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.
Sorry to hear that is the case. I was impressed by the three rehabbed older buildings I saw which never happens in Portland. I had thought perhaps that was the norm in Cleveland. But three is better than none so at least there is that.
Don't get me wrong, there are many great examples of historic rehab and reuse. For instance, I'm very excited about the Rotunda being rehabbed. That is an absolutely amazing building.
But for every Rotunda there are probably three or four others like the Fifth Church of Christ Scientist that will soon meet (or have met) the wrecking ball. And that is after many people put a lot of effort into making sure that it stuck around for someone to come along and rehab it. Unfortunately it's been 25 years or so and that person never came, and its time is up.
Cleveland at one point was very dense, like older Chicago neighborhoods that are still intact, but a lot of it has been wiped off the map. With the occasional rare exceptions, every vacant lot you pass be it Downtown or in one of the neighborhoods was the site of a building or house. University Circle was considered Cleveland's second downtown and looked the part (albeit smaller). You would never know it looking at it now, although at least it has been infilled with new development. Euclid Avenue was lined with buildings for miles, which in many cases were multistory, and a huge number of those are gone.
So my point wasn't to be a downer, but yes, many many great buildings are no longer around simply because there was no demand or interest. It's probably hard to to visualize now but Cleveland was more in line with Philadelphia or in today's terms Dallas or Houston (but built like a dense city) and had the neighborhoods and infrastructure to match. Being on the young-ish end of the age spectrum I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the notion that at one point you could practically outfit your life with items made just in Cleveland / Northeast Ohio. Now it's second tier.
Sorry to hear that is the case. I was impressed by the three rehabbed older buildings I saw which never happens in Portland. I had thought perhaps that was the norm in Cleveland. But three is better than none so at least there is that.
The worst part for me is the perfectly fine old houses being torn down in Portland to make way for giant apartment buildings. And infill is covering up what used to be green spaces. Those who are long time residents are fighting a losing battle against and newcomers have no idea as to what they have missed. Some city planners are saying that the city is being overbuilt but still the tearing down and building continues.
I absolutely agree. I really like Minneapolis. For a very long time it was on the top of my relocation list but for various reasons Cleveland won out. I still am very fond of Minneapolis though.
In terms of a fast growing city like Portland...what can they really do though? They are really hemmed in by the Urban Growth Boundary they put in when they were one of the true progressive planning cities in the country...that cut down a lot of cookie cutter suburban sprawl lik you see in Southern California or around Phoenix, AZ for instance. I guess build less of them but build higher?
Charleston, SC is a smaller city that seems to get the infill development right...a truly fast growing city that's become a tech hotbed...but like other sunbelt still has a lot of suburban sprawl problems...but at least in the city, some of the infill redevelopment keeps a lot of green space even though it's more dense than what was there before.
Sorry to hear that is the case. I was impressed by the three rehabbed older buildings I saw which never happens in Portland. I had thought perhaps that was the norm in Cleveland. But three is better than none so at least there is that.
The worst part for me is the perfectly fine old houses being torn down in Portland to make way for giant apartment buildings. And infill is covering up what used to be green spaces. Those who are long time residents are fighting a losing battle against and newcomers have no idea as to what they have missed. Some city planners are saying that the city is being overbuilt but still the tearing down and building continues.
I absolutely agree. I really like Minneapolis. For a very long time it was on the top of my relocation list but for various reasons Cleveland won out. I still am very fond of Minneapolis though.
I think that SBTA's assessment is very exaggerated. The biggest gems that Cleveland proper has lost are most of the mansions that used to be along Euclid, called Millionaires row, which many of the owners burned down deliberately, and a few churches. Overall Cleveland has actually done a very good job of preserving its old architecture. You look at Minneapolis' downtown and almost all of the old buildings were knocked down in the 50's and 60's for urban renewal projects that produced a lot of ugly steel and glass high-rises, and skywalks that take people off the street. Cleveland has preserved many of the old buildings in its core and its neighborhoods. Many of vacant lots he's describing were once old factories, which, while economic engines, were mostly aesthetic monstrosities. Yes, some areas, like Kinsman and Hough, lost much of their urban fabric, with many of the mixed use retail-apartment buildings and homes being abandoned and subsequently torn down, but I do not believe that many of those places were very significant. Most were standard buildings built to fill the needs of the people who lived here at the time. No one, then or now, would have called them gems.
Overall though, Cleveland has some fantastic architecture that has been preserved. The Terminal Tower of course, the West Side Market, many of the buildings in Ohio City and Tremont, St. Stan's church, etc. The fact that there was such a protest to tearing down the Christian Science church on the West Side, that was vacant for many many years shows that this is a city that cares about preservation. Heck, they're talking about fixing up the old coastguard station, which has been vacant since 1976. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index...oparks_be.html And, by the way, where you're moving, in Cleveland Heights has not had the depopulation problem that Cleveland proper has, and they have preserved nearly all of their historic architecture (and there is a lot of it in CH).
