Tim Liston's development post

[cmager]

Since reading these posts, I've been wondering how the Lakewood City Center (Marc's shopping center) came about. I was here at that time, but not aware of the various development shenanigans. What was the original concept? How did it become what it is? And who was behind it? It seems to me that it stands as a cautionary monument to the wrong way to "improve" Lakewood, but I don't know the back story.

MetroHealth wanted to build a family health center at that site prior to the the "Marc's concept", but the Clinic and City Hall blocked them and sent them away.

Mr. Essi, are you serious about MetroHealth and a proposed FHC at Marc's? Or are you practicing the new art of alternative facts?

[Brian Essi]

Since reading these posts, I've been wondering how the Lakewood City Center (Marc's shopping center) came about. I was here at that time, but not aware of the various development shenanigans. What was the original concept? How did it become what it is? And who was behind it? It seems to me that it stands as a cautionary monument to the wrong way to "improve" Lakewood, but I don't know the back story.

MetroHealth wanted to build a family health center at that site prior to the the "Marc's concept", but the Clinic and City Hall blocked them and sent them away.

Mr. Essi, are you serious about MetroHealth and a proposed FHC at Marc's? Or are you practicing the new art of alternative facts?

These facts come from respected doctors. It was well before Marc's was built and talk of the hospital closing.

In fact, Summers' sworn testimony reveals that Metro was interested in a family health center at the former Fairchild Chevy dealership property---apparently before Summers conducted the sham bidding process inside LHA's closets.

[Dan Alaimo]

I'll buy that. The desire to keep "those people" out of Lakewood is not new.

But how did a tract of land in the very center of our city, at the most prominent intersection, become a strip shopping center with a poorly conceived parking lot in front unlike the rest of the nearby stores with parking in the back, with Marc's (a solid local company that does a lot of good, but as a deep discount store is out of place in the center of the city) as an anchor?

[Dan Alaimo]

To add a bit to my comments:
This relates to the gentrification theme in that I'll bet that somewhere along the line in the discussions leading to Lakewood City Center, a tenant list was proposed that looked more like Crocker Park than what we have now, and how that would help turn Lakewood upscale. (And I'll note that I patronize 4-5 of the current stores there now on a pretty regular basis.)
Also it resembles the comments that Tim Liston, former Mayor George, and myself made about how urban renewal efforts often result in exactly this kind of development that looks for awhile and then deteriorates - see the shopping carts obstructing the sidewalk in front of Marc's.
As we look ahead to the development of the hospital property, it would be helpful to learn what what we can from this earlier situation which predates the civic involvement of many of us, perhaps former Mayor George, and maybe even JOB.

[Bill Call]

A job I had years ago required a lot of travel around the Country. Many of the smaller towns had downtown areas that were "redeveloped". Redevelopment invariably meant tearing down any building with any character or historical significance and replacing it with brutalist architecture that had the look and feel of a low security prison.

The saddest example was in Savannah Georgia:

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/savannah

Since all roads lead to the Lakewood Hospital debate:

One of the many excuses given for the destruction of Lakewood Hospital was that the land had "development" potential. One of the ideas was a City owned recreation center. When people ridiculed the idea one supporter of the Mayor said that the recreation center was one of many ideas brought up in numerous brainstorming sessions.

Of course my first thoughts were:

who was involved in these sessions,

when were they held,

why where they kept secret and how long ago did they began

and who attended

and what other ideas were developed?

No answers to those questions.

Never has a field been so well ploughed with no result since Queen Elizabeth first.

What if?

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index ... ing_1.html

[Bridget Conant]

And how are those residential apartment units coming along? They were supposed to start work in 2016?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.clevelan ... ent=safari

[Tim Liston]

Selling a city to prospective residents is not rocket science. It’s Marketing 101 with a little arithmetic tossed in, that all. An urban studies or public policy background would be helpful but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to the task of city planning and marketing.

