Campus District Plan

CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING, DESIGN, & DEVELOPMENT SPRING 2013 | UST 611 | STUDIO PROJECT

MAY 6, 4-6:00PMBonda RoomMaxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs Cleveland State UniversityLight refreshments will be provided.

CAMPUS DISTRICT PLAN

STUDIO

611

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH

CONNECTED, ENGAGED, 24-7.

3

TABLE OF

CONTENTSINTRODUCTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. VISION STATEMENT AND GOALS1.1 THE NATURE OF CAMPUS PLANS AND DISTRICTS....1.2 VISION STATEMENT AND GOALS........................................1.3 DESIGN PRINCIPLES.................................................................1.4 GOAL-TO-STRATEGY MATRIX...............................................

2. SITE PLAN WITH GOALS ASSIGNED2.1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS DIAGRAMS..............2.2 FINAL SITE PLAN........................................................................

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT DESCRIPTION3.1 HISTORY AND URBAN RENEWAL.......................................3.2 GEOGRAPHY.................................................................................3.3 CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING..................................3.4 DISTRICT ANALYSIS...................................................................3.4.1 DISTRICTS AND BARRIERS.................................................3.4.2 DEMOGRAPHICS....................................................................3.4.3 HOMELESS POPULATION...................................................3.4.4 INFRASTRUCTURE..................................................................3.4.5 CRIME AND SAFETY...............................................................3.4.6 BROWNFIELDS........................................................................3.4.7 SWOT ANALYSIS......................................................................3.5 EXISTING PLANS AND PROJECTS.......................................3.5.1 CSU MASTER PLAN SUMMARY........................................3.5.2 CAMPUS DISTRICT PLAN....................................................3.5.3 E 22ND STREET REDEVELOPMENT...............................3.5.4 LAKEFRONT PLAN.................................................................3.5.5 RTA COMMUTER RAIL PLAN.............................................

45

1112161718

202122

232428293132343637434546505153545556

4. MARKET AND NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY4.1 METHOD.........................................................................................4.2 HOUSING DEMAND..................................................................4.3 ENTERTAINMENT DEMAND...................................................4.4 OTHER IDENTIFIED NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS ............4.5 STAKEHOLDER INPUT..............................................................

5. STRATEGIES5.1 WAYFINDING AND BRANDING............................................5.2 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT....................................5.3 GREENING THE DISTRICT.......................................................5.4 STUDENT HOUSING..................................................................5.5 BUILDING REUSES.....................................................................5.6 ENTERTAINMENT........................................................................

6. CONCLUSION

7. WORKS CITED

8.PLANNING TEAM

9. APPENDICES

575859626466

697073819199106

112

117

123

124

4

The Campus District Plan is a product of the Cap-stone Project undertaken in the spring semester of 2013 by Urban Studies 611, a class required for com-pletion of the Masters Degree in Urban Planning, Design, and Development, or MUPDD, of the Levin College of Urban Affairs. The class has been led by Professors Robert A. Simons and James Kastelic and included 23 students whose names are listed in this report. As with other capstone projects, a client has partnered with the class to provide the impetus for a realistic exercise in planning. In this case, the client is the Campus District Inc., (CDI) a non-profit Com-munity Development Corporation created to man-age the future of an important neighborhood on the eastern flank of downtown Cleveland. Established as the Quadrangle District in 1983 by Cleveland State University, St. Vincent Charity Hos-pital and Cuyahoga Community College, the orga-nization and the neighborhood were renamed the Campus District in 2010. It has a 22-person board representing member institutions and businesses, and serves a 500-acre swath of land bounded by Lakeside Avenue on the north, Broadway Avenue on the south, East 18th Street on the west and East 30th Street on the east. In 2012, veteran community development practitioner Bobbi Reichtell succeed-ed Rockette Richardson as the organization’s direc-tor. The Mission of the Campus District, according to its website, is to “connect Cleveland’s downtown campuses by leading, providing, and promoting community development services.” Its vision is that “by connecting people and ideas, CDI promotes and strengthens the business, education, healthcare, religious, research, and service activities of its mem-ber institutions. CDI creates places and not just fa-cilities by working to improve the quality of life for those who live, work, visit, and study in this growing district.” The Campus District faces many challenges, includ-ing the lack of a clear identity, a history of having been carved into various parts by the construction of the Innerbelt in the late 1950s and 1960s, percep-

INTRODUCTIONtions that it is unsafe, and a lack of parks and green space. Yet the potential for additional development and vitality is clear. Demand for rental apartments in nearby areas of downtown has risen sharply in recent years and has outstripped supply. Cleveland State University has contributed to the residential renaissance with the recent construction of approxi-mately 1,000 units of housing in its new and reno-vated dorms and in the new North Campus Village. The completion of the Euclid Avenue HealthLine bus rapid transit system provides another strong impe-tus for a fresh look at the Campus District, as do on-going efforts to improve public spaces and ameni-ties in the Playhouse Square area, Public Square and the downtown Group Plan District. Consequently, Campus District Inc has asked Studio 611 to develop a Campus District Master Plan, with specific recom-mendations in four specific areas that involved:

1. Market demand for additional student housing in the blocks around Cleveland State University.

2. The advisability of creating an Entertainment District in proximity to the campus.

3. Recommendations on redevelopment options for the Third District Police Station, Mather Hall and the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Build-ing.

4. Potential locations for parks, pocket parks, greenways, bike paths and other improvements to the public realm in the District.

As a major stakeholder in the district, Cleveland State University took a keen interest in the project. Research included an extensive series of presenta-tions to the class by community leaders including, among others, CSU President Ronald Berkman; Stephanie McHenry, CSU’s chief finance officer; Bobbi Reichtell, director of the Campus District Inc., Theresa Schwarz, director of the Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative of Kent State Univer-sity; Chris Ronayne, director of University Circle, Inc.; James Kastelic, senior park planner for Cleve-land Metroparks; developer Ari Maron, co-owner of MRN Ltd.; Cleveland City Planning Director Robert

Brown; and property owner and developer Karen Perkowski. To conduct the project, the class branded itself as Studio 611. Research included investigations of ex-isting conditions, history, land use, zoning, infra-structure and other aspects of the Campus District. Additionally, the class conducted a detailed survey of potential market demand among more than 800 randomly selected CSU students from classes se-lected to provide a representative cross section of the university’s population of 17,500 students. Stu-dio 611 also conducted nearly 50 detailed interviews with community stakeholders selected to represent major institutions, businesses, property owners, and public agencies with interest in or oversight over the district, along with residents, employees and lead-ers of services for the homeless. All research ques-tions and protocols were reviewed and approved by the CSU Institutional Review Board to ensure ethical compliance with rules governing research with hu-man subjects. The members of Studio 611 strongly believe that the Campus District has the opportunity to become a far greater asset to Cleveland in ways that build upon its proximity to downtown, its immediate access to the interstate highway system and the presence of its three powerful institutions – CSU, Tri-C and St. Vincent Charity Hospital. Studio 611 respectfully submits this document for community consider-ation in the hope that it will stimulate further dis-cussion about the hidden treasures and enormous future potential of a neighborhood that lies just outside the spotlight often focused on Cleveland’s downtown. Changing demographics and an influx of new residents, combined with a national revival of interest in legacy cities and their challenges, make this the perfect moment to begin a new discussion over a vitally important, if somewhat neglected area on the doorstep of downtown Cleveland.

Prepared by: Steven Litt

5

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARYThe Campus District Plan

The 500-acre Campus District in Cleveland, Ohio, is blessed with an impressive location and powerful assets that it could use to leverage an exciting future through institutional collaboration and creative placemaking. It sits astride an interstate highway next to the downtown of a major American city. To its west, the district borders the nation’s second-largest unified theater district, PlayhouseSquare. To its north lies Burke Lakefront Airport and Lake Erie, one of the five Great Lakes, which together hold 20 percent of the fresh water on the world’s surface. To the east lies a business district linked by a new bus rapid transit line to one of the world’s most distinguished medical centers, the Cleveland Clinic. And to its south, beyond I-77 lies the industrial valley that helped forge the fortunes that made Cleveland a great city at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. Assets of the Dis-trict include Cleveland State University, a campus with 17,500 undergraduate and graduate students, with strengths in fields including education, nursing, urban affairs, law and engineering. St. Vincent Charity Hospital, another pillar of the District, is known for its Spine and Orthopedic Institute, its Center for Bariatric Surgery, its Cardiovascular Services, and other specialties. Cuyahoga Commu-nity College’s Metro Campus lies on the southern flank of the District, alongside the region’s largest array of publicly assisted housing, managed by the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority. Shaped in the 20th century by several large-scale Urban Renewal Programs, and by the positive and negative consequences of the interstate highway system, the District faces significant challenges, but also has enormous opportunities. It is poised for revitalization – if it can mobilize the latent en-ergies it possesses, develop a shared vision and find the resources and energy to act. The following summary gives highlights of a plan developed by Studio 611, a group of students at Cleveland State University led by Professors Robert A. Simons and James Kastelic. The report is offered in the spirit of the following mission:

... To Make the Campus District a successful example of collaboration among anchor institutions.

... To Engage residents in building a vibrant, livable and sustainable downtown neighborhood.

... To Provide excellent education and entertainment for all citizens.

FOUR OUTCOMESLAKE ERIE

MUTIMODALHUB

OLD CHINATOWN / ART QUARTERPLAYHOUSE SQUARE / COLLEGETOWN

ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTSPHASE I PHASE II

HOUSING

HISTORIC ADAPTIVE REUSESCHOOL, RESIDENTIAL, SHARED INSTITUTIONALSCHOOL, RESIDENTIAL, SHARED INSTITUTIONAL

GREENSPACE & GREENWAYS

PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III

EXISTING COMPLETE STREET

IN PROGRESS COMPLETE STREET

PLANNED COMPLETE STREET

RECOMMENDED COMPLETE & GREEN STREETS

GREENWAYS

GREENSPACE

RECOMMENDED COMPLETE STREET

Euclid Ave.

Chester Ave.

Payne Ave.

Superior A

ve.

Cedar Ave.

Central Ave.

East 30th St.

Innerbelt

East

22n

d St

.

Prospect Ave.

Community College Ave. / Quincy Ave.

Broadway Ave.

playground

dogpark

quad

plaza capphase II

CONNECTIONTO TOWPATH

ROCKWELL AVECROSS DTOWN

BIKEWAY

SUPERIOR AVEBIKEWAY WEST

LAKESHOREBIKEWAY

WEST

LAKESHOREBIKEWAY

EAST

campusdistrict plaza

capphase I

plazacap

phase III

EUCLIDCORRIDORBIKEWAY

EAST

PROSPECT AVEBIKEWAY

EAST

PROSPECT AVEBIKEWAY WEST

SUPERIOR AVEBIKEWAY EAST

760

1120

760

collegetown

oldchinatown

warehousebluffs

art quarter

cedar-centralst. vincent

prospect ave.historic district

asiatown

playhousesquare

nine twelvedistrict

gateway

30-50

250

200

300

200

125

40015080LOW

INCOME

50


6

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARYPLAN SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The basic conclusions of the Studio 611 Plan for the Campus District are as follows:

HOUSING

Based on extensive research, Studio 611 has pinpointed recommended sites for as many as 1,615 units of student and mixed residential housing in eight separate locations sprinkled around the Campus District. Proposed sites include that of the Jewish Community Federation Building at 1750 Euclid Ave., which could either be renovated or replaced with new construc-tion, and the parking lot immediately to the south. Other recommended sites include the park-ing lot immediately to the east of the YMCA Building on Prospect Avenue at East 22nd Street, and a site at the southeast corner of Central Avenue and East 24th Street. The dispersion of suggested housing locations is envisioned as a way to spread the beneficial aspects of new residential activity throughout the district, to encourage north-south pedestrian movement in an area dominated by east-west vehicular movement, and to provide options for additional housing, given the possibility that certain sites not be readily available in the immediate future. Studio 611 has concluded that adding new housing may also trigger a need for additional struc-tured parking, which could be located in areas presently occupied by surface lots. Cleveland State University could provide a reliable income stream for private parking lot developers by creating a new “Healthy Hangtag” for pre-paid parking that would require users to walk slightly longer distances to campus than from parking lots located closer to campus.

ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS

Studio 611 did not find convincing evidence through the survey of student spending and de-mand to justify immediate creation of a defined Entertainment District in which state regula-tions would streamline access to liquor licenses. Existing restaurants and bars within the dis-trict appear to satisfy existing demand. However, should the Campus District wish to pursue the idea of an Entertainment District, Studio 611 recommends examining three potential foot-prints that include areas along Prospect and Euclid Avenues, the Old Chinatown area centered on Rockwell Avenue one block north of Superior Avenue, and a zone along Superior Avenue in the Art Quarter.

Building Re-utilization

Studio 611 was asked to investigate potential highest and best uses for three structures within the Campus District, the Third District Police Station, Mather Hall, and the historic Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Building. The group recommends that the police station be renovated as the permanent home of the Cleveland International School, a joint project of the Cleveland Metropolitan School District and Cleveland State University. Mather Hall has high potential as graduate student housing, possibly with a special connection to the upcoming Center for In-novation in Health Science Building scheduled for construction on the site directly across East 22nd Street. And, finally, Studio 611 recommends that the former Juvenile Court Building be renovated as a jointly-shared office facility for use by the three big institutions with the biggest stake in the future of the Campus District: CSU, Tri-C, and St. Vincent Charity Hospital. Studio 611 proposes that the building should be called the “Bridge Center,” to emphasize its role in creating a strong connection between the north and south segments of the Campus District currently bisected by the Innerbelt.

Greenways, Bike Paths and Open Space

The Campus District is widely perceived as a gray zone with few attractive public spaces. Stu-dio 611 recommends that the district be improved with a series of complete streets, parks of various sizes, and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle paths on surface streets that cross over the Innerbelt freeway. Studio 611 also recommends that serious consideration be given to “caps” or landscaped platforms that would cover portions of the Innerbelt either at Euclid Ave., and/or East 22nd Street, the latter of which would be called “Bridge Center Plaza” to reinforce its connection to the proposed renovation of the nearby Juvenile Court Building. A more visionary option would be that of covering the entire portion of the Innerbelt trench from Euclid to East 22nd Street, creating a linear park over the highway that would function as an outdoor amenity and as a new address for businesses. Additionally, Studio 611 recommends creating a network of complete streets, a bike network, a trolley loop, and a series of parks including an improved Campus Green, a dog park that would occupy the infield of the Innerbelt on-ramp at Chester Avenue. New way-finding and signage would help to create a stronger identity and sense of place in the District. Green roofs, rainwater cisterns, bioswales and rain gardens would improve the District’s lighten the load imposed by the district on the regional sewer system and would reduce storm-related combined-sewer overflows. Moreover, additional greenery, parks and trees would soften the District’s harsh, gray appearance and reduce its tendency to become an urban heat island in the summer.

7

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARYPlan Vision and Goals

The Studio 611 Plan for the Campus District is based on a five-point Vision and Goals Statement that calls for the following:

VISION 1. Build a Complete Neighborhood for Mixed Users and Mixed Uses

• Attract a residents base that addresses the full life cycle (students, families, empty nesters, elderly)

• Offer a different housing real estate package than down-town

• Create a family-friendly neighborhood• Facilitate neighborhood functions such as a convenient

store, a grocery store, dry cleaner, open space, schools and gathering places for the community

• Improve the identity of the district

VISION 2. Foster an Engaged Learning Community

• Increase student population in the district• Integrate student population with neighborhoods and

avoid student enclaves• Encourage senior living and learning• Involve artist community• Engage Institutions in Partnerships for key projects

VISION 3. Build a 24-7 neighborhood

• Encourage mixed use developments• Attract businesses that benefit from the proximity to the

institutions• Provide spaces for student-owned businesses• Create retail options that serve the whole community

(residents, employees, visitors)• Increase safety and improve perception of safety.• Collaborate to leverage development opportunities

VISION 4. Create quality green space that serves people and the environment

• Establish a strong multi-modal, north-south con-nection

• Create pedestrian friendly environments• Increase public and open spaces and improve green

space functionality• Maximize green stormwater infrastructure • Encourage shared parking solutions• Increase access to existing lakefront connections

and potential future connections

VISION 5. Promote regional and local equity

• Keep the neighborhood affordable and welcoming to current and future residents

• Support current industries that benefit from the location close to rail, highway, water and airport

• Attract development that prevents a regional zero-sum game

• Promote a sense of place enticing people to stay that might otherwise leave

• Create net population growth- no stealing or poach-ing

• Build upon the strength of the HealthLine connec-tion to University Circle, proximity to Playhous-eSquare, and downtown, as well as Asia Town and the lakefront

8

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARYData Gathering and Principal Findings

STUDENT SURVEY

The extensive survey of Cleveland State University Students undertaken by Studio 611 re-vealed that nearly 50% of 420 students said yes in response to the question of whether they would live in the Campus District. A similar percentage of respondents said that additional housing units were needed within a 20-minute walk of the District. Sixty three percent said a grocery store is needed, while nearly 50% said a drugstore is needed. Nearly half, or 47%, wanted to see additional live music venues in the District. Fifty six percent wanted additional dine-in restaurants, and 65% wanted an “organic, wholesome food store.”

