The Observation Deck

Maybe some Lakewood residents are just better than others because they can pay for access to our lake.

Maybe the only swimmable portion of OUR lake is being held hostage by those who can pay. More north of the William Sonoma line going on here.

I used to go to Edgewater a lot. It is seriously overcrowded, I don't enjoy going there much anymore there are also problems with the upkeep of the park.

Back to retail in our town. That is the biggest mistake we could make. There are enough malls and strip malls, close enough to our town. We also have a lot of empty retail spots on Madison. Rocky River seems to have major issues with retail also.

We don't need more ideas that don't work, we need ideas that do.

All of the naysayers need to think up workable options for us. Where are there steady income streams. What are our resources and how best to use them. Tie that one on your buggy.

I definitely think that Lakewood does need to do something about developing its lakefront, for instance perhaps finishing the plans they started years ago. However I do not think that ugly high-rise condos all over the place are the answer, nor is taking Clifton park by storm. Although I am not so keen on the closed access of the area, I am also not for tarring down some nice old homes for some ridiculous and ugly development project. Although I don’t totally agree with the currant plans for the peninsula, I think there is some potential there, as well as expanding to Catholic Academy land (but only with there support and agreement). There are lots of good ideas there, however I think some practicality and redesigned of some aspects need to be considered.

Bottom line, need lakefront development, but don’t cause city unrest and upheaval over it, stick to something which has better potential to begin with.

Gold Coast now.



Quick image of how the Gold Coast could look in 2015 and beyond. We have
added an additional 700 high end living units to Lakewood, with almost zero impact
on the look or feel of Lakewood.

Of course, it will never be discussed as at least one council person lives in the footprint.
However that one along with many of the residents had asked 1,500 people to move
out so that the city could build 35 mid range units. So maybe there is a chance.




.

What happens if they build these high end condos you are looking for and no one comes? Lakewood is not the field of dreams, if we build it we are not guaranteed they will come. Not that they are high end condos, but look at Rock Port, last I heard they were fighting to get all of those filled, and that’s part of the reason the cliffs project is still a muddy valley wall. Also I have spoken to at least one person currently trying to sell their lake front condo in one of the high rises, has been for almost 2 years, but no one has been interested in paying both a mortgage and a maintenance fee.

What you presented in the last picture looks like an acceptable possibility except for once again moving people out of an area and probably tarring down some nice older houses, for a new modern and soulless alternative.

Christopher Bindel wrote:What happens if they build these high end condos you are looking for and no one comes? Lakewood is not the field of dreams, if we build it we are not guaranteed they will come. Not that they are high end condos, but look at Rock Port, last I heard they were fighting to get all of those filled, and that’s part of the reason the cliffs project is still a muddy valley wall. Also I have spoken to at least one person currently trying to sell their lake front condo in one of the high rises, has been for almost 2 years, but no one has been interested in paying both a mortgage and a maintenance fee.

What you presented in the last picture looks like an acceptable possibility except for once again moving people out of an area and probably tarring down some nice older houses, for a new modern and soulless alternative.

Chris

The is more $$$$ in Winton Place and Meriden, then possibly the rest of Lakewood.

I would like to know where this unit is that you speak of. Some places on the Gold Coast
could not be given away, no matter what you think. Just being in the "Gold Coast" means
very little. 2/4rds of the apartments were built before the 70s, and they are getting pretty
ratty.

We might loose a couple homes, but not as many as you think.

Look at the homes in front of the Winton Place, they are going up in value at the same
rate as the rest of the area. Proving that it is possible to increase values on a grand scale,
while not trashing an entire neighborhood.

So then here is the problem.

Lakewood is built out, filled with historical homes So should we destroy neighborhoods
with developments no one wants to live near, which becomes an ever growing cancer? Or
do we turn to responsible development, that has the smallest negatives with the highest
chance of success?

Living space, as outlined by the Green Lakewood Power Point underlines that retail is a
fools game, and that housing is the only thing to work over the next 25 years.

So go at it my friend, what is your solution?

.

I never said I had a solution, just to be careful at the rout you choose to go. To be honest I am not educated enough about the areas along the lake to suggest an alternative. I did mention I like the idea of expanding the park to the Catholic Academy land (only with their unwavering agreement), perhaps part of that land there could become the development you seek. But then again I am not really familiar with what is down there, and if it is architecturally significant I would probably appose that to. Sorry I’m a historian at heart that thinks we have become a nation that destroys anything with style and history just to make a buck, and I’m not ok with it.

