The Observation Deck

J Hrlec wrote: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.

J

Was just having fun. Too many people take themselves waaaaaaaaaaay to seriously. As
my partners will tell you number one at the Observer is to have fun while kicking this stuff
around. One reason we find it odd when people crash and burn over discussions or topics.
Lighten up everyone.

Lakewood is in a pretty good position, as long as we do not screw up the balance. To me
this city is much like the rain forest. Hard to say why we are doing so much better than
those around us, but we are so we should tinker, build consensus, and push ahead with
vision and a multidimensional plan.

If you look at my platform for mayor in 2012, you will see what I see as the most
important items for this city nearly in order and you have actually touched on some. Many
we can all agree on, but for some reason slip through the cracks of day to day life in this city.

I am a complete VAL believer, and one of the things that came out of that was the mantra
all officials used in' their run for mayor, but to my knowledge have not necessarily even
come close to delivering on. But then, most have been running for higher office since they
were elected, so with so few hours in the day we can only expect so much from them.

Safe and clean. I would say we all agree, and to me it is a very easy problem to
understand so should also be a very easy problem to fix. This is also one of my common
themes and complaints. So to get back onto my psychotic high horse to have some cheap
fun at the expense of others. Why bring "thousands a year to gaze on our beautiful
flowers downtown..." when the streets are filthy, covered with litter and graffiti, and the
roads leading in and out have terrible looking property and even worse roads? Are we
trying to show thousands just how bad it can be? No. We need to concentrate on the
gateway areas to our city and make sure the roads that lead hundreds to downtown, or
thousands to the Arts Fest, The Car Show, the Fireworks are nearly perfect and invite
people to actually dream of living here? Warren, McKinley, Riverside, Clifton, Lake,
Madison, Berea Rd, etc should be spotless, end of story.

The VAL concept of hiring a minimum of 30 police is not because crime is out of control. It
is to send a message to the entire region. Come to Lakewood because it is clean and safe.
If you come to create havoc or crime, you will be caught. Move on to another city with a
much lower police to criminal balance. In the VAL it was paid for in an effect way that put
no burden on most tax payers, and created a fund for fixing homes up. Sound promising?
Well I guess the city never thought so, but there is talk about one part of that plan going
on in city hall right now, but it is far too little, with no bang for the buck. So like
Savannah's peninsula a very costly shift happens. What I mean in the case of the
peninsula, build it and it pays for everything else. Do the rest without it first, and it will
bankrupt the city. What council is looking at with rent licenses will fall far
short of anything that makes a real impact.

I have to think when people look to move to a city they look at cost, location, safe, clean
and fun. As I have said and Steve Davis signs off with, this is not Rocket Surgery. We need
to think why people move, not why I would move here.

The first thing Lakewood needs to do is realize that our glass is not half full or half empty
but 80% maybe 90%.This makes our future very easy to plan for. How do we keep good
people here, and attract more like minded people to the area? When I say good, I mean
behavior, when I say like minded I mean active earners, that see and understand our
commitment to education, libraries and civic engagement. We must not allow Lakewood
to become another yellow and black box on the regional shelf. We must always strive to
offer something different. Something better, something more inline with what families
need, and because we are half full we do not need to take wild chances, hit home runs,
or sell the farms to the regionals.

For the record, I do think it would serve the city to take over Clifton Beach, but if I were to
advocate building high rise luxury condos in Lakewood. I would start with the first five on
Edgewater coming in from Cleveland. Most are 50 years old, dreadfully small, no real way
to enjoy the view with lots of brick and very little glass. Find developers that would take
them down and rebuild them twice as large.

ZERO impact, massive climbs in property values, and very, very safe development.

Want to test some ideas, search on the Google. Enter "Art District" 64,000,000 returns,
of well guess that is beat to death. Try "walkability" damn late on that one too. Try
"livability" now we are getting somewhere. Try public beach, try car show, try art fest,
try "pants store."

Lakewood, and Lakewood discussions, it is all good, and good fun. We just need more to
step up to the plate and join the discussion. Time for our leaders to trust the residents.

.

That is the first location for the development I think I can back you almost all the way on. The only thing I am concerned about is still kicking people out of their homes. Although they might be Condos/apartments, they are still peoples homes. However those first couple buildings on Edgewater, you are right, do not really offer much and could be improved greatly. However I still think the beach connected to Lakewood park would be the best plan for that.

