Future of Detroit Theater meeting was packed

[Mark Mraz]

For what I pay in city taxes and what you pay in city taxes ...we all deserve better then a McDonalds....

Its too bad it cant be turned into something where kids between 6-17 can go after school just to have a place to go....video games, arts/crafts, food, books, magazines, maybe a few basetball hoops, movies, computers, laptop access, etc...

Ive only lived here 2 years and unfortunately never stepped foot inside the theater. I doubt what I suggested would ever be possible...but in my defesne its just that...an idea....

[Ben VanLear]

Lakewood, best community in the region, one of the 10 coolest places on the face of the
earth can do better, needs to do better, and we need to cash in right now while we can.
Not on what everyone else has, to blend in and disappear in the region but to emerge as
the "star" everyone claims we are. As I often point out, The Rolling Stones still do Bar Mitzvahs, they just set the bar so high, they can do them on their terms.

What are our terms? What can we push and still attract worthwhile, sane and responsible
economic development? What is our major industry? If you think it is the Clinic, we are
screwed. If you think it is a place to put great retail economic development, we are screwed.
If you think it is great affordable housing, with good schools, library, restaurants, parks,
activities, and the lake. Well, this makes the entire problem, nothing more than a small
bump in the road, and we are nearly there.

For some strange reason(not really) we have been sold a false bill of goods by many of our
civic leaders and business leaders. We have been told Economic Development is the key to
our future and success. This demands nearly a 180 degree turn from what we have been
getting so many accolades for. It goes against why we stand out in the region. It goes
against what makes us Lakewood. But it certainly serves the "regional" good. After all a
region cannot afford "self rule" individuality, it needs the residents to believe their only
hope for a future is to fall in line. And this is from the same people telling us ED is the
only way to secure our future.

Lakewood needs a plan(s). Lakewood needs to look in the mirror and say, "We are good
enough, smart enough, and ahead of the region."

FWIW


.

I agree completely.

A couple people at the meeting commented on losing the feel of a streetcar suburb and slowly but surely demolishing multi-use two-story (at least) buildings for single use single story structures.

The slideshow showing initial proposals vs. Architectural Review Board influenced final designs really helped to show this to the group, although I'm not sure that was the intention. Yes, the ARB influence changes really were better(and congratulations and thanks to them for doing a great job), but they still look like most modern development, not like Lakewood. They'll look as crappy in 30 years as 80's structures do today. Someone at the public meeting proposed that the city needs more restrictions, requirements, and influence on design and development. I think there would be a lot of support for that, and I'm going to look into it.

Sure, business and 'economic development' are necessary, but not at the cost of becoming an ugly city. It's one thing to re-develop a crappy non-original building like the Drug Mart Plaza. It's another entirely to demolish an original streetcar suburb building.

[Shawn Juris]

I agree with Thealexa that some of this discussion is stale since is has been rehashed so many times. There are many more aspects that are far most intriguing and should be aired out in forums like this (such as how to modernize our commercial stock). To have a debate or discussion it makes sense to clarify definitions and frame the world of practical versus unlikely long shots. If they are long shots, then why? Is it because of financial matters or will or competition on an unlevel playing field (as in the tax subsidized example).

To begin with definitions, I am very interested in two terms that I have heard mentioned in these discussions; Historic Landmark and blight. The first is a designation, not a state of mind or matter of nostalgic, fond memories (unless of course they involved some historical significance). Criteria is easier to find on wikipedia here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Historic_Landmark, but the program site is here; http://www.nps.gov/nhl/. Here's the list of Lakewood sites; http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/ohpo/nr/r ... table=true. Proud to say that I'm typing this from one of them and the owners have done a fine job on it. From two trips to the theater in the past few years, my impression was that if there is architectural significance inside, they have covered it up well. Doesn't mean that it may not be found, but it is not prevalent to this layman. From the exterior, the marquee is cool, and you don't often see white tile on a brick building. Again, maybe this is worth further evaluation, and maybe the 20% tax credit will make it more financially feasible. The second of blight or damaging neighborhoods is a tough one. Many may remember how well it went over when an attempt was made to define blight a number of years back. It's a word that evokes emotion, however to combine the term with a new building that will be occupied by a business that is unpopular to some, seems to be an intentional miscommunication. Given that a strength of our city is the mixed grid of residential adjasent to commercial corridors, this commercial activity is part of the cost/benefit of such a design. This does not mean that there is a laissez faire attitude to enforcement and regulation, however the stark reality is that if you don't like the sound of the train, then don't live next to the tracks. I live 10 houses from the Westerly and a block away from the hospital - sirens are just an ambient sound to us. It has been fascinating to watch the argument for a movie theater and against fast food to be based on traffic and hours of operation (along with other items of course). Yet, if the theater were viable, wouldn't shows be letting out at midnight or later? Wouldn't a viable theater attract far more than 10 people an hour? Would that vibrant attraction also be labelled as a source of blight?

