Become a Premium UrbanOhio Member! Click here.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
^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, DirectorCleveland City Planning Commissionrnbrown@city.cleveland.oh.usTel: 216-664-3467 Fax: 216-664-3281Web Site: http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us
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.
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?
Quote from: hubz1124 on August 04, 2009, 11:28:56 AMThe 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...
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?
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.
Seriously, has anybody ever even considered going to Dunham Tavern? This is a g0d d@mn shame.
