Historic Lakewood House teardown?

[Danielle Masters]

I wish the house had been kept up through the years and I hate to see it go. That being said we lived on Larchmont for a few years. We were three houses from Detroit and we hated being near the bars. Ultimately it was one of the reasons we moved. I think it would be nice for the residents if there was parking nearby. Hopefully it would eliminate some of the problems there. Every weekend we would deal with fights, general noise and my favorite, public urination. So I think a parking lot in that area would be great, but I hate to lose another piece of Lakewood history in the process.

[Paul Schrimpf]

I don't know why, but I sense a serious lack of passion about the history of Lakewood in general from Lakewoodites. Perhaps it's still a hangover from the West End project, or the general mood of the country today, but the pendulum has seriously swung to the side of, "it's my property, I'll do whatever I damn well please and keep your noses out of it" . . . and we seem to shrug it off.

A big part of the appeal of this city, like it or not, is its historical significance. Many of us who live here consider owning a house in a historica area a part of the reason we invest in taxes and services and property here. There should be more passion for that, and without apology. And city government should be setting a clear tone for the discussion. Instead, we seem to take these things on project by project -- the Hall House is only the latest in a series.

[lisa shaffer-gill]

I live 3 houses from Detroit on Edwards. We too have already experienced many of the well documented annoyances of living near the bars and we too might ultimately move to a “betterâ€Â￾ neighborhood. My opposition to the current proposal to raze 2 residentially zoned houses and one historic landmark extends beyond my aversion to living next door to a parking lot for the most popular bar zone in the city. If, after the 3 readings at city council (the first will be Monday March 20th), they vote to pass the proposal, two dangerous precedents will be established. Current city ordinance that allows for one residentially zoned property that abuts a business to be removed to make way for parking will be skirted, and the city will establish that they are willing and happy to use public money to help out property owners who have thumbed their nose at city housing codes and have allowed their properties to deteriorate.

6 years ago when we bought our house there were not four major bars right around the corner. There was the YMCA, Edwards park and a couple of sleepy neighborhood bars. Indeed, we bought a house 2 lots from a commercial district. We didn’t anticipate the “developmentâ€Â￾ in the area; the opening of Panini’s, McCarthy’s, The Drink, and the expansion of Johnny Malloy’s. We certainly didn’t expect the city to do their part by stepping in and making a parking lot of the residential properties next door. By creating a municipal lot, they hope to help contain bar patrons’ exploits on Thursday through Saturday nights. Their plan is to support the bar scene by using our tax dollars to assist the current property owner in consolidating at least two lots. That way, razing all three buildings will not violate the language of the current city ordinance that states that 1 building that abuts a business may be removed to make room for parking. We certainly didn’t foresee a planning department’s sneaky way around a current city ordinance.

It should be noted that in meetings about this issue, an offer was made by another property owner to purchase the northern most lot in question (on Edwards) move the historic Hall house around the corner to Edwards, renovate it and keep up the property. Initially, this compromise, which would give all parties involved what they want, seemed to be a strong likelihood. The Hall descendents would get to own and keep up their ancestors home, the city would get two lots worth of parking, (space on Detroit and one lot’s worth on Edwards) and the nice family next door would get a buffer. But then, the offer was pulled from the table. Apparently the parking lot wouldn’t be BIG enough.

If progress means destruction of Historic Property, and community development in the way of bars, and parking lots for their patrons, whether the lot abuts the business property or not, so be it. The precedent that city council and the planning department set by consolidating the lots of properties ought to give lots of Lakewood residents pause. How many lots will it be reasonable to consolidate in the future? How many homeowners are 3, 4 or 5 lots from a commercial district? It remains to be seen how many council members will support this proposal.

This isn’t about parking for the little league games that go on at Edwards park throughout the summer. It’s a short sighted move for the city, an in-your-face violation of a currant ordinance and an easy out for a property owner who has countless long standing code violations on his properties. There’s no real economic advantage for the city. It will reduce the quality of life for my family, and it will reduce our property value. The precedent that such a move sets could jeopardize the same for other residents in the future. Urban living isn’t always easy, but it’d be better if the residents could feel confident that council and the planning department had a broader vision, or at least were willing to abide by their own ordinances. Rest assured if the discussion were about some real community development with an interest in the preservation of the historic property in question, you probably couldn’t find two more supportive residents than my husband and me.

[Grace O'Malley]

I agree.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, allowing three parcels to raze the buildings currently standing on them will devalue the property and lower the property tax collections on the three parcels.

What will this cost the schools and the city? Has anyone bothered to calculate this loss?

[Kenneth Warren]

Lisa:

I am quite ignorant about the facts and process of this case. I am neither a barfly nor a preservationist. Yet your post raises a number of red flags for me as a Lakewood citizen and neighbor.