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

Of the nearly 50 stakeholders whose interviews were tallied for this report, nearly 22% said the Campus District lacks a clear identity, while close to 40% said the District’s identity is closely tied to its three big institutions: CSU, Tri-C, and St. Vincent Charity Hospital. Also, nearly 40% of the interviewees said the District feels safe, even though a smaller percentage feel that it is not safe, that it needs additional policing, and that nuisance crimes committed by the home-less, including public urination, are an ongoing problem. Interviewees were skeptical about whether significant public investment should be made in creating a physical link to the Cleve-land lakefront over the highways and railroads that border the northern side of the District, but nearly half wanted to see portions of the Innerbelt “capped” with landscaped platforms when the highway is rebuilt in coming years by the Ohio Department of Transportation.

Campus District History

An examination of the history of the Campus District showed that its present physical form is in large part a legacy of Urban Renewal and public housing programs that erased a formerly lively and fine-grained if somewhat chaotic, mixed-use district to make way for the creation of Cleveland State University and the St. Vincent Charity Hospital complex. Additionally, the construction of the Innerbelt freeway system, which joins I-90, I-77 and I-71, created a vast, curving chasm that slices across the southern flank of downtown Cleveland and which creates a pronounced barrier between the Central Business District and portions of the Campus Dis-trict to the south. Further north, the highway trench borders the eastern edge of the Campus District, separating it from portions of Midtown, Asiatown and the Superior St. Clair District to the east. The barriers are more than physical; the Innerbelt has acted as a virtual moat separating the downtown business core from the largely African-American residential area, dominated by public housing that lies to the south and southeast.

Land Use, Infrastructure, Brownfields

The Campus District currently possesses a diverse mix of land use areas and zoning that cre-ate a strong appearance of segmented sub-districts. Distinct boundaries separate a light in-dustrial area on the north side of the District from the educational and institutional zones in the center of the District, which are in turn separated from residential and medical uses to the south by the Innerbelt. The infrastructure of the Campus District emphasizes the east-west flow of the major avenues that traverse the Innerbelt trench; north-south movements are more difficult and less direct. While principal streets and avenues are often in fair to good condition, a detailed analysis of roadway conditions showed that subsidiary roads off the main pathways are often in fair to extremely poor condition. Bike paths are almost non-existent, and walkability for pedestrians is often very poor. One great shining exception is that of Euclid Avenue, recently rebuilt from building face to building face as the result of the $200 million federal, state, and local project to turn the roadway into a bus rapid transit facility. Bike paths and enhanced sidewalks, light-ing, and landscaping were also part of the project. The predominant brownfield issue in the district concerns buried fuel tanks, but an analysis by Studio 611 showed that most have attained the status of No Further Action from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.

9

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARYData Gathering and Principal Findings cont.

Existing Plans

Existing plans created by institutions within the district create a strong foundation for recom-mendations by Studio 611. A Campus District Plan from 2009 recommends leveraging the power of the district’s anchor institutions to encourage development of additional housing and retail. A 2012 study by the Campus District, funded by the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coor-dinating Agency’s Transportation for Livable Communities Initiative recommended revamp-ing East 22nd Street as a major north-south connector within the district as a way to overcome the barrier created by the presence of the Innerbelt freeway trench. A 2004 master plan at Cleveland State University articulated a powerful vision of the university as a more transpar-ent, welcoming and pedestrian-friendly campus. The plan argued that the university should demolish or renovate certain structures to soften its harsh, Brutalist architectural style. The plan also set in motion a $300 million wave of construction projects largely completed during the presidency of Michael Schwartz, predecessor to current CSU President Ronald Berkman.

Demographics and Crime and Safety

The 2010 Census counted 4,803 residents within the Campus District, although research by Studio 611 shows it is unclear how many students or homeless were included. Seventy four percent of those counted, or 3,567, are African-American, while 18% (889) are white. No other racial or ethnic category exceeds 5% of the population. Residents aged 20 to 30 years repre-sented the largest single segment of the population, or about 27%. Some ninety three per-cent of residents were renters. The median income for the District is $11,056. And 67% of the households have an annual income below $15,000. Data reported by Cleveland State University indicated minimal statistical criminal activity on campus with 21 major crimes reported in all of 2011, a decrease from earlier years. The rate of crime is one major crime per 818 people, which compares favorably to the per capita crime rate of the City of Cleveland, which was one major crime per 14 residents in 2010.University data indicate an incrase from 37 drug and alcohol offences in 2007 to 159 in 2011, a change that coincides with the opening of 600 dorm rooms on campus in the Euclid Com-mons. The university has recently implemented stricter policies for residence halls. Data indi-cate that the campus crime rate is consistent with that of other urban universities in northern Ohio. Despite such data, the perception lingers that the Campus District is not safe.

THIRD DISTRICT POLICE STATION

MATHER HALL

CUYAHOGA COUNTY JUVENILE COURT

10

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARYConclusion and Implementation Options

Studio 611 has concluded that the three major institutions in the Campus District, CSU, Tri-C, and St. Vincent Charity Hospital, collectively have a strong potential to generate demand for additional new businesses and to change the District’s character from that of a commuter center to that of a more residential neighborhood. An increase in population may justify the creation of a formal Entertainment District. Underutilized buildings, such as Mather Hall, the Third District Police Station and the Juvenile Court Building should be viewed as powerful op-portunities. The abundance of surface parking in the District also represents an opportunity to insert more dynamic land uses into the area. The Studio 611 plan contemplates several scenarios to be approached in phases depending on the directions Campus District Inc. wishes to take. These are summarized in tables located within the report in the formal Conclusion chapter. Additionally, Studio 611 suggests that the Campus District investigate potential changes in zoning and policy, private investment and tax incentives, in collaboration with the City of Cleveland and private developers. A policy to encourage best practices in stormwater management is also recommended. Given that the Campus District has no site control itself and does not own land, it might be aided by the cre-ation of a Special Design Improvement District, which could private leverage in negotiations with private developers. Improvements in wayfinding are recommended, along with invest-ments in new street furniture and landscaping. In sum, the District literally is a neighborhood at a crossroads. Located next to some of the most dynamic urban areas in the State of Ohio, with a new bus rapid transit line traversing its midsection, and with three powerful institutions in its core, the District appears to be poised for a exciting future. It could follow the example of University Circle, where a number of large institutions collaborated to create the internationally renowned $150-million-plus Uptown project, which combines housing, cultural institutions, retail and entertainment venues. Up-town provides a vivid example of the potential for the Campus District, which could fashion itself as a new, “University Circle West.” Given the brilliant opportunities that appear all but within reach, it would appear that now is the time for the city, the Campus District, and its member institutions to redouble their efforts to capitalize on the rich investments recently made in the area. The opportunities are exciting – and too tantalizing to waste.

CAMPUS DISTRICT PLAZA RENDERING

111

CHAPTER 1

VISION STATEMENT AND GOALS

12

Cleveland State University faces challenges similar to many other Midwest urban campuses, but it also has unique opportunities. Studio 611 analyzed 10 ur-ban college campus plans to identify correlations in residential, transportation, entertainment and green space planning. The analysis included urban cam-puses typically located at the edge of central busi-ness districts, and institutions transitioning from a commuter-based to resident-based campuses. The study includes Cleveland State University’s most re-cent master plan to understand the institution’s con-text within its surrounding neighborhood. Common themes are explored below.

Campus master plans studied:

- Carnegie Mellon University- University of Missouri--St. Louis- University of Pittsburgh- Cuyahoga Community College (Metro Campus)- DePaul University- Wayne State University- University of Pennsylvania- Temple University- Drexel University- University City District, Philadelphia- St. Louis University

Attracting more student residents to live on or near campus is a major common theme. Most of the uni-versities’ strategies included developing housing options just off campus and mixing them with non-student housing. Such projects attempt to serve dual goals of growing the student and resident population but also better integrating the surrounding, often de-clining neighborhoods.

Another major goal of most plans was creating more open, green, or public spaces. Typically the space was developed on the campus proper, near the center of

1.1 CASE STUDY OF CAMPUS PLANS AND DISTRICTSthe university. Connectivity throughout the campus and to surrounding neighborhoods was emphasized. This was identified as a tactic which could increase the amount of activity throughout campus but would also embrace the surrounding community.

Pedestrian needs were addressed by evaluating road-ways and walkways with the focus on walking or bik-ing and less on car access. A common theme was a pedestrian “spine” cutting through campus, connect-ing pedestrians to adjoining neighborhoods or cul-tural centers. Despite the emphasis on walkability, vehicle parking was still a focus of many plans, often addressed by adding parking structures in place of surface lots near the edges of campus.

Finally, willingness or even a desire to coordinate with local transit authorities to improve public trans-portation access between campus and surrounding neighborhoods—and in some cases, within the cam-pus itself—was common. Enhancing or adding bus routes, rapid transit options, and even implementing university-owned transport methods, were explored.

Understanding how universities in other cities around the country have tackled their infrastructure issues helps to put Cleveland State University’s campus in context, in terms of how the campus itself operates but also how it can be a tool for engaging the Campus District. Campuses without a comprehensive master plan (for example, St. Louis University) demonstrate how the lack of a clearly defined plan can result in skepticism, disengagement from the neighborhood and its local leaders, and a lack of pattern or clear vision when changes or additions are made (Bryant, 2011). Cleveland State’s master plan demonstrates that the university’s goals are consistent with those of other universities, and shares some of the com-mon themes that are helping universities to be better stewards of the neighborhoods they inhabit.

VISION STATEMENT AND GOALS

Prepared by: Eugene Basile, Tom Michaels, Mike Schumaker, Kelly McGowan & Arthur Schmidt

FIGURE 1.1.1 SECTION OF NORTH HIGH STREET: BEFORE CAMPUS PARTNERS GATEWAY PROJECT

FIGURE 1.1.2 SECTION OF NORTH HIGH STREET: AFTER CAMPUS PARTNERS GATEWAY PROJECT

131

1.1 CASE STUDY OF CAMPUS PLANS AND DISTRICTS

Fringe development is a new trend emerging around college campuses in Ohio and around the country. These developments are located on the edge or just outside the edge of university-owned property, and target upper division undergraduate students, graduate students, and professionals who like liv-ing near the campus environment and amenities. These developments may be public/private collabo-rations where public entities work with real estate developers to assemble the land, clear underutilized buildings and move ahead with a project that suits the overall community as well as the campus. The projects are often mixed-use with housing, retail and some entertainment component. In many cases, the developer or partnership target areas for rede-velopment which may have become deteriorated, undervalued or unsafe. These partnership projects can extend the appearance of the campus boundary into the surrounding neighborhood and stimulate further development.

The Ohio State University in Columbus Ohio is home to one of the most successful campus edge develop-ments. The project, South Campus Gateway, com-prises four square blocks along the east side of North High Street, across from Ohio State University prop-erty. It features 184 apartments, over 30 retailers, a bookstore, gallery space, offices, and an 8-screen cinema with a 1,200 space parking garage at the rear (Campus Partners, 2011).

The South Campus Gateway project was created by Campus Partners, a nonprofit formed by the Uni-versity and the City of Columbus, to spearhead the redevelopment along North High Street. Campus Partners functions as a Community Development Corporation and has the ability to acquire property, borrow money and take advantage of tax credit in-centives for development. In addition to the large scale development on South High, Campus Partners has programs to encourage home ownership for fac-ulty and staff, improve code enforcement, trash col-lection, and overall safety. The project has extended

FIGURE 1.1.3 RENDERING OF A NEW TRANSIT CENTER/ PARKING GARAGE FOR KENT STATEPROJECT

FIGURE 1.1.4 KENT DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN

14


the campus into the surrounding community and created a safe, inviting environment that helps OSU attract the best students and faculty.

The Uptown Neighborhood located in University Circle, Cleveland, is an excellent example of edge development happening around a college cam-pus. This area hosts a number of anchor institu-tions including Case Western Reserve University, the Cleveland Institute of Art, University Hospitals, and several museums. In 2010, MRN Ltd. broke ground for the first phase that cost a total of $44.5 million (McFee, 2010). MRN Ltd. used a number of public and private lenders to finance this proj-ect. One of the biggest tools was New Market Tax Credits, which helped them obtain a $9 million loan from KeyBank at a lower rate. The site included 102 apartments with 56,000 square feet of retail, an-chored by Barnes and Noble and Constantino’s Mar-ket (McFee, 2011). Before Constantino’s opened the area did not have a grocery store. Across the street from this development a number of restaurants have opened including Chipotle, Panera Bread, and Jimmy John’s. Along with attracting businesses, Uptown also attracted the Cleveland Museum of Contemporary Art which relocated to the neighbor-hood In 2012.

Another excellent example of edge development is in Kent, home to Kent State University. Kent State has the second largest enrollment in Ohio’s state university system. The university and the city of Kent have partnered to redevelop the downtown area of Kent. The project shifts the entertainment and business center of downtown closer to the cam-pus and specifically aims to retain the young profes-sionals graduating from the university. A mixture of retail, office, and entertainment uses defines the outer boundaries of the new development. Some of the main components include a $26 million transit center and parking structure. The transit center is in partnership with the local transit agency and will have routes which go from the heart of the campus to the transit center to assist in transporting stu-

Figure 1.1.5 university oF Pittsburgh - AreAs oF oPPortunity

151


dents to downtown. The parking structure, lying along the boundaries of the development, will address park-ing needs but in a similar light will help promote the walkability and overall environment of downtown. Another project includes an 80,000 square foot, 94-room Kent State University Hotel and Conference Center which is being managed by the university’s foundation. In 2009, Acorn Alley I, another downtown project, opened to huge success. The Alley housed student run businesses, boutiques, and locally owned restaurants and became a big draw for students and residents of the city. Acorn Alley II opened across from the original Acorn Alley, and Acorn Corner, a $4 mil-lion restoration of the former Kent Hotel, will house a ground-floor restaurant and offices on the upper three floors. The former Kent Hotel is makes up the eastern edge of the original Acorn Alley. The project is a com-bination of more than 500,000 square feet of office, retail, residential and public spaces. It i spans a four acre section of downtown and is valued at $110 million dollars. Keeping to the established urban fabric, cam-pus fringe development can improve walkability and create new economic opportunities (Schneider, 2013; City of Kent and Kent State University, n.d.).

FIGURE 1.1.6 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, ST. LOUIS

UMSL’s master plan clearly shows the university’s desire to create residential dis-tricts within the existing campus. Note that campus is bounded by an interstate to the north and a major east-west throughway (Sasaki Associates, Inc., 2006).

16

The Campus District possesses strong assets that include, in particular, Cleveland State Uni-versity, Cuyahoga Community College, and St. Vincent Charity Medical Center. These anchor institutions act as defining presences. The dis-trict’s potential is also enhanced by adjacent assets that include PlayhouseSquare, down-town, the Lake Erie shore and the Innerbelt freeway. These strengths define the neigh-borhood’s attractiveness for residents, busi-nesses, workers, and students, and enhance its potential for future growth. Wise invest-ment and smart planning will help the Campus District has realize its potential to become a complete, 24-7, and green neighborhood en-ergized by the engaged learning communities represented by its anchor institutions.

The Studio 611 Vision and Goals Statement addresses three levels of urban scale. These include: 1) Cleveland State as a university and learning community; 2) the neighborhood and its residents, public spaces, and businesses; and, 3) the city and region. On all three levels, the Campus District can fulfill important eco-nomic and demographic development func-tions.

Based on a collaborative group process, Stu-dio 611 proposes the following visions and goals for the Campus District.