When you’re selling something, anything (clothing, cars, dental care, a city in which to live), you have to be one of two things. You either (1) have to be the low-cost provider, or (2) you have to have what the marketers call a viable USP, a unique sales proposition. Having a good USP beats the pants off being a low-cost provider because (1) a good USP supports higher profit margins, and (2) in theory anyways there is room for only one low-cost provider.

Cities, when trying to attract residents, of course have to play the hand they’re dealt. And Lakewood was dealt a darn good hand, one that it historically hasn’t blown (not like Huron did). That’s why my wife and I moved here. We liked the inner-ring character in particular, the older homes and storefronts, the feel of Detroit/Madison, the retro nuances, all that. We wanted the closeness to downtown Cleveland. And we liked the lakefront setting. Way back then (early 80’s) we had recently lived in a couple near-north Chicago neighborhoods so we knew how that “felt” and what we liked.

Well guess what? Those characteristics I just mentioned, they’re all viable USPs. And they’re probably Lakewood’s most noteworthy USPs. Repeating, Lakewood offers, more or less uniquely (1) an inner-ring character, with the older architecture and the feel of Detroit/Madison (and their inherent walkability/bikeability), (2) closeness to downtown Cleveland (by car/bus/bike/Uber), and (3) a lakefront setting. Back then when we moved here, and even today still, there is virtually no competition in NEO for a similar living experience. Plus Lakewood public schools are not a detriment.

Now, I’d guess that maybe 5% to 10% of everyone would like to live the way we live here in Lakewood. That’s close enough for discussion. Even 5% is a very sufficient following to make Lakewood’s USP quite viable. Think about it (back of the napkin arithmetic time). There are what, three million people or so in Cuyahoga and immediately surrounding? 5% of that is 150,000. 150,000 people competing to live here would (has?) moved property values up, or at least keep them stable. Even though other aspects of Lakewood life are on a modest decline (services, quality of housing stock, etc., but that stuff is declining in lots of places, it’s endemic to cities these days).

Really, there is only one Lakewood here in NEO. The other inner-ring communities have serious issues, none are as close to Cleveland and most (except Euclid) are not on the lake.

Now here’s the thing: EVERY DECISION LAKEWOOD PLANNERS MAKE HAS TO CONSIDER WHETHER AND HOW IT ENHANCES OR DETRACTS FROM LAKEWOOD’S USP. EVERY SINGLE DECISION. Does doing this (whatever “this” is) lever a USP? Does it make Lakewood even more unique and better in ways other communities cannot match?

That said, a lot of important decisions and policy choices have no such bearing. Like safety, snow removal, trash collection, stuff like that. Those are mundane. The hospital? Sure, its closure will have a huge impact on Lakewood’s tax base for many years, but closing it does not really bear significantly on Lakewood’s USP and honestly it won’t enter into the thought process of most people considering Lakewood for their next home (But Bridget is right, the FHC building is hideous! How do you even consider letting something like that get built in the heart of Lakewood?). Discounting the jobs, a hospital in Lakewood is little more important than a Home Depot. Sorry. A well-thought-out FHC is probably just as useful at attracting new residents. Maybe more useful. (But I’ll add this. The process by which the hospital was closed just plain sucked.)

Some other notes and takeaways particularly with respect to recently-debated items and how they impact Lakewood’s salability….

1…. I think losing our circulators was at least as big of a loss as the hospital closure, maybe more. It was a great leveraging of our USP. But losing the circulator didn’t even elicit a yawn. If I were planning for Lakewood it would be on the drawing board tomorrow. MLGA baby! As regards leveraging Lakewood’s important assets and demographics goes, the circulator had it all.

2…. Bag on the Solstice Steps all you want. It was money very well-spent. The Solstice Steps enhance our lakefront and lakefront park, an important USP, at 1% of the cost of a peninsula.

3…. As regards regionalism, and the push for it, that’s easy. To the extent regionalism regards Lakewood’s mundane services, let’s talk. But hands off our USPs.