While some in our community are very interested in creating additional parking in our city, and some in expanding a grand entertainment zone for barflys from Strongsville, I glean from your post a highly compelling ethical and normative point about the values we permit to inform development in our city.

Clearly there is an ethical and normative choice our city government faces when rewarding a property owner who allows properties to deteriorate over time in the expectation of advancing another development opportunity.

That’s one way to blight the city. Create the destruction needed to effect the new creation.

Ah yes, the creative/destructive cycle of capitalism.

Typically we establish our grub stake, place our bets and capitulate to the cycle. Few communities, given the individualist premise in real estate property gain, can resist the class warfare that plays out in space. Is Lakewood any different? How does Lakewood differentiate, create values? What is the political will in force here? Do we know?

In university neighborhoods, the willful neglect of properties to advance another use is actually what universities will do in order to push their way eventually into the new creation.

I do realize the short-term pragmatic choice to obtain more parking will dictate another reading for Chamber of Commerce types easily sold on a short term fix.

Speaking personally, I find that choice objectionable, especially if what you are stating is so in the case of an owner who “thumbed their nose at city housing codes and have allowed their properties to deteriorate.â€Â￾

I would expect a careful review of all the dimensions- ethical, normative – that inform this decision.

That said, you spotlight a critical set of choices for Lakewood, given the age and actual conditions of property in our city, choices we are likely to face again and again over the next two decades.

Should citizens and public officials be willing to support a vision for parking that would forego the ethical and normative dimensions that must inform any proper public/private partnership in this inner ring suburb, then we are selling our city to those interests that would allow the slow grind capital and time to destroy habitable properties and neighborhoods in order to create opportunity for opportunists.

In the situation suggested by your post, it appears there is a special interest holding no special interest in the ethical and normative values that our government bureaucracy is expected to uphold.

I thought housing and enforcement were key elements in the Grow Lakewood Report.

Again, you raise not only the matter fairness in the enforcement of codes but also the issue of behavioral conditioning of property owners by the government bureaucracy.

Is this the type of behavior among property owners that the city government is planning to reward?

That’s a very slippery moral slope for our city.

Kenneth Warren

[Stephen Calhoun]

I get the impression that a lot goes on behind the scenes.

Who's the councilperson for the location? Post name and phone number here?

What does the drill down into matters ethical reveal when said representative is compelled by an activated citizenry to show their cards?

The above board dialog happens here, but the activated citizen should know that there needs to be any number of feet held to the civic intelligence fire.

***

There's a clash of norms afoot. Yet, it seems to be incumbent upon the engaged--here--that the action move from the Deck to (get) behind those closed doors.

I sustain this impression after 9 months: there are in Lakewood private and political 'powers that be' and they are mostly predisposed to wait out all the gnashing and wailing of an aroused citizenry because the engaged citizens have not yet figured out how to screw in the red hot screw of inquiry where it has the most leverage.

Well, this would be another kind of destruction and creation. Destroy the smug and secretive 'ethics' AND destroy the passivity unable to speak truth directly to 'power'.

So: what says the councilperson(s), Lakewood Alive, the mayor, the bar owners, the local residents? How do you get people to show their cards?

[lisa shaffer-gill]

Kevin Butler is the council person for this ward. He helped to organize a meeting of "interested parties." To date there have been two such meetings at the planning department attended by Kevin Butler, Nikkie Antonnio, Tom Jordan and Dryck Bennett of the planning department, a representative of the law department, I believe Brian Corrigan, two neighboring property owners and another party willing to be involved in repair and maintanence of hall house. Absent from both meetings has been the current property owner. He seems willing to communicate only with the planning department, despite attempts by at least two separate parties to discuss the issue with him.

The issues of a parking lot can seem mundane. If you don't take the time to be informed it might seem pretty clear cut. "We need it, we want it, rip them houses down!" Issues like property value, consolodation of property lots and how city codes are valued, setting precendent about the people with whom you do buisiness and appease with taxpayer money, all take more time and interest to educate yourself about. Most people simply don't see that it applies to them until it's their back yard.
The council people mentioned have been great about sitting at the table, but as I stated earlier, it remains to be seen how they vote. It seems that citizens need to show up at the next 3 council meetings. The first is Monday at 7:30. Council needs to hear people express themselves about these issues. They need to hear the larger concerns. Those are the people that have the power to address them. If enough people show up, that might at least begin to warm the screw. And leverage--that would be at the voting booth.

[Kenneth Warren]

Lisa:

You again raise an important points of interest to all citizens about how our city advances the effective and fair application of norms to property, development, and owners.

Do you have any additional details concerning what the Planning Department is dealing the owner to effect new parking creation?

Is the building department situated - if at all - as a happy or unhappy camper at the table that creates new parking from properties that drew their authority and that the owner neglected?