Christopher Bindel wrote:That is the first location for the development I think I can back you almost all the way on. The only thing I am concerned about is still kicking people out of their homes. Although they might be Condos/apartments, they are still peoples homes. However those first couple buildings on Edgewater, you are right, do not really offer much and could be improved greatly. However I still think the beach connected to Lakewood park would be the best plan for that.

Christopher

Of course that solution is also the biggest gamble. Tearing down a condo with 652 units means a potential of
1,500 people moving for 12 months, and hoping they stay in the city, or maybe not. So while it is the easiest
to envision, one old building for one new one seems easy enough, and makes sense, but is a logistical nightmare.

We have the problem that most if not all of the gold coast units are condos, of dealing with 652 owners. Ever
try to get 652 people on the same page for a realistic price? Now you start to see the dilemma in trying to
move that forward. I am pretty sure that the Gold Coast is the largest block of absentee landlords in the city, so that means they care more bottom line and investment than what the city needs and you start to get a
real feeling that nightmare. Funny how one seemingly innocent change like going from apartments to condos
can tie a city up for the future. Funny that no one saw this coming.

So what are other solutions. The first buying up and tearing down 10 large homes out of which maybe 1 or 2
have any real significance.* Building a 1,000 unit high income high rise, and offering people in the first condo in a chance to buy at a reduced rate so that they can buy and move. This allows Lakewood to retain its population even grow, before tearing down a 652 unit condo. It would be good to find a developer to keep it
an apartment. Apartments are back in fashion as money tightens up. One might ask, could the city be the
owner? This would certainly give the city a revenue stream, and a firm handle on the future. If the city owned
those apartments on Edgewater, or at the end of Detroit, there would have been no need to use eminent
domain to take them down. To be honest I am not sure it is even legal for a city to own condos or be in the
rental business. So here we are hands tied, future in knots as we look to make Lakewood more stable for
the future, and or even grow.

And it leaves serious question on the table for all of us to consider and talk about. We have studies on Detroit,
Madison, Birdtown, Manor Park to Lakeland, Rockway to Clifton, WestEnd of Detroit and Sloan(filled with lies
and misrepresentations), two for Lakewood Park, and I believe even one for along I-90. Where is the study of
developing our lakefront? A case could have been made to leave Clifton Park alone for historical significance,
but when Dearborn Manor came down for a small insignificant development, they lost their last real piece of
history. Now with new developments and homes going up in Clifton Park it would seem that history means
little even down there. So let's put it all on the table and see what can add to everyone's future.

The real problem. NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. Sit down and look at where our leaders tend to live. In
the very area that might save this city. So that it is never on the table and never, never, never even
discussed. We can talk about developing my street, your neighborhood, every neighborhood in Lakewood but
one. Does it even make sense? If we can loose just a finger but save the body should we consider losing the
finger? We can look at every angle even turning our city over to the regional gods so that we loose home rule,
but never, never, never talk of the lakefront. It is insane, and might be what got Lakewood to where we are at
right now. Excited over a biker wing place moving to Lakewood as it might save us.

I know of a 40 story hotel that wanted to move into the bend on Sloane. Before you say anything, yes a
40-story hotel in Lakewood seems insane. But it was not struck down because it would never work. It was
stopped because it MIGHT add traffic to 200 yards of Lake Road. As many as 40 cars a day! Affecting nearly
12 homes! Think about it. Do you even know the story, or remember reading about it? Nope! What I find
most fascinating is who lead the charge to stop this Economic Development boom for Lakewood.

Lakewood's future is in our past. 10,000 more residents is the very simple key to how we get there. We know
the city can easily handle 70,000. If we really care about Lakewood, if we really love Lakewood, everything
has to be on the table. So that we have a clear look at what gives the most for the least disruption.

* The number of historical homes in this city are disappearing to a point one could ask are their any? A
stately home saved for that reason borders on insanity. A stately home with significance is a better
argument, but only if the city can afford it. There are still lots in Lakewood big enough that a new high rise
could be built on 1-4 of them. Think about that equation. One lot only has people living in it only 3 months
a year.

Finally, I am not looking for a "I am right." What I am interested in is the public discussion.

.

