Historic Lakewood House teardown?

The jumping off discussion area for the rest of the Deck. All things Lakewood.
Please check out our other sections. As we refile many discussions from the past into
their proper sections please check them out and offer suggestions.

Moderator: Jim O'Bryan

Stephen Calhoun
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: NEO
Contact:

Post by Stephen Calhoun »

Dl.

Tis a heck of a way to read the obvious.

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?


I didn't suggest this, did I? Let me state the obvious and note alcohol is a substance that effects brain chemistry. If one uses it to feel one way, and not the other way, then one is taking advantage of its neurological effects. As well, this would plug into other factors such as the environment, who's in one's company, etc.

As in:

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


In some cases fun alone is an apt response to anxiety. But, I didn't say anxiety drives all behavior.

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.


I began an inquiry. Any judgments at the beginning of inquiries are extremely tentative, especially in comparison to what remain tentative judgments later on when there is more data.

However, DL, as a person who brings a lot of chops to bear upon even the nascent stage of inquiry, I may elaborate my sensing in both florid and alien terms, but I, nevertheless, am a careful researcher who understands (my) generalizations at the beginning always will yield to the finer grain discovered later on.

I don't think I've asserted anything-on the face of it-dead wrong. It could be dead wrong, on the other hand.

Buckle up.
Charyn Varkonyi

Post by Charyn Varkonyi »

Stephen:

I may restate any number of things in the hopes understanding what you have written. Several of your points are unclear to me and I would like to understand them in simpler, less ethereal, terms. On the face of them I disagree quite heartily with several of your comments so I will add my own commentary along the way. Please understand that I am responding to what I currently understand your point to be. If am incorrect in my assumptions or my understanding, please let me know.
_________________________________

quote: "Alcohol is a medication; what does it mean that Lakewood provides so many opportunities to medicate micro culture clienteles?"

I understand this statement; however, I feel the question is flawed by the used of the term medicated in its connotative form rather than in its literal form. Obviously to medicate is to treat with medicine - but medicine is truthfully defined as: "a substance or preparation used in treating disease" which would not be an accurate description of beverages that contain alcohol.

Nevertheless alcohol does have medicinal qualities; therefore, I believe that despite the fact that beverages that contain alcohol are clearly not a medicine, you have used this term connotatively to suggest that they are being used to 'treat' something, thus segueing into the suggestion that the prevalence of bars in Lakewood are suggestive of a larger socio-economic problem.
Is not the better question: "Does number of bars (which should be better defined IMHO) per capita correlate the socio-economic condition of a (this) community?"

Differently stated - shouldn't we establish that there is a causal relationship, and what that relationship is, before we try to understand its implications?

_____________________________________

quote: "Lakewood has long provided a place to medicate the anxiety caused by fragile householder circumstances."

Are you referring to your previous assertion that the nature and purpose of the bars in Lakewood is to 'medicate'? And have we established that the source of the aforementioned 'anxiety' is "Fragile householder circumstances"? It would be an interesting study to understand the demographics of Lakewoodites going to the bars, and how those numbers truly correlate to the number of persons feeling a heavy level of stress as well as the source of the stress.

For example(s): The 22 y/o on spring break does not necessarily suffer from these circumstances or significant amounts of stress but may go out every night, the lawyer does not necessarily have 'fragile' circumstances' but may have a HUGE amount of anxiety and go to the bar every night, the single mom may suffer from extremely difficult circumstances and huge amounts of stress and may never step foot in a bar.

How do our number of people going to the bar compare demographically to the number of people in another community (like Parma, or Westlake, or Cleveland Heights, etc.) going to the bar? I hypothesize that there will be little, of any, difference in most instances. In my personal opinion I think you generalized to quickly and too easily without even the benefit of an established hypothesis beyond your own socio-political agenda.

_____________________________________________

quote: "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 virtue of my, at least, prejudices."

I appreciate your willingness to admit and view your statements within the context of your own prejudices! That is (IMHO) one of the hallmarks of an ethical researcher.

I would urge you to to to step outside of your box on this and take the time to understand the relationship of economics to the 'hard wired urge to survive.' For many Ohioans (and this is an OHIO problem folks - not just a Lakewood problem) their economics are centered around simple survival. (I will post a few interesting facts on another thread to support this assertion.)

My point being - economics IS a primary deterministic force for many people - a point that should be kept well in mind should you decide to embark upon any formal research of this subject matter.

