Mayor's New Idea? Well, No.

[Jim O'Bryan]

In the Cleveland Plain Dealer today they talk about Mayor Summers' idea to build out
Lakewood Park. Of course finally giving Lakewoodites access to the lake is a good
idea. However I would encourage Mayor Summers to go back and look at the Savannah
Ferris plan for the lakefront as a great place to start the discussion.

What made Savannah's plan so unique is that it was developed as a way to give access to
the lake and make the park more viable while increasing the tax base of the city. In actual
studies conducted by Savannah, who is now working with a prestigious development firm. This plan is one of the reasons she was hired.

The concept was-- and I would encourage the mayor to think out of the box and along these lines--that the correct development would make life better in Lakewood, and add substantially to Lakewood's tax base, and offset our cost of living going up.

From the Plain Dealer:

A beach.

From the Lakewood Observer 5 years ago...

Two beaches, docks, amphitheater, $50,000,000+ in homes, and high end shopping
for starters.

No matter, it is great that the Mayor and Lakewood are working to improve our access to
the lake.

.

[J Hrlec]

I personally like the top (plain dealer) graphic above. I would not want a "fake island", high end homes, or fancy restaurants to block my view of the lake from lakewood park. giving access to the lake should be just that, not providing more ways for the people who can afford it to have exclusive access. IMHO.

However, as stated... the fact that they are looking to improve access is definitely a benefit and something many Lakewoodites have wanted for a long time.

[Jim O'Bryan]

J Hrlec

FWIW

The buildings are all lower than the height of the cliff and set off in such a way to no cause a major intrusion into the overall view. Still it is probably time for Lakewood to start to capitalize on our lakefront as many other cities have. No with industry but in ways that enhance both the neighborhood and the tax base.

It seems odd and a tad backwards to ask residents to do more and more to save city money when we could could make more money than needed with well thought out project like this that would affect less than 50 people. 17,000 carrying garbage to the curb, and having to park in a different ward on collection days, or a development that keeps the city solvent and pays for all city improvements for decades to come.

Just a thought.

.

[Mike Coleman]

So you're standing on a cliff looking down into people's homes? Sounds kinda creepy to me, and I can't think of any other city that has that.

[Ryan Salo]

I do like this new idea. I like that the beach is on the west side so sunset views should be spectacular. I hope this actually happens.

[Grace O'Malley]

So you're standing on a cliff looking down into people's homes? Sounds kinda creepy to me, and I can't think of any other city that has that.

You must be joking. Go to Rocky River - corner of Detroit and Wooster. There are a few houses built on the cliff on Wooster. They look down on the new $700K+ computer monitor styled townhomes. In fact, those homes have rooftop decks that will give the homes above an unlimited view of the activities on the roof decks.

On Frazier, the homes look down on the homes below them on the hill down to the river.

Any city that has hills has the exact same configuration. Ever been to Cinci or Pitt? There are tons of places where you can stand or live and look directly into people's homes and yards.

Its not creepy or rare.

[Jim O'Bryan]

I do like this new idea. I like that the beach is on the west side so sunset views should be spectacular. I hope this actually happens.

Mike

I think he closest cities that do that is Rocky River to the west, and Cleveland to the east.

Then there is that pesky Clifton each area here in Lakewood.

Of course those homes were all built after the ones on the top of the cliff were done, as
opposed to... Oh.

To me the more important part of the concept is we are repeatedly told the city has no
money for so many things, and we as Lakewoodites need to do more of the city's work.
If you are going to develop our "GOLD coast" as the waterfront is where we could get the
biggest bang for the buck, look at Heidioff House, Bought at one time for around $750,000
and planed to turn into a $3.5 million dollar house with 12 other units at $250,000 each.
This adds tax payers and income to the city. Low cost housing all over and Habitat for
Humanity homes while apreciated by many do not have the same impact.

Ryan. I could be wrong, I often am, but I believe in Savannah's study, over 6 months, 8
notebooks of notes, and conversations with everyone from the park guard to Army Corp
of Engineers, that a west facing beach will lose sand without a wall. An east facing beach
with wall catches sand. It has been years since I read the study, but that is what I
remember.

Lake access should be done, but when we develop our Lakefront, something all
Lakewoodites want to see, let's get the biggest bang for the buck is all I am saying. If
we create another park that we have no money or people to care for, what is the gain?
If we create the project correctly it should add to all property value in Lakewood, and could
conceivably generate more income for the city, lighten the tax burden on all residents.

Ryan, I would think you would want something keeping taxes down.

FWIW


.

[Phil Florian]

How do we as citizens take the lead on this, then? If the Mayor is considering plans what is stopping anyone from making this proposal? I would guess if the Mayor read the LO he might get the idea but outside of that, how does that older plan make it in for consideration? How does one raise the funds to do that? If the City is willing to invest X and X would fund the top pic, how do we find capital to meet the excess? Like the school building projects, is there other development monies at the State or Federal level to apply for that could fit this bill? In short, outside of Observing, what is the next step?