Lake access would be a big selling point. Right now, it's extremely limited, all you can do is walk down ramps and stairs and look at the huge concrete blocks between you and in the lakes in the park.

Jerry Ritcey wrote:Lake access would be a big selling point. Right now, it's extremely limited, all you can do is walk down ramps and stairs and look at the huge concrete blocks between you and in the lakes in the park.

A couple things here.

The city's $30,000 study of Lakewood Park came up with this...


This is councilman Mike Summers leaning against the wall leading into Lakewood Park. Mike was not part of the administration
when it was studied. This was from an election photo session I did for him.

While it is nice, and just part of the breath taking study, it seems underwhelming when
you look at what Savannah came up with...



Army Corps of Engineers would have needed less than $15,000 for their study which included how much
they would be willing to pay for this project out of their pocket. Or should we say "shovel ready" in this
day and age. Again think about it, with the stimulus money... The city never bothered.



20s style construction


Small windows, 30s style material.


All glass but 60s style construction.


The world’s first moving building, a skyscraper with 80 independently rotating floors, is being planned
for Dubai (which has big green plans for 2008), with another 70-story structure to be built in Moscow.

These cutting edge buildings, over 400 meters tall, will be constructed of prefabricated sections mounted
on a central concrete core, at an estimated cost of $700m. Catering to the upper crust, apartments are
priced to sell at $3.7m - $36m, and will include such necessities as in-house parking, indoor swimming
pools, voice controlled systems and an ever changing view.


Dubai again.



Not saying these are what we need, just saying buildings and how they are built have
changed heavily in the last 50 years! This allows for more glass, higher structures,
better views, etc. Go back and look at the first building "The Wave" which is being built in
Amsterdam (I think). It allows for maximum view with innovative green techniques.

Food for thought, nothing more.

Wait! Never mind, all is good a new taco place opening up.

.

Please leave the places for the disabled alone. Low income people just lost a school here. They tried to kick low-income people out of the West End too.

I say we eminent domain the heck out of the gifted for a change.

By the way, that building where the view keeps changing is most excellent.

In addition we need to look into container housing for those that want their own places, you can even stack them. And "small houses" for singles and young couples looking to start out owning and need a way to work on up.

Pocket parks that aren't in middle or right next to high traffic, like in the middle of a residential street - ya know the green spaces out of abandoned housing.

sharon kinsella wrote:Please leave the places for the disabled alone. Low income people just lost a school here. They tried to kick low-income people out of the West End too.

Sharon

I am not writing this as some vendetta against anyone. Nor am I looking to take anything
off the table that could be a solution.

If you are speaking of Lake House Towers, the disabled could do a heck of a lot better.
Those apartments are claustrophobic, old and the building nowhere near as sharp as it
was 50 years ago. They are missing many amenities that could make their lives easier and
better. Such as stores in the basement ala Winton Place.

If we are going to be serious about where this city is going and how, everything must be
on the table. I would also say they tried to "run people out" not throw people out. So
many miss so many aspects of the "Debacle on the WestEnd" no The Scenic Park District.
Every one of those apartment buildings are and have been for sale.

If you are speaking of Grant as the low income school. I have to think you need to know
there are many, many families there that were not "low income." I prefer to call it the
school that had the potential to serve the city best with that location. Because of its
central location, it was able to take overflow from nearly any school without causing
hardship to the family. This city needs a centrally located grade school, especially during
the building and renovations of other schools..

sharon kinsella wrote:I say we eminent domain the heck out of the gifted for a change.

Sharon

For a person that speaks of prejudice and isms, I hope this is out of frustration and not
hatred.

I always tell people if you are here, you are my neighbor. Now we can work together to
bring in "good neighbors*" and keep the city strong, or build, or we can turn it over to
hooligans and loose the city. This is another reason why I question our current trend
towards bringing in "visitors" as opposed to residents. Study after study have shown
that retail space is one of the most expensive spaces for a city to maintain with services.
The only thing more expensive is empty retail and empty commercial. These numbers
take into account all city services. I believe when we did the drill in Cleveland for Chicken
Laws, it was from most expensive to least expensive: empty commercial; empty retail;
commercial; retail; schools; empty residential; parks; residential; churches; community gardens.

