The Observation Deck

I had the pleasure of speaking with Vic Nogalo yesterday about various items. I will be honest I like Vic. He is the only Finance Director I have run into that has a clear vision of where the region is headed.

I do wish he would move to Lakewood.

Vic asked me what I thought the worst problem was in the city.

My answer was; the lack of vision to not seriously consider Savannah Farris' Lakewood Park Project.

He said roads. The roads in this city are bad.

I laughed and said on the Observation Deck, people were crowing about the Wyandot Freeway because it was so smooth. It was so smooth others wanted speed bumps!

So here is my question.

What would you fix first in Lakewood?



.

Roads. Hands down no question.

Second - beefing up the building department so they can enforce the existing statutes and clean up the neighborhoods.

JMo
~Charyn

1) Lack of long range planning implementation.

(Grow Lakewood has given us some great ideas.) It's time to think out of the box like Savannah Farris. Where is the leadership to take all of these ideas and make them GROW INTO A PLAN! With some $ and timetable behind them.

a) repairing roads and sewer

b) building department needs more inspectors and enforcement of
existing statutes

c) Implimentation of CitiStat to evaluate and make the City more efficient

2.) A plan to attract businesses to Lakewood.



I GUESS IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO ONE THING. WE NEED A PLAN, CONSENSUS AND SOMEONE WITH LEADERSHIP TO IMPLEMENT IT!

1. Finances. Lakewood needs to bring in businesses and jobs to alleviate some burden on the private taxpayer and homeowner. Planning will only take you so far. I can spend the rest of my life planning my finances and doing budgets, but if I'm working at McD's I'm not going to get anywhere. Some new revenue streams have to start flowing because the old ones aren't any more.

2. Housing. I really think that many people who would like to stay in Lakewood leave because they just can't find a nice second house when their families get bigger and their finances healthier. Rehabbing s fun if you have the money time and talent but if you don't, it's just less hassle to move. If we can build new schools that are keeping within the city's character, why can't we find places to build new houses too?

Joan Roberts wrote:1
2. Housing. I really think that many people who would like to stay in Lakewood leave because they just can't find a nice second house when their families get bigger and their finances healthier. Rehabbing s fun if you have the money time and talent but if you don't, it's just less hassle to move. If we can build new schools that are keeping within the city's character, why can't we find places to build new houses too?

I can sympathize with people who want to stay in Lakewood, but need bigger houses. Although, there seem to be quite a few really big houses, most are a little smaller than your average new suburban home. But there are municipalities and neighborhoods in cities throughout the country that essentially make their historic housing their calling card and their biggest attraction. Whenever an insurance company or a movie wants to evoke 'home' on television they use a house very similar to many we have in Lakewood. These are the houses that America thinks of as 'home', and I think we as a community will be better off putting our energy in celebrating them, restoring them, and helping people live in them well.

In the case you mention, that might mean looking for more money to lend to people who want to add on to their homes in the character of the house itself, in a way they can afford. After all, no newer suburb can add homes that have 100 year old woodwork, but we can destroy ours, if we're not careful. Believe me, I am completely sympathetic to people who's life needs have changed, and think we should try to accommodate them. I just don't think 'new' housing is the way to do it.

David

David Bargetzi wrote:

Joan Roberts wrote:1
Whenever an insurance company or a movie wants to evoke 'home' on television they use a house very similar to many we have in Lakewood. These are the houses that America thinks of as 'home', and I think we as a community will be better off putting our energy in celebrating them, restoring them, and helping people live in them well.

In the case you mention, that might mean looking for more money to lend to people who want to add on to their homes in the character of the house itself, in a way they can afford. After all, no newer suburb can add homes that have 100 year old woodwork, but we can destroy ours, if we're not careful. Believe me, I am completely sympathetic to people who's life needs have changed, and think we should try to accommodate them. I just don't think 'new' housing is the way to do it.

Interesting side discussion. Lakewood may look like "home" to Madison Avenue or Hollywood, but the kids who grew up in the suburban tracts of the 50s and 60s are themselves 50+ by now. for them, "home" looks more like North Olmsted.
I also wonder how many women, like myself, looked at 100-yr old woodwork as the moving van was taking them to their new kitchens and big closets in Avon Lake and said, "nice woodwork, sure gonna miss it."
Always dangerous to tell the market what it wants.