[Jim O'Bryan]

How do we as citizens take the lead on this, then? If the Mayor is considering plans what is stopping anyone from making this proposal? I would guess if the Mayor read the LO he might get the idea but outside of that, how does that older plan make it in for consideration? How does one raise the funds to do that? If the City is willing to invest X and X would fund the top pic, how do we find capital to meet the excess? Like the school building projects, is there other development monies at the State or Federal level to apply for that could fit this bill? In short, outside of Observing, what is the next step?

Phil

Savannah presented it to Council, but that though it was unrealistic, it is not.

While the idea might not be the best, it is well thought out and could be scaled back. What
I liked was the entire project was paid for an made money! Imagine, two beaches, one
dock, one destination for upscale whatever, a amphitheater, classrooms, and the city
would make money, lots of money, lots and lots of money.

Or we could build a beach.

.

[Will Brown]

In the years since this plan was hatched, there has been plenty of development on the lakefront, but this plan has never drawn interest from any developers. If it is such a good idea, one would expect that a developer would be eager to build it. So why doesn't it draw any interest, or commitment, from anyone willing to invest in it? The only people pushing it are those with a deep commitment to spending other people's money, and those looking for the free ride, conveniently forgetting they are the source of tax money.

[Jim O'Bryan]

In the years since this plan was hatched, there has been plenty of development on the lakefront, but this plan has never drawn interest from any developers. If it is such a good idea, one would expect that a developer would be eager to build it. So why doesn't it draw any interest, or commitment, from anyone willing to invest in it? The only people pushing it are those with a deep commitment to spending other people's money, and those looking for the free ride, conveniently forgetting they are the source of tax money.

Will

1) It would have to take interest from the city for they would need to be part of it, especially
from the Army Corp of Engineers participation.

2) There was interest from Bob Stark, but he thought the size of the peninsula should be
doubled, and then it would be a winner. When it comes to doubling, I would say that might
be a bit much, though one could add to it once it was there.

It was my understanding at the time the ACOE would pay for half the study, and could
fund up to 50% of he building of it. Especially it provided certain things like shore building
etc. Now it was a long time ago.

The city would have to find at least 50% of the money to build, but that would be offset
with the actual value of the property and sale of the property, and then the taxes would
be an additional bonus coming in yearly.

It is not without risk, for all we know, it would be hell to keep going year-round. There
could be other issues, like I am not sure if you can use dreggings for residential property
as many health hazards are buried in the mud.

No matter, it should be revisited. And her study is amazing from what people want to what
people actually use at Lakewood Park.

FWIW

.

[Mike Coleman]

Ummm, Where is there a public park with potentially hundreds of daily onlookers overlooking Clifton Beach homes or any homes in Rocky River or Cleveland? I'm pretty sure all Clifton Beach homes are protected by private access unless you want to hang out on a bridge. What homes can you look down into from Rocky River Park? Or Edgewater Park? Voinovich Park? The sight lines in this plan would allow anyone to look right into bedrooms.

[Mike Coleman]

For the record, I think it would play out this way:
1. Once this new, fantastic development is built, the new Lakewood elite wouldn't like to share their views of the lake with the "public."
2. The moneyed who could afford to live here could afford to buy a few candidates on council.
3. Council would then build a privacy wall to restrict views of the new development, and therefore the lake and sunset, from the public.

[Jim O'Bryan]

For the record, I think it would play out this way:
1. Once this new, fantastic development is built, the new Lakewood elite wouldn't like to share their views of the lake with the "public."
2. The moneyed who could afford to live here could afford to buy a few candidates on council.
3. Council would then build a privacy wall to restrict views of the new development, and therefore the lake and sunset, from the public.

Mike

I agree with this, and to a certain part agree with the post before.

A long time ago I had a penthouse on the gold coast. A friend stopped by and asked for my
binoculars. I asked what for, and he said to look at the other apartments. I was shocked.
A week later he brought over a couple pairs, and we looked. The number of people looking
back was staggering. Almost as staggering as the number of people that were not looking
by had binoculars and telescopes in or near their windows.

We looked at 11 River, and the thing my wife hated was the people behind were looking
right into your wall of glass bathrooms, and the living room was basically a TV set for
those fishing, boating or having dinner at the Landing.

Right now any fisherman can look into the house along lake every night. So peeping toms
and others will peep. I would not have thought of it so quickly but you are correct.

At the same time the development would affect less people than Drug Mart and Dollar
General. It would affect 98% fewer people that the WestEnd would have with 300 times
more value in taxes and living for the rest of the city.

I believe it is time for those on the Lakewood to take one for the city they love and share
the view, so that the entire city can be more viable and financially secure. For twenty
people to take one for the teams of 50,000 would be a beautiful act of love and respect
for the city.

FWIW

.