4…. I mentioned bikeability earlier. Lakewood’s (small) investments in bikeability have been reasonably well executed, with one big exception. Madison should have been left alone and the money spent in other ways. I suspect I’m in a minority in thinking that. But Madison, all that thermoplastic is what you get for listening to out-of-town “experts.”

5…. The Hilliard Square Theater, in theory it falls into a USP and efforts should be made to save it, even with taxpayer dollars. But Mike’s right. When the parking disappeared, so did HST’s chance to survive. Period, end of discussion.

6…. The (few) recent townhome developments that have been built, yeah they’re “out-of-character.” But so what? Out-of-character is to a great extent a part of Lakewood’s character! (As long as it doesn't go overboard.) Unless diversity in residents is OK but diversity in architecture is not. Clifton Pointe, Rockport and McKinley all replaced out-of-the-way, nondescript vacant structures. We need more pockets of development like that. Jackie I agree with about 90% of your sentiments, but not this time.

7…. As long as I have to pay for schools, the ones we now have are just about as good as it gets. Thank you LCSD for executing such a wonderful balance between old and new. They fit in nicely.

8…. When CSU get tired of sponsoring the buses through town I hope Lakewood will step up. Getting those branded as a Lakewood asset would reinforce a Lakewood USP (proximity to downtown Cleveland) for pennies on the dollar. CSU did the right thing. If I was planning for Lakewood I’d be asking CSU if they wanted to sell the rights.

9…. It doesn’t matter how fast apartments and condos get built in downtown Cleveland. There’s still a waiting list. And have you toured them at all? They’re very plain. There are lessons for Lakewood….

I’m sure if I had more time I could come up with many more thoughts and ideas, some good, some maybe not but that’s what brainstorming is all about. Bouncing ideas around. But I have a day to begin then a Superbowl to watch. The one big takeaway though is to please remember and faithfully leverage Lakewood’s uniqueness. It’s absolutely vital and really pretty easy to do. Identifying and understanding the USPs provide a focus for planning and marketing whether you’re a city or a software developer.

[james fitzgibbons]

I do not care what you say Tim the new townhouses are butt ugly. Lakewood building department and planning used to demand compliance with structures and signage what happened?

[mjkuhns]

Agree with just about everything Mr. Liston expressed, including the point about the circulator and even his defense of townhomes. I suppose that I may as well confess that nothing about their appearance offends me.

The sole point I really take exception to is the second half of this sentence:

It’s absolutely vital and really pretty easy to do.

I'm not sure that it is so easy, at least in any practical application.

I suspect that one could look high and low without finding anyone who significantly opposes this outline of what Lakewood's USPs are, or that decisions about development and other policy should try to reinforce them. At all events I suspect that Lakewood's policymakers would all willingly endorse these concepts in theory.

Unfortunately, I think that putting that theory in practice would require more detailed step-by-step guidance, and metrics for what success looks like. As I have noted, we could probably do a better job at preservation, but it's inevitable that we will lose pieces of our built landscape at times. What needs to replace them, in order to sustain Lakewood's USPs, and how does the city encourage this?

As regards the what, I'm not certain that we all have the same detailed opinion. For me, "the older architecture and the feel of Detroit/Madison" really depends on the combination of storefronts, and multi-story buildings. Storefronts create a more interesting, engaging space than the entrance to a private residence; you can look in store windows, you have the option of going inside, and sometimes the inside even extends out onto the street. (e.g. The Bookshop's sidewalk bargains, or a public house's outdoor seating.) Multi-story buildings add to the urban feel. Ideally, I think mixed-use development does this best… But possibly there are other views, on all of this. I get the impression that for a number of people, "no glass boxes" is more important than anything I've just described.

How seems even more difficult. I will be the first to admit that my own preference looks like a challenge. Developers seem uninterested in new mixed-use buildings. You might have an easier time finding someone to build a multi-story combination of storefronts and offices… but I'm not sure that many would see much of a market for more office space in Lakewood, right now. Perhaps the best realistic option here is simply better preservation, and attempting to replace losses with a mix of multi-story residential construction and single-story commercial construction that minimizes its strip-mall character as much as possible. (i.e. Build with stone or brick, have store windows and an entrance facing the sidewalk, put parking behind the building, etc.)

