The Observation Deck

I agree with Jim that converting existing double units to single homes is not economically feasible.

I took note of the amount the homeowner and city estimated it would cost to convert a double and I shook my head. Anyone who owns a 60+ year old home KNOWS that repairs and upgrades are not cheap. The work needed to convert a double would likely involve structural work, which is even more costly. Trust me, I've rehabbed and if I could do the amount of work they plan to do for less than $50,000, I'd be thrilled. Of course, my quality standards may be higher.

It is also important to note that one of the reasons people move out is for NEWER housing, and the reason they want newer is for the amenities found in more modern housing: better layouts, updated kitchens and baths, more energy efficiency because of updated mechanicals and insulated structures.

This is where I think the plan will fail. If you take a roughly 2400-3000 square foot double and convert it to a large single, thats a pretty large amount of square footage in an old house to heat and cool. No one will want a house that costs 800-1000 a month to heat and they certainly will demand air conditioning.

The only way the house will be attractive is if it has been made completely energy efficient, which means wall and roof insulation, new windows and doors, and high efficiency heating and cooling units. You cannot tell me that the cost estimates cited include this type of work.

Maybe a better plan would be this: rather than convert doubles to singles, I think that REPLACING doubles with singles would be more desireable. There are streets in Lakewood that have literally rows of very ordinary up and down doubles. Take four elderly units, tear them down, and either build four decent singles, or combine lots and build 2 larger homes on double lots.

First off, I love living in Lakewood. My favorite characteristics include walk-ability, parks, access to the lake, churches, neighborhoods, improving school infrastructure, summer band concerts, stores, services, improving business climate and development. Housing, however, seems to be the burr in the side of its leaders.

Here are some of my thoughts in reaction to the PD and this forum. (Keep in mind that I’ve only been in Lakewood for 10-years but I do own rental properties.)

1) Lakewood needs a consistently enforced housing policy for singles, doubles, apartments and everything in between.

2) Quality singles, doubles and triples rent-out in Lakewood. Only landlords not successful in keeping units rented would be interested in conversion but would then fall away from that plan after running the numbers.

3) Chances are that if a landlord can’t find renters it’s because of a lack of maintenance and/or the street has many house eyesores. So the landlord reduces the rent by $50 each month it’s unoccupied until a renter is secured.

4) The city offering to provide free architectural help is nice and would save a landlord looking to convert maybe $1,000. Compare that to the cost of the rehab and one can easily see that the impediments to conversion from double to single is the cost of construction and overall housing market, not in developing the architectural design. Try buying a double that can’t keep tenants for $140,000, investing $20,000 to convert it to a single, don’t do anything about the other eyesores on the street and selling it to a newly married couple looking to have kids for $180,000 (profit and real estate commission)?

5) Is it really the Mayor’s idea to reduce the number of doubles or the number of un-rentable doubles? If it’s the latter, see #4. If it’s the former, where would Lakewood be with 8,000 fewer employed adults (eliminate 1,000 rented doubles)? As others have written, the cost of operating Lakewood would be spread among fewer municipal taxpayers. Don’t assume that city services, schools and infrastructure would be reduced along with population.

6) Is this the best we can come up with? Imagine our plight should our leaders be developing public policy in an era of hyper or moderate growth. We should take advantage of our next to zero growth situation to develop real policies with actual and practical impact.

Suggestions:

• Consistently enforce codes for all homes. I know Lakewood doesn’t want to make voters mad and noncompliant landlords can’t be thrown in jail because they would loose their jobs and have no ability to make repairs, but it’s time to take property standards seriously in our community. This would strengthen the value of any conversion program. (A Lakewood housing court or real foreclosure program where the city is a primary driver.)

• Strengthen point of sale inspections. Compared to private inspections, in my opinion, Lakewood’s POS inspections are a waste of time, effort and energy.

Others must have additional suggestions.

I’m just one guy who ruminated over the previous posts and wanted to offer my two cents. I’m more than open minded to constructive criticism. Are any or all of my numerations off base?

“Home. It’s where the heart is.â€Â￾ – Bono

Good points, all. But here is the simple fact of math that I can't get past.

Lakewood has the same number of housing units as it did 40 years ago for a population that is significantly less. How does eliminating some of those units make the city smaller? It's ALREADY smaller. And the market continues to favor the renter/buyer.

Mr. Jordan's comments about his conversations with realtors echo what I know personally to be true-. Lakewood doubles are suitable for singles, childless couples, and perhaps those with a small child, but you really DON'T want to have 3 kids in half a double.

Mr. Anderson, your point about "well maintained" properties renting backs up my contention. While I don't believe every available rental is a rat-trap, in a tight market, EVERYTHING rents or sells. Renters can be choosier in Lakewood/NE Ohio because the available housing is over-supplied.

Tighter code enforcement and increased inspections are absolutely a worthy goal, but they aren't free, either. A double that's modernized into a single-family hopefully won't require as frequent visits from the building department.

So let's say you have a double, with one half unoccupied because of the lack of demand. That double has a young couple. The double is converted to a 4 BR 2.5 bath single, and is now suitable for a family of 5. Even if we've lost 1 housing unit, haven't we gained 3 people?

As for the mechanics/economics of conversioni vs. replacement, that's for someone more expert than myself. But I think Lakewood should be in the position of trying a lot of different solutions, and I don't understand the opposition to putting a toe in the water to test a promising idea. The market will decide whether it makes sense, and I don't see the city's commitment here as being particularly onerous.