1.2 vision statement and goalsVISION STATEMENT AND GOALS

Prepared by: Deborah Riemann

VISION 1. Build a Complete Neighborhood for Mixed Users and Mixed Uses

• Attract a residents base that addresses the full life cycle (students, families, empty nesters, elderly)

• Offer a different housing real estate package than down-town

• Create a family-friendly neighborhood• Facilitate neighborhood functions such as a convenient

store, a grocery store, dry cleaner, open space, schools and gathering places for the community

• Improve the identity of the district

VISION 2. Foster an Engaged Learning Community

• Increase student population in the district• Integrate student population with neighborhoods and

avoid student enclaves• Encourage senior living and learning• Involve artist community• Engage Institutions in Partnerships for key projects

VISION 3. Build a 24-7 neighborhood

• Encourage mixed use developments• Attract businesses that benefit from the proximity to the

institutions• Provide spaces for student-owned businesses• Create retail options that serve the whole community

(residents, employees, visitors)• Increase safety and improve perception of safety.• Collaborate to leverage development opportunities

VISION 4. Create quality green space that serves people and the environment

• Establish a strong multi-modal, north-south connec-tion

• Create pedestrian friendly environments• Increase public and open spaces and improve green

space functionality• Maximize green stormwater infrastructure • Encourage shared parking solutions• Increase access to existing lakefront connections and

potential future connections

VISION 5. Promote regional and local equity

• Keep the neighborhood affordable and welcoming to current and future residents

• Support current industries that benefit from the loca-tion close to rail, highway, water and airport

• Attract development that prevents a regional zero-sum game

• Promote a sense of place enticing people to stay that might otherwise leave

• Create net population growth- no stealing or poaching• Build upon the strength of the HealthLine connection

to University Circle, proximity to PlayhouseSquare, and downtown, as well as Asia Town and the lakefront

17

1.3 DESIGN PRINCIPLESVISION STATEMENT AND GOALS

Prepared by: Kyle Julien, Heather Ways, Arthur Schmidt, Deborah Riemann, Steven Litt, Matthew Wymer, & Gregory Soltis

The Campus District possesses few characteristics that make it look like an integrated place with an identifiable design philosophy. An analysis of the district (Chapter 3) reveals no patterns or re-peated thematic elements that unite its disparate elements or that bridge the spatial divisions that cut through it. The lack of wholeness contributes to the perception of the district as a collection of discrete, visually and socially isolated sub-districts.

Design principles are needed to reconnect the District’s parts and to heal the social and spatial scarring caused by the Innerbelt freeway and various Urban Renewal projects from decades ago. The District needs a strong, unified identity but also should not erase the distinctive character of each sub-district - where they are strong. To promote connectivity across the area’s substantial divisions and a sense of identity, Studio 611 offers the following design principles as a framework to help achieve specific planning goals and visions.

The design principles are scalable; they can be applied equally to the building, the block, the neighborhood, and the city. They are meant as reference to guide future investment into streets, private, and institutional buildings.

HUMAN-SCALEDThe built environment should not only invite individuals to learn, live, work, and explore, but should also offer inspiration in daily life. Building heights and designs of first stories should enhance the pedestrian experience and create a sense of enclosure. Design should pay special attention to size, texture, and articulation of physical elements. Uses should be arranged along the streets in relation to the scale and pace of a person on foot, with the goal of creating an interesting pedestrian experience.

GREENThe District should promote changes that minimize its negative impact on the environ-ment in terms of energy and water consumption and use of materials. Well maintained and programmed green space should be intentionally introduced. Streetscapes should be en-hanced through the use of green infrastructure.

WALKABLEAs the Campus District develops more residential options, walkability should be empha-sized in building design, streetscaping, and transportation infrastructure. The fine-grained street grid should be maintained and restored without vacating further rights-of-way. As more destinations (housing, entertainment, institutional) are implemented, decisions about public infrastructure should prioritize pedestrian movement over vehicular move-ment.

CONNECTEDThe different elements of the District should acknowledge and interact with one another. Buildings should be visually and physically open to the street and address their neighbors. Special attention should be paid to closed surfaces and barriers that divide people and neighborhoods from one another or prevent interaction between adjoining spaces. On the district scale, all the separate neighborhoods should be well connected through pedestri-an, bicycle, and trolley pathways. Physical connectivity can help encourage and intensify partnerships among institutions.

IDENTIFIABLEThe District needs to enhance its identity as a unified, coherent area extending from Orange Avenue to Lake Erie. “Imageability,” a term coined by planner and author Kevin Lynch, and legibility are needed. Imageability refers to distinct, recognizable, and mem-orable places within a district. Existing buildings, plazas, and landmarks can contribute greatly to imageability. Legibility is the ease with which a place can be understood and navigated as a whole. It needs to be improved through street grid enhancements and way-finding systems.

RE-MIXEDThe District should embrace mixed-use development, and spaces inhabited by mixed-us-ers. It needs to recognize the often surprising collaborative possibilities of different uses in shared space. It should avoid single-use development or the creation of single-use en-claves or monocultures. Integrating different users and uses can greatly enhance the inter-actions between individuals and bring liveliness to the district. It contributes to a complete neighborhood.

18

1.4 GOAL-T0-STRATEGy MATRIXVISION STATEMENT AND GOALS

The overall vision for the dis-trict is reflected in each of the four individual plans and proposals. The following ma-trix illustrates how the five vision statements and the goals relate to each of the in-dividual plans. The visions will be cross-referenced with each strategy in Chapter 5.


19

1.4 GOAL-TO-STRATEGY MIX

VisionsGreen Spaces

(Chapter 5.1 -‐ 5.3)Building ReUse (Chapter 5.5)

Student Housing (Chapter 5.4)

Entertainment (Chapter 5.6)

Provide spaces for student-‐owned businesses;

Encourage mixed use developments

Encourage mixed use developments

Collaborate to leverage development opportunities

Create retail options that serve the whole community

(residents, employees, visitors)

Attract businesses that benefit from the proximity to

the institutions

Well kept green spaces and streetscapes;

public bathroom; eyes on the street

Establish a strong multi-‐modal, north-‐south

connection,

Create pedestrian friendly environments,



increase public and open spaces and improve green

space functionality,

encourage shared parking solutions,

increase access to existing lakefront connections and

potential future connections

Parking strategy,

north-‐south pedestrian walkways and trolley;

lakefront connection

Keep the neighborhood affordable and welcoming to current and future residents,

Keep the neighborhood affordable and welcoming

to current and future residents,

create net population growth-‐ no stealing or poaching

create net population growth-‐ no stealing or

poaching

Strategies Wayfinding, parks, increased public space

Permanent supportive housing in Mather Hall (Scenario II)

Affordable and low-‐income housing development on

E18th and Superior

Concerns over actual market demand for entertainment

district

… a 24/7 district

… quality green spaces

… and equitable decision-‐making

maximize green stormwater infrastructure

GoalsPromote a sense of place enticing people to stay that

might otherwise leave

Attract development that prevents a regional zero-‐sum


Retail and bars/ restaurants on ground floor along Prospect and Carnegie

Community Entertainment Overlay District

Goals

Strategiesbuilding design will be

important (encourage human scaled buildings)

building design will be important (encourage human scaled buildings)

building design will be important (encourage human

scaled buildings)


Goals Increase safety and improve perception of safety.

Strategies

Incubator space for student-‐owned business as part of

institutional use of the Juvenile Justice Center

20

CHAPTER 2

SITE PLAN WITH GOALS ASSIGNED

21

2.1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS DIAGRAMSSITE PLAN WITH GOALS ASSIGNED

22

2.2 FINAL SITE PLANSITE PLAN WITH GOALS ASSIGNED

FOUR OUTCOMESLAKE ERIE

MUTIMODALHUB

OLD CHINATOWN / ART QUARTERPLAYHOUSE SQUARE / COLLEGETOWN

ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTSPHASE I PHASE II

HOUSING

HISTORIC ADAPTIVE REUSESCHOOL, RESIDENTIAL, SHARED INSTITUTIONALSCHOOL, RESIDENTIAL, SHARED INSTITUTIONAL



EXISTING COMPLETE STREET

IN PROGRESS COMPLETE STREET

PLANNED COMPLETE STREET

RECOMMENDED COMPLETE & GREEN STREETS

GREENWAYS

GREENSPACE

RECOMMENDED COMPLETE STREET

Euclid Ave.

Chester Ave.

Payne Ave.

Superior A

ve.

Cedar Ave.

Central Ave.

East 30th St.

Innerbelt

East

22n

d St

.

Prospect Ave.


Broadway Ave.

playground

dogpark

quad

plaza capphase II



BIKEWAY


LAKESHOREBIKEWAY

WEST

LAKESHOREBIKEWAY

EAST


capphase I

plazacap

phase III


EAST

PROSPECT AVEBIKEWAY

EAST



760

1120

760

collegetown

oldchinatown

warehousebluffs

art quarter



asiatown

playhousesquare

nine twelvedistrict

gateway

30-50

250

200

300

200

125

40015080LOW

INCOME

50

23

CHAPTER 3

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT DESCRIPTION

24

3.1 HISTORY AND URBAN RENEWALEXISTING CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT DESCRIPTION

Prepared by: Kyle Julien, Heather Ways, & Arthur Schmidt

The Campus District is a legacy of the federal urban re-newal programs of the 1950s and 1960s. It was shaped, fundamentally, by the “Federal Bulldozer,” to borrow the title of a 1964 book by author Martin Anderson. No organic neighborhood conforms to the District’s lim-its. Instead, the bounds of the current Campus District adhere fairly closely to two mid-twentieth century Urban Renewal project boundaries. The legacies of Ur-ban Renewal frame the district’s urban form and the way it is experienced today. This legacy is a challenge as the District moves forward.

Prior to Urban Renewal, a lively mix of uses occupied the area that would become the Campus District. It was the kind of neighborhood that Euclidean zoning--with its emphasis on tidily separating conflicting land uses--sought to correct. Sanborn maps from 1912 and the 1940s and 1950s show factories, shops, and single-, two-, and multi-family dwellings in close prox-imity. Manufacturing, garment factories, warehouses, and machine shops existed throughout the District (with higher concentrations near the railroad tracks at the southern and northern end), along with car sales and repair sites, restaurants, storefronts, schools, and churches. By 1950, large parking lots had taken over the blocks at the center of the District between Euclid and Chester Avenues. The figure-ground drawing from the 1950s shows a dense, tightly woven urban fabric that contrasted sharply with the disconnected built

The figure-ground drawings reveal the dramatic transformation in the street network and urban fabric since 1950.

Figure 3.1.1 Figure-ground 1950 And todAy, side by side

25

3.1 HISTORY AND URBAN RENEWAL

The area that is now the Campus District had a population of 31,023 in the 1920 census1. The mix reflected the diversity of industrial-era Cleveland. Some 18,369 residents, or 58% of the total, were either foreign born or second-generation whites. Of those, 10,892 or 30%, were labeled native born whites. Five percent of the population, or 1,734 were African xAmericans. By the 1950 census, the population fell to 17,641. At that time, 11,076, or 62% were white, and 6,320 were African Ameri-can (35%). Also at that time, 1,980 residents were foreign born. Rental units constituted the majority of the housing available in the District, (86%) and three-fourths were at least 30 years old in 1950 (Minnesota Population Center 2011). Urban Renewal would displace nearly all of these residents. In 2010, the population stood at 4,803 people.

The District changed dramatically with the initia-tion in the 1950s of the St. Vincent’s Center Urban Renewal Program, the Cleveland State Univer-sity Urban Renewal Project in the 1960s, and the construction of the Innerbelt. The clear-cutting typical of Urban Renewal erased the existing mix of uses and made space for the institutions that dominate the District today. The St. Vincent’s pro-gram cleared the area from East 19th to East 33rd streets, and from Central to Woodland Avenues. The Cedar Apartments and Cedar Extension es-tates had already been built, but the area became home to the institutional and public housing uses we see today.

A decade later, the Urban Renewal program tar-geted the area from East 18th to East 30th (in some places a few blocks further east) and from

Carnegie Avenue north to St. Clair Avenue, for clearance and renewal. Some 314 acres containing 152 buildings were cleared to make room for Cleveland State University. Eighteen hundred were displaced by the St. Vincent’s program (90% of them African American), and 900 people were displaced by the CSU program (90% of whom were white). In addition, the CSU area abutted the Erieview Urban Renewal I and II areas (Cleveland Department of Urban Renewal and Housing 1958; City Planning Commis-sion 1957; City Planning Commission 1965).

1 That figure and all the numbers presented here have been imputed using area-weighted adjustments, because the boundaries of the Campus Dis-trict do not match those of census tracts.

FIGURE 3.1.2 MAP OF THE ST VINCENT’S URBAN RENEWAL AREA

A map of the St. Vincent’s Urban Reneal Area (City Planning Commission 1956)

FIGURE 3.1.3 MAP OF THE CSU URBAN RENEWAL AREA

A map from a 1966 campus plan showing space for CSU carved out by urban renewal areas. The caption describes the “proposed outline of the CSU campus as well as one outline for the boundaries of an urban renewal project which ties together the existent Erieview projects with the St. Vincent project and the location there of the new state supported Cuyahoga Community College” (Outcault, Guenther, Rode and Bonebrake 1966).

26


The radical transformation of the District caused by Urban Renewal explains the jarring experience of moving from institutional areas to the adjoin-ing areas left untouched, where legacy uses per-sist. Earlier buildings had a clear relationship to the streets on which they sat, while the buildings that replaced them retreated from the immediate surroundings. Large super-blocks carved up the dense street network. Disruption and disconnec-tion became the dominant characteristics of the area. The large forms of mid-century modernist buildings rejected the city spaces around them and turned away from the pre-existing elements allowed to remain. Freeway construction exacer-bated the sense of disconnection, as the Innerbelt created a formidable barrier through the middle of the District, severing the southern section from the northern section and the Central neighbor-hood from downtown. The freeway today still segregates the residents of the public housing es-tates to the south from the institutional and eco-nomic activity to the north in the downtown core.

Today the Campus District wrestles with this complex and contradictory legacy. The same forc-es that created the District as a single entity--the Urban Renewal programs that created expan-sion room for the institutions that now define the area--also left behind a legacy of disjunction and disconnection.

Planners in Cleveland have tried to reconnect the disparate pieces of the Campus District. These efforts include the St. Vincent Quadrangle Area-wide Development Program from RERC and URS Dalton (1987); the 1994 Quadrangle Master Plan from van Dijk, Westlake and Partners and Hop-

kinson and Partners (1994); Sandvick Architects’ 1997 Revitalization Plan; Chris Ronayne’s Cam-pus Connections Plan (2009); and the East 22nd Street improvements plan from City Architecture (2011).

Several commonalities run through these plans. All emphasize the need for greater connectivity across the District, recognizing the separations that characterize the area. All call for the creation of new retail and housing opportunities, particu-larly in the area around CSU, as a way of establish-ing a true neighborhood and providing destina-tions within the District. They identify street and greenspace improvements as ways to connect established and new nodes of activity. And all call for the re-creation of a true north-south corridor across the District to establish connective tissue.

There are differences in emphasis among the plans, but not in overall concept or direction. The RERC/URS Dalton (1987) plan was the first produced for the Quadrangle (recently formed in 1983 through the cooperation of the three major institutions, CSU, Tri-C, and St. Vincent’s). It proposed new retail and residential develop-ment along the margins of the CSU campus, an improved pedestrian experience along East 22nd Street, and traffic and parking infrastructure in-vestments to allow for greater daily traffic in and out of the District area as the institutions grew. The plan hoped to connect the Quadrangle to the emerging redevelopment energies being deployed in PlayhouseSquare and elsewhere in downtown (p. 3).

FIGURE 3.1.4 RENDERING OF FUTURE CSU CAMPUS, 1965

The original, Le Corbusier-inspired campus plan, included in plans for the urban renewal district (Out-cault, Guenther, Rode and Bonebrake 1966).

FIGURE 3.1.5 ST VINCENT’S URBAN RENEWAL AERIAL PHOTO

The clearcutting of the St. Vincent urban renewal area in 1967. (Photograph Collection, Cleveland Public Library)

27


The Quadrangle Master Plan of 1994 (van Dijk, Pace, Westlake, and Partners) also viewed East 22nd Street as the major connective route for the area, tying together the major activity nodes. It called for improved traffic circulation, new eco-nomic development building on the buying power of the institutions’ constituents, and coordina-tion in design elements. The plan placed a strong emphasis on streetscape improvements in order to strengthen a sense of place within the neigh-borhood. Linkages with adjacent neighborhoods were also stressed.

Sandvick Architects produced a revitalization plan focused on the central area of the Quad-rangle (1997). The plan provided an inventory of older buildings that would be likely candidates for adaptive reuse, and called for redevelopment of these buildings with ground floor retail to intro-duce economic development and foster sidewalk activity. Residential possibilities were also identi-fied. This plan departed from the others in iden-tifying E. 21st Street as the central north-south connector, and called for the street to be rede-signed as a boulevard.

The 2009 Campus Connections plan called for the re-branding of the Quadrangle as the Cam-pus District and envisioned a connected, inte-gral district emerging from distinct and separate components. The plan called for design standards that embraced the street in order to complement street and transit improvements. These improve-ments would also tie new development areas along Prospect and Carnegie to existing centers of activity. E. 22nd Street was redefined as the ‘main street’ of the Campus District, providing

the principal north-south connection. The reor-ganization of the Quadrangle, Inc. also received extensive treatment.

All the aforementioned plans share the primary goal of stitching together the diverse, disconnect-ed spaces into a unified district. Yet the problems addressed in the plans remain. The dis-integrative effects of Urban Renewal and mid-century plan-ning are strongly ingrained in the District’s built environment and pose a persistent challenge to efforts aimed at unifying the area.

