Lakewood Tops The Region In Young Adult Population Growth

[Bill Call]

An interesting article from Crains:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/ ... /130919814

The money quote:

"Indeed, according to a February study from Case Western Reserve University's Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development, Lakewood ranked the highest in Cuyahoga County in population gains of 25- to 34-year olds from 2000 to 2010, with 3,148 residents in that group, followed by downtown at 1,842."

The Case study:

http://blog.case.edu/msass/2013/02/14/B ... apital.pdf

No post can be complete without a complaint about the Plain Dealer so here it is:

The Plain Dealer has at least one story a week about Tremont and Downtown and how all the millions in taxpayer subsidies are causing a flood of new residents, young residents and upper income residents.

I have yet to so one article in the PD about Lakewood's success in attracting these residents without the benefit of those millions.

I have yet to see one article about the vibrant restaurant scene.

I have yet to see one article about Lakewood leading the pack in home appreciation.

Why? Does it matter?

And what about the corner of 117th and Clifton? More people live within a 10 minute walk of that corner than live in all of downtown but there isn't 10 cents of development money available. Why?

[Bill Call]

Lakewood also leads in the OUT migration among 35-44 year olds.

That makes sense. As people get older and make a little more money they move to the outer suburbs like Bay Village or Avon. They take with them higher disposable income and taxable income.

The policy issue then becomes how can Lakewood attract the 35-44 year old age group and how can Lakewood keep the 35-44 year old age group?

One option is the maintenance and improvement of Lakewood's "nicer streets" and neighborhoods while also improving housing in other Lakewood neighborhoods that can compete with housing in Avon or Bay Village. The conflict arises when new commercial development like the Victorian District Dollar Store have a negative affect on home values.

The issue here is how to create a vibrant commercial district without damaging nearby neighborhoods.

How's Rockport doing?

[Bill Call]

The conflict arises when new commercial development like the Victorian District Dollar Store have a negative affect on home values.

The issue here is how to create a vibrant commercial district without damaging nearby neighborhoods.

The residents of Lakewood's Victorian District are upset with the new Drug Mart:

http://www.cleveland.com/lakewood/index ... er_default

How do you convince people to invest in their Victorian House when commercial development can degrade the value of that investment?

A restored Victorian House at Nicholson and Clifton recently sold for over $300,000. Are we better of with a bigger Drug Mart or 500 newly restored Victorian mansions?

[michael gill]

Bill, those reports certainly confirm a lot of suspicions -- that Lakewood, with its rental and nightlife and proximity to the city, is attractive to young people . . . and that a lot of not-quite-so-young people choose to buy their second house farther out.

And of course we're on the same side here: We like our city, we want it to do well, and we see these trends that are both encouraging and challenging.

And I certainly would rather have 500 renovated Victorian homes than one larger discount drug mart. Is there anyone here who would weigh in on the other side? I like Discount Drug Mart . . . the fact that it was started and the chain is still run by a local guy . . . the fact that it serves very much as a "general store." But with 500 Victorian homes in the balance . . . Jeez.

But without taking up the subject of the Plain Dealer and the availability of subsidy for development, I have to ask:

1) Was someone actually offering 500 renovated Victorian homes to balance out the apparent appeal (and I certainly agree--the misguided appeal) of the larger Discount Drug Mart?

2) What kind of intervention are you looking for? I'm trying to imagine that market management that would be useful here and at the same time acceptable to you.

[Bill Call]

I have to ask:
1) Was someone actually offering 500 renovated Victorian homes to balance out the apparent appeal (and I certainly agree--the misguided appeal) of the larger Discount Drug Mart?
2) What kind of intervention are you looking for? I'm trying to imagine that market management that would be useful here and at the same time acceptable to you.

I was at Cleveland City Hall a few weeks ago to get a permit for a small project in the Arcade Building on Euclid. Mayor Jackson was in the elevator with his body guard. I shook the Mayors hand and told him he was doing a fine job but what he really needed was a magic wand. He said “It doesn’t work that way”.


Renovations of Lakewood property happen one house at a time financed by individual entrepreneurs who see opportunity or concerned residents like Hilary Schickler who are engaged in a labor of love.


She helped save this house on Thoreau which sold a couple of weeks after being listed:

Thoreau.jpg (585.66 KiB) Viewed 2366 times

This Victorian house on Clifton recently sold for over $300,000:

Clifton Victorian.jpg (74.86 KiB) Viewed 2366 times

There are a half a dozen houses in the area that have similar architecture but wouldn’t sell for half of that price unless they received a similar renovation.

That tells me what many already know: That a restored Lakewood home will sell for a premium.