Lastly, and I don't feel good about saying this necessarily, a Lakewood that has more stable families moving into larger homes may indeed allow for less spending on safety and social services. I know "gentrification" is a bad word in these parts, but it's a hard reality, although not one our hearts want us to face.

I don't understand the opposition to putting a toe in the water to test a promising idea.

I agree that looking at alternatives is almost a requirement at this point.

However, if you read the article, there was a conversion attempted in cleveland Heights. It was a duplex, rather than an up and down double, which in my experience is more "desirable" than an up and down unit because each tenant usually has a seperate entrance and basement.

That unit was rehabbed and put up for sale in 2004 and it still has one unit unsold!

So how successful was it?

Grace O'Malley wrote:

I don't understand the opposition to putting a toe in the water to test a promising idea.

I agree that looking at alternatives is almost a requirement at this point.

However, if you read the article, there was a conversion attempted in cleveland Heights. It was a duplex, rather than an up and down double, which in my experience is more "desirable" than an up and down unit because each tenant usually has a seperate entrance and basement.

That unit was rehabbed and put up for sale in 2004 and it still has one unit unsold!

So how successful was it?

Right. They replaced a double.......with a DOUBLE! A more expensive double.

I think what's being talked about here might have a different impact. Replacing smaller spaces which are already in abundance in Lakewood with larger spaces which are in shorter supply (at least affordable ones)

In any event, I don't see the harm in a pilot program.

Grace -

Great reply. You added much to the conversation.

I find value in your contention that the number of housing units in Lakewood hasn't changed in 40-years but the population has declined. Perhaps other readers can add their thoughts to this.

As far as conversion to single family homes suitable for five, Lakewood has a number of these on the market right now. Let's keep in touch with the fact that multi-family houses are not the only Lakewood properties on the market.

According to www.realtor.com (my second favorite website) in the price range between $125,000 and $300,000, Lakewood has the following listings:

236 single family homes
54 condo's and townhouses
153 multi-family properties (5% of its multiple-housing stock)

What realtor.com can't tell me is the number of rental units currently available. (We all know that June, July and August are the primary months to sign new tenants.)

You are right that the market will decide if conversion makes sense. That's why I'm curious why anyone thinks the Mayor's conversion proposal will have any real impact on reducing the number of housing units in Lakewood.

One triple I've owned since 1997 has been visited twice by Lakewood inspectors. (I'm sure I'll get a call any minute now. Perhaps LO should allow pseudo names for landlords).

Again, my contention is that renters will find and rent quality units. I also do not want to be accused of having an edifice complex or wanting to limit the availability of cheaper rental housing for those on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder. Quality, in my mind, doesn't necessarily mean more expensive.

Jim O'bryan's conversioin kit sounds much more sensible: 79 dollars in door locks converts a double into a single.

If my memory serves me right, there had been a locksmith shop at the corner of Wyandotte and Madison which could have accomodated this trend.

When did people become such pansies about heating and air conditioning?

there is a reason the old movies show people wearing caps on their heads at night: it was cold.

David Anderson wrote:You are right that the market will decide if conversion makes sense. That's why I'm curious why anyone thinks the Mayor's conversion proposal will have any real impact on reducing the number of housing units in Lakewood.
.

I'm not totally convinced this idea has legs. Frankly, I don't know WHAT will work. Few other aging suburbs anywhere have found any kind of magic bullet.

But I also don't see what the harm of it is. It doesn't seem like the city is going to spend wildly on it. At the end of the day, it's the property owner taking the biggest gamble.

And gee, when we figure all the abatements and TIFs that have gone into Rockport and this new deal down on the river, drawing up some blueprints doesn't seem like a major to-do. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it's not a taxpayer-funded debacle.

When I bought my house I considered the long range possibility of converting this 3200 sq ft monster into a one family. I have to say there are some questions that came to mind about the setting of such a living arrangement. Lot size is a big one. While this example may be larger than what's being discussed, I would be curious as to the reality of comparing a large one family in Lakewood as opposed to any of our neighboring cities. Would a family of 5 be drawn to a home that has the size but lacks the lot? Then again, kids seem to just need an xbox to entertain themselves so it may not be an issue.
Great to hear that there are discussions and plans in the works. I think that it would be interesting to see a plan to convert Olivewood and Blossom Park into one street with large backyards. That would be a great location for those who would like to raise a family.

small lot sizes are ideal to keep families from buying a bunch of miniature plastic playground equipment and plastic cars for their kids to scoot around in. Those things make hella noise and are unsightly. And the kids playing on them seem dumber than I remember kids being. Kids should be playing on Metal playground equipment at parks.

Pre-Geriatric people shouldn't have yards so big they need to hire landscapers or gardeners. Unless they are millionaires or something.

If people want larger lots they can move to the suburbs or the sticks or West Boulevard.

I believe that Lakewood was built up for people who worked in local factories like Union Carbide and also to house office workers,secretatries etc that worked downtown cleveland. Those days are definately over. Lakewood can still be a strong town without coming up with 20k more people, cause unless they nuke nyc that is not going to happen.
Like Cleveland Lakewood can be a strong,vibrant "boutique city". Population growth isn't everything.....jobs are.