What we need to do is look at various plans for the city, and see what can be done that
gives us (all of us) the highest yield and chance for success. I would say that plan would be
to invest in what we have now, before we try to add. But should we want to add, and I
think bringing in 10,000 more residents is a good thing for all, then we need to see how.

Dick Jacobs, the Morganthalers, and the Lewis make all of our lives better, because of the
taxes they pay. There is no need to run them out. Ironically they all live on the Gold Coast.
We must look to solutions that give us the biggest bang for the least disruption in a city
that seems to be doing as good if not better than most in our category. Which brings me
to another topic, we must not change for the sake of change, or for busy work. So that
we feel like we are doing something.

sharon kinsella wrote:In addition we need to look into container housing for those that want their own places, you can even stack them. And "small houses" for singles and young couples looking to start out owning and need a way to work on up.

My god woman, container living! Really. Here in Lakewood?! While I always enjoy Dustin's
art and proudly have some hanging on my wall, and the way he look at things, I have to
think Lakewood can do much better than container housing. This is not Japan, Cleveland
does not have a massive need for more housing. We do have a need and an opportunity
for more high end housing along the lake. Where you can still take 4-10 lots and make
them 400 high end lots.

sharon kinsella wrote:Pocket parks that aren't in middle or right next to high traffic, like in the middle of a residential street - ya know the green spaces out of abandoned housing.

I am a fan of community gardens seems like a great use for our largely unused parks.
Develops community involvement, and is the least expensive way to land bank for the
future of a city. However I am pretty sure our new nightmare is less than 50,000 not
more than. When we fall below that number the city will loose all sorts of funding that
makes all sorts of things possible. So before we tear down homes for green space, I would
move to fix them up and get them sold or rented.

But this is a good conversation, and one that needs to be had.

What is the future for our city? If we care about the census and how many, why are we
working so hard to disenfranchise families in the center of the city? Why are we constantly
looking at the new place to tear down homes and put up high end retail(did not use strip
malls). What is the message? What is the plan?

I fear we are going the way of regionalism and the idea that we must "manage decline."
This seems like a deadend because if you succeed all you have done is declined. This
thought process is permeating the region. The entire CLE+ footprint is rife with great
success stories about managing decline!!! Huh?

It is so odd to me to see the very people out pushing for getting our census numbers in
and back because we need to count everyone, is often the person trying to move 1,500
residents out of the city for strip malls(had to). What is the message, that we are bipolar?
The very people selling homes "in walking distance to downtown" work behind the scenes
to close the school that would have served those families?! We have meetings for "arts
districts" and at the meeting we hear, we need art districts for artists to spur
economic growth to force those artists out with economic development?! Huh????!!!!!

Where are we going? We deserve to hear the plans, especially if they affect our property
values and are underwritten by tax dollars.

FWIW



A little pug walking on the Gold Coast.


.

sharon kinsella wrote:
In addition we need to look into container housing for those that want their own places, you can even stack them. And "small houses" for singles and young couples looking to start out owning and need a way to work on up.

My god woman, container living! Really. Here in Lakewood?! While I always enjoy Dustin's
art and proudly have some hanging on my wall, and the way he look at things, I have to
think Lakewood can do much better than container housing. This is not Japan, Cleveland
does not have a massive need for more housing. We do have a need and an opportunity
for more high end housing along the lake. Where you can still take 4-10 lots and make
them 400 high end lots.

Actually I'm not sure Lakewood is ready for container-based houses, but only because of architectural appointments. http://demariadesign.com/1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=27
If the exterior facade and accouterments could be mimicked appropriately to blend into the host neighborhood, there is every reason to investigate the structural and economic advantages. To be accurate, Japan would drool to have the kind of space afforded by combining several 40 ft. x 10 ft. pre-fabricated boxes. Many homes in Japan top out at 600sq. ft just a little more than one container. So the perception of smallness can be in the mind of the beholder.

The original posting regarding container construction was in reference to saving money on schools.

My logic was based on if Grant could look like this...


Then it could also look like this using readily available and very durable materials at half the cost and time to construct:


Certainly not meant to compete with Dubai Towers or Winton Place
Just a suggestion as in the spirit of something stated somewhere earlier in this post about the need to "look at everything" or nothing should be off the table, or words to that affect. For those with open minds, this link has some interesting information about the movement. The images should not be taken literally, as each site represents unique requirements. http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/articles/containers.htm