential, being significantly less bombed out than many other parts of the city, close to the Lake, and starting to be redeveloped. Do I love the city and want to see it come back? Absouletly. But I am a realist about its problems, and if the city is going to come back people need to address, in a realistic way, the problems that Cleveland is facing.
As to the vacant house vs. open lot question, let me ask you this. Would you rather live next to an empty, boarded up house that people go in and out of and break into to steal the copper, wiring, appliances, etc., and sometimes homeless people squat in, and sometimes are used for drug deals or rapes, or dumping garbage, or worse, not to mention being a fire hazard? Or would you rather live next to a vacant lot with grass and trees, that you can buy from the city for a dollar and use to expand your yard, or turn it into a community garden, etc? Having vacant, bombed out houses is more of a reminder of Cleveland's decline than empty lots. To me, empty lots are a step towards our future. For a visual of this, take a drive through East Cleveland, which doesn't have much money to tear down vacant buildings, and then Cleveland. Tell me which one you think looks better, and which one you think someone would be more likely to choose to live in. In case you don't get around to it, here's a mental picture: in EC you literally have streets full of houses that are collapsing, are unsafe to even walk near, have no siding, no doors, broken windows. In Cleveland most of those structures that are in that bad shape are gone.
Demolishing the vacant structures on these streets is unfortunate, but let's be real here, people are not going just going to come out of nowhere and save the neighborhoods. The city has changed a lot since those houses were built, and far fewer people have the desire to live there. Demolishing the vacant houses is essential if you want to at least stop the bleeding, and help the rest of the neighborhood regain its footing. Eventually, the hope is that the vacant land can be parceled together and sold to developers who can build out of the ashes something new, and start again.
Yes it isn't really safe to have abandoned houses in Cleveland, but some of the houses the city of Cleveland is tearing down is ridiculous. Some of the houses have recently had families living there, but they moved and the houses were vacant for a year. Those houses were in great shape and could easily be renovated if they were needed to be. But for some reason, they were torn down. Yes I can agree that the older abandoned houses with chipping paint and a falling roof can be torn down, but a brand new house that looks exactly like the one that was torn down should be rebuilt on the same spot.
Tearing down houses isn't the best solution to a growing city. The way you see it is less houses = More people. ? No. That's not the right way for a city to go. More houses = More people is what you should be thinking. Yes there isn't a strong need for houses right now, but that's partially because people don't want to live in Cleveland due to the number of abandoned houses and open lots there, the crime, the bad schools and the large African American population. IF that were to change, then more people would move into the inner city, making a higher need for houses. And if all the abandoned houses were to be torn down, then there wouldn't be enough houses.
It's nice and modern? Don't make me laugh. What good stores does it have? Target and macys? No more Tops, no more Joann Fabrics. You don't need that much space to have a Target and Macy's/ University Square is a failure.
All the Tops stores closed. No one really needs Joann Fabrics. And I found the Plain Dealer website where you "copy and pasted" your so called "facts" from, and it says that a new developer bought it and is planning to renovate it and have a better occupancy.
Seriously, though, this complex has new ownership and I'm optimistic that it's going to get some serious renovations.
I never heard of University Square until this forum. Apparently none of the publications published by Positively Cleveland or the tourist book I purchased at Barnes and Noble even mention it. That's probably one issue about it - the lack of publicity failed to draw adequate shopping traffic. This is in stark contrast to Beachwood Place, Legacy Place, Shoppes at Eton, Crocker Park, and even Tower City Center which all have easily visible ads and mentions. Heck, even my American Map and the RTA System Map I collected from the Rapid does not show it. I took a peek at it on Google Maps and it looks like East Coast influenced transit oriented development but how can it be transit oriented development when transit users don't even know what it is or where it is ? Unless of course it's only suburban development designed to look like TOD.