Meanwhile, how should we judge the efforts to implement any given vision? How much can we expect, and how much genuinely should be excused by "we are trying, but we had no better options available?" (This question, in particular, obviously gets contentious.)

[Lori Allen _]

In regards to development, the selection of developers needs to be an open, transparent, public process. It is not always beneficial to give the project to an alleged friend of Mayor/Public Safety Director Michael P. Summers.

McKinley Place - being developed by a Lakewood resident and mayoral campaign donor, I recall.

Rockport Square - being developed by the Cleveland Clinic. Whoops, I mean Forest City. The registered agent for Rockport Square is a mayoral campaign donor.

What is the reason for tearing down perfectly good homes by deeming them nuisances? Is it to give friends with demolition companies more business? Is it to give friends land to develop?

Who, in their right mind, would put a glass building in the middle of historic Downtown Lakewood?

Then again, I guess when you can make a buck off of an alleged illegal, crooked deal, why not?

[Stan Austin]

Let me throw in an observation about architecture as regards to the "townhouses". If you look at different areas of Lakewood (and Rocky River for that matter) architecture followed national economic events such as the '20s', Depression Years, spooky post WWII, Brand New Modern 50s, and a smattering of 60s and 70s in Lakewood.
Specifically, I point to Edgewater Drive between Parkside and Nicholson as pluperfect example of 1950's home styles. The homes were built with quality in mind.
The 1960's and 70's were generally cheap schlock. Thing Parma/Brookpark. Fortunately, there are few examples of this in Lakewood.
Now, we have the townhouses on the East end of Detroit and Mckinley Place as examples of 21st Century Architechture.
I would suggest that the jury is still out on the question of style and quality.

[Bridget Conant]

Here's a picture of the ubiquitous style. Every city I've been to recently has an example of new town homes or apartments that look virtually identical to this.

IMG_5348.PNG (338.8 KiB) Viewed 5957 times

Let's guess what these are!

It's the Langston on Chester in downtown Cleveland, dormitories for Cleveland State University students.

Honestly, are there any architects or design students that can come up with something a little less cookie cutter?

Between this style and the white/glass atrocities foisted on us by Toby Cosgrove, I'm starting to think there are no creative people out there.

[james fitzgibbons]

It is all about getting the project completed for the least amount spent. I am not sure who to blame for that. Who is demanding quality buildings with pleasing architecture. We have to put up with something that does not really fit in with what surrounds it.

[mjkuhns]

… In my view this is one of the most important and posts I've seen on the deck.

Reflecting back on about 30 years elected or appointed service with the city, I can recall in the late 70s through the mid-90st Mayors Lawther, Sinagra and later Harbarger implemented and nourished our store front renovation program. This program basically boarded up existing store fronts and forced businesses to install uniform signage and design. This was the state of the art in city scape design and in urban planning. This program, rightly so, won many awards and served us well at the time.

Then in the mid-90s a group of officials from the US Dept. of Interior visited Lakewood. They were in awe of the city, so much so they wanted to designate the entire city as a National Historic district.
Lakewood, they said, was among the last pristine turn of the century street car suburbs. A few neighborhoods in Philadelphia and Brooklyn retained the turn of the century charm and character, but none the size and condition of Lakewood.

For a number of reasons, we declined to proceed with the designation, but many of us at city hall, based on ongoing feedback from the residents, got to thinking that maybe our city's future lay more in restoration rather in demolition and destroying the original charm of our architecture.

May 7, 2020: LakewoodAlive, with support from the City of Lakewood and the Ohio Development Services Agency, has nominated part of Lakewood for a National Register Historic District.

https://www.lakewoodalive.org/2020/05/0 ... oit-avenue

A (virtual) public meeting is scheduled for 10 a.m., May 14.