Anyways I never heard an answer to my questions listed above. What happens if the people you build that development for never come, or how do you guarantee that they will.

Anyways I never heard an answer to my questions listed above. What happens if the people you build that development for never come, or how do you guarantee that they will.

LOL, askJay Foran, Madeline Cain, Brian Powers, and all the other people who believe "build it and they will come!"

Christopher Bindel wrote:I never said I had a solution, just to be careful at the rout you choose to go. To be honest I am not educated enough about the areas along the lake to suggest an alternative. I did mention I like the idea of expanding the park to the Catholic Academy land (only with their unwavering agreement), perhaps part of that land there could become the development you seek. But then again I am not really familiar with what is down there, and if it is architecturally significant I would probably appose that to. Sorry I’m a historian at heart that thinks we have become a nation that destroys anything with style and history just to make a buck, and I’m not ok with it.

Anyways I never heard an answer to my questions listed above. What happens if the people you build that development for never come, or how do you guarantee that they will.

Chris

You really have every answer you need.

Ask Stephen Eisel, they are all there inside you already.

As Steve Davis says it is not rocket surgery, it is actually very, very simple.

This is always what is so amazing to me.

We are not half empty, we are not falling apart.

It makes development harder, but planning oh so much simpler.

This is what is so disappointing right now.

The equations is very simple. Everything you do needs to break even, or add to the economy, and cannot
create negatives that outweigh the positives by more than people can take.

How can I guarantee they come?

Do it right.


.

Ah, but who is to know what is right? And whose version of right?

I suppose if you just wanted public access to the beach in a big way, without the development of condos, you could try something like this. If you are going to piss off some people, might as well do it in a big way. This connects Webb Rd. with Clifton Beach.

Let me just jump in with - Rockport was a stupid idea. Who wants to live, for that price, in that neighborhood. What's there? I love the Shore but don't think many yuppies would, they could go to Drug Mart? Nope bad location, bad idea.

The land at Catholic Academy, access to the cliff line is badly eroded and dangerous. I went to Augustine's and they were having problems back then, 45 years ago.

We need beach acess, where in Lakewood do you get that? Lakewood Park, but there's no swimming. The Beach Club is it folks.

sharon kinsella wrote:Let me just jump in with - Rockport was a stupid idea. Who wants to live, for that price, in that neighborhood. What's there? I love the Shore but don't think many yuppies would, they could go to Drug Mart? Nope bad location, bad idea.

The land at Catholic Academy, access to the cliff line is badly eroded and dangerous. I went to Augustine's and they were having problems back then, 45 years ago.

We need beach acess, where in Lakewood do you get that? Lakewood Park, but there's no swimming. The Beach Club is it folks.

Sharon

Not sure there are any yuppies left in Lakewood. One of the keys to being a yuppie was wealth, and being
upwardly mobile.

What is slowly emerging from the talks I am having with other cities and developers is that Lakewood is
really selling ourselves short thinking any development in the center of town will have any real impact
in moving this city over the next 10-50 years.

This is for many reasons, mostly the death of shopping and BUYING. According to many of the shops at
Legacy Village and Crocker Park, shopping is up, buying is not. People come and look, and then buy online.
This trend could change if they start taxing online purchases, but that is still a big IF right now.

So we can nickel and dime and feel like something is happening, though it is not, or we can get serious and
take steps to give this community a chance for the next 25+ years. Everyone I have spoken with, 4 developers
6 community planners, 2 chamber of commerce presidents, and all seem to think it is foolish to not at least
study our lakefront and what can be delivered to benefit the entire city.

While I appreciate the good work being done at LCA it is hard to believe that the school would not do as well
at St. Clements. After all, the school has no view of the lake, so why do we let it sit?

Do we spend millions developing Lakewood Park, or would it be easier and more cost effective to buy homes
say every 1/4 mile along the lake, grade it out for a series of public beaches? I was actually privy to one
discussion between some residents looking to do that on a small scale and the comment was, "If we all kick
in $2,000 the neighborhood could by the lot and get lake access." Well to extrapolate that out, what if we
all kick in $500 and get beach access?

Another interesting subject is how many members of the Clifton Club even still live in Lakewood? I have no
idea, though as I go over the membership book, many have leaked out of Lakewood. Are we to allow residents
of other communities to control the Lakewood's future? While I understand there is a trust, there are also laws
and the right of self rule, that should be considered.