______________________________________

quote: "Any judgments at the beginning of inquiries are extremely tentative"

This is perhaps why I responded... because after all that - it appeared to me as if you were then stating the equivalent of "Well, I was just tossing out some random thoughts" Your former posts, however, were written with an air of authority and in an assertive nature that would lead a reader with the impression that you, as a researcher, held these posits to be hard fact. Obviously, this is only my observation; however, I don't think that I am necessarily alone in it.

_________________________________

Lastly, Ken Warren states: "In my estimation the combustible nightlife mix does nothing for the Lakewood Brand. "

I don't know that I could agree with this statement at this time (other than the combustible part). I think that a vibrant nightlife could be a wonderful asset to a city and to discount its value would be a shame. No, at my age I no longer go out in the way I did when I was in my early twenties - but just because I don't use those facilities doesn't mean that I think they shouldn't exist. I simply feel it is imperative that we find an equilibrium that will allow our city to grow along ALL age groups.

JMO

Peace,
~Charyn
Mazie Adams
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:48 am
Location: 14710 Lake Avenue
Contact:

Monday March 20 Council Meeting

Post by Mazie Adams »

The Lakewood Historical Society was surprised to see on tonight's docket a letter from the Department of Planning & Development requesting the City to expend $150,000 and enter into a development agreement with the current property owner to construct a 44 space parking lot. The construction of this lot requires the demolition of the three residential properties. This is the first of three readings.

If you are concerned about the demolition of these properties please make your voice heard. Tonight's meeting is at 7:30. The full docket is available at the city's website. This particular request is on pages 55-58. Contact your council person with your concerns about this project.
Mazie Adams
Executive Director
Lakewood Historical Society
Lynn Farris
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:24 pm
Location: Lakewood, Ohio
Contact:

Post by Lynn Farris »

We definately need parking in the West End. Both McCarthy's and O'Malleys are very popular with the younger crowd. The problems that have been caused by people parking up and down the street in a residential neighborhood are amazing. They occur here to with Harry Buffalo, the West End and Around the Corner Bar. Drunks are yelling, urinating and vomiting on people's lawns at 2:30 a.m. It makes sense to contain them. And I know many fine people visit these establishments and act responsibly - but there are those who don't.

But why is the city buying this?. Mickey Krivosh, owner of Around the Corner Bar has paid his own money to buy a lot for his patrons. Harry Buffalo, rents space from us and from Bonnie Bell. Why is he getting special treatment - or is he? Let's say that the net profit on a glass of beer is 50%. Then they have to sell an additional $75,000 to compete. If beer is priced at $2.00 a bottle - that is 37,500 more bottles - that is a lot of beer to be competitive. (Okay, my numbers may be off, but you get the point.)

Are we playing favorites and helping some bars to the detriment of others? And are the ones we are helping the ones we really want to help?

So we will be making less in property tax by eliminating the structure and less income tax by getting rid of some residents. We will also be losing an historical home which is in pretty bad shape, that no one seems to have the money to fix up.

I have serious reservations about Lakewood Citizens paying to help a bar, when last week we were discussing getting rid of recycling education to help the budget. My reservations are much less if McCarthy's picks up the tab.
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." ~ George Carlin
Mazie Adams
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:48 am
Location: 14710 Lake Avenue
Contact:

Hall House

Post by Mazie Adams »

In fact, there is a very interested party willing to put in the time, effort and money to renovate the Mathew Hall house.
Mazie Adams
Executive Director
Lakewood Historical Society
Stephen Calhoun
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: NEO
Contact:

Post by Stephen Calhoun »

Charyn.

Great post in response to my own. I'll place the reply in the topic LAKEWOOD & LIQUOR.

One thing-understand the sense of ethereal, yet, to me, it's concrete. :roll:
Lynn Farris
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:24 pm
Location: Lakewood, Ohio
Contact:

Post by Lynn Farris »

Ms. Adams,

Can we do both?

Can they sell the historic home to the interested party that wants to restore it and can we still allow McCarthy's to buy their own parking in the other 2 lots, or is the historic building situated in such a way to not allow this to work?

Lynn
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." ~ George Carlin
Mazie Adams
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:48 am
Location: 14710 Lake Avenue
Contact:

Post by Mazie Adams »

The Historical Society is interested in exploring all options for saving the house, including moving it to another location. This would allow for the preservation of the house and the development of parking.
Mazie Adams
Executive Director
Lakewood Historical Society
Mazie Adams
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:48 am
Location: 14710 Lake Avenue
Contact:

Council Meeting March 27

Post by Mazie Adams »

Lakewood City Council will discuss the fate of the historic Mathew Hall house at the next Committee of the Whole meeting on Monday, March 27 from 6-7 p.m. at City Hall (ask the guard for the room assignment). The commitee will discuss the proposed development that would demolish three houses for a parking lot on Detroit near Edwards.