Any word on how the building department regards the emergent remedy to nuisance properties?

Is the parking matter a simple variance? Does the matter end there?

Or will more deal-making/incentives continue between the owner and planning department for the sake of parking and or development?

Is there any city money going into a public/private parking partnership?

Any word from Lakewod Alive on this issue? Are you a member?

Kenneth Warren

[Jim O'Bryan]

It would seem the building department can't get in contact with him. He has dozens of citations against both homes, and they never seem to get him in court. Funny thing I was threatened with court for a garage door that needed paint!

I have to side with Ken. Where is the justice if the rumors are true? A property owner thumbs his nose at City Hall, the courts, the building department, and then get rewarded.

But I can see why McCarthy's needs the parking. Police called there 5 times last night. All were fights. Many groups fighting in the parking lot and bar. Stan was fight was two girls that were letting fists fly. So not only will we get to pay for the lot, thee homes, but also the added emergency calls.

.

[Kenneth Warren]

While I tried to feature the ethical, normative issues about fairness and enforcement in codes, Jim raises another point of community concern about the police drain, security blowback and neighborhood after- effects overflowing from the “cheap ass beerâ€Â￾ bar business model setting up shop in Lakewood.

Many say bars are all that are suited to Lakewood’s old retail buildings. Bars create jobs, pay taxes (how much is actually on the books and generated to support city services?), and are therefore better than empty storefronts. I am not so sure such answers have plunged the city's potential deeply enough.

It seems clear to me that given the influx of underclass wanderers on Detroit in combination with inebriated Strongsville barflies multiple accidents are waiting to happen in the “Flats Lightâ€Â￾ district. In my estimation the combustible nightlife mix does nothing for the Lakewood Brand.

A month ago, I visited the district with Dan Slife to catch the menacing, inebriated pulse around 1:30 a.m.on a Saurday night. It was not a pretty sight to see a stumbling and depressed generation in its cups ready to rumble. When young men can’t connect with young women, the “cheap ass beerâ€Â￾ inspires them to throw punches. T’was ever thus.

I would suggest that decision-makers check out the scene in prime time, speak frankly with the police officers to assess the costs, needs, requirements and unintended consequences that flow from the expansion of parking in this district now supporting the “cheap ass beerâ€Â￾ business model.

Kenneth Warren

[Suzanne Metelko]

This is just another example of the tension and to some extent chaos that ensues when trying to operate in a vision vacuum. Without the vision, mission and plan to develop Lakewood and without engaging the community to understand the wants and needs of who lives here vs who owns here vs those who live and own here, this will continue to happen and I predict it will escalate.

Is "cheap ass beer" with big paved parking lots the business model or community model that Lakewood residents are envisioning? Do we believe we can build a sustainable community economy using that model?

Housing values are slowing; wages are stagnating. When is someone gong to ask "where do we want to be in five, ten, fifty years" ? And more than that, when do we ACT on the question?

In this instance the homeowners in the area are up against it. Who wants to live next to abstentee property owners who don't keep up the property and don't show up when discussions of this type take place. From the minute that this guy blew off the first meeting...the discussion was over.

Remember, there is more than one way to skin a cat and if frustration takes over we're going to end with more knee jerk legislation, a business out of business, and another piece of vacant property.

[Stephen Calhoun]

A week before Ken and Dan did their anthropological walk, Ken and I walked down Madison from Birdtown to past Elmwood. We wondered out loud about the sorting mechanics of the Madison nightlife. This is to wonder how microcultures are sorted variously: bars capture different and distinct groups. For example, in peaking in the doorways we could see some bars on this night expressed capture of largely male clienteles, or were more mixed; were more busy and dynamic; and, overall, seemed to sort by gender, age cohort, purpose, (etc.).

Later Ken made a further inquiry which revealed via other experienced witnesses that similar sorting functions exist on Detroit. very generally, Detroit was more upscale in certain bar locations, older, and more congenial in specific locations to the influx of persons from elsewhere.

The drill down in this nascent inquiry peels back layers which soon go beyond mere economic qualification. For example, what is the appeal of the change in consciousness drinking causes? Alcohol is a medication; what does it mean that Lakewood provides so many opportunities to medicate microculture clienteles?

What does this have to do with anxiety? Class anxieties? Working class anxieties? Where does this mix elaborate important features of the "affectual ecology" of Lakewood?

In putting our inquiry in these-no doubt-somewhat abstract terms, we see what the beginning of a deep drill down has to do with the complicated collective human nature of a city. Furthermore, the inquiry's purpose is to
make the city more intelligible; this anthropology is about coming to know Lakewood deeply.

***

The entrepreneurial business cycle is dynamic. The householder 'economic' business cycle is dynamic too. Yet, deeper down, at the level of 'affect,' thus at the level of how persons feel about living and being in Lakewood, one of the vectors of analysis regards the congruence between business and household.