Prepared by: Kyle Julien, Heather Ways, & Arthur Schmidt

28

3.2 geographyEXISTING CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT DESCRIPTION

Prepared by: Ben McKeeman

FIGURE 3.2.1 ELEVATION MAP FOR CAMPUS DISTRICT

Source: Cuyahoga County Geographical Information Systems (n.d.). CEGIS MyCuyahoga. In Cuyahoga County GIS Interactive Mapper. Retrieved February 18, 2013, from http://gis.cuyahogacounty.us/.

The physical boundaries of the Campus District are dominated by two of the most prominent fea-tures of Cleveland’s urban landscape. To the north, Burke Lakefront Airport serves as a barrier between the district and Lake Erie, and to the south the In-nerbelt trench slices through the center before en-circling the district’s eastern edge. It is these two man-made features that provide excellent trans-port connections, while simultaneously fracturing the urban street grid and eliminating any lakefront access.

With the exception of the below-grade Innerbelt corridor, the district elevation mirrors what one would expect of land adjacent to the lakefront. The elevation difference is moderate, though the gra-dient change is evenly spread across the district. The highest point in the district, just to the south of St.Vincent’s Medical Center, reaches to 680 feet above sea level, while the lowest land is at the lake-front surrounding the airport, at 580 feet - or about 10 feet above the elevation of Lake Erie. The only pronounced decrease in elevation occurs between

Euclid and Chester Avenues, where a drop of 15 feet is easily noticed by pedestrian and automobile traf-fic. The Campus District is also devoid of creeks or streams, while surrounding districts enjoy water-front access in the form of the Cuyahoga River and accessible Lake Erie frontage.

In a broader context, the district lies between the key drivers of Cleveland’s economy. Within a one mile radius, one can reach the Central Business Dis-trict, Playhouse Square, and the western portion of the Health Tech Corridor on Euclid Ave. Expanding that distance to the three mile mark encompasses the Cleveland Clinic, University Circle, Ohio City, Tremont and other inner-ring neighborhoods. The proximity of the district to these drivers of activity provides opportunities for collaboration and cross-activity between neighborhoods such as Clinic em-ployees living in the Langston development and travelling via the HealthLine to work.

29

3.3 current land use and zoningEXISTING CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT DESCRIPTION


Studio 611 developed the zoning and land use maps in this section by drawing upon standard sources including the City of Cleveland’s In-teractive GIS map, and by gathering direct information by touring the District (Cuyahoga County Geographical Information Systems, n.d.).

The Campus District has a diverse mix of land uses and zoning, and consequently enjoys mixed businesses and users. Segmented sub-districts are apparent across the district, and are especially visible with the distinct boundaries that separate the light industrial zones to the north, the education and institutional zones in the center, and the residential and medical uses to the south.

FIGURE 3.3.1 LAND USE MAP Campus District Land Use Map Key:Exsisting Land Usec. 2005

COMMERCIAL

COMMERCIAL PARKING

COMMERCIAL SERVICES

HEAVY INDUSTRY

INSTITUTIONAL

LIGHT INDUSTRY

MIXED USE: LIVE-WORK

MULTI FAMILY

MULTI-FAMILY

OFFICE

RECREATION

RETAIL

SINGLE FAMILY

TOWNHOUSE

TRANSPORTATION

TWO FAMILY

VACANT

30

3.3 CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING

FIGURE 3.3.2 ZONING MAP

The ‘missing teeth’ effect of the buildings and parcels in the district imply the presence of a fragmented, highly diverse group of landowners. Yet much of the land in the District is owned by a dozen or so owners. Not surprisingly, CSU, Tri-C and St. Vincent’s control large, campus-scale swaths of land. Zoning overlay districts coincide with the land use patterns of the major institutions and neighborhood sub-districts.

The northern parts of the district are zoned almost entirely industrial from the Lakeside Avenue area south to Chester Avenue corridor, where CSU lies. Cleveland State falls within a commercially zoned area, which extends southward to include the St. Vincent’s and Tri-C campuses. The Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA) estate properties make up the largest residentially zoned area in the District. The CMHA area also defines the boundary that the Campus District shares with the Central neighborhood.

31

CHAPTER 3.4DISTRICT ANALYSIS

32

3.4.1 districts and barriersDISTRICT ANALYSIS

Prepared by: Ben McKeeman, Gregory Soltis, Kyle Julien

asiatown

old chinatown

warehouse

art quarter

collegetown

charity

playhouse square

nine twelvedistrict


EXISTING & POTENTIALSUB-NEIGHBORHOODS

FIGURE 3.4.1.A NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE DISTRICT

EAST-WEST ROUTESFIGURE 3.4.1.B MAIN STREET ORIENTATIONS A North-South District in an East-West City

The Campus District is a north-south oriented district in a city whose main thoroughfares run east-west, and then radially to the east, southeast and south. Cleveland’s street grid is interrupted by the Cuyahoga Valley which, until the construction of the 1918 Veterans Memorial Bridge and other spans early in the 20th century, pre-sented an impediment to travel between the two sides of the city. Most traffic headed to the heart of the city from the east and west, and then over downtown bridges to reach the other side. This is the primary reason why traf-fic in the Campus District, which flanks the entire eastern edge of downtown, is primarily east and west in orien-tation. North-south travel within the District is mostly limited to trips within its borders, and rarely runs the ex-tent of the District. The bluff area overlooking Lake Erie on the north end of the district, dominated by industrial uses and railroads, does not invite or attract traffic either from within or outside the district.

Barriers

The northern edge of the District terminates in the bluffs that overlook Lake Erie. Until the early and mid 20th cen-tury, the bluffs constituted the natural shoreline of the lake. Landfill areas extended the shoreline north, and provided land occupied by the State Route 2 Shoreway and lakefront rail lines. To the north of the Shoreway and the railway lines is Burke Lakefront Airport, also built on landfill. These infrastructure elements pose physical bar-riers to lake access. As is, the area is neither a regional nor a local destination. Views of Lake Erie from the bluffs are an amenity that could spur development along the northern edge of the District, now a zone of light indus-try. The southern edge of the District has its own set of multi-ple barriers, the first of which is Interstate 77. The freeway is raised above the street grid and poses not only a physi-cal barrier, but also a visual barrier to potential views of

33

3.4.1 DISTRICTS AND BARRIERS

the Cuyahoga River Valley and the industrial Flas area, which lie to the west. Orange Avenue, just south of I-77, is a broad street designed for automobile traffic and is not welcoming to pedestrians. Along Orange Avenue is the city’s main post office. One of the post office buildings lies directly athwart the axis of East 22nd Street, termi-nating one of the District’s primary north-south streets. The building itself is lackluster in design, and blocks the street from connecting to Broadway Avenue, views of the Cuyahoga River Valley, and a potential connection to the city’s rapid transit system.

In addition to barriers on the north and south, the Dis-trict is bisected diagonally by Interstate 90, this portion known to Clevelanders as the Innerbelt trench. Most of the Innerbelt lies below the level of the city’s surface streets. Surface streets bridge the trench, connecting one part of the District to another, and to Midtown. The presence of the trench presents an ongoing challenge to the District’s urban fabric and unity.

Sub-neighborhoods, districts

The Campus District contains four sub-neighborhoods, each distinct in their character and use. The northernmost sub-neighborhood, north of St. Clair Avenue, is industrial in character and use. Most of the buildings are one or two stories and are somewhat non-descript in character. However, there are a few larger buildings along Lakeside Avenue, such as the North Coast Logistics building, which exemplify industrial ar-chitectural styles of the Chicago School, with detailing in various period styles.

South of St.Clair Avenue and north of Payne Avenue, and centered on Superior Avenue are Old Chinatown and the Arts Quarter. Old Chinatown runs along Rockwell Avenue from East 21st Street to East 24th. The main feature of the neighborhood is the Old Chinatown Building, built in

the 1920s in a Chinese Colonial Revival style with multiple storefronts that have recently been renovated. Across the street from the Old Chinatown Building, cast con-crete sculptures of creatures representing the Chinese Zodiac line Rockwell. A Buddhist Temple upstairs fea-tures tapestries from China that are nearly 500 years old. Five new restaurants are expected to open soon.

The Art Quarter was the city’s first attempt at a live-work zoning overlay district, enacted in 2001. The effort was successful and today the district boasts 60 artists living and working in 13 buildings, one of the largest concentra-tion of working artists in the metropolitan area. (Gould, 2013). The industrial buildings along Superior Avenue are also mostly in the Chicago style with various period style detailing. The area used to house part of Cleveland’s gar-ment industry. Cleveland State University and the surrounding “Col-legetown” area occupy the blocks north of the Innerbelt and south of Payne Avenue. The area has seen much de-velopment in the past decade including new apartment blocks and institutional buildings for the university, and renovation of many historic structures along Euclid Av-enue. In addition, Euclid Avenue recently underwent a total infrastructure overhaul. Included in this overhaul was the addition of the Health Line, the city’s first bus rapid transit line that connects downtown and University Circle, the region’s two largest employers.

South of the Innerbelt are the campus of St. Vincent Charity Medical Center, Tri-C’s Metro Campus, and the Cedar-Central neighborhood. The area is character-ized by suburban-style office structures along East 22nd Street; mid- to late-twentieth century brutalist style in-stitutional structures on Tri-C’s campus; and public hous-ing blocks which vary from post-war era development to more recent Hope VI-style public housing.

NORTH-SOUTH ROUTESFIGURE 3.4.1.C BARRIERS IN THE DISTRICT

34

3.4.2 demographicsDISTRICT ANALYSIS

FIGURE 3.4.2.A POPULATION DENSITY (BLOCK GROUP LEVEL)

FIGURE 3.4.2.B PERCENT ASIAN POPULATION (BLOCK GROUP LEVEL)

FIGURE 3.4.2.C PERCENTAGE BLACK POPULATION (BLOCK GROUP LEVEL)

FIGURE 3.4.2.D PERCENTAGE WHITE POPULATION (BLOCK GROUP LEVEL)

The 2010 census counted 4,803 residents within the Campus District. The District is populated by two groups that are of-ten difficult to count accurately—college students and the homeless—and so that number is of limited value. Seventy four percent, or 3,567 of those counted, are African American, while 18% (889) are white. No other racial or ethnic category exceeds 5% of the population.

Prepared by: Heather Ways, Kyle Julien, Ben McKeeman

35

3.4.2 DEMOGRAPHICS

Those aged twenty to thirty years repre-sent the biggest proportion of the popu-lation, 27%. Only 4% of the population is over 65 years of age. The median age for the District is 24 years. 26% of those counted by the census are living in non-family households (i.e., they are not re-lated to those sharing their housing unit). Another 19% live in group quarters. Ninety three percent of the households rent their homes. The median income for the District is $11,056; 67% of the households have an annual income below $15,000. Only 4% of the households have incomes exceeding $100,000 (US Census Bureau, 2013).

FIGURE 3.4.2.E INCOME LEVELS (CENSUS TRACT LEVEL)

(Note: Income had to be displayed in census tracts instead of block groups, since the data was not available at that level)

36

3.4.3 homeless populationDISTRICT ANALYSIS

In Cleveland approximately 6,000 homeless per-sons accessed emergency shelter in 2010. On any given night 500-600 people may be in a shelter. In 2008-09 there were 3,245 new homeless entries. People become homeless due to a lack of afford-able housing or because they have disabilities, substance abuse or illness that make it difficult to stay housed. Eighty percent of shelter users in Cuyahoga County are transitional and will not re-quire ongoing shelter. Ten percent are episodic us-ers and of this 25% have disabilities. Ten percent are chronically homeless (Gillett, 2013).

The Housing First working group, a local non-profit of a national organization, was convened in 2001 by the Sisters of Charity Foundation of Cleveland in partnership with Enterprise Community Part-ners, Inc., the City of Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Office of Homeless Services, and local housing and service providers (Burkholder and Hexter, 2002, p. 1). The goal of Housing First is to end chronic home-lessness through building permanent supportive housing. This housing provides needed services on-site to residents. The target population is single adults, young single adults with disabilities and no stable living situation, households with children and a head of household with a disability or who have had multiple episodes of homelessness, and young households with children. Local research has shown that the cost to a community of build-ing, maintaining, and staffing permanent support-ive housing is less than EMS and police response, ER visits, and the like (Gillett, 2013).

The homeless impact on the District is varied. The Cuyahoga County Office of Homeless Services co-ordinates almost $31 million in public funding for homeless services (Gillett, 2013). These dollars are spent in the city, many in this neighborhood, on

salaries and other services. Many of the homeless have some income which they spend, perhaps on cigarettes and beer, but when housed, on food and rent. The negative impact is people wandering the streets or campus buildings during the day, or sleeping on sofas. Public urination is an issue. Services for the homeless and homeless persons are concentrated in the north end of the Campus District. The men’s shelter is at 2100 Lakeside Av-enue, the women’s at 2227 Payne Avenue. These are also the intake sites for all homeless in the city. Other homeless services arethe Bishop Cosgrove drop in center at 1736 Supe-rior Avenue, Mental Health Services at 1701 Payne Avenue,and 1850 Superior, a permanent support-ive housing apartment. The Salvation Army’s Har-bor Light program at 1710 Prospect provides emer-gency shelter services for families and transitional housing programs for men.

FIGURE 3.4.3 PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AT 1850 SUPERIOR

Prepared by: Heather Ways

37

3.4.4 infrastructureDISTRICT ANALYSIS

asiatown

old chinatown

warehouse

art quarter

collegetown

charity

yhouse square prospect avehistoric distric

~10 min/

1/2 mile

~20 min/

1 mile

~5 min/

1/4 mile

~3 min

~5 min/////

5 min

FIGURE 3.4.4.A WALKING AND BIKING DISTANCES

Figure 3.4.4.a illustrates the great potential of the Campus District to become a walkable and bike-able neighborhood as the distances are very favorable for pedestrians.

Prepared by: Andrew Bryant, Steven Litt, Deborah Riemann, & Ryan Smalley

Summary

Traffic in the Campus District flows east-west despite the north-south shape of the district. Walkability and pedestrian amenities in the District are generally poor. Of 11 streets rated, the majority are C or D in pedestrian qual-ity on an informal scale of A through D, with A representing the highest quality; public art, trees, tree lawns and green space are rare, aside from the fenced athletic fields owned by the university.

Traffic volumes in the District are light with the exception of brief congestion around Innerbelt on-ramps, particularly during the evening rush, suggesting that excess roadway capacity creates an opportunity to establish new bike paths. Road conditions along major east-west avenues are fair to good, while north-south streets and minor east-west streets are often in poor to bad condition. The large amount of im-pervious surface in the area presents an opportunity for green infrastructure to capture stormwater runoff, and en-hance aesthetics.

The 10,000 public and private park-ing spaces provide the potential for future infill development, particularly between the CSU campus and Superior Avenue. Surface Parking could be re-placed with parking structures.

Innerbelt

External linkages between the District and surrounding parts of the city, in-cluding the lakefront, are poor. The $3 billion reconstruction of the Innerbelt will bring radical change in transporta-tion patterns during and after construc-tion and affect connectivity to adjacent areas and the interstate. The removal of exits could impact local businesses. Stronger connections could be made between areas on either side of the highway by capping the Innerbelt at Euclid Avenue and at East 22nd Street. One Campus District stakeholder inter-viewee suggested that the entire dis-tance from Euclid south to East 22nd Street be capped with green space. The idea is dramatic and provocative, and raises the question whether a piece of infrastructure perceived as a negative could become a huge positive.

Railroads

There are numerous railroad tracks on the northern-most portion of the Dis-trict which impact Cleveland’s lake-front. The railroads were built on both sides of the mouth of the Cuyahoga River to handle shipments of finished goods for businesses in the city. The tracks along the lakefront carry three

38

types of rail service: cross-country freight, in-tercity passenger rail, and public light rail. Only two forms of rail service, freight and passenger rail pass through the Campus District. CSX op-erates approximately 10 freight trains per day on tracks along Cleveland’s lakefront. Norfolk Southern operates approximately 35 to 40 trains per day on its tracks. Amtrak owns tracks along Cleveland’s lakefront (Ohio Department of Transportation, 2010).

Street Inventory

A street inventory (see Appendix 3.4.4) has been developed to assess the walkability con-ditions, “Pedestrian Quality of Service,” of the District’s major streets.

The street inventory focused on Lakeside Av-enue, Hamilton Avenue, St. Clair, Rockwell, Superior Avenue, Payne Avenue, Prospect, Carnegie, Euclid, Chester, as well as East 30th, East 24th, East 22nd, East 21st, and East 18th Streets. The inventory included a section draw-ing, pictures of the street, and a table summa-rizing technical data such as right-of-way, set-backs, and lane width. It also considered bike and pedestrian safety, streetscaping, parking requirements, and open spaces. Map 1 shows that most of the District is potentially acces-sible through walking within 10 to 15 minutes.Maps 2 and 3 illustrate the summarized assess-ment of all the streets. Map 2 is concerned with the pavement conditions. Except for Euclid Av-enue (A-rating), most streets are rated in fair condition (B) or lower. In fact, the streets sur-rounding the CSU campus achieved a better rating than the streets north of Payne Avenue. Street conditions are rated based on potholes, striping, and intersection design.