Location-wise, despite being close to John Carroll University, there are only two nearby bus routes according to the RTA map I have. That might not be enough to sustain TOD unless more routes are added. I can agree that the location for something like this is faulty. What I don't entirely agree with are the complaints about its design. There have been complaints in the Plain Dealer message forums about the parking garage being hidden from view but that's the whole idea of TOD. The complaints about the lack of connectivity between stores are more valid but that can be fixed. If Severance Circle were to be blown up and done all over again, I'd probably pick a dense design like this to replace it albeit mix it up with retail, residences, and office space.
BTW, a place Target ought to open a store at is Downtown Cleveland. Downtown is still quite lively but a large anchor will enhance it even more and help sustain the smaller stores there.
BTW, a place Target ought to open a store at is Downtown Cleveland. Downtown is still quite lively but a large anchor will enhance it even more and help sustain the smaller stores there.
There is already a Target fairly close to Downtown at Steelyard Commons, which, by the way, I consider to be a pretty nicely designed shopping center.
There is already a Target fairly close to Downtown at Steelyard Commons, which, by the way, I consider to be a pretty nicely designed shopping center.
Not so close as to be within walking distance from Downtown though, not even from Tremont or Ohio City. I passed by Steelyard Commons on the highway while I was in Cleveland and while I agree it's a smart concept, it still cannot replace a vibrant retail based downtown. Steelyard Commons to me is a lot like our Gateway Center or South Bay Center in Boston, a large open space shopping center with plenty of free parking. It's great if you have a car to get there but the fact that only one bus serves it (the #81 according to my RTA Map) makes it all the more harder for transit dependent folk to reach it.
Now how about a Target fronting Public Square? You wouldn't think that would add vitality to Downtown? Someone can easily catch the Rapid from Ohio City, from University Circle, or from Buckeye-Shaker to shop at it without the need of an automobile. We're talking just a Target, I did not say Bloomingdales or Saks.
University Square's location is situated too close to other shopping centers such as Beachwood Place. There's too big of a glut of retail out in the eastern suburbs and too little of it as you get closer to Downtown. That's why competition is fierce and stores are closing up. Even somewhere along the Euclid Avenue Corridor such as the corner of Euclid and East 55th would be a better location.
All the Tops stores closed. No one really needs Joann Fabrics. And I found the Plain Dealer website where you "copy and pasted" your so called "facts" from, and it says that a new developer bought it and is planning to renovate it and have a better occupancy.
No developer bought it. The guy who bought it is a land speculator from Detroit. He owns a very small shopping center in an outer suburb of Detroit. Outside of that, his retail experience comes from friends and family owning some liquor stores (or as us Detroiters call em, party stores) in Detroit. His day job is as an accountant. There's no grand plans to do anything with it. It was a bargain that no major developer had any interest in for multiple reasons. Target has already considered moving and I doubt this new owner is giving them any reason to think they should stay. Their biggest issue is finding somewhere to relocate to that's nearby.
As far as Severance goes, nothing will happen there til at least 2020 as all the leases run until then. Even Wal-Marts goes until then so unless someone buys all those leases, not much change will happen in the short term. I like the idea of a mixed use dense development but I don't think that's the place for it. The most successful newer developments nearby are auto centric cluster homes. The mid rise urban like Severance Place condos have been a bust and several units were auctioned off.
In general, new mixed use has been very difficult to get off the ground in the Heights area. Cedar Center tried to do it and couldn't pull it off. And of course, Cleveland Heights has been trying to fill the Meadowbrook/Lee lot with a development for years. It seems to me most urban living demand is shifting out of the Heights and into the city of Cleveland instead.
University Square is not now nor was it ever intended to be a regional destination, so advertising would be a waste of money. It's just a suburban shopping center and it serves its intended customer base just fine. But that land has a long history of being used for retail. Mays on the Heights built there in the mid-1950s, about a decade before Severance was developed and two decades before Beachwood Place was built, so don't blame University Heights for retail over-saturation in the eastern suburbs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
? Unless of course it's only suburban development designed to look like TOD.
