The Observation Deck

Jim, for the Architectural Review Board to really be effective, the city would need to be able to buy properties and hold them till a proper use and developer came around. Owners of commercial properties that they want to sell are usually very anxious, especially when they feel they have a fish on the hook. If you went to the owner of the theater and told him to wait till a better use came around, he would probably call you names. So, in the meantime, lets see if we could find somebody with a better use for the property, who could make an equal or better offer.

Michael, are you in conctact with either the buyers or the sellers of the Detroit or the Lutheran Church?

Has Bob Dobush . . . um . . . decided not to sell his crumbling theater? Sure, it's another theater, but that one--idle for two decades, leaking for almost that long, is truly crumbling. And in a neighborhood that cound use an infusion of commercial interest. And if the price posted for the Detroit is anywhere near accurate, the Hilliard would be quite a bit less expensive.

You mentioned commercial strips with businesses in them as better choices for demolition than city hall. What about the parking lot north of Winchester and Hopkins, vacant behind a chain link fence? What about the Giant Eagle building and its parking lot?

Denny's backed off its initial plan to build a chrome diner in the face of neighborhood resistance, and then backed off completely when the law prevented them from doing business 24-7. By the time I-HOP (RIP) came along, they were ready to cooperate: reasonable business hours, a red brick structure on the curb. Could McDonalds cooperate like this?

My friend Mati tells me that in Adams Morgan, in DC, McDonalds rehabbed and opened a restaurant in an historic tavern. Does anyone have insight as to whether they'd be willing to keep / renovate the building's exterior and build their restaurant inside?

Michael Loje wrote:Jim, for the Architectural Review Board to really be effective, the city would need to be able to buy properties and hold them till a proper use and developer came around. Owners of commercial properties that they want to sell are usually very anxious, especially when they feel they have a fish on the hook. If you went to the owner of the theater and told him to wait till a better use came around, he would probably call you names. So, in the meantime, lets see if we could find somebody with a better use for the property, who could make an equal or better offer.

Mchael

Huh? While I agree and understand what you are saying, the ARB should have some sort
of idea of what we are and where we are going.

Nothing, explains the debacle on Warren and Madison. Nothing. To narrow the entrance into
Lakewood with two very mediocre buildings?! If they had just reversed the layout, the
city would open as you drive into it. And people would be able to walk on the sidewalks
in this walkable city, and traffic would have been much safer and useable.

If the ARB cannot see this, then who should?

If this city is in the position where we have to take whatever is pushed our way, then we
should also sit down and figure out why? Best, Coolest and we have to take anything
coming this way except tattoo parlors?

FWIW


.

Jim O'bryan asked:
huh?

Jim,
Heres how it works. You have a seller that is anxious to sell a property. You have a buyer that, no matter how much they want it, never let on how much they want it.
They make an offer to the seller, subject to city approval.
The city comes back, says they like the proposal, but says they want to change x, y, and z to make the project a better fit with the neighborhood.
The buyers standard answer when confronted with anything that challenges their formula;
"That makes the project economically unfeasible. We're done, Have a nice day"
The buyer tells the seller the deal is off, and why.
The buyer just sits back and watches.
The seller angrily asks the city "why did you quash my deal?" and threatens a lawsuit.
The seller keeps after the buyer and asks "what can I do?"
The buyer says "Get your city off my back!"
The city eventually eases their requirements.
The buyer makes a few concessions to the city but basically builds his formula.
That is not peculiar to Lakewood; that happens everywhere.

What makes Lakewood Lakewood? What is the brand? This is so directly related to the topic of re purposing or demolishing buildings on our commercial streets I'm putting this post here, rather than your other thread, Jim.

Livable is a great word. Probably the best single word. There seems to be a lot of agreement in these posts about what Lakewood is and should be, even if there isn't a complete manifesto (which would be cool). One of the things that makes Lakewood livable is density. We have lots of apartment buildings, and lots of tightly-knit beautiful old homes, most of which are at most a long block away from our commercial streets, Detroit and Madison. Here is where density is very important for Lakewood's livability.

There are currently two stores in the Detroit Theater building, apartments above, and a now-dark theater. Replace all this with 1 MacDonalds and I think you have damaged Lakewood's brand/character/soul.

I wouldn't necessarily be as opposed to other new construction on the Detroit Theater location as I am the the MacDonalds. Regardless of the use, though, what I think would be damaging would be single-use, single-story, large footprint. This is what I think rankle about the pharmacies, sherwin williams, dunkin donuts, and the IRS building.

Michael Loje wrote:Jim O'bryan asked:
huh?