Lakewood has long provided a place to medicate the anxiety caused by fragile householder circumstances. So this drill down drills into the psychological circumstances of Lakewood. It quickly asserts an experience, description, interpretation, analysis beyond surface features, and beyond 'economics'.

Still, just as the one normative frame refers to economic development, (and in a strong sense refers to a quasi-zero sum framework-winners win at the expense of losers,) the deeper normative frame(s) touch upon the psychological features of the city.

Civic intelligence is unleashed to instantiate depth of knowing. This is a double-edged prospect.

Ken.

In my estimation the combustible nightlife mix does nothing for the Lakewood Brand.

Lakewood, The city where one comes to medicate their socio-economic anxiety. The concrete double edge, to the side of longstanding cultural features, economically ramified, psychologized, would describe a deep history of a working class city, the densely populated Lakewood, that has long had an equally dense bar scene. In fact, to the observant outsider, the number and variety of bars is astonishing. (There's no other word for it.) Also, to the urban researcher, the reasons for this, told through the history of Lakewood's classes, work and home life, through its churches, through families begun and ravaged, through dynamics of public safety and private insecurity, are, must be, fascinating.

This research, as previously mentioned, gets underneath economics. It has to: it's a cultural critique and only one of its frames of reference is the history of Lakewood in the context of the dynamicism of manufacturing-based economics, the four decade 'fall from grace,' and Lakewood's optimal location to catch and hold the anxious and the insecure--to catch and hold the non-competitive and obsolete cast-offs of the brutal 'capitalism' and its 'cultural contradictions'.

***

Lisa, thanks for the update on meetings and the involvement of specific players. What remains interesting to me is how deeply the problem solving process will go.

***

Over the next 2-5 years my guess is that public safety and psychological safety will blend and go to the top of the list of concerns of the city that is grappling with the problem of knowing itself.

[Suzanne Metelko]

"beyond 'economics'. "


Stephen,

For the decades that I have lived in Lakewood, all that you have asserted may have been true. However, the luxury of time that the depth of analysis you describe requires, was as result of the 'economics' of Lakewood.

In the past ten years, the delicate economic balance that has been the key to Lakewood's unique existance has been tampered with. We've always known that tipping it to one side or another would result in a community that would be significantly different than the community of the past fifty years. That has happened and it is manifesting itself in a myriad of ways.

Economics is vital to the quality of life in Lakewood. I'm happy to have the analysis and drill down but at some point we have to act. Who are the leaders? What is the plan? The clock is ticking.

[dl meckes]

Alcohol is a medication; what does it mean that Lakewood provides so many opportunities to medicate microculture clienteles?

So if I want to go out & meet friends or hang with the hubster and we have a couple of bevs, you're suggesting we're medicating our anxiety?

Some people hang out in the local pubs because it's fun.

You can't understand the nature of local pubs (and get the full effect of the social microcosms) enough to pass analytical judgement by peeking in the windows & hypothesizing.

[Stephen Calhoun]

Joan.

However, the luxury of time that the depth of analysis you describe was as result of the 'economics' of Lakewood.

A couple points. I can't see that the primary deterministic 'force' is economic unless 'economics' is equivalent to the hard wired biological urge to survive to see tomorrow. But, I don't see it this way, and cannot see it this way by virture of my, at least, prejudices.

Second point. I have the luxury of time and have had the luxury of time since I was 13 years old.

***

The point of drilling down, is to integrate knowledge with problem solving procedures. My personal sense here is also prejudiced too. I recognize that deep knowledge can be very unhelpful and actually work against problem solving in well-understood cases in specific domains. You don't want the airline pilot to wrestle with psychology when the engine flames out.

This said, even at the level of economics, the situation, a given situation, is very complicated. Economics is entangled with other domains. To give economics primacy and then to presume it isn't entangled with these other domains, is one reason 'our' materialism is so grim and is, for many, anxiety-making.

***

If the citizenry becomes smarter, more intelligent leadership will emerge.

This is a hypothesis slowly being implemented in Lakewood. Normally cities are run by elites.

Any deficit in leadership, to me, is in the context of what kind of elite is evoked by the citizenry. This, in turn, describes a knotty and complicated problem. It's akin to asking: 'who gets to lead?' This is a question concerned with conditions 'on the ground'.

My own sense is that, yes, time is a problem, and, no, one has to take the time to contest the self-selection of the elites who 'rule'.

Lakewood isn't a city with a satisfying equilibrium be it realized in economic or affectual terms. Problems ripple strongly today and the question of leadership regards how profoundly (or smartly,) the understanding of those ripples is among the current elite leadership.

The implied questions in this, and I am asking, are very very hard questions.