There will ba a public comment period.
Mazie Adams
Executive Director
Lakewood Historical Society
Tom Jordan
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:21 pm

Potential Public Parking Lot Near Edwards and Detroit

Post by Tom Jordan »

As many of you are aware, the Department of Planning and Development (“Planning and Developmentâ€Â￾) introduced an ordinance seeking the authority to enter into a development agreement and allocate $150,000 toward the construction of a new public parking lot near the corner of Edwards and Detroit. To help clarify any misunderstandings, Planning and Development authored this entry to fully explain its motivations to assist with the creation of a public parking lot.

Planning and Development understands and appreciates the concerns stated by Lakewood residents on these pages. The City of Lakewood is an urban built-out community in which the commercial abuts residential properties. This connectivity makes Lakewood a unique and wonderful place to live. However, friction between residents and commercial property owners is bound to occur in this situation. Parking issues are unavoidable with any development project in Lakewood. Planning and Development is very sensitive to these issues but still must balance the needs of the commercial establishments with those of the residents.

The introduction of the ordinance is just the beginning of the process. The parking lot would still need to be designed and approved through the City’s Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board. Each of these boards are comprised of residents. For this reason, all care will be taken to provide proper screening between the parking lot and the adjacent neighbors. Due to existing City laws, the particular property that many are concerned about will still be provided a 180-day period before any demolition can occur after the passage of this ordinance. In the interim, Planning and Development has met with community members especially the Lakewood Historical Society and will continue to do so to attempt to address their concerns about the potential parking lot.

The Need for New Parking in This Area

Parking in Lakewood is a constant issue. The Planning and Development staff recently completed a Parking Study of the City that identified this area as having the worst parking problem. In this area, the City operates one parking lot located approximately a quarter of a mile down Detroit Avenue across the street from the Beck Center next to Cronies Bar. This lot only contains 25 spaces and sees high use during dinner hours. The few private lots located in the area between Granger and Edwards Avenues along Detroit were continually at capacity during the study. Planning and Development staff observed a significant increase in on-street parking during evening and weekend hours.

The Need for City Involvement

Mr. Coutris could possibly construct at least a portion of this parking lot without any City financial involvement. He would be required to provide a drawings of the proposed use for approval by the Architectural Board of Review during which officials of the City will continue to engage in negotiations with the owner in an effort to address all concerns. However, if this were not accomplished within 180 days a demolition permit would be issued for the affected properties.

The City in its Memorandum of Understanding negotiated that Mr. Coutris offer the Hall House in its entirety to the Historical Society free of charge. The City also paid for an estimate to move the house. The Historical Society was asked to identify a location and, most importantly, an end use that will keep it maintained. To assist it with these tasks, Planning and Development staff continues to meet with it and other community members. If the parking lot proposal does not move forward, there is no viable plan to maintain the property at its existing location.

If Mr. Coutris were to construct this lot without any City financial involvement, it would be a private lot for his use. By becoming involved, the City ensures that this lot will be able to be used by all the businesses in the area and the patrons of Edward’s Park as well as the new YMCA for overflow parking.

The $150,000 expenditure represents the most cost effective manner to construct a 44 space parking lot in this area of high need. Mr. Coutris is contributing to the development because he will need to retire several mortgages totaling over $150,000 on the properties that will no longer offer him any revenue. Working with Mr. Coutris saves the City the cost of acquiring the land from him or the high acquisition costs to construct a similar lot elsewhere in the area.

The City believes that the owner of the property with his background in construction can efficiently construct this parking lot. It is not that uncommon for the City to allow a property owner to manage the construction of public improvements on his property as it has with Rockport and other development projects. If Council desires that the City manage the construction of this parking lot, the City can do so without any impact to the budget.

The Terms of the City’s Involvement

The $150,000 expenditure is structured more as loan than as a grant. After the lot is constructed, through the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, Mr. Coutris will own the land and the City will lease it from him at a very minimal to the City ($1 a year). The City will maintain the lot and pay all taxes. It will be allowed to place meters on the lot to pay for these costs and to repay the $150,000 used for construction. Once the $150,000 debt is retired, Mr. Coutris and the City will split the profits and taxes on a 50/50 basis.