A separate map (Map 3) illustrates pedestrian conditions. Euclid Avenue and East 22nd Street achieved the best rating, which is not surpris-ing given the completion in 2008 of the $200 million Healthline project, which turned the avenue into a bus rapid transit corridor with bike lanes, improved sidewalks and landscap-ing, and 1,400 new street trees. However,

3.4.4 INFRASTRUCTURE

FIGURE 3.4.4.B CAMPUS DISTRICT ROADWAY CONDITIONS MAP

FIGURE 3.4.4.C CAMPUS DISTRICT PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS MAP

39

other than Prospect Avenue and East 18th and East 21st Streets, hardly any other street achieved the B-rating of fair condition for pedestrians. Chester, Carnegie, Superior and Payne Avenues function as major thoroughfares to get downtown; they connect to the high-way on- and off-ramps and University Circle. Chester serves most of the CSU parking garages. On top of increased traffic volumes, pedestrian crossings are angled which increases the time pedestrians spend in the street. Most of the buildings show their “back sides” to the streets which decreases the at-tractiveness and atmospheric experi-ence for pedestrians. There is a lack of landscaping. To become more pedes-trian friendly, solutions need to be de-veloped to maintain auto access, while enhancing the pedestrian experience. Most of these streets have wide side-walks (except for Carnegie) that would allow for creative streetscapes.

Street widths and number of lanes vary through the District often depending on the presence or absence of parking and turning lanes. Many streets have on-street parking, which is unavailable during rush hour. The same inconsisten-cy applies to tree lawns. The variation in number of lanes, change of parking to travel lanes, occasional turn lanes, and varying tree lawns contributes to the perception of the district as disorderd and inconsistent. The inconsistency is further aggravated by a lack of consis-tent signage. While some of the street signs are still labeled as “Quadrangle”, there are information boxes with maps labeled “Campus District.” There are light post banners that either advertise for CSU, St.Vincent, or Tri-C, depending on the street.

Table 1 provides a summary of each individual street assessed by the in-ventory. Special attention is drawn to Superior, Hamilton, and Carnegie Av-enues and to East 24th Street. Superior has low traffic volumes, but more than ample lane capacity. Carnegie is very crowded during rush hour but other-wise nearly empty. East 24th Street is typical of the north-south streets in the District, which carry light traffic.

Carnegie Avenue has poor paving and poor pedestrian amenities. The street is lined with gas stations, fast food res-taurants, a car dealership, and parking structures. The Wolstein Center of CSU is located on Carnegie Avenue. Set-backs vary. Some buildings are close to the sidewalk and others have big parking lots in front or next door. Most buildings are one to two stories. No traffic counts are available for Carnegie; however, the highway sheds 14,000 cars at that exit ramp. There are no bike amenities located on the street. During the day, most of the lanes are underuti-lized while during rush-hour the street is congested. At the intersection with East 22nd Street and Cedar Avenue, a large billboard and a vacant parking lot could be repurposed with a significant new building that would help to bridge the northern and southern sections of the Campus District.

Superior Avenue has 10 foot-wide sidewalks and an additional 10 to 15 feet of tree lawn that create a nice buffer between cars and pedestrians. Close to the Tower Press building, the streetscape includes works of public art that resemble abstracted neoclassical architectural elements. The setbacks vary but most of the buildings come up to the sidewalks which helps to provide


a sense of coherence. The $40 million Plain Dealer Building fills the north side of the block from East 18th to East 21st and faces the impressive - and impres-sively renovated - Tower Press Building to the south. The ArtCraft building, a former textile factory, anchors the East end of the section at East 26th Street. Other impressive factory buildings cre-ate a solid wall on the south side of the street from Tower Press east to the Inner Belt; the north side is less distin-guished, but occupied mainly by early 20th century commercial and industrial buildings.

The RTA Bus No. 3 runs along Superior Avenue. Given the width and excess lane capacity in comparison to traf-fic volumes, bike amenities could be included. There are some parking lots adjacent to buildings that would offer future development opportunities. Su-perior Avenue has great potential to be-come a vibrant, grand boulevard ben-efiting from the presence of students and artists, as well as proximity to CSU, Asiatown, downtown, and Lake Erie.Hamilton Avenue and Lakeside impose challenges. North of St. Clair is a cluster of industrial warehouses that are main-ly single story buildings that are still in use. However, most of those uses are not visible from the outside. The street lacks paint. It has three lanes, two travel lanes, and one parking lane. The sidewalks are ten feet wide providing sufficient space for pedestrians. How-ever, there are few reasons for pedestri-ans to be on the street. A connection to the lake might change that. Challenges might be truck traffic as some of the warehouses need to be able to handle truck deliveries.

East 24th, which runs north-south, is

FIGURE 3.4.4.D CAMPUS DISTRICT EXISTING PARKING MAP

40

lined with new student housing between Euclid and Prospect Avenues. The street is closed to through traffic and becomes a pedestrian corridor between Euclid and Chester. North of Chester, it serves both as a local street and as an on- and off-ramp for the Innerbelt. Closer to Su-perior it is lined with single family hous-ing, and further north, with warehouses. As 24th Street gets closer to the Lake, one story warehouses are the primary building type. While the six or seven sto-ry warehouses at the intersection of East 24th and Superior create nice vistas, the pedestrian experience is incoherent due to poor legibility of the street. The north-south streets in particular would benefit from a coherent streetscape that re-establishes a street-line by us-ing consistent landscaping elements and signage.Overall, the streets within the Campus District are currently not in a condition that would support an increased resident base walking campus streets. Whether walking to class, taking a jog, or meeting up with friends at their apartment, the pedestrian experience becomes crucial to a vibrant campus life and plays into one’s choice of apartments or housing units. The reconstruction of Euclid Av-enue as a bus rapid transit corridor and the planned redesign of East 22nd Street are steps in a positive direction. Addi-tional projects like them would greatly enhance the CSU campus’s competitive-ness, as well as the District’s attractive-ness for young families, seniors, and vis-iting scholars.

The Innerbelt: A Closer Look

The Cleveland Innerbelt Freeway has had a major impact on the evolution of the Campus District over the past half centu-ry, and will be a huge factor in its future. It is hotly debated in Cleveland whether the transportation access provided by the highway system to the Campus District outweighs the negative physi-cal, social, and economic consequences created by the freeway. Those questions are more acute than ever, given that the Ohio Department of Transportation has planned a $3 billion, multi-year make-over of the Innerbelt, which will have extensive near-term consequences as construction continues through the mid 2020s and beyond.

Designed in the late 1950s and built between 1959 and 1963, the Innerbelt Freeway is a series of highways and bridges on the east and south sides of downtown Cleveland, and where US In-terstates 90, 77, and 71 converge. The Innerbelt extends roughly eight miles south and southwest from the point at which I-90 curves south from the Lake Erie shoreline. From the curve south, the roadway skirts the east side of down-town Cleveland and then bends in a westerly direction on the south side of the downtown core. It includes the exist-ing I-90 bridge over the Cuyahoga River and then extends further south and west through Tremont to include the overpass over I-90 and the curve just southeast of the MetroHealth complex.

The design of the Innerbelt is a legacy of an era in which highway planners were concerned primarily with speeding the flow of regional and national traffic


FIGURE 3.4.4.E SECTION OF CARNEGIE

FIGURE 3.4.4.F SECTION OF SUPERIOR

41

through urban centers. On the west side of the river, the Innerbelt bisected the working class Tremont neighbor-hood. On the east side, it took the form of a depressed trench, with surface streets passing over it, which effectively created a moat. This barrier separates the downtown business core from the Central neighborhood to the south and southeast, and from the Midtown busi-ness district to the east. The Innerbelt slices across the Campus District, divid-ing the St. Vincent Charity Hospital and Cuyahoga Community College Central campuses from PlayhouseSquare and the Cleveland State University Campus.

Plans for the reconstruction of the In-nerbelt were launched by ODOT in 2000 and resulted in a Record of Decision in 2011. Phase one of the project called for constructing two new east-west bridges to replace the existing I-90 span over the Cuyahoga River. The phases of construction that will affect the Cam-pus District are Phase 3, scheduled for 2017-2021 at an estimated cost of $391 million to $498 million, and Phase 5, scheduled for 2028-2033 at an estimat-ed cost of $484 million to $$617 million. As designed, it will include reducing the number of removing exit and on-ramps ramps to improve safety and remove short-weave distances that contribute to side-swipe accidents (Ohio Depart-ment of Transportation, 2013).

The redesign includes a system of sur-face access roads that funnel city traf-fic to a reduced number of on- and off-ramps. ODOT’s main concern in the redesign is to improve safety and traf-fic flow. Businesses have challenged whether removing exits will hurt them. Midtown Cleveland Inc. filed a lawsuit

against state and federal transporta-tion officials in 2010, in part because they contended ODOT did not do an adequate economic-impact study on the removal of an exit at Carnegie Ave-nue. In response, ODOT pledged a year later to perform such a study (Brecken-ridge, 2011). Apart from the economic impact of the exit removal, the Campus District needs to explore how the Carn-egie Avenue exit debate could affect a proposal to “cap” a section of freeway at East 22nd Street with a landscaped park that would serve as a foreground to the former Juvenile Justice Center.

The District and Cleveland State Uni-versity may also wish to pursue cap-ping the freeway in a similar manner at Euclid Avenue to create a stronger entry to the campus area from the East. ODOT has pledged to build piers strong enough to carry such a platform at East 22nd Street, but it is unclear how the rest of that project could be financed (Campus District, 2012). What is clear is that the reconstruction of the Inner-belt, particularly the upcoming phase in the Campus District area, presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ameliorate some of the most negative and damaging effects of the highway on the city.


FIGURE 3.4.4.G SECTION OF HAMILTON

FIGURE 3.4.4.H SECTION OF E. 24TH

42

Recommendations

- Emphasize caps over Innerbelt in the next phase of construction at Euclid Avenue and East 22nd Street.

- Improve lighting, bike paths, walkways, and design -Encourage CSU to expand east of the Innerbelt to

link the Campus District and Midtown.- Preserve and enhance existing north-south streets

especially in areas targeted for new housing.- Avoid closing north-south streets to create super-

blocks - Add bike paths by restriping streets.- Enhance District identity by improved signage- Brand the northern portion of the Campus District

as an in-town industrial park.


FIGURE 3.4.4.I PUBLIC TRANSIT

43

3.4.5 crime and safetyDISTRICT ANALYSIS

Prepared by John Riter

FIGURE 3.4.5.A CSU CRIME DATA

Source: Cleveland State University Police Department, 2012

To analyze the safety of the Campus Dis-trict’s 500 acres, it is important to review crime data from two distinct areas. Cleve-land State University’s police force services the 85 acres of land of the southern half of the study area The university is required to report crime data annually under the Cleary Law to the US Department of Education containing eight years of information based on specific definitions of what consti-tutes an offense. The data reported in Fig-ure 3.4.5.a by the university shows minimal statistical criminal activity on campus with 21 major crimes reported in all of 2011. This is actually a decrease from earlier years. Crime peaked in 2005 with 39 reported ma-jor crimes as designed by the federal stan-dards for Cleary Reporting. The decrease in crime is attributable to a decrease in mo-tor vehicle theft on campus. The campus is used by approximately 18,000 students, faculty and staff. The crime figures show a per capita crime rate of one major crime per 818 people. This compares quite favorably with the per capita crime rate in the City of Cleveland which was one major crime per 14 residents in 2010, shown in Figure 3.4.5.c (Cleveland State University Police Depart-ment, 2012).

The university data in Figure 3.4.5.a. shows a great increase in recent years in drug and alcohol related offences. The number of alcohol and drug offenses has increased from 37 offenses in 2007 to 159 offences in 2011.This coincides with the opening of 600 dorm rooms on campus in the Euclid Com-mons. The university has recently imple-mented stricter policies for residence halls which addresses this increase. A recent Plain Dealer article about student unhappi-

FIGURE 3.4.5.B COMPARISON CRIME DATA

Sources: Case Western Reserve University, 2013; University of Akron, 2012; Cleveland State University Police Department, 2012; Univer-

sity of Toledo, 2012

ness with policies at the dorms cited two policy issues, a limitation on visiting hours and a limit on the amount of alcohol per-mitted in of- age students’ rooms (Spector, 2013).

The following table Figure 3.4.5.b Com-parison Crime Data looks at the crime per capita at other urban universities in north-ern Ohio. It includes the number of stu-dents, faculty, and staff as well as the num-ber of students living on campus. These data show that the campus crime rate is consistent with other urban universities in northern Ohio. CSU has the lowest number of criminal offenses in total and the second lowest number of crimes per capita when considering all users on the campus. It has the worst score when looking at the crime per capita of student residents.

The remaining 415 acres of the Campus Dis-trict is serviced by the Cleveland Police De-partment. Data from NEOCANDO, North-east Ohio Community and Neighborhood Data for Organizing (2013), shows that the area is safer than the city as a whole, with a previously mentioned citywide crime per capita figure of 14 residents per major crim-inal offenses. The District with its relative low density of just 3800 residents on the 415 acres has 23 residents per major crimi-nal offense. This is not to say that the area should be regarded as safe, it is just safer than the average neighborhood in the city of Cleveland.

In stakeholder interviews one problem that emerged are the nuisance crimes commit-ted by homeless in the District. As previ-ously mentioned two homeless shelters are

44

3.4.5 CRIME AND SAFETY

FIGURE 3.4.5.C CLEVELAND CRIME DATA

Source: NECANDO, 2013

located in the District. These shelters are closed to most homeless during the day, who often are a nuisance to the neighborhood. A business owner interviewed by Studio 611 maintained that the opening of the men’s shelter cost the neighborhood many businesses and that one of her employee’s cars is broken into at least once a week. Additionally, while going to the interview the student from this class witnessed the public urination firsthand in the business parking lot.

A possible solution to the urination problem may be found in the public restroom facilities of Portland, Oregon. There are six facilities set up throughout the city and they are referred to as the Portland Loo. The facilities cost roughly $60,000 to build and $1,000 per month to main-tain which is partially offset with advertising revenue. The facilities are large enough for a mother with a stroller and have been designed to address concerns regarding safety and sanita-tion. They have been generally well received and used in the Portland area and could be a possible solution to this issue (Murphy, 2012).

The perception of the Campus District and Cleve-land State in student surveys and stakeholder interviews is that the areas are not particularly safe. This does not seem to be rooted in real-ity when examining the data for the area. The District can work to change perceptions and im-prove the climate business and residents. Involv-ing residents at the shelters in the District and working towards solutions to meet their needs would be a welcome first step.

45

3.4.6 BROWNFIELDSDISTRICT ANALYSIS

FIGURE 3.4.6 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Prepared by: Doug Riebel

Potential environmental threats or is-sues stem from the existence of un-derground storage tanks, which vary in quality and hold different hazardous substances. Most underground stor-age tanks within the district have at-tained the status of No Further Action from the Ohio EPA, meaning they are in compliance with regulations. Oth-ers have had leaks in the past or are currently being investigated. The Third District Police Station had a release of hazardous substances, documented in 1994 (Ohio Department of Commerce, 1994). All other data for major insti-tutions and stakeholders in the area shows they either have active tanks in compliance, or have inactive tanks with a status of No Further Action.

A number of sites are documented by the US and State of Ohio Environmen-tal Protection Agencies. Sites marked by a blue asterisk are those monitored by the US EPA for the purpose of regu-lating hazardous substances (US Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, 2013), while sites marked by a green asterisk are those that have either entered the Ohio Voluntary Action Program (VAP) or have earned grants from the Clean Ohio Fund (COF) (Ohio EPA, Division of Environmental and Remedial Re-sponse, 2013).

St. Vincent Charity Medical Center is documented as being part of the VAP and COF. The Chilcote company, which produces film and photography prod-ucts on Payne Avenue and East 21st

Street, is also listed as a VAP site, while just to the west on Superior is Avon Dry Cleaning, another Ohio EPA site (Ohio EPA, DERR, 2013). Readily available information on the status of remedia-tion efforts for these sites and storage tank leaks is generally outdated and unspecific. More detailed, site-specific assessments of environmental hazards would need to be done for proposed developments in the area.

According to data from the Ohio De-partment of Natural Resources, all soil in the district is classified as urban soil, meaning it is not useful for agricultural purposes, but is not necessarily hazard-ous (Ohio Department of Natural Re-sources, 2000). No area in the Campus District is classified as a flood hazard area, and the district and surrounding area were at the highest risk of ground-water pollution, according to an index created by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources based on hydraulic conductivity, topography, pesticide conductivity, etc (ODNR, 1994). None of this information was mapped be-cause there were no distinct differenc-es in soil type, risk of flood, or potential for groundwater pollution for the en-tire district and the surrounding area.