Jim,
Heres how it works. You have a seller that is anxious to sell a property. You have a buyer that, no matter how much they want it, never let on how much they want it.
They make an offer to the seller, subject to city approval.
The city comes back, says they like the proposal, but says they want to change x, y, and z to make the project a better fit with the neighborhood.
The buyers standard answer when confronted with anything that challenges their formula;
"That makes the project economically unfeasible. We're done, Have a nice day"
The buyer tells the seller the deal is off, and why.
The buyer just sits back and watches.
The seller angrily asks the city "why did you quash my deal?" and threatens a lawsuit.
The seller keeps after the buyer and asks "what can I do?"
The buyer says "Get your city off my back!"
The city eventually eases their requirements.
The buyer makes a few concessions to the city but basically builds his formula.
That is not peculiar to Lakewood; that happens everywhere.

pitiful then.

Why have any of these commissions and boards, CDCs, etc. In other cities they seem to
have an idea, a plan, a rough idea of the journey they are on. How pitiful that the best
city in the county, and one of the 10 coolest in the nations is left to the whims of others
that really have no interest in our well being.

I mean one of the ways to be popular and cool back in high school, was to be the easy one.
But with it came very little respect, or long term commitment or for that matter
even the bus money home.

I kind of was hoping for a little more at this point.

I have not sat through these meetings, but I suppose you have and know far more than
me. ME, I am just a hopeless idealist.

.

Jim, which cities have a plan? I could think of one: Chagrin Falls.

By the way, Jim, I don't know if I mentioned this, but if enough of us make our displeasure known to the city, we might be able to sway something. Wh knows?

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Michael Loje wrote:Jim O'bryan asked:
huh?

Jim,
Heres how it works. You have a seller that is anxious to sell a property. You have a buyer that, no matter how much they want it, never let on how much they want it.
They make an offer to the seller, subject to city approval.
The city comes back, says they like the proposal, but says they want to change x, y, and z to make the project a better fit with the neighborhood.
The buyers standard answer when confronted with anything that challenges their formula;
"That makes the project economically unfeasible. We're done, Have a nice day"
The buyer tells the seller the deal is off, and why.
The buyer just sits back and watches.
The seller angrily asks the city "why did you quash my deal?" and threatens a lawsuit.
The seller keeps after the buyer and asks "what can I do?"
The buyer says "Get your city off my back!"
The city eventually eases their requirements.
The buyer makes a few concessions to the city but basically builds his formula.
That is not peculiar to Lakewood; that happens everywhere.

pitiful then.

Why have any of these commissions and boards, CDCs, etc. In other cities they seem to
have an idea, a plan, a rough idea of the journey they are on. How pitiful that the best
city in the county, and one of the 10 coolest in the nations is left to the whims of others
that really have no interest in our well being.

I mean one of the ways to be popular and cool back in high school, was to be the easy one.
But with it came very little respect, or long term commitment or for that matter
even the bus money home.

I kind of was hoping for a little more at this point.

I have not sat through these meetings, but I suppose you have and know far more than
me. ME, I am just a hopeless idealist.

.

Two things come to mind reading this....

Is it worth not making ANY concessions to businesses wanting to setup in Lakewood and possibly ending up with an empty location for an extremely extended amount of time?

I'm sure the city could make a plan for the future... but it may not fit ANY of our ideas of what the plan for Lakewood would be, but may be a fit for the majority of Lakewood residents. Can people accept this?

J Hrlec wrote:[Two things come to mind reading this....

Is it worth not making ANY concessions to businesses wanting to setup in Lakewood and possibly ending up with an empty location for an extremely extended amount of time?

I'm sure the city could make a plan for the future... but it may not fit ANY of our ideas of what the plan for Lakewood would be, but may be a fit for the majority of Lakewood residents. Can people accept this?

J Hrlec

It is worth it working with all wanting to come here. Within reason, and within the "norm."
I do not think that stance is outlandish.

There is a massive difference between that, and how Mike claims Warren and Madison
were handled.

In the end it is a community, and some respect needs to be placed on "majority" and what
works for all residents. A plan might not fit, but a good plan can give us goals, and like
in sailing we might not hit all perfectly, but at least we know what we are tacking to.
A good plan/idea would chart that out and get rid of so many side issues.

Do we care about historical, or not?

Do we care about walkability or not?

Do we care about local businesses or not?

Are we a bedroom community that thrives on that and our location, or not?

Do we manage downsizing, or look to building?

Do we try to find people to move into the center of a city, or do we bring in
businesses that make people not want to live there?

Or do we take whatever the wind blows in without question?

Do we pay big$$$$$ to attract chains, and let the local business foot the bill for
their new deep pocket competition?

Do we need another burger place, or do we try for a pants store?

Is the city and other groups actively working to bring in things that would work here, or
do we just act like we do?

These are very big differences in a very small space.

The fact is Lakewood has succeeded in this county, and while showing distress, not any we
did not bring on ourselves. Do we continue along the lines of what has worked and in
reality never goes out of fashion, or do we reinvent ourselves as something we are not?