Joan Roberts wrote:
Interesting side discussion. Lakewood may look like "home" to Madison Avenue or Hollywood, but the kids who grew up in the suburban tracts of the 50s and 60s are themselves 50+ by now. for them, "home" looks more like North Olmsted.
I also wonder how many women, like myself, looked at 100-yr old woodwork as the moving van was taking them to their new kitchens and big closets in Avon Lake and said, "nice woodwork, sure gonna miss it."
Always dangerous to tell the market what it wants.

Of course you are totally right about the large part of the market. They have made their wishes known, in a desire for bigger kitchens and more closets, and larger setbacks, etc. And newness is very attractive to many women and men who don't want to worry about repairs. But there are certainly people out there like myself who hope never to have to live in a house built after 1929 and who are glad to find a community full of them at reasonable prices. In fact there are publications like Old House Interiors and Victorian Homes full of people who say things like 'we waited 9 years to buy this house,' in some part of the country where few view turn-of-the-century homes are available, and even then when they got it they paid much more than one would in Lakewood. My point is merely that you can turn any piece of empty land into a new suburb with shiny new everything given the will. Recreating Lakewood with it's desirable (to some not all) historic housing would be impossible.

I don't think Lakewood will every be able to compete in the 'new suburb' category. The houses are too close together; the kitchens too small. etc. And I think that nostalgia for the 50's will get us no place. But evoking 1900 when Lakewood was built could be very attractive. Some of those boomers you mention in their 50's have lots of memories of their gradparents' homes and appreciation for architecture that may soon be gone if we are not careful. I suppose I'm just in favor of having multiple flavors of ice cream.


Thank you for having this discussion. I appreciate the serious, friendly engagement [/i]

The thing Lakewood needs is money, so they can hire more housing inspectors,fix roads and sewers,improve schools, and not increase the tax burden on the property owners in the city.
Additionally Lakewood needs $ to create a land bank so Lakewood can rebuild itself and have something to offer developers and businesses that may want to move here.
Speaking of businesses moving here; Lakewood needs to search out and pursue someone we think would benefit Lakewood as an employer and part of the community, and pursue someone who we think would benefit by specifically being in Lakewood.

Here's a fantasy for you......The Lakewood land bank purchases the Lake Erie Screw property and then goes to Toyota and says,"Hey, move to Lakewood and we will give you this property to build your plant. We have good housing stock for executives who want the penthouse in the Carlyle to the 3rd shift cleaning staff who can rent a double. We have great schools, parks,shopping and a train that stops right outside the factory door to take people to Downtown or to the airport."
Someone need to go out and sell Lakewood and not just swipe an IT co. from Garfield heights. Put something big together.
Lakewood was built to accommodate office workers in downtown Cleveland who needed a place to rent. Those days are over. If someone really had the guts (and money) they would start tearing down apartment buildings and doubles and building new neighborhoods in parts of this city.

I would go in on a good development idea in Lakewood. Let me know.

The glut in the number of rental units.

I don't want to sound elitist, especially since my grandfather and my parents both moved to Lakewood as renters, not as homeowners. In fact, my dad was a lifelong renter until his death in 1995. I realize that most of our renters are fabulous residents and bring a lot to our community.

However, given the sprawl of NE Ohio and a flat population growth for the greater Cleveland area, I don't foresee Lakewood EVER needing the number of units it now has.

Landlords are forced to compete for renters by lowering prices, adversely affecting the quality of our building stock.

It is not really feasible to eliminate all the doubles in town, and in fact they comprise a minority of the city's rentals. However, I wouldn't mind seeing some of our large human warehouses eliminated with some new development.

Mr. B.

I don't think Lakewood is going to run out of pre-1929 houses soon and I'm n not recalling any wholesale tearing down of older homes.
The question that started the discussion though, was "what are Lakewood's biggest problems?" My contention simply is that we lack the type of housing most people seek today. How Lakewood solves that problem, or even if it wants to, is another matter.
I enjoy the give-and-take, too.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
My answer was; the lack of vision to not seriously consider Savannah Farris' Lakewood Park Project.