To the rest of the discussion that could be enlightening (certainly not from my comments but from others who work with it regularly). The Detroit Theater is not the only building in town that is looking for a tenant and may change the nature of the business at their location. To Thealexa's point about vacant storefront, in some cases the pain point is parking. Now I'd argue (along side with others who have suggested it before me) that for boutique retail, the number of steps from car to door will be similar to parking in the back of a shopping center or hoofing it through a mall. So it's perception and a paradigm shift that's needed. The stretch that I believe was referred to (St Ed's to Giant Eagle) seems to be a good opportunity to cluster boutiques from a similar industry say wedding vendors. A one stop shop for the 35% of our population that may otherwise leave Lakewood to spend their bridal budget (a recession resistant expense). Other issues exist of balancing the costs of basic updates between the lessor and leasee. This story seems pretty common, that while the space is older, the tenant takes on big leasehold improvement costs - hopefully but likely not always for a lower cost per foot in rent. These spaces mentioned appear to be in good condition and have landlords willing to set the table for their tenants.

As to the ban on drivethru - maybe I'm guilty of falling on a slippery slope but I found it interesting as I left the library (by the way the lot was packed as well as was the neighboring lot) that they have a drive thru. If traffic is a concern as it must be for the neighbors of Library, should we impose the same limitations on our library? We as a city proudly promote how many visitors the library serves (we haven't put the number served on a billboard but I think I've seen that before somewhere). To compare a library to a McDonalds is difficult, one is subsidized (paid for by tax payers and exempt from property tax) and the other is a corporate posterchild for some of what is wrong with America. But I digress as the major difference could be simply the level of tolerance which varies depending on the name on the sign. How about banks and pharmacies, should they not have drive thru ATM's either? If it's a safety or traffic issue, why limit it to only fast food. I wonder further though, that given our parking limitations, if a ban on drive thru would not just compound the issues.

[Danielle Masters]

I could be mistaken but I thought the drive-thru issue had more to do with noise. Fast food drive-throughs tend to be very loud with a lot of grating static. The library drive-thru is not heavily used and is not open until 3 am, the same goes for banks and pharmacies. I don't think those types of drive-thrus are comparable to fast food drive-thrus.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Sure, business and 'economic development' are necessary, but not at the cost of becoming an ugly city. It's one thing to re-develop a crappy non-original building like the Drug Mart Plaza. It's another entirely to demolish an original streetcar suburb building.

Ben

Economic Development is a red hearing designed to allow us to dream instead of focus on the real issues of
where the city and our leaders have failed. The entire concept is put forth day after day by people that raise it
only in an effort to keep their taxes down. Though there is no support in studies that will say it will ever work.
And there are numerous studies that will shoe it does not.

But it is a cliche that has become the battle cry of many. But try, just try to bring ED to their neighborhood?
Try just try to change their neighborhood. The outrage is insane and the hypocrisy just as bad.


Thealexa
One of the 10 coolest places in the world was an overstatement to make a point.

The point is, your time to cash in on being the queen of the ball is very, very short.

Lakewood seems engrossed on running from one shiny object to another. Beck Center, Hall House, Lombardo
House, Detroit Theater... and as soon as it happens, lessons are forgotten everyone returns to their daily lives
waiting for the next shiny object to be found. We need a plan. It always seems to me, when you have a plan,
an idea, a thought. Solutions become much easier.


.

[Jim O'Bryan]

I forgot to post the 5-10 poster.

hint, hint.


.

[Betsy Voinovich]

hint hint

I have to point out as a former resident of Collinwood whose family is still there, (and as a person who is proud to be one of the editors of the Collinwood Observer) that the 5 to 10 year plan Jim posted is just the plan for E. 156th and Waterloo. There are also plans for Lakeshore Blvd, E. 185th St, and E. 152nd. St, which are all the main thoroughfares in North Collinwood. South Collinwood has its own breakdowns of its businesses and residents along the Shoreway, its portion of E. 152nd and Five Points, and St. Clair, which are the work of the Collinwood Nottingham CDC --significantly I guess, another COMMUNITY development corporation, like Northeast Shores instead of an ECONOMIC development corporation. Clearly both of Collinwood's CDCs are interested in economic development, but only as it serves the good of the community as a whole.

Lakewood does not have a community development corporation, which we all felt keenly at the library meeting, when citizens, point blank, asked the City officials what they could do to save the theater or develop the property in a way more responsible to the community, and Director Butler said that it was not the role of the city to advise its citizens about what to do to in this circumstance.

This raised the ire of some in the audience who then asked if we residents of Lakewood could be allowed to know the relative amount of time it took for real estate transactions to be processed, in order to know how much time we had to try to put something together. Director Butler responded that each sale was its own deal, and there was no set time frame.