Answers, really have none, just conversation right now.

Where is the manifesto Ben is looking for?

FWIW

.

http://longislandfood.blogspot.com/2010/09/fancy-mcdonalds.html


From New York....





.

Michael Loje wrote:By the way, Jim, I don't know if I mentioned this, but if enough of us make our displeasure known to the city, we might be able to sway something. Wh knows?

Hi Michael,

I think you did mention it. I think that this has to be done. Many in the city made their displeasure known over the plan to turn the Heideloff Mansion into condos and that communication did make a difference. I have heard that a family has purchased that house now.

I think the point that needs to be made is that if we agree that the biggest asset in Lakewood is our homes, and our neighborhood environment: safe, walkable, livable, etc. we can at least assess new ideas with that in mind.

What will happen to the property values of the houses that are near that McDonalds? The grease, the smell, the constant "Welcome to McDonalds, can I take your order?" Does this say 'Welcome to Lakewood, you should move here'? Not very livable right there.

What will happen to the traffic pattern with another drive-thru in an already congested area? That isn't a safe decision, or a very walkable one.

What does it say about bringing another place for our kids to buy total junk, vs. something healthier. One of the biggest comments to come out of the LHS Youth Forum was that "all there was to do here was to eat and get fat." Obesity is a huge issue for children, why make it easier? Is that a livable thing to do? Is this the environment we want for our kids in this little city full of families? Not safe health-wise.

Another thing the students mentioned was how many of them went to the Detroit theater because they could walk there, it was affordable, and their parents were okay with it. So many mentioned the need for a youth/recreation type center. Could the Detroit be re-purposed in this way with some thought? As we talk about the Lakewood "brand" can we agree that to have walkable, safe, fun places for our kids to go is part of that brand?

What about the fact that this isn't a new McDonalds? It's just an old one moving to a new location. No net gain, no new business for Lakewood, just the same one, and now a new empty, abandoned location in Lakewood.

I know in the front page article of the Lakewood Observer last issue Mayor Summers said he was pleased about having a McDonalds taking over the Detroit theater, but I don't know whether he has totally thought it out. I think he's been doing a pretty good job trying to get up to speed with what it is to be mayor in a short period of time but I think he missed the mark on this one, and I think if he, and the Council, gave it some thought, they might reconsider their 100 percent support. Is it good for Lakewood? Really?

I think as citizens, as Michael suggests, we should make our opinions known by emails and letters to our mayor and our Council, and by attending the next Council meeting and speaking up during the Communication period. I think our administration has demonstrated that they are willing to listen, but in order for them to hear us, we have to speak, and in situations like this it helps if we speak in "official" formats.

It's easy to find all of our Council members and our mayor's email by Googling city of Lakewood, Ohio. The schedule for their next meeting will be there too. I'd post it now but I'm late to a meeting myself.

One more thing, those that have ideas for the theater-- it's time to make them known and get your financial ducks in order. Again as Michael point out, it would make a difference to the seller if he knew he had other interested parties. From what I hear about him, he's a good guy, and likes kids, but he's getting up in his years and is trying to do the best thing for his family.

Betsy Voinovich

Michael Gill: Did not see your post this morning.
No, have not been in touch with any of the buyers or sellers.
Oh yea, Bob is STILL looking for a buyer. Has been since he owned it. But he doesnt want to sell it as a teardown. Still a lot of misconceptions about it. For instance, yes, it needs a new roof. No, it is not larger than the Detroit. Yes, his most lucrative offer was as a teardown for a drug store. Yes, parking is an issue. But it is unquestionably the most beautiful theater ever built in Lakewood, something that would even be a standout in Playhouse Square. If any theater in Lakewood is worthy of rehabbing, the Westwood is it.
Oh, no I didn't mention any commercial blocks as potential teardowns. I did, however, mention things like Burger King, Taco Bell, and some of the 70's gas stations. This was in response to Bryans retort about replacing city hall with a McD's
Apparently, the parking lot at Winchester and the old Giant Eagle properties are not for sale. Apparently, they are already owned for future development.
Michael, I couldnt agree with you more about the McDonalds in Adams Morgan. Incorporating elements from the theater would be fantastic. If the McD franchisee is somewhat local and civic minded, he might be able to push it. But, it will probably be like going into a McDonalds and ordering a Big Mac without pickles; you throw the whole system into a tizzy.
Mr. Gill, pleasure talking with you. Keep in touch.

Betsy,
Lakewood needs more thinkers like you. Glad you are here.
And you're right. Do we consider a RELOCATED McDonalds to to be a selling point?

And to Jim, if you are indeed a "hopeless idealist', you, more than anyone, should know the value of getting in touch with your mayor and council. Let them know what you think.