I suspect that many would be purchased by that 35 to 44 age bracket. I also suspect that someone who moves to Lakewood as a 20 something and buys that restored home as a 30 something will stay in the City until they are a 60 something.

How do we get there? I wish I had a magic wand but like Mayor Jackson said, “It doesn’t work that way”.

While my own personal preference is that the government should stay out of the development business but it just doesn’t make sense when cities all around us are receiving millions in subsidies from various government agencies.

We also know that Lakewood is not going to be receiving the type of subsidies received by Cleveland or Westlake or Avon. That means the City will have to establish its own development fund. How would that money be spent? The primary focus should be on housing. That’s where the fun starts.

[Paul Schrimpf]

So we're getting young folks, that's great. Keeping them goes back to JOB's steady "clean and safe" drumbeat. We raised a family here because we felt Lakewood had that back in the late 1990s, and it was generally implied that this was a tremendous bedroom community for families. I wonder what the impression people have of Lakewood as a family friendly area is for outsiders. I believe it is but I've been here too long to have real perspective.

[michael gill]

Yeah, those are beautiful houses. Hilary showed me the one on Thoreau when it was in its dilapidated state, while she was working to save it from demolition. Brava, Hilary.

What I get from this, Bill, is that you think the city should establish a housing development fund . . . or maybe more specifically a fund to renovate worthy old houses--and to do that rather than subsidize commercial development - - or at least big commercial development. What about small, streetcar era, mixed use buildings? Do you think the city should support preservation of those more than it does?

I'd support either of those over the subsidy of new, block-long drugstore developments.

But I don't know where the idea of 500 renovated victorians comes from, or even if the city has that many victorians worthy and in need of renovation. That's a substantial portion of the city's entire number of single family homes.

And as far as I can tell, the Lakewood side of Clifton at 117th has thriving businesses on both corners. The vacant lot and long idle church are on the Cleveland side.

[Bill Call]

What I get from this, Bill, is that you think the city should establish a housing development fund . . . or maybe more specifically a fund to renovate worthy old houses--and to do that rather than subsidize commercial development - - or at least big commercial development. What about small, streetcar era, mixed use buildings? Do you think the city should support preservation of those more than it does?

I'd support either of those over the subsidy of new, block-long drugstore developments.

But I don't know where the idea of 500 renovated victorians comes from, or even if the city has that many victorians worthy and in need of renovation. That's a substantial portion of the city's entire number of single family homes.

And as far as I can tell, the Lakewood side of Clifton at 117th has thriving businesses on both corners. The vacant lot and long idle church are on the Cleveland side.

The 500 number is rhetorical excess that makes the number 50 look much more doable.

An investment fund could take advantage of opportunities large and small. One reason Lakewood seems to be doing well is that we were spared various urban renewal projects whose focus was bulldozing neighborhoods. Any plans would have to be small and focused like:

1. A contest offering a $20,000 prize for the best renovation project in each of the Cities 4 wards.
2. Purchase and rehab of foreclosed properties. Some doubles on Bunts are selling for $50,000. A great deal for an investor who wants to buy as is, slap on a coat of paint and rent to the first warm body that walks through the door. A better opportunity for the City as a rehabbed double or converted single.
3. Partner with the apartment owners at Cove and Edgewater to tear them down and replace with cluster homes.
4. Create a real fight by proposing to use eminent domain along Clifton to tear down obsolete apartment buildings and replace them with upscale apartments.

Small, focused one and done.

Speaking of urban renewal reminds me of the Lakewood Center North Building:

lakewood center building.jpg (87.7 KiB) Viewed 2313 times

I'm still trying to figure out why architects take a site that offers panoramic City and lake views and builds a Brutalist monstrosity that provides tenants with the same view they would get from their basement. A post for another day I guess.

That building recently sold for $3.5 million. If the City had an existing development fund the City could have purchased it, tore it down and given the land to a developer.

Our City leadership is competent but timid. Maybe competence requires timidity but I'm not so sure. I suppose the prospect of being turned out of office makes them afraid. Do they want to live (be in office) forever?

[Stan Austin]

As I understand it, the owners of the Bailey building are the new owners of Lakewood Center North. I think they have done wonders with the Bailey building. I remember shopping there when it in fact was Bailey's and watched, sadly, over the years how it was brought down until its resurrection, recently. But, that building has enduring architectural chops which presumably the new owners saw and subsequently took advantage of.
Lakewood Center North can't be "rehabbed" because there ain't nothing there!
I would agree with Bill that were there a fund that it could have been used to buy it and tear it down.
However, I am quietly watching to see if the new owners have some hidden magic left over from their Bailey building success.