46

3.4.7 SWOT ANALYSISDISTRICT ANALYSIS


The following table summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the district identified in the previous sections. It also identifies future opportunities and threats that the district will be facing.

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

Anchor Institutions (CSU/St. Vincent’s/Tri-C)‘Blank Canvas’ for identity developmentNew residential constructionAccess to public transportHistoric building inventoryAvailable commercial space at reasonable rentsHighway accessProximity to existing entertainment/sports areasAccess to educated workforce (CSU/Tri-C)Adjacency to employment centers (UC/CBD)

Safety (or perceived lack thereof)Clusters of povertyDisinvested areas of public housingLack of local retail/servicesI-90 trenchFragmented nature of sub-districtsNorth/South District in an East/West CityInstitution perceptions with residents

Historic building redevelopmentExtend reach of CSU police coverageIncrease number of residents/students in districtCap sections of I-90 to increase walkabilityCreation of a Neighborhood Entertainment DistrictCreate N-S corridors to increase district interactionExtend reach of Downtown Cleveland Alliance BSDCreate connections to existing Lakefront access

Weak leaning market for innovative projectsPossible market demand concerns for office/retailUncertainty of mixed income projects in CentralLack of political will to accomplish big ideasInstitutional wants VS neighborhood needs

47

3.4.8 EXISTING BUSINESS INVENTORYDISTRICT ANALYSIS

Figure 3.4.8 illustrates the concentra-tion and types of businesses in the campus district (from data provided by Campus District, Inc.)

FIGURE 3.4.8 EXISTING BUSINESS INVENTORY

Prepared by: Douglas Riebel based on information provided by Campus District Inc.

48

3.4.9 EXTERNAL LINKAGESDISTRICT ANALYSIS

Campus District Study Area

Campus District External Linkages MapCampus District External Linkages Map

Ryan Smalley PDD 611

Playhouse Square District

Playhouse Square District

AsiaTownClevelandAsiaTownCleveland

Horseshoe Casino & Tower City

Horseshoe Casino & Tower City

University CircleUniversity Circle

1. Potential Lakefront Connection

2. Potential Reuse of Rail Bridge

1

2

Potential Cap Location

Potential Cap Location

FIGURE 3.4.9.A EXTERNAL LINKAGES

External linkages are critically important to the success of the Campus District. It is necessary to identify and understand surrounding activity centers so as to complement and not compete with areas of adjacent strength. Places that could be better connected physically and socially to the District are described below.

PlayhouseSquare: PlayhouseSquare is the major activity hub closest to the dis-trict. Described as the second-largest uni-fied performing arts district in America, it attracts over one million visitors a year. It holds over 1,000 events every year on 10 stages (PlayhouseSquare, 2013).

Horseshoe Casino & Tower City: The re-cently opened Horseshoe Casino occu-pies the historic Higbee Building, part of the Tower City Center complex located three quarters of a mile west of the Cam-pus District, down Euclid Avenue. The ca-sino is expected to be a major catalyst for downtown Cleveland, drawing millions of visitors annually to Public Square area and the surrounding neighborhoods, in-cluding the Campus District. The casino is part of $1 billion in improvements aimed at attracting visitors, including the new, $465 million convention center and Glob-al Center for Health Innovation (com-monly known as the Medical Mart). These attractions are expected to increase the number of hotel rooms in downtown and surrounding neighborhoods.

Lakefront Link: A physical connection to the downtown lakefront could provide critical access to Lake Erie for residents, employees, and visitors to the Campus District. Currently, there is no direct ac-

Prepared By: Cheng-Han Yu, Mark Ebner, & Ryan Smalley

49

3.4.9 EXTERNAL LINKAGES

FIGURE 3.4.9.B NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING THE DISTRICT

FIGURE 3.4.9.C NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING THE DISTRICT

cess to the waterfront from the Campus District. However, there could be signifi-cant social and economical benefits to increasing access to the water from the district.AsiaTown: Cleveland is known for its melting pot heritage. The AsiaTown Cen-ter and its surrounding community are located at East 30th Street and Payne Av-enue on the eastern border of the Cam-pus District. According to the 2011 Ameri-can Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, there are 50,453 people of Asian descent living in the Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor Metropolitan Statistical Area (US Census Bureau, 2013). While only 1,122 Asians call AsiaTown home, according to the 2000 census (Asiatown, 2013) the community still provides resources for the greater Cleveland area. Numerous restaurants and grocery stores in AsiaTown draw pa-trons from outside the neighborhood.University Circle: The Campus District is located between Cleveland’s two largest engines of economic power, the Univer-sity Circle neighborhood and downtown Cleveland. The recent addition of the HealthLine Bus Rapid Transit line linking the two hubs down Euclid Avenue has provided greater economic incentives for development along the prominent cor-ridor. Capturing this growth and the in-creased traffic down Euclid will be critical for the Campus District.Social Connections: Connections can be more than physical. The most important connections are the social connections that really bind neighborhoods together. Cleveland State University is the founda-tion for these social connections in the Campus District. CSU has partnered with Playhouse Square and Case Western Re-

serve to rehab the Allen Theater and cre-ate an Arts Campus. This campus brings CSU students into the Playhouse Square District increasing the physical connec-tion already in place.CSU also has a social connection with the K-12 International School. CSU partnered with the Cleveland City School District and provided a building for the school east of East 30th Street along Chester Avenue. The school currently contains grade levels K through 4th grade and will continue to add a grade level each year. This social connection with CSU provides instructional enrichment activities and academic services for the students.

50

CHAPTER 3.5EXISTING PLANS AND PROJECTS

51

3.5.1 2002 Csu Master Plan SummaryEXISTING PLANS AND PROJECTS

Prepared by: Khrys Shefton

The 2002 Cleveland State University Master Plan completed by Dr. Robert Simons and Abdelaziz El Jaouhari is an update to the last master plan complet-ed for the University in 1995. In prepar-ing the plan, faculty, staff, and students and interviews were surveyed and inter-views were conducted with the deans of various colleges to gain an integrated insight for market analysis and potential land use for property on and near Cleve-land State University. In 2002 CSU was a campus of 16,000 students and 1,790 full and part-time faculty and staff. Based on the number of students and faculty at the University on a daily basis combined with visitors to the convocation center and alumnae who still live in the area, the investigators felt that CSU had the potential to be a large demand generator in the Northeastern Ohio region. The re-port used the data collected to drive their recommendations in regards to housing, restaurants, and other potential campus amenities that students, faculty, and staff felt should be added to the campus.

Demographics Population, employment status, and other demographic and economic data were collected from eight census tracts in the immediate area surrounding CSU. Trends that surfaced in the data included the discovery that while the population increased 18.7% between 1990 and 2000 and the labor force grew by 14.2%, un-employment in the area increased by a staggering 168.3%. The unemployment rate also more than doubled during that period from 10.4% to 24.5%. In terms

of income, per capita income went up from an average of $11,259 to $15,997 by the year 2000, but those living below the poverty line remained virtually un-changed, hovering at 48%. The trends identified in housing retrospectively give a potential glimpse into the future to the foreclosure crisis as the number of owner occupied homes decreased 9.2%; the loss of homeowners in the area did not have a huge impact as 93% of the population was renters (Simons and El Jaouhari, 2002, p. 3-4). The above data shows an area that, while showing some hopeful pockets of growth, had been be-leaguered by poverty and lower than av-erage incomes.

Survey Results Both a student and faculty/staff survey were conducted with 1,014 and 376 col-lected from each group, respectively. The purpose of the survey was to gain in-sights regarding modes of transportation used to reach campus, dining patterns, and spending habits, as well as to de-termine the demand for housing on and near campus. The information gathered paints the picture of Cleveland State as a commuter school with a combined aver-age of 85% of faculty/staff and students driving their own car to campus. Addi-tionally, while faculty/staff spent more than 8 hours a day on campus on aver-age they ate on campus less than twice per week; and while students spent more than five hours a day on campus they ate on campus less than once per week. When the focus switches from on campus dining to restaurant dining the number of

times per week drops dramatically to .66 times per week for faculty/staff and .35 times for students. Varying reasons were cited for the lack of interest in either on or off campus dining including lack of food options, high cost of the food, and overall quality and value (p. 8, 9). When asked as a part of the survey which amenities they would like to see added to the campus, respondents suggested retail, a drug store, housing, and a recre-ation center as the top choices. Based on the amount of square footage dedicated to restaurants in the area, the number of students and faculty/staff, and unmet demand based on how often people ate off campus the report concluded that another 6,742 square feet or 2.96 more restaurants could be supported. The investigators then added the need for variety and potential demand to their as-sumptions and came to the final conclu-sion that CSU could be potentially handle another 5.11 restaurants near campus with the preferable location being along Euclid Avenue (p. 11). The figures for housing demand near the CSU campus were low at the time of the survey with only a combined average of 24% of respondents saying yes to wheth-er they would consider living on campus. Extrapolating this number across the University population, the investigators assumed that at least one-third of the population would opt for housing near CSU and determined that at the time there was a demand for 1,300 new hous-ing units near campus. The investigators took into consideration preferences from

the survey and the existing supply to rec-ommend that 818 new units for students. Faculty and staff demand added another 150 units bringing the total recommenda-tion to 968 new units. Preferred locations for building residences were centered on Euclid and Chester Avenues. Preferred housing types were two bedrooms units, at an average $625 per month for rent or $128,000 to purchase a home (pp. 12-15). Additional questions were placed on the survey to determine demand for a bed and breakfast/hotel, University/faculty club, day care/urban magnet school, and a business incubator. The demand for a bed and breakfast was quite low with only 3% of faculty/staff and 4% of stu-dents responding that there was a need, and 13% and 5% respectively citing the need for a hotel. The final recommenda-tion was that a small hotel facility could be built to meet campus demand for job interviews, guest speakers, and long-term academic visitors. As for a Uni-versity/faculty club, 34% of faculty/staff respondents said that they would come at least once per month with 26% say-ing they would attend on a weekly basis. Taking this into account, the final recom-mendation was for 4,000-7,000 square foot facility potentially located in Howe Mansion. At the time of this report, CSU offered day care facilities near the Cuyahoga Community College campus. 21% of students and 14% of faculty cited the need for a day care facility while 61% of students and 57% of faculty and staff who responded expressed an interest in an urban magnet school (pp. 16-22).

52

3.5.1 2002 CSU MASTER PLAN SUMMARY

Recommendations The recommendations of the report are based solely on market demand as deter-mined by the instruments used to collect the data. But they were not necessarily thought to be financially viable at that time. Based on the survey demand and assumptions researched by the investi-gators the following real estate and ame-nities were recommended: three restau-rants along Euclid Avenue; a 140-seat university club in the Howe Mansion or Rhodes Towe;, a 13,000 square foot day-care with capacity for 300 children; an ad-ditional 968 units of housing supporting dormitory, apartments, married student and housing for faculty; a small 15-room bed and breakfast potentially at the top of Howe Mansion restored to resemble the homes once seen along Millionaire’s Row; a business incubator north of Ches-ter in a rehabbed building; and finally, a drug store and recreation center along Euclid Avenue (pp. 22-24). Since these recommendations were made in 2002 Cleveland State’s campus has gone through a tremendous trans-formation with the injection of $4.3 bil-lion worth of investment along Euclid Avenue as a catalyst for the changes (Partnership for Sustainable Communi-ties, 2012). Since this report was written the University has built the new student center, updated the recreation center, and has built an additional 600 units of housing with the introduction of the Eu-clid Commons. These improvements are helping to redirect the University away from its representation as a commuter

school where students attend classes and immediately return to their suburban homes. The new focus is an urban Univer-sity with a mixture of students who live, work, and play in the same neighborhood where they attend school. While all the recommendations made in the 2002 re-port have not been implemented, based on the direction the University has taken it is clear that many of the recommenda-tions made were sound and desirable for development action.

53

3.5.2 CAMPUS DISTRICT PLAN 2009EXISTING PLANS AND PROJECTS

In 2009, the “Campus District Connection Plan” was created for the The Quadran-gle, Inc. by a team of consultants includ-ing Chris Ronayne, Director of University Circle Inc. As a result of the plan, the area that encompasses CSU, St. Vincent and Tri-C has been rebranded as “The Cam-pus District.” The plan addressed the spatial qualities of the district but also the need to reorganize, re-brand, and re-engage stakeholders (Ronayne et al., 2009).

In terms of spatial interventions, eight “Connections” were identified:

1. Create Main Street on E. 22 (p. 11-15)2. Cap the Innerbelt (p. 16-19)3. Develop Campus Intersections (p. 20-

25)4. Link District by Transit (p. 26-30)5. Bring Buildings to the Street (p. 31-34)6. Realign Organizational Structure (p.

34-39)7. Reposition to Community (p. 40-41)8. Promote New Brand (p. 40-44)

Some of the proposals of the “Campus District Connection Plan” have already been implemented such as the new branding as well as a TLCI study that was done for East 22nd Street which will be moving into construction soon. Also, the design principle of “bringing buildings to the street” has been taken seriously for recent developments along Euclid and Chester Avenue. The other points pro-posed for the “Campus District Connect

Prepared by: Matthew Wymer

Plan” have been considered and partially further discussed by Studio 611. A chap-ter in this plan is dedicated to discussing different options and price points of cap-ping the Innerbelt. Furthermore, a transit route has been identified. Concluding, the Campus District Connection Plan can be considered the foundation of the cur-rent work of Studio 611.

FIGURE 3.5.2 CAMPUS DISTRICT CONNECTION PLAN

54

3.5.3 E. 22ND STREET REDEVELOPMENTEXISTING PLANS AND PROJECTS

Prepared by: Arthur Schmidt

In late 2012 The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) Governing Board approved a $1.5 million grant for the Campus District’s East 22nd Street Enhance-ments Project. The project has a total cost estimate of $5.8 million, to which the City of Cleveland has committed $485,00 as local matching funds. Additional funding is being sought to meet a target construction date of 2015. Local community residents, institu-tions, and business have expressed interest in the past to improve the East 22nd corridor. The plan is for these enhancements to build on the recent and future investments of Tri-C Metro, Cleveland State University, and St. Vincent’s Charity Medical Center. On East 22nd Street between Euclid Avenue and Or-ange Avenue, the plan proposes the removal of two general purpose lanes, construction of two bike lanes and two unrestricted park-ing lanes, adjustment of the center median for consistent widths, pedestrian intersec-tion treatments, landscaping, and lighting (Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, 2012).

East 22nd Street is functionally classified in two different ways. First, it is as an urban mi-nor arterial, from Orange Avenue to Carne-gie Avenue. It contains six lanes (four 12 foot wide lanes, two 11 foot wide lanes and a 13 foot wide center turn and/or median) which is predominately used by motorists with some bus traffic, as well. Pedestrians are few, consisting primarily of employees in the area who park there and walk to work. The sec-ond classification is that the street secction from from Carnegie Avenue to Euclid Avenue

is considered an urban collector. In this section it has three lanes with a 60 feet right-of-way (Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, 2012).

The proposed project will include reduc-ing the number of lanes from six to four between Orange and Carnegie, and from three to two lanes between Carnegie and Euclid (City Architecture, 2011). The re-duction of lanes will result in a more de-fined median between Orange and Carn-egie and the inclusion of two bike lanes. On East 22nd Street between Carnegie and Euclid Avenues, there will be a bike track buffered from traffic by a planting line. Streetscape improvements such as landscaping, pedestrian-oriented light-ing, planters, seating and transit waiting environments will all help create the en-visioned corridor along with a stronger connection between the southern end of the Campus District and the central area. It will also improve the pedestrian experi-ence and create a more suitable walking environment for the surrounding land uses. Signage and way-finding will also be upgraded, to boost the identity of the district as well as to clearly show how to get from place to place. This project will also create a connection from the tow-path, just south of Orange Avenue, into the heart of the Campus District.

FIGURE 3.5.3 E. 22ND STREET REDEVELOPMENT

55

3.5.4 LAKEFRONT PLANEXISTING PLANS AND PROJECTS

MEADOWUPGRADED

YACHT CLUB & MARINA

BOAT LAUNCH

PICNICPOINT

NEW PICNICSHELTER

BEACH CENTER

SCENICOVERLOOK

IMPROVEDSWIM BEACH

FUTURE TRANSITSTATION

LAKE AVENUE MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL /

COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

SLEDDING HILL

WATERCRAFT BEACH

FISHING PIER

BEACHHABITAT

TRUCK &RAIL ACCESS

SCENIC OVERLOOK/LIGHTHOUSE PARK

PORT RELOCATION

SHORELINE PROTECTION /BEACH HABITAT

RESTROOMS / CONCESSIONS

NEW PICNIC SHELTER

MEADOW

EVENT GREEN

NEIGHBO

RHOO

D

EDGE

NEW MARINA WITHACCESSIBLE EDGES

UNDERPASS

PARALLELBRIDGE

WEST BANKCONNECTOR

WEST BANKCONNECTOR

TOW PATHTRAIL

WEST 25TH GATEWAYMIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

PARALLELBRIDGE

CONFLUENCEFOUNTAIN

LAKEFRONT BLVD.