.

I did want to add a comment on this.
This plan looks wonderful, exciting, forward-thinking, and insanely expensive.
Are there dollars out there to do it? Maybe there are. However, do we want the mayor, planning and finance people, and all on the public clock to chase down those dollars?
I would love to see some good, smart people in Lakewood pursue this on a pro bono basis. I don't want to see limited tax dollars spewn on feasibility studies and such.
Government stinks at this stuff anyway. Let's see if Lakewood's shining private sector lights can move this forward!

I agree with Joan's comments on Savannah's project.

Savannah's vision is great, and can be pursued on a pro bono basis.

The Mayor and Council need to focus on the city's immediate problems such as street and sewer repair and the condition of our housing stock.

I think our biggest problem is the "we're not worthy/good enough syndrome."

If we can get over that, very little is impossible for us. You know I am wowed everyday by Lakewood Citizens and the things that they have done, are doing or are planning to do.

Listening to Savannah's critique which featured several prominent Lakewood Citizens who also happen to be professors, they questioned why we always act like the poor step child and sit back and wait for Cleveland to do it first. We are the progressive, forward thinking neo-urbanist suburb. Maybe we can get the funding to start a windmill farm and power our homes while Cleveland is mired in arguments about it.

Last night I heard at Ryan's tax meeting, Ryan mention that Kevin Butler wanted to use our trash to generate power. I just read an article in the Tico Times, the Costa Rica newspaper that they are doing that. If a third world country can do it - hey so can we. Great idea!

I would love to see us be the best in Ohio at Sustainable Energy Design. We have that potential given the intelligence I see here in Lakewood. That is the wave of the future with natural gas prices skyrocketing and oil prices going up and coal with the resultant mercury polluting our lake making our fish dangerous to eat. And we can ride that wave.

Joan, I wanted to point out that Savannah's plan isn't really that expensive compared to other plans for Lakewood. She worked very hard to make this plan generate revenue - not cost the city. When looking at reclaimed land, as compared to buying homes, tearing them down. Dealing with the environmental issues which homes the age of the ones in Lakewood invariably have, not to mention political ones. Reclaiming land makes sense particularly when it is Lakefront land that is worth millions. Her plan is 26 acres so this is a lot of very expensive real estate where people want it. She worked hard to make sure that the design leaves enough space to deal with weather etc. The property tax that this would bring in would really help both the city and the schools, these people will be paying lots of income tax to help out the city and having it as mixed use would also generate sales tax for the county. Savannah is talking with developers now. I really hope this project gets built. (She would love to show it to you if you haven't seen the big plan - her e-mail address is: Sav2006@yahoo.com)

But in the meantime, there were several little aspects of her plan that can be implemented. The labeling of plants,trees by the gardening club, moving the farmers market to Saturdays - maybe even in the park.

The housing stock will always need to be watched. It is old and often fabulous, but can deteriorate if allowed to. The same thing with the roads, we will always have to be vigilant about keeping them repaired. I have no doubt our council will do that.

But the question is will they be daring enough to allow us to achieve all that we can be?

In 2001, not long after 9/11 hit, I had a concept to have a secured island with a short causeway built in front of Lakewood Park, with a marina, jet-port, and low secured apartment/condos, and of course would have had public beach etc. Myself, my wife Karen, and Kimberly Winters, who worked for us at the time, had a couple meetings in city hall.

Kim had the details for the jetport, as she is also a pilot and ran a small airport at one time also. She also knows marinas well. There were people that were willing and able to invest into the idea, (back then) but wanted the city to invest in it too. That was a condition. We had most everything worked out, but at the time, after a couple meetings with the city powers, we were told that the city wasn't able to get involved in a project of that magnitude, so the project was simply skipped over. I'm sure there are still some people connected with city hall that would remember that, as it probably sounded quite far out if not crazy to them at the time.
Just thought I'd share that for what it's worth (financially speaking ).