As I have pointed out before in my many lunches with Jay Foran, Mary Anne Crampton and other leaders,
they are correct when they say "we must look at everything, and we must have all the tools at our disposal"
if we are to have a chance at moving this city forward. $80,000 flower boxes are nice, but not as nice as
beach access for all. Especially if it were to add 5 - 20% to the value of our homes and property.
Or $50,000,000 in new upscale living space along the lake.

I cannot fault them for having access, but I can fault them for not putting it on the table if they are truly serious
about making this city all it can be for all.


Dustin

That area has trouble holding sand which is why they need caissons(?) on the beach to help
reclaim and protect the beach.


One of the many things Savannah looked at with her design. The beach was on the back
of the development so that it would actually help reclaim sand automatically which then
could have been used to create other beach, or even trucked to Clifton Beach to speed
up their reclaim project. I was just thinking your idea might work just by pulling the piers
back 45 degrees.

Developing our lakefront certainly deserves an in-depth study.


FWIW


.

I don't disagree that the lake is a valuable resource or that we should "look" into possibilities. However, from my experience of talking with people and reading online forums...that is never really brought up as a factor of why people are thinking of moving (or not moving) to Lakewood.

Things I hear most often are:

1. Horrible roads
2. Crime (or perception of crime and "thugs" in Lakewood)
3. Taxes
4. etc etc etc (EDIT: I hear the library and walkability brought up as well)

So, that being said, I'm not sure that any time and money we have should be focused on making a beach. I never heard anyone in my 37 years in lakewood say..." I wish I could move to Lakewood, but they don't have a nice beach"

Of course that's just what I hear.

J Hrlec wrote:I don't disagree that the lake is a valuable resource or that we should "look" into possibilities. However, from my experience of talking with people and reading online forums...that is never really brought up as a factor of why people are thinking of moving (or not moving) to Lakewood.

Things I hear most often are:

1. Horrible roads
2. Crime (or perception of crime and "thugs" in Lakewood)
3. Taxes
4. etc etc etc (EDIT: I hear the library and walkability brought up as well)

So, that being said, I'm not sure that any time and money we have should be focused on making a beach. I never heard anyone in my 37 years in lakewood say..." I wish I could move to Lakewood, but they don't have a nice beach"

Of course that's just what I hear.

J

Taxes are a complete red herring. With our property values and cost of living most people over the age of
40 could never recoup cost of moving, sale, commission, same size home, etc. because of taxes. Even if
they choose Monaco, or Kuwait with no taxes.

So you hear the number one reason for moving or staying is the road condition?

Wow, well then, maybe we need to get on them.

What I have noticed is that people complain about the roads until they are fixed, then complain that people
drive too fast and sped bumps are needed. I have always found this to be true, and ironic.

I have heard the mention of crime, but again as I listen to the police scanner and work with my other papers
I see Lakewood doing better than other cities in breaking and entering, and theft. I always put this off to
if you break into a Lakewood home you have a pretty good chance to get a TV with tubes and and VCR. While
just over the river you get plasma and DVD recorders. But again simply a perception, not a study.

What I am saying is look at what has worked here. The Gold Coast and little else. At least successful on that
level, something big enough to add to a city's bottom line, this should give us a hint.

What I do hear from residents is how odd it is we are Lakewood with no real access to the lake.

I do not really think I ever would have even gone down this road of thinking, had I not heard the comment
mentioned at the Savannah show about what "Lake access" could add to all property values. When you add
that to what has been successful and what other cities are doing and a clearer picture begins to emerge.

To me Lakewood's assets will always be location, location, location, (10 minutes from airport, downtown,
Crocker Park, Turnpike, 20 from Legacy Village, University Circle, etc.) cost of living (Lakewood property is worth
nearly half of what it is worth in Rocky River or Cleveland), and what we have (Lakefront, rivers, Emerald Canyon,
and I prefer Mel Page's term of livability not just walkability) This puts the lake acess down on the list but
near the top of what can be easily done to register a positive impact.

I will mention that Mel's term is spot on. My neighborhood is filled with young adults that like Lakewood
bars and prefer to walk there and crawl home over driving. Which might be a good thing right now.