True, many of the grade A landmark buildings have been preserved/continually used as I think many would expect them to be. But I think for even the most demo-happy cities the "crown jewels" are almost always preserved (with some exception, of course).
But the next level down... plenty of those have been lost. Those factories that you refer to are the types of buildings that have made for fantastic rehab projects in other cities. One could go around and pick out hundreds of locations just like that in Cleveland that are no longer around. The old neighborhoods are what makes cities interesting.
And again I pull back to University Circle. Damn if that wasn't a beautiful and exciting looking neighborhood. And I think the only reason people don't lament the loss of some of the old factories is because even at this point in time no one would be rehabbing a factory on Quincy Avenue anyway.
But what is Tremont? Nothing but a bunch of average factory worker houses and commercial buildings built to serve factory workers. But that aesthetic is what makes it interesting. Can't plop down on Woodland to do that even if you wanted to because almost all of it is gone.
So I guess my point is it could be a lot better, and it could be a lot worse. But just because Cleveland didn't tear down the Terminal Tower doesn't necessarily mean a lot of the fabric of the city isn't gone.
Personally, I don't think that the average East Side Cleveland style duplex, which comprises much of the stock that's been lost, is really worthy of preserving. The factory worker houses in Tremont are quirky and unique, Ohio City has many interesting old victorians, and Slavic Village, similar to Tremont, has a lot of quirky, unique architecture. Those places have a lot of things worth saving. Kinsman, Woodland, Buckeye, those areas have a high percentage of the cookie-cutter Cleveland duplex with the big front porches. I've seen those houses both in their original and updated conditions, and in both states, I'm not a big fan. I find them ugly, bland, utilitarian structures, of which there are thousands of duplicates all throughout Cleveland. If they're abandoned, and in terrible condition, tear them down to make way for something else. To quote Rick from Pawn Stars "Just because something's old doesn't mean it's valuable".
I agree with you that sometimes factory rehabs are cool, and Cleveland is doing that to some extent. Many of the factories are beyond repair, and in terrible neighborhoods like you said, but they are doing it in places. I can think of a few examples in Midtown, Goodrich-Kirtkland Chinatown (Asian Plaza, Tyler Elevator, a student housing building) Slavic Village, Central, the Flats, the near West Side. One notable one is the Warner Swasey building on Carnegie, that is in horrible shape, but is architecturally interesting. The city has put money into abating the hazardous materials there so it can be redeveloped, and I believe there's been some interest. Come to think of it, there are quite a few of those projects going on. But unfortunately not everything can be saved, and it's often better for the neighborhood to tear it down than let it fester and rot. Of course preservation and demolition both have pro's and cons that should be weighed, and taken on a case by case basis.
Last edited by Cleverfield; 05-31-2014 at 10:40 PM..
DC never has nor never will build any high rise buildings...the federal gov't has a law in place that no building can be built to be higher than the dome of the US Capital Building (Washington Monument was grandfathered in)...even still the city truly is a wonderful and true Urban environment even w/out iconic high rise construction.
The height limits are actually a lot taller than what the OP was complaining about in the initial post. I am familiar with DC it is only a few hours away from where I live now. The uniformity of the height there gives a unique perspective you do not get with a lot of other cities.
If you want to take a look at one Midwestern city that's density is really increasing rapidly...now has a downtown population of over 50,000, is increasing mass transit options, and while it won't ever overtake Chicago, has certainly become the #2 city of the Midwest...look no furthern than Minneapolis, MN...that's a city that a lot of Midwestern Cities could really learn a thing or 2 from.
Minneapolis does offer a unique perspective you don't hear much about. Funny thing is when people mistakenly assume that Mary Tyler Moore was in New York City, because of that perspective.
You have just described Portland OR from which I am moving after relocating there 35 years ago when it was on no one's radar but was a modest, livable and interesting city for all economic classes much like Cleveland is today. Now it is overrun with expensive, large, bland looking apartment buildings that have replaced smaller, older homes and structures that were perfectly sound but were not lucrative as money makers for their investors.
Green spaces are disappearing along with these structures. I see this in my neighborhood which has gone from neighborly to trendy. Neighborhood associations in some areas are actually bidding on the older homes when they come available for sale to stop the flippers and contractors of the behemoth apartment buildings but it's a losing battle.
When I was in Cleveland apartment hunting last April, I saw an old hospital that was converted into senior housing. I saw an old high school that was converted into condos. I saw an old church that was converted into apartments. I was impressed that rather than being torn down and destroyed, they had been preserved and made whole again. This would never happen in my present city. There is just too much profit in asking $1250 for 350 sq ft of brand new studio apartments with prices going up from there.
In my neighborhood, a 72 unit building replaced two 102 year old houses used as offices. Those houses had green space along the back and sides. They were in excellent shape but were torn down for the large apartment structure to be built right up to the sidewalk. The green spaces and all its pretty foliage were destroyed.