Another idea being:

Thinking very large, and "way out there" why not a tunnel network under the lake along our shoreline? This tunnel network would would be sprawling in both directions from border to border of Lkwd. These tunnels would have shopping areas lining them, areas for all sorts of business and offices. Since the technology exists to build vast tunnels under the english channel and elsewhere, this could actually be done. Weather wouldn't be an issue then, year round. These tunnels would surface to 4 or 5 small islands which would be used for public areas, a couple or more than a couple would be for condo's, or whatever, which would, in addition to Savanna's concept, add a huge amount of commercial area to the city.

On to something else:

What I think is a "problem" in our city, might not be a problem yet but should be a point of awareness. I would say it's more of a social directed issue. The bottom line is we ARE bordering Cleveland, even if we try to overlook that point.
Take a drive down Madison, across W.117th and go past Berea Rd intersection, keep driving toward downtown on Madison and take a look at the neighborhood in that area to about W.65th.

Those problems are moving west. 15 yrs ago, the "lost look" of that area was less close to W.117th than it is now. I think we need to increase the size of our police department now, and not wait until some time in the far future. The city also needs to keep a firm watch on that border and the Lkwd streets on that end.
It's easier to KEEP things under control rather than to try to reverse them. Urban blight is usually irreversible. Ask Cleveland Police about the Flats, the rise and fall, or neighborhoods that once looked just like our streets, on the west side. They've never had enough officers. Taking a preventative stance rather than wait, do we have enough?

Can you walk alone down most of Madison Ave now, at 2 or 3am and feel comfortable? That seems to me, an issue that could stand a good look.

To spend big money on projects, but not pave the way to secure our city now and for the future, in terms of safety and security, seems a little rocky, in my humble opinion.


Mark C.

What would I fix in Lakewood? I would agree that more housing inspectors/enforcement would be great. I don't think rentals are a bad thing but I do agree that too many rentals have absentee landlords who don't take care of their homes. This is also creeping over into single family homes that are starting to look run down and have porches that are collecting junk. I feel badly saying that (I want people to do their own thing), though.

Do we really need more police? People from outside Lakewood (and inside to be honest) joke that there is nearly a cop for every citizen! It seems like they are less visable than when I first moved here 5 years ago but that might just be me being used to having them around. I liked the idea of more police walking beats and being more of a personal presence vs. cruising around in cars, though. Anyway, others may be right that more police could be good but I am curious what the police are missing now. What are the real crime stats in Lakewood and how to they compare to five, ten, fifteen years ago as well as compare to other inner-ring suburbs.

I like the look of Savannah's ideas on paper (and I still need to stop by the office to see the model!) but one consideration to do maybe parts of it only is the fact that such a build up takes away a sometimes breathtaking view of Lake Erie and replacing it with private shops and a marina for a view. Definitely like moving the Old Stone House and reorganizing the park in general and adding a beach, though.

Definitely a need for vision. While I was hot and cold with the previous mayor and her administration I felt at least we had a vision and a direction. Some things (like this development of eastern Detroit Rd.) were things proposed during those periods and are now seeing the light of day. There hasn't been a lot of new visions coming from our elected officials, at least from my perspective. Agree or disagree with how it was done but at least West End was a bold step in a direction of growth. At some point, to grow ourselves, the old will have to be replaced by something new. Many of the ideas on here include that, such as getting new housing stock, new parking, maybe space for new businesses...we can't expect to bring in serious businesses that will only utilize empty storefronts.

Regarding a wall between W. 117th and those Cleveland neighborhoods (I know, that isn't what the poster of this really meant! ). We can't stop what is happening on Cleveland's side of 117th but we can work on our side. I have heard that Lakewood police don't like to work those neighborhoods closest to Cleveland. Why is that? What can change? What can Lakewood do to change that?

One thing that has been a pet peeve of mine: New 4th of July Parade!! I love a good parade. Parade the Circle was amazing. It was both exceptional in creativity as well as beautiful (if haunting at times, too). It was also a great community-growing event. We need something like that on THIS side of town. I think a city as creative as Lakewood could do something more than having local politicians driving in cars and people walking down the street holding banners for the places they work or volunteer. Columbus used to have one of my favorite parades, the Do Dah parade (kind of an anti-parade) that had more creativity in a single float/group than years of a Lakewood one. I guess what I am saying is that our parade shouldn't look like every other suburban parade and its heavy emphasis on politicians shaking hands and passing out election literature. Silly, I know, but there you go.