So do you hear mention they come for strip malls? Box chains? or even to see the beautiful flowers downtown
as one groups claims in their brochures? I have never heard anyone mention, 100 year old clubs with 50 year
old musty red rugs. But that could be just the crowd I run with.

I think we have to be honest, best for Lakewood would be living, and as we are witnessing with the census,
we need more not less as we strive to stay at 50,000. If we want more housing, we might as well go for the
higher earning group, which would be attracted to high end condos along the lake with beach access. Take my
house and develop the river, take the lake homes develop the lake. Let's add 20,000 residents with incomes
and get this city running again.

FWIW

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

J Hrlec wrote:I don't disagree that the lake is a valuable resource or that we should "look" into possibilities. However, from my experience of talking with people and reading online forums...that is never really brought up as a factor of why people are thinking of moving (or not moving) to Lakewood.

Things I hear most often are:

1. Horrible roads
2. Crime (or perception of crime and "thugs" in Lakewood)
3. Taxes
4. etc etc etc (EDIT: I hear the library and walkability brought up as well)

So, that being said, I'm not sure that any time and money we have should be focused on making a beach. I never heard anyone in my 37 years in lakewood say..." I wish I could move to Lakewood, but they don't have a nice beach"

Of course that's just what I hear.

J

Taxes are a complete red herring. With our property values and cost of living most people over the age of
40 could never recoup cost of moving, sale, commission, same size home, etc. because of taxes. Even if
they choose Monaco, or Kuwait with no taxes.

So you hear the number one reason for moving or staying is the road condition?

Wow, well then, maybe we need to get on them.

What I have noticed is that people complain about the roads until they are fixed, then complain that people
drive too fast and sped bumps are needed. I have always found this to be true, and ironic.

I have heard the mention of crime, but again as I listen to the police scanner and work with my other papers
I see Lakewood doing better than other cities in breaking and entering, and theft. I always put this off to
if you break into a Lakewood home you have a pretty good chance to get a TV with tubes and and VCR. While
just over the river you get plasma and DVD recorders. But again simply a perception, not a study.

What I am saying is look at what has worked here. The Gold Coast and little else. At least successful on that
level, something big enough to add to a city's bottom line, this should give us a hint.

What I do hear from residents is how odd it is we are Lakewood with no real access to the lake.

I do not really think I ever would have even gone down this road of thinking, had I not heard the comment
mentioned at the Savannah show about what "Lake access" could add to all property values. When you add
that to what has been successful and what other cities are doing and a clearer picture begins to emerge.

To me Lakewood's assets will always be location, location, location, (10 minutes from airport, downtown,
Crocker Park, Turnpike, 20 from Legacy Village, University Circle, etc.) cost of living (Lakewood property is worth
nearly half of what it is worth in Rocky River or Cleveland), and what we have (Lakefront, rivers, Emerald Canyon,
and I prefer Mel Page's term of livability not just walkability) This puts the lake acess down on the list but
near the top of what can be easily done to register a positive impact.

I will mention that Mel's term is spot on. My neighborhood is filled with young adults that like Lakewood
bars and prefer to walk there and crawl home over driving. Which might be a good thing right now.

So do you hear mention they come for strip malls? Box chains? or even to see the beautiful flowers downtown
as one groups claims in their brochures? I have never heard anyone mention, 100 year old clubs with 50 year
old musty red rugs. But that could be just the crowd I run with.

I think we have to be honest, best for Lakewood would be living, and as we are witnessing with the census,
we need more not less as we strive to stay at 50,000. If we want more housing, we might as well go for the
higher earning group, which would be attracted to high end condos along the lake with beach access. Take my
house and develop the river, take the lake homes develop the lake. Let's add 20,000 residents with incomes
and get this city running again.

FWIW

Jim,

I wasn't really trying to list of level of importance, because that changes by who is making the statement. I was simply listing the items I hear most often whether it is only "perception" or not. Also, when it comes to roads I am not referring to people who are already here....but those we are attempting to attract.

I agree I don't think Lakewood is any worse in regards to crime, but once again it is perception and something that deters new people from Lakewood. It doesn't matter if existing residents "know" that crime isn't as bad as long as others thinking of moving here do.

As far as strip malls and such, I don't hear much from anybody in any city about them as far as important to them living there, but I know that many appreciate having them there. (hope that makes sense) Either way this was not part of my original reply.

I am telling you what I hear, not necessarily what I am saying or thinking.

I think you have good ideas, just not sure about priority of them versus other issues.