EDGEWATER DR.LAKE AVE.

CLIFTON

BLVD.

MAIN AVE. BRIDGE

MAIN AVE. BRIDGE

MEMORIAL BRIDGE

WEST

BLV

D.

BALTIC AVE.

W. 7

3RD

ST

W. 6

5TH

ST

DETROIT AVE.

DETROIT AVE.

W. 5

4TH

ST W

. 3R

D S

T.

E. 9

TH S

T.

E. 1

3TH

ST.

E. 1

8TH

ST.

E. 4

0TH

ST.

E. 5

5TH

ST.

E. 7

2ND

ST.

LAKESIDE AVE.

ST. CLAIR AVE.ST. CLAIR AVE.

ST. CLAIR AVE.

COURTHOUSE

CANALBASINPARK

CITY HALL

W. 6

TH S

T.

W. 9

TH S

T.

W. 4

5TH

ST W

. 28T

H S

T

W. 2

5TH

ST

LAKEVIEWTERRACE

CMHA

WESTINGHOUSEMIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL

DISTRICT

WESTINGHOUSEMIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL

DISTRICT

CLEVELANDBULK TERMINAL

NEW CHANNELCONNECTION DRY RACK / MAINTENANCE FACILITY

GARRETT MORGANWATER TREATMENT PLANT

GARRETT MORGANWATER TREATMENT PLANT

THE HARP MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL / COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

49TH STREETPEDESTRIAN

BRIDGE

DON'SLIGHTHOUSE

PUBLIC-USE FACILITYAT OLD COAST GUARD FACILITY

C U

Y A

H O

G A

R

I V

E R

O L D R

I V E

R C

H A

N N

E L

L A K E E R I E

L A K E E R I E

PICNIC SHELTERRESTROOMS

CONCESSION

BEACH HABITAT

NEW HARBORMASTER

BIO-BREAKWATER

P P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

NATURAL EDGE

OVERLOOK, TYP.

AQUAFILTER

GREAT LAKES TOWING

NEW PICNICSHELTER

TERRACED GARDEN

SCENIC OVERLOOKWITH SHELTER

RECONFIGUREDHERMAN PARK

MAX HAYESSCULPTURE PARK

NEIGHBORHOODPARKNEIGHBORHOOD

PARK

RENOVATEHISTORIC STABLES

EXISTINGPEDESTRIAN

TUNNEL

EVEREADYMIXED-USERESIDENTIAL / COMMERCIALDISTRICT

DETROIT AVENUEARTS & ENTERTAINMENT

DISTRICT

DETROIT AVENUECOMMERCIAL DISTRICT

18 HOLEGOLF COURSE

FAMILY GOLFLEARNING CENTER

PUBLIC ACCESS AROUND BURKE

PITCH & PUTTCOURSE

PITCH & PUTTCOURSE

MINIATUREGOLF

LAKESIDEYACHT CLUB

FOREST CITYYACHT CLUB

RENOVATE POWERPLANTTO WATERFRONT DESTINATION USE

GORDON SHORESBOAT CLUB

BLUFF TOPGREENWAY


GOODRICH-GANNETTNEIGHBORHOOD CENTER

RAILROAD TRACKS (EXISTING)

MARITIMESERVICE CENTER

• ODNR• POLICE

• RESTAURANT• RETAIL

KIRTLANDPUMPINGSTATION

KIRTLANDPUMPINGSTATION

DRIVINGRANGE

FEDERAL BREAKWATER

F E D E R A L S H I P P I N G C H A N N E L

CRAWFORDTRANSPORTATION

MUSEUM

CRAWFORDTRANSPORTATION

MUSEUM

REDESIGNEDINNER BELTCURVE

RELOCATED SOUTHMARGINAL ROAD

RENOVATEKIRTLAND PARK

• PLAYGROUND• AMPHITHEATRE• SPORTS FIELDS

• TRAILS• LANDSCAPING

• ODNR & PUBLIC USEOF CCC BUILDING

NEW MARINA

WATERCRAFTBEACH

RELOCATED PUBLICBOAT LAUNCH

FISHERMAN'S HARBOR

AQUAFILTER

AQUAFILTERAQUAFILTER

SWIMMINGBEACH

EDGE LOOP TRAILWITH OVERLOOKS

UPDATED INTER CITYYACHT CLUB

LAND B

RIDGE

LAND B

RIDGE

ACTIVEPARK

PICNICAREA

PICNICAREA

BLUFF TOP COMMUNITYRECREATION &

AQUATIC CENTER

CORPORATE OFFICE/RESIDENTIALCORPORATE OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL

MIXED-USE MEADOW

DIKE 14• OPEN MEADOW• MUD FLATS• SAND DUNES• WETLANDS• GRASSES• HABITAT TRAIL LOOPS

• FOREST• HAWK TOWER• OBSERVATION PLATFORMS• NEW FISHING PLATFORMS AT LAKE LEVEL • ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DEMONSTRATION AREAS

OUTDOORCLASSROOMIN PRAIRIE

OUTDOORCLASSROOMIN PRAIRIE

BEACH CENTER

UPDATED 55TH STREET MARINA

REDEVELOPED FACILITY• PUBLIC USE

• RESTAURANT

I-90

I-90I-90

LAKEFRONT BLVD.

LAKEFRONT TRAIL

WATERFRONTRETAIL

SKATE PARK

SKATE PARK

BASKETBALLBASKETBALL

ROCKEFELLERPARK LINKAGE

ST. PHILIPNERI CHURCH

REGIONAL RETAILAT FORMER WHITE

MOTORS SITE

RENOVATE WHITEMOTORS FACTORY TO

REGIONAL RETAIL

PARKSIDE RESIDENTIALEXTEND MLK JR. DRIVE

THROUGH GORDON PARK

TENNISTENNIS

RENOVATEDSAM MILLER PARK

FIRST ENERGY WITH CLEAN ENERGY

PRACTICES

FIRST ENERGY WITH CLEAN ENERGY

PRACTICES

MODIFIEDINTAKES & OUTLETS

L A K E E R I E

L A K E E R I E

OVERLOOKS & FISHING PLATFORMS (TYP.)

PUBLIC ACCESSAROUND BURKE

RENOVATEDGREENHOUSES

RENOVATED CHARLESLAKE SCHOOL• ENVIRONMENTAL

AWARENESS CENTER

FUTURE TRANSITSTATION FUTURE

TRANSITSTATION

BUFFER

BUFFER


GREEN ROOF OVER STRUCTURED PARKING FUTURE TRANSIT

STATION &TRANSIT-ORIENTED

DEVELOPMENT

ST. VITUS CHURCH& VILLAGE

ST. MARTINDE PORRESHIGH SCHOOL

MLK DRIVE

GARRETT MORGAN EXPANSION

MIXED-USERESIDENTIALMIXED-USERESIDENTIAL

MIXED-USERESIDENTIALMIXED-USERESIDENTIAL

RIVERPOINT

PICNICMEADOW

WHARFHOUSING

FERRYTERMINAL

FERRYTERMINAL

WATERFRONTRETAIL

GREATLAWN

TRUCK QUEUINGAREA FOR FERRY

MULTI-PURPOSEDECK

OVERLOOK

BROWNSSTADIUM

MUSEUMCAMPUS

RECONFIGUREDVOINOVICH PARK

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

RELOCATED WILLIAM G.MATHER MUSEUM

RESTAURANT & MATHER PORTSIDE ADDITION

MARITIMEBASIN

USSCOD

ROCK HALLEXPANSIONROCK HALLEXPANSION

SCIENCECENTER

EXPANSION

SCIENCECENTER

EXPANSION

CONVENTIONCENTER

EXPANSION

CONVENTIONCENTER

EXPANSION

GOODTIME III

WATERFRONT LINESTATION

SKATEPARKSKATEPARK

RELOCATED COAST GUARD

RELOCATED HORNBLOWER'SRESTAURANT

EXISTING TERMINAL

CORPORATE OFFICEDISTRICT

SERVICE COMMERCIAL

POTENTIAL FUTURE EXPANSION OF CITY GRID TO WATERFRONTAIRPORT

INTERPRETATION PARK

STRUCTURED PARKING / COMMERCIAL

RIV

ER

WA

LK

WATER WALL TRANSIENTMARINA

ROCK BLOCKMIXED USE

HOTEL

RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ON PHASED PARKING STRUCTURE

MIXED-USE RESIDENTIALNEIGHBORHOOD

RESIDENTIAL / RETAIL

MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT CENTER• TROLLEY MUSEUM• AMTRAK TERMINAL• WATERFRONT LINE STATION

EXPANDED DETROIT AVENUE

COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

WESTERLY WASTE WATER

TREATMENT PLANT

WESTERLY WASTE WATER

TREATMENT PLANT

NEW HARBOR & MARINAWITH ACCESSIBLE EDGESNEW HARBOR & MARINAWITH ACCESSIBLE EDGES

NATURE CENTERAT ODNR FACILITY

EXTEND DOANBROOK TO LAKE ERIE

NATURE CENTERAT ODNR FACILITY

EXTEND DOANBROOK TO LAKE ERIE

cleveland waterfront district plan

EDGEWATER PARK HARBORFRONT DISTRICT GORDON PARK

imagine a place where living, working and playing are linked to the unique natural resource we know as lake erie.

consider the possibility that this resource can be experienced along a magnificent, continuous waterfront park system, from vibrant public spaces, fresh-water beaches or from tree-lined, pedestrian-scaled boulevards.

believe that with our collective public energies we can realize this vision, investing in this priceless asset to generate an immeasurable return not only for ourselves, but for generations to come.

envision a city where one can easily reach down and touch the water.

3.5.4 LAkeFront PLAn - AdjAcent to cAmPus district

In December, 2004, the City of Cleveland adopted an ambitious Lakefront District Plan, the first such plan in more than half a century. The overall theme of the plan was to reconnect people to the lake-front, leveraging the value of the water-front as a place to live, work, and play. This represented a shift from prior policy on the waterfront. Historically, Cleve-land’s lakefront has been dominated by “functional” uses including a commer-cial port, an airport, highways, railroads, mining, bulk storage, and water-related industry. The city in the 1970s turned over a collection of lakefront parks to the State of Ohio for management. The city also leased a handful of marinas to private yacht and boat clubs and made one such basin available to the public. As traditional institutional and industrial uses have waned, underutilized portions of the lakefront, such as Whiskey Island, have presented a great opportunity.

The 2004 Lakefront Plan area extends roughly seven miles from Edgewater Park on the city’s West Side to Gordon Park on the East Side (Cleveland Plan-ning Commission, 2012b). The plan’s three sections focus on the zone west of the Cuyahoga River, the central down-town lakefront, and the area to the east. The western section called for a relocat-ed Port of Cleveland and a new marina, plus easily accessible waterfront pedes-trian connections and the conversion of State Route 2, also called the Shoreway, from a high-speed artery to a 35 mile per hour boulevard with signalized in-tersections. The plan for the downtown Harborfront, from the river east to East 40th Street, advocated mixed-use de-

velopment plus enhancements to North Coast Harbor at the foot of East Ninth Street. The plan also envisioned extend-ing the revamped, 35 mph section of State Route 2 east to the I-90 curve at East 26th Street. In April, 2012, the city adopted a revised Harborfront plan that focused on the area from West Third Street to East 18th Street. The revisions called for mixed-use development north of Cleveland Browns Stadium and east of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum (City Planning Commission, 2012a). For the eastern section of lakefront, the plan envisioned new marinas and an ex-panded Dike 14 park. The overall theme of the plan was to reconnect people to the lakefront giving them a new place to live, work and play.From the perspective of the Campus District, the most important suggestion of the 2004 Lakefront Plan was that of calling for a roadway connection from the shoreline to East 18th Street, with a bridge connecting the lower elevation areas closer to the lake to Campus Dis-trict areas atop the bluff located to the south. In the area directly south of Burke Lakefront Airport, where surface park-ing lots exist today, the plan called for an extended street grid, creating tree lined boulevards and mixed use development.

Prepared by: Ryan Smalley

56

3.5.5 RTA COMMUTER RAIL PLANEXISTING PLANS AND PROJECTS

Cleveland State University and Tri-C have several thousand students and employees who commute to campus every day. The planning efforts of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) are impor-tant to the Campus District. The most recent long-range plan, “Transit 2025,” was adopted in 2004 (updated 2005) and lays out RTA’s major transportation investments until 2025. One of RTA’s main goals is to encourage smart growth via transit-oriented develop-ment by strategically locating transit stops and extending rail lines (RTA, 2004, p. i).

One part of this regional plan relevant to the Campus District is the extension of the Wa-terfront Line (RTA, 2004, p. 56). According to the “Transit 2025” plan, two possible routes for extensions are envisioned. The first sce-nario would extend the line southeast past PlayhouseSquare and Tri-C to reconnect at East 30th street to the Green, Red and Blue line. The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) refers back to the city’s 2004 Lakefront Plan and the extension of the line to East 88th Street, and possibly as far as Collinwood. The major components of the RTA “Transit 2025” plan for the east side of the waterfront are as follows:

- Extension of the Waterfront Line from its current terminus at South Harbor/Munici-pal Parking Lot along the railroad corridor to a new terminus near East 88th St., with intermediate stations at East 18th, East 40th, East 55th, and East 72nd Streets. An extension to the Collinwood area is also a consideration.

- A tram route or other line-haul service along the lakefront boulevard linking the Waterfront Line’s eastern terminus with a transit center near Public Square. […]

- A system of community circulator routes to feed trips to, and distribute trips from, the Waterfront Line and other line-haul services (RTA, 2004, p. 7).

The extension of the Waterfront Line would be undertaken in conjuction with the Lake-front development (see 3.5.4). This means that other rail line extensions are higher in priority because a lakefront extension would be dependent on whether the city can achieve development first. Many other initia-tives outlined in the plan have already been implemented by RTA, such as downtown trolley service, the Euclid Corridor HealtLine, the Red-Line Airport Extension and the cur-rent feasibility analysis of the Blue Line ex-tension. The Campus District should consider encouraging an extension of the Waterfront Line from East 13th to East 18th Street. Furthermore, the reconfiguration of the In-nerbelt is an opportuntiy to extend the Wa-terfront Line further to East 26th Street. The “Transit 2025” plan also discussed the pos-sibility of creating an “intermodal hub” for a Greyhound/Amtrak/intercity bus/ hub on East 18th Street (study completed in 1998).

RTA’s 2004 plan projects a further decrease in population in Cuyahoga County which ex-plains the emphasis on park and rides and the prioritization of line extensions outside of the City of Cleveland. According to the plan, the most common trips on RTA transit are trips to and from work (that accounted for 6% of all trips to work in the NOACA region in 2000) (RTA, 2004, p. 45). The Waterfront line could serve a potential customer base at Cleve-land State University, a major employment and education center. As of April 2013, the Waterfront Line Extension is not included in the list of RTA’s major projects (RTA, 2012).

Prepared by: Heather Ways & Sungbum Yoon

FIGURE 3.5.5 RTA’S PRIORITY CORRIDORS

RTA’s map of priority corridors, does not in-clude the Lakefront line though (RTA, n.d.). St. Clair is emphasized as an important cor-ridor and route.

What does that mean for the Campus District plan?

- Identify a Corridor that connects East 18th/ Muni-lot with Stephanie Tubbs Jones Transit Center and with East 32nd street

- Extend the Waterfront Line to East 13th and East 18th Street. Other opportunities might be given at East 26th Street by the reconfiguration of the Innerbelt.

- Suggest alternatives to the waterfront line such as a bus rapid along St. Clair

57

CHAPTER 4

market and neighborhood study

58

4.1 METHODMARKET AND NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY

The 2002 Cleveland State University Master Plan included a student survey that collecteduseful insight on the habits and desires of CSU students. The 2002 survey questions and formatting helped inform the creation of a survey to obtain information about the entire Campus District, not only CSU’s cam-pus. Some questions were re-used or altered to reflect the changes throughout the cam-pus and city in the past eleven years. Re-search methods for writing and developing surveys were referenced in order to make a readable and useful survey instrument. Bobbi Reichtell of Campus District, Inc. and Dr. Mark Joseph of Case Western Reserve University provided additional insight and questions for the survey. Cleveland State University’s Internal Review Board approved the survey instrument, and this approval is necessary to conduct research through the university.

A stratified random sampling method was used to select classes for survey distribution. After a list of classes was generated, Studio 611 students contacted professors for per-mission to give the surveys to their classes. The first random sampling of classes was designed to closely meet the distribution of students by college. Because some of these randomly selected classes were not able to be surveyed, the distribution by college was less accurate. Surveys were printed, distributed, and col-lected by members of the Studio 611 class, who input the surveys manually into a da-tabase. For online classes, the actual survey was available online for completion, with the results uploaded to the database. Surveys were completed from 55 classes and 873 students throughout the university. Accord-ing to university data, 16,682 students were

enrolled in Spring classes on the first day surveys were distributed. The survey sample represented 5.2% of the student population. Table 4.1.1 below shows the distribution of students surveyed by each college. Most colleges are adequately represented, except for the College of Business, in which the sur-vey sample fell far below the population. The representativeness column indicates how well the sample findings can be generalized to the population. Weak representativeness indicates a potential for bias.