The older apartment buildings in the area have either side or backyards or courtyards. Some have a combination of two or three of these green spaces. They were built with the idea that people like to be outside during nice weather. That's when this city was a "people city." But the new large buildings have covered over any green space available next to them. This causes the sidewalks to be literally strewn with people lounging on them during the nice weather because the tenants sit there when they want to be outside. There is no provision for parking spaces which overcrowds the streets. Public transportation has been cut back and cannot accommodate all those who wish to take the bus downtown to work during rush hour without having buses pass them by the first time around.
Whether Cleveland needs skyscrapers or low rises and I can't say because I am not yet a resident of the area (next week, Cleveland Heights) and don't feel knowledgeable enough about the subject to give an opinion. But from what I have observed just as a visitor, I have seen some very impressive construction in Cleveland. New is good but turning the old into new is also a good thing. I just hope that Cleveland never destroys Cleveland in the process as I feel Portland is doing/has done. I hope Cleveland and other Midwestern cities in the process of seeking success will learn from other cities what not to do as well as what to do.
No city "needs" high rises. High rises are as much status symbols as they are a necessity in cities with a high population density. Most cities could build out according to the height limits that are in place in the District of Columbia and that would provide an ideal urban setting, and needs could be met through mixing the use of those buildings so that the bulk of what an individual needs can be handled within a two or three mile radius. The problem is when cities give into developers that build with little or no concern to the needs of the communities they're building in. No thoughts about infrastructure, little, if any concern for public transportation or for the needs of the residents that already live there (that are often priced out due to gentrification). So you end up having to take two buses to go to the grocery store or three buses to go to the movie theater. There are entirely too many cities like this in America.
Once people actually move back into the city and the density increases, the high rises will come on their own, because they are sustainable. I believe that the technical definition of a high rise is over 7 stories. There are already plenty of buildings like that in Ohio, even in Akron or some of your smaller cities like Dayton and Youngstown. Even the Emporis standard of 12 floors is a norm throughout much of the state. But as far as the loose definition that comes to the mind for most people, something greater than the 19 - 20 floor limits imposed in DC, you will find buildings like that in downtown Cleveland, but not many.
On the other hand, Cleveland already has 30 buildings that are at least 16 stories or more. Norfolk, VA, where I'm at now, only has 10 such buildings. Cleveland has taller buildings than Baltimore, MD. It does well, considering. If another high-rise was never built in Cleveland it would be okay.
In terms of a fast growing city like Portland...what can they really do though? They are really hemmed in by the Urban Growth Boundary they put in when they were one of the true progressive planning cities in the country...that cut down a lot of cookie cutter suburban sprawl lik you see in Southern California or around Phoenix, AZ for instance. I guess build less of them but build higher?
Charleston, SC is a smaller city that seems to get the infill development right...a truly fast growing city that's become a tech hotbed...but like other sunbelt still has a lot of suburban sprawl problems...but at least in the city, some of the infill redevelopment keeps a lot of green space even though it's more dense than what was there before.
So instead of cookie cutter suburban sprawl you have a city that is becoming a cookie cutter city. Many of us laugh at the idea of Portland being admired for its progressive planning which is usually by those who don't live here and have to face the consequences of that progressive planning.
As an example, you can't add a 72 unit building in an old neighborhood in place of two houses in one block and 52 units in place of a small restaurant two blocks away with no provision for parking and expect people to be able to find parking spaces on the streets. This happened in my neighborhood. All tenants were expected to have bicycles and no cars. Except they didn't. People moved in with bikes and cars. The city's solution to the problem will be metered or permit parking. My neighborhood certainly was not alone in this. Progressive planning?
The parking situation aside, this is a case in which taller buildings would have been better than wider ones which take up an entire city block for which green spaces are sacrificed and are built within close range of one another. But these taller buildings are not really high rises or skyscrapers. So building less and building higher actually is a good idea especially when those already built are going begging for tenants who can pay the high rents.
I think whatever is going on in Cleveland regarding the size of new building should fit the needs of the city and its people. I saw that a bit when I was in Cleveland last spring. Sure I know there is a lot that could be argued about this not being the norm but in comparison to where I am coming from, it's something I observed that is simply better than that which I am used to seeing.
As an example, you can't add a 72 unit building in an old neighborhood in place of two houses in one block and 52 units in place of a small restaurant two blocks away with no provision for parking and expect people to be able to find parking spaces on the streets. This happened in my neighborhood. All tenants were expected to have bicycles and no cars. Except they didn't. People moved in with bikes and cars. The city's solution to the problem will be metered or permit parking. My neighborhood certainly was not alone in this. Progressive planning?
Isn't that generally the idea when the push is to use public transportation? Nobody expects to be able to park their car outside their door in dense areas like DC and NY and parking spaces can run $50 or $100k. Hasn't Portland been on a kick of building out their public transportation network?
Even around here large residential projects have gone up without onsite parking for all residents. Isn't that the new push? Away from car dependence?
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.