The City does pay property taxes on revenue generating properties. It will pay property tax on the new parking lot but perhaps at a lower level. The City will also generate revenue from the parking lot because it will be metered. Perhaps most importantly, the long-term viability of the remaining commercial structures in the area will also be addressed because they will have nearby, public parking.

For these reasons, the Planning and Development Department believes that any lost taxes would be very negligible. It is more than likely that the City will earn more from the lot than currently is paid in taxes.

Other Stated Concerns

Every public parking lot in the City assists private entities in the same manner that Mr. Coutris and the other businesses in the area will benefit. There is an additional public benefit beyond parking and removing cars from the streets. Part of the issues in this particular area occurs because cars are parked along side streets providing a large geographic area to police. By removing many of these cars from the street into a well lit parking lot, the City is providing police a much smaller geographic area to patrol making misbehavior much more difficult. Because the cars are located in a parking lot, it creates more activity in that smaller area making it more socially difficult to engage in unfortunate and childish actions.

Mr. Coutris has made a significant investment in the interiors of the properties that are the subject of the development agreement before Council. He also owns multiple properties in Lakewood and is one of our community’s larger landlords. The Department of Building and Housing has inspected all these properties within the last two years. It is our understanding that the only properties that Mr. Coutris currently has outstanding building code violations are the subject of the Development Agreement before Council. Mr. Coutris could continue his renovations and rent out the properties. However, he discontinued the renovation process once he began working the City to address the parking issues in the area.

Planning Development hopes this information will allow for a more informed discussion of the pertinent issues as the project moves through the legislative process.
Paul Schrimpf
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:37 am

Re: Historic Lakewood House teardown?

Post by Paul Schrimpf »

My wife and I were biking home last night and we came across this painful memory ... at least for anyone who appreciates historic preservation. Anyway, it made me go back and look at the Deck thread that led up to the demolition of the Matthew C Hall House which stood, admittedly in need of much help, in the back of this lot.

[img][attachment=0]20160725_210234.jpg[/attachment][/img]

I remember testifying at City Hall, imploring the council to do something to save it. I remember Tom Jordan's disdain for those who spoke out, and the thread immediately proceeding this one, making the case for the need for bar parking.

Almost 10 years have passed. Where's the lot, Mr. Jordan? Oh yes, you, and the house, are long gone. Thanks for coming.

Of course, we can't forget Angelo Coutris, who may be an otherwise lovely person but who could not be bothered with saving this piece of history so a burnt out weed field could be created and celebrated.

OK, I've had my rant ... onward ...
Attachments
20160725_210234.jpg
20160725_210234.jpg (1.96 MiB) Viewed 1860 times
Bridget Conant
Posts: 2896
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:22 pm

Re: Historic Lakewood House teardown?

Post by Bridget Conant »

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

It is so typical. Arrogant planning director, ineffective council members that need to be told how to vote, and a disregard for the residents. Sounds so familiar.

An empty lot. Same as the Sloane property that was supposed to be "The Cliffs" - promised an upscale development - 10 years later still an empty lot.

How long will the hospital property sit empty?
Lori Allen _
Posts: 2550
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:37 pm

Re: Historic Lakewood House teardown?

Post by Lori Allen _ »

City Hall should really get into the bulldozer business. They seem to love to tear down anything they can get their hands on.

With this sudden craze with bulldozers and demolition and then selling the vacant lots to the City of Lakewood, city employees, or the mayor's friends, it almost sounds like an addiction. Perhaps they should seek group therapy! :D

More to come on this later.
T Peppard
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:49 am

Re:

Post by T Peppard »

DougHuntingdon wrote:I would be willing to donate to help tear it down. Finally, someone allegedly wants to create parking--something we desperately need.

Doug
I live on Edwards Avenue. My children spend a great deal of time at Edwards park, which lies directly across from the proposed parking lot. While parking may be an issue, I would prefer to preserve something of historical significance. What about Relief Properties... isn't that part of their mission, to preserve our beautiful & historic homes?

There is plenty of space in front of that home to add parking.

In addition, there is yet another VAPE store that just moved in around the corner from the park. I would be happy to see that torn down to open a few parking places.
Paul Schrimpf
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:37 am

Re: Historic Lakewood House teardown?

Post by Paul Schrimpf »

Clarification ... the house here is not in danger, there was a small homestead on this spot built originally by Matthew C Hall, part of one of the earliest settling families in the city. ... you can find his grave in Lakeview Cemetery. Anyway, after many discussions and debate, even attempts to get it moved to a new location, it got razed in 2006. Adding parking was the reason/excuse, but here we are 10 years later staring at dead grass.
Post Reply