Audience members found this frustrating also, though it was clear that Director Butler was doing his job and protecting the Administration-- I guess from possible lawsuits if the City could be construed as trying to block a legal sale? But if the Administration, our representative government, who we elected, and whose salaries we pay, can't help or advise us, and tells us flat-out that it is not their place to do so, who does?

Betsy Voinovich

[Colleen Wing]

Thealexa, I just want to point out clearly...You hit the nail on the head.

I am not belittling anyones interests, to each his own...but over here on Bunts Rd and East we have bigger freaking problems then a brand new McDonald's.

Lakewood put a huge period at the end of the sentence "We don't even know what a local business is" when the Chamber voted a development corp director as Business person of the Year. ? Not to confuse the thread with that observation but I once again feel like Thealexa is spot on in her evaluation of this issue.

[John Brennan]

I have to say that I am a bit jealous of my Lakewood friends.

I left Lakewood for Wilmington, NC two years ago--new job.

One of my major complaints about Lakewood (and there weren't many--I love Lakewood) was a lack of a centrally located McDonald's and Wendy's. This is definitely an improvement (not optimal, but an improvement). This move will raise the quality of life for alot of Lakewood residents--isn't that a plus? I am being serious here. If you hate McDonald's moving to the new location for moral, sentimental, or aesthetic reasons, you should have been heading up pickets against the existing location as well as the Burger King, etc... I had hoped when Giant Eagle closed the southern Bunts location that a fast food plex would have arisen their (Wendy's-McDonald's-Dunkin Donuts, etc...--but you really have to read the works of Henry George to understand why that did not happen.

Nevertheless, this could be a definite win for the city. I have spoken to a friend who does market analysis/site design in the retail sector, and he feels that for McDonald's to move from the Sloane location to the Detroit location (.7 miles apart), they would have to, at minimum, double their annual revenues (maybe more if the existing franchisee does not transfer to the new location--not sure if it is franchise run or corporate run). To double revenues, and with the latest labor saving approaches implemented in a brand new McDonald's, they would probably have to expand their current number of employees by about 25 - 30 percent (his estimate). Everyone who does not hate McDonald's in Lakewood has to know that the Sloane location was/is a junker and that the new location will be a plus for the city--more income taxes from employees and more property taxes from McDonald's--and more smiling Lakewood faces conveniently consuming their delectable delights. The Sloane location will be re-developed readily easily (again, look at the work of Henry George to see why). The Detroit location is not a location that is easy to redevelop, and by McDonald's coming in and doing it without incentives/tax breaks (that is my guess anyway--that's how they usually do business), Lakewoodites should understand that this is best for the city, by a long shot.

As for those wanting to potentially eliminate the drive through--this will lose in court so badly and quickly (just down the road, Burger King has one--under the same zoning code)--this is silly talk and any serious discussion of economic development in Lakewood should keep this in mind.

In the end, doesn't the common, non-elite minded Lakewoodite deserve a break today?

[Bryan Schwegler]

I am not belittling anyones interests, to each his own...but over here on Bunts Rd and East we have bigger freaking problems then a brand new McDonald's.

This is the real issue, or lets be outraged over the condition of huge chunks of the Madison corridor. There are really big issues that need more citizen outrage, energy, and effort. Putting 50% of the outrage over McDonalds into some of the areas that really have problems may have some really good results.

[Matthew Lee]

IMHO, I wouldn't dismiss a drive-through ban, or at least curtailing, so swiftly. Other communities in the US have done it by:

(a) Amending zoning by-laws

and

(b) Grandfathering in existing drive-throughs

A quick Google search showed me some areas that have done it or are considering it. However, what these communities seem to have in common is both strong leadership from the elected officials and a growth plan for the future.

Right now, I feel we are lacking both and sincerely hope I am wrong.

[Bill Call]

IMHO, I wouldn't dismiss a drive-through ban, or at least curtailing, so swiftly. Other communities in the US have done it by:

(a) Amending zoning by-laws

and

(b) Grandfathering in existing drive-throughs

A quick Google search showed me some areas that have done it or are considering it. However, what these communities seem to have in common is both strong leadership from the elected officials and a growth plan for the future.

Right now, I feel we are lacking both and sincerely hope I am wrong.

A change in zoning laws to prohibit new fast food drive throughs is an idea worth considering. Of course such a zoning change would end McDonalds interest in the Detroit Theater property. I'm not sure that's fair to the owner but I'm not quite sure why I should care.

[michael gill]

When Denny's proposed its 24-hour, chrome diner-style building for the site that eventually became the I-Hop, they were planning to bring Lakewood several things: a building that would have clashed badly with vernacular architecture; a 24-hour business that would have hoped to feed off late night traffic from the bars.

There was no regulation of 24-hour businesses at the time, and several--like Diana's and Tops Groceries--had been in business for a while.

The neighborhood was resistant to both the 24-hour business model, and to the idea of a cookie cutter chrome diner (just like all the other highway-exit Denny's they were building at the time) on Detroit. We made some noise.

Then-Mayor Madeline Cain and then-law director Kevin Spellacy wrote legislation regulating where it was permissible to operate a 24-hour business. There were distances from residences specified.

Denny's apparently didn't want to function in an environment where they couldn't sell food all night and capitalize on the neighborhood's bar traffic. They withdrew their proposal.

A year or so later, along came I-Hop. From the beginning of their pitch to the city, they planned to operate within our ordinances, build a building on the sidewalk with windows facing the street out of conventional-sized red brick, with the parking lot out back, with an entrance on the side (rather than in back facing the parking lot), etc.

There are a couple of lessons to take from this.

The most important is that residents can do something to make businesses operate in an acceptable manner. Fast food drive thrus are appropriate for highway exits and sprawling suburbs. Maybe they just aren't right for a city with homeowners and taxpayers packed in this tight.

The other important thing to learn from the Denny's situation is that something else WILL come along. Not only did I-Hop come along shortly after Denny's but when their business failed, their building--not stock architecture from a national chain, but something that fit the neighborhood--was easy for another restaurant to re-use.

We are fools to give any credibility to the thought that this is a difficult parcel to re-develop, or that it would be difficult to do anything else with an old theatre. If Lakewood were to regulate drive thrus, and if fast food restaurants stopped opening new drive-thru shops on Detroit and Madison, something else would come along for the Detroit Theater property.

Let's not be the kid at the dance who's so insecure that he dances with someone he doesn't like because he's so afraid no one else will ever ask. Let's have some self respect.

[Betsy Voinovich]

When Denny's proposed its 24-hour, chrome diner-style building for the site that eventually became the I-Hop, they were planning to bring Lakewood several things: a building that would have clashed badly with vernacular architecture; a 24-hour business that would have hoped to feed off late night traffic from the bars.

There was no regulation of 24-hour businesses at the time, and several--like Diana's and Tops Groceries--had been in business for a while.

The neighborhood was resistant to both the 24-hour business model, and to the idea of a cookie cutter chrome diner (just like all the other highway-exit Denny's they were building at the time) on Detroit. We made some noise.

Then-Mayor Madeline Cain and then-law director Kevin Spellacy wrote legislation regulating where it was permissible to operate a 24-hour business. There were distances from residences specified.

Denny's apparently didn't want to function in an environment where they couldn't sell food all night and capitalize on the neighborhood's bar traffic. They withdrew their proposal.

A year or so later, along came I-Hop. From the beginning of their pitch to the city, they planned to operate within our ordinances, build a building on the sidewalk with windows facing the street out of conventional-sized red brick, with the parking lot out back, with an entrance on the side (rather than in back facing the parking lot), etc.

There are a couple of lessons to take from this.

The most important is that residents can do something to make businesses operate in an acceptable manner. Fast food drive thrus are appropriate for highway exits and sprawling suburbs. Maybe they just aren't right for a city with homeowners and taxpayers packed in this tight.

The other important thing to learn from the Denny's situation is that something else WILL come along. Not only did I-Hop come along shortly after Denny's but when their business failed, their building--not stock architecture from a national chain, but something that fit the neighborhood--was easy for another restaurant to re-use.

We are fools to give any credibility to the thought that this is a difficult parcel to re-develop, or that it would be difficult to do anything else with an old theatre. If Lakewood were to regulate drive thrus, and if fast food restaurants stopped opening new drive-thru shops on Detroit and Madison, something else would come along for the Detroit Theater property.

Let's not be the kid at the dance who's so insecure that he dances with someone he doesn't like because he's so afraid no one else will ever ask. Let's have some self respect.

Hi Mike,

I think this about sums it up. It was disturbing at the meeting the other night that the officials representing the City seemed to be holding up their hands saying, "There is nothing we can do!" As if the zoning laws descended from on high and weren't created by city officials themselves, and committees formed by them to serve this city.

If you feel like forwarding your post to the mayor and City Council, you have permission to include my name on the bottom as another citizen who supports this very well-stated point of view.

Betsy Voinovich

[Kate McCarthy]

If a McDonalds on Detroit would help the city fine, but why this location? I avoid driving on this part of Detroit like the plague. The traffic patterns along this stretch of Detroit are very different and any increased traffic exiting and entering a busy drive thru would be a disaster. Try turning left onto Detroit from Woodward at 5 p.m. There are properties available in more central areas on Detroit where the street is wider and where traffic is controlled by lights at four stop intersections. And construction would not require razing a building with unique architectural features.