TABLE 4.1.1 STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY COLLEGE

Table 4.1.2 shows the current work status of 868 students who responded. Students were able to choose more than one option if it applied. Eleven per cent of students work multiple jobs. The major-ity of students (61.8%) work off campus and 22.4% of students currently do not work.

TABLE 4.1.2 STUDENT WORK STATUS

Table 4.1.3 displays students’ primary place of work. Less than four per cent of students work directly in the Campus District and approximately 37% of students work in the City of Cleveland. The majority of stu-dents work in nearby suburbs of Cuyahoga County (43.9%) and 19% of students work outside of Cuyahoga County.

TABLE 4.1.3 STUDENT PLACE OF WORK

Prepared by: Mark Ebner, Jillian Watson, Kelly McGowan, Cheng-Han Yu, Eu-gene Basile, Sungbum Yoon, & Andrew Bryant

59

4.2 HOUSING DEMANDMARKET AND NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY

Colleges across Ohio are facing tighter fund-ing and increased graduation rate require-ments from the state. Research shows a link between graduation rates and the number of students living on or near campus. Sec-tion two of the survey asked about where students live and their housing preferences. The goal was to determine if there is a mar-ket for additional housing units and of what kind.

As shown in Table 4.2.1, approximately 40% of the university’s student body currently lives with their parents. Fewer than 20% of survey respondents live on campus or within one mile of campus. However, Table 4.2.2, shows that nearly 50% of those surveyed would consider living in the campus area. That indicates there is a very strong poten-tial for increasing the number of students living on or near campus. There is a strong demand for rental housing apartments ac-cording to Table 4.2.3. Two-thirds of respon-dents indicated that rental-housing apart-ments are best suited for their needs.

TABLE 4.2.1 CURRENT LIVING SITUATION

TABLE 4.2.2 WOULD LIVE IN AREA

TABLE 4.2.3 HOUSING TO BEST SUIT NEEDS

60

4.2 HOUSING DEMAND

There were multiple survey questions to determine what type of housing Cleveland State students prefer. Nearly 50% of re-spondents in Table 4.2.4 indicated a prefer-ence for a one or two-bedroom apartment. Table 4.2.5 indicates that the median pre-ferred rent is $500. Students that currently live near the Campus District are willing to pay a mean rent of $624. Students indicated that their preferred rent is very similar to their current mortgage/rent as indicated in Table 4.2.6: Current Rent/Mortgage. Of the respondents that do not currently live with their parents, 54% pay between $501 and $1,000 per month for mortgage or rent.

Students’ housing preferences help define the housing product that will be offered. Ta-ble 4.2.8 allowed students to rank the impor-tance of various housing features on a scale of 1 to 5, with five being very important. High-speed internet ranked as the most im-portant feature with off-street parking a close second. Renovated older buildings and new construction were also important.

TABLE 4.2.4 PREFERRED HOUSING

TABLE 4.2.5 RENT WILLING TO PAY

TABLE 4.2.6: RENT WILLING TO PAY BASED ON CURRENT LIVING SITUATION

TABLE 4.2.7 CURRENT RENT/MORTGAGE

TABLE 4.2.8 IMPORTANCE OF HOUSING FEATURES

61

Student ranking of neighborhood features, or “housing conditions”, will help guide de-velopment priorities. Security is the most important housing condition, as seen in Table 4.2.9. Proximity to transportation and nearby stores were also important.. Living with other Cleveland State students was less important.

The student survey asked about living in dif-ferent existing buildings and areas of the Campus District. Nearly half of respondents said they would be unwilling to live in the questioned areas. Over one third responded “maybe” they would consider living in the area. Since the survey did not include de-tailed maps, pictures, or potential develop-ment plans, further study may be needed to make more detailed conclusions about these properties.

The survey asked students if they would consider living in mixed-income develop-ments. Respondents were asked “the mini-mum (lowest) proportion of market rent res-idents that you would feel most comfortable with?” The median mixture of low-income residents was 40%, as shown in Table 4.2.10. This implies that a mixture of 40% low in-come to 60% market income renters would be accepted by students.

TABLE 4.2.9 IMPORTANCE OF HOUSING CONDITIONS

TABLE 4.2.10 WOULD CONSIDER LIVING IN AREAS IF REDEVELOPED

tAbLe 4.2.11 WouLd consider Living in mixed-INCOME DEVELOPMENT

4.2 HOUSING DEMAND

62

4.3 ENTERTAINMENT AND RESTAURANT DEMANDMARKET AND NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY

CSU is largely a commuter campus. Eight hundred and two student respondents spent at least 1 hour on campus a week. Table 4.3.1. shows that Tuesdays and Thursdays were the days students spent the most time on camps, at nearly six hours each. The median time spent from Monday through Thursday was 5 hours per day. Students are spending some time on campus on Saturday and Sunday. This data shows that there is little reason for students to be on campus during the weekends.

What do students do while they are on cam-pus? Table 4.3.2 indicates that in an average week, the 528 students who ate out once a week were most likely to patronize a restau-rant.

Table 4.3.3 shows 653 students spending $13,536 per week within a 20 minute walk of campus. The majority of students eat lunch on campus or pick up a snack/coffee, with the fewest number sitting down for break-fast. Including tax and tips, the average stu-dent spent about $13.19 per dinner.

TABLE 4.3.1 TIME SPENT ON CAMPUS

TABLE 4.3.2 DINING HABITS IN AN AVERAGE WEEK WITHIN A 20 MINUTE WALK OF CAMPUS

TABLE 4.3.3 MONEY SPENT IN AN AVERAGE WEEK WITHIN A 20 MINUTE WALK OF CAMPUS

63

4.3 ENTERTAINMENT AND RESTAURANT DEMAND

Table 4.3.4 indicates the willingness of stu-dents to pay about $5-10 at a new restau-rant. The mean showed that students would spend from $6.56 to $13.62, showing that a moderately priced restaurant would meet students’ needs.

Table 4.3.5 shows the results of where stu-dents on or near campus did their shopping. Steelyard Commons was the most frequent-ed location. Dave’s on Payne Avenue was frequented by 6.7% and Constantino’s in the Warehouse District by 1.3% of students. Students travel to meet their grocery needs instead of using the closest place. Steelyard Commons provides more stores to complete multiple errands at once, whereas Dave’s and other grocery stores are more isolated.

Table 4.3.6 shows the districts that have been visited in the last year for entertain-ment and dining purposes. Most responses included multiple locations. The most fre-quented location was Tower City, at 69.2%. Another Downtown location, Playhous-eSquare, drew 53.8% of students. Coventry Village, on Cleveland’s east side, drew 48.9% of students. Lower Euclid was next, led by the growing East 4th Street area, at 44.4%.

Table 4.3.7 shows amenities needed within a 20 minute walk of the district. Additional housing units, a new grocery store, better connections to existing grocery stores, a dine-in restaurant, and an organic, whole-some food store were clearly wanted by stu-dents. Students didn’t think that a hotel or nightclub were needed in the area.

TABLE 4.3.4 PRICE RANGE FOR A NEW RESTAURANT IN THE DISTRICT

TABLE 4.3.5 CURRENT GROCERY SHOPPING IF LIVE NEAR CAMPUS

TABLE 4.3.6 DISTRICTS VISITED WITHIN THE LAST YEAR FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND DINING

TABLE 4.3.7 AMENITIES NEEDED WITHIN 20 MINUTE WALK OF DISTRICT

64

4.4 OTHER IDENTIFIED NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDSMARKET AND NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY

Students were asked, “What neighborhood do you consider Cleveland State to be in?” to determine current Campus District iden-tity. As seen in Table 4.4.1, 303 students responded that Cleveland State is “down-town.” Several wrote in negative responses like “ghetto.”

Students were asked how they got to school. A total of 582 students or 69.4% of the respondents drove their car to school, 189 or 22.5% took public transportation, 129 or 15.4% walk, 52 or 6.2% carpool with oth-ers, and 15 or 1.8% ride their bike.

In Table 4.4.3 are the responses from a ques-tion that asked if a student owns a bicycle. Of the 838 respondents 430 or 51.3% re-sponded “no” and 408 or 48.7% responded with “yes.”

Table 4.4.4 shows the responses from a question that asked student bicycle owners how many days a week did they normally use their bicycle. Of the respondents, 205 or 46.2% did not ride their bike at all, 71 or 16% rode their bike one day a week, 43 or 9.7% rode their bike two days a week, 62 or 14% rode their bike three days a week, 18 or 4.1% rode their bike four days a week, 21 or 4.7% rode their bike five days a week, 7 or 1.6% rode their bike six days a week, and 17 or 3.8% rode their bike seven days a week.

TABLE 4.4.1 IN WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS CLEVELAND STATE? TABLE 4.4.2 MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO SCHOOL

TABLE 4.4.3 BIKE OWNERSHIP

TABLE 4.4.4 NUMBER OF WEEKDAYS A BIKE USED

65

4.4 OTHER IDENTIFIED NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS

Table 4.4.5 shows how likely students would be to purchase a more expensive, exclusive parking pass. Currently, Cleveland State has two parking passes available to students. One is cheaper but gives access to a limited number of garages. The other more expen-sive pass allows students to park in almost every lot or garage on campus. Overall, a majority of the students said they would be likely to purchase a more expensive and ex-clusive parking pass.

A question was asked about the importance of neighborhood amenities when choos-ing a place to live. Table 4.4.6 shows the respondents are generally in support of safety, nearby cafes and shopping, a walk-able neighborhood, a recreation center, and greenspace and parks. Bike lanes and dog parks were not of high importance.

A majority of the students responded that they feel safe on campus. Most also felt safe west of campus towards PlayhouseSquare and downtown. However, most students did not feel safe east of campus towards University Circle, in the Cedar Central neigh-borhood, north of campus, and also south of campus towards Carnegie.

TABLE 4.4.5 HOW LIKELY TO PURCHASE MORE EXPENSIVE, EXCLUSIVE PARKING PASS

TABLE 4.4.6 HOW IMPORTANT NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES ARE WHEN CHOOSING A PLACE TO LIVE

TABLE 4.4.7: PERCEPTION OF SAFETY

66

4.5 STAKEHOLDER INPUTMARKET AND NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY

Studio 611 decided that in addition to a de-tailed survey of CSU students for use in a study of demand for more retail and housing in the district, it was important to reach out to stakeholders in the neighborhood to un-derstand their views on the future potential of the Campus District. The class devised a list of potential interviewees, and ultimately interviewed 46 people who work and/or live in the district or are involved in agencies and organizations relevant to the District includ-ing the area’s three big institutions, the City of Cleveland, the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, and other agencies.

The interviews included 16 civic, academic and institutional leaders and middle manag-ers; nine business owners; and 21 residents, employees and middle managers. Studio 611 sought representatives of interests all over the District, and included people in-volved in the arts, restaurants, service to the homeless, safety and security, and other endeavors. All respondents were asked a dozen questions about the District on top-ics including perceptions of District identity, major assets, big challenges, connections to the lakefront, the desirability of adding more student housing, and general views on what the district lacks in terms of businesses and services. The interviews were confidential to ensure privacy and met the guidelines of the university’s Institutional Review Board.

Although the interviews did not follow a strict survey format, we felt it was fair to analyze responses in a statistical framework. As you can see, nearly 22%of the interview-ees felt that the Campus District lacks a clear identity while nearly 40 percent say its identity is closely tied to the three big insti-tutions that dominate the District. Many of

those interviewed felt that the District lacks neighborhood services, including dining and retail. Several in particular said the District really needs a place to eat a sit-down break-fast, like a Tommy’s in Cleveland Heights or the Yours Truly at Shaker Square. Nearly 40 percent of interviewees said the District feels safe, a perception backed up by crime statistics that show the area truly is safer than other parts of town. Nevertheless per-ceptions persist among some that the Dis-trict is not safe, that it needs more policing, and that the nuisance crimes committed by the homeless, including public urination, are an issue.

Overwhelmingly, interviewees said they felt that the major institutions of the Campus District are the area’s biggest asset. Many interviewees said they felt that proximity both to downtown and easy access to the Innerbelt freeway are extremely important to the District, but nearly half want to see portions of the freeway capped with con-crete decks that would carry parks or other public amenities to hide portions of the In-nerbelt Trench, which will undergo a $3 bil-lion reconstruction between now and 2033. Respondents were deeply divided over whether it makes sense to spend infrastruc-ture dollars connecting the Campus District directly to Lake Erie with bridges or walk-ways over the Shoreway, given that Burke Lakefront Airport hems in the District on the north side. While not gathered scientifically, the Stake-holder interviews provide a powerful sense of the Campus District as an area with strong potential, an excellent regional location, and proximity to other great assets includ-ing PlayhouseSquare. Yet there are deep concerns about whether adding more stu-

dent housing will create a sub-district that feels transient. One gets a strong sense that employees in the District want a restaurant or diner that can act as a community hub. Despite evidence and testimony that the District is safe, perceptions linger that it isn’t, perhaps because so much of its surface feels gray and barren and is dominated by surface parking. And, finally, there is a sense that with the Ohio Department of Transportation spending billions right next to the District, the coming years represent a pivotal op-portunity to reconnect the District – and by extension all of downtown-- to surrounding neighborhoods to the east and south.

A WORD ON METHODOLOGY

The analyses set out in the following sec-tions were conducted using basic coding techniques—simply, extrapolating in each response key language to create a collec-tion of themes for each topic represented within the set of questions. The method-ology draws from open coding methods utilized in Grounded Theory—a qualitative research technique often employed in the social sciences. Though Grounded Theory seeks to utilize qualitative data to formulate a theory that oftentimes explains causal fac-tors (a rather complex and sensitive task), this analysis merely borrows from the open coding concept to organize and indicate con-sistencies around the themes inductively dis-covered.

The limitations of this methodology lie in the subjectivity present in the determination and placing of language into themes and cat-egories. The direct manner of the questions involved alleviates this risk to a great ex-

tent, allowing the themes/categories to be rather simple and straightforward. None-theless, it is important to understand that coding is always interpreted through the lens of the researcher and may have a some amount of bias.

To learn more about Grounded Theory and coding techniques involved, refer to Strauss and Corbin (1998).

Prepared by: Steve Litt and Tara Sturm

67

4.5 STAKEHOLDER INPUT

4.6.1 Identity

Unsurprisingly, stakeholder input reflected some ambiguity in the identity associated with the Campus District. There were some themes identified among the responses.

- 21.7 percent of stakeholders interviewed felt that the Campus District lacked a clear iden-tity or brand.

- 39.1 percent of respondents identified the identity of the District as being primarily tied to the institutions located within its imme-diate area and boundaries—academic and medical.

- Five stakeholders mentioned the identity be-ing fragmented or disjointed, the District en-compassing many different identities.

- Stakeholders did have a positive view in terms of an emerging, dynamic environment with much opportunity or potential—as five indi-cated.

4.6.2 Business

There were several questions asked pertaining to business mix, thoughts on attracting/retain-ing business, and entertainment. Input related to entertainment-oriented business will be cov-ered in more depth in the next chapter, but be-low we have summarized some of the key find-ings concerning businesses stakeholders would like to see in the District, and how Campus Dis-trict, Inc. might go about securing it.

Stakeholders indicated the need for the follow-ing establishments. The list has been organized by most frequently mentioned. Main categories include all more specific establishment types as well as mention of that business type as a gen-eral type. The number indicates the number of stakeholders that included this category or type of business in their response.

- Retail (19) - Grocery (6) - Specialty Grocery (2) - Wine/Liquor Store (1) - Drugstore/Pharmacy (3) - Beauty Establishments (2) - Tanning (1) - Used Bookstore (1) - Clothing Store (1) - Bank (1) - Dry-Cleaner (1) - Lifestyle Services (1)- Dining (14) - Breakfast Restaurant (2) - Coffee Shop (3) - Food Trucks (1) - Ice Cream Establishment (1) - Yogurt Establishment (1) - Healthy Food Option (1) - Bar (2) - Affordable (2) - Non-Chain (1)- Entertainment (5) - Bowling Alley (1) - Music Venue (1) - Arts/Culture (1) - Family-Oriented Amenities (1)- Housing (5) - Variety (1) - Senior Housing (1) - Affordable (1) - Small Business (5) - Entrepreneurs (2) - Incubation Space (1)- Infrastructure (8) - Public Transit (1) - Green Space (3) - Parking (2) - Pedestrian amenities (2)- Student-Oriented Amenities (5) - Student Employment Agency (1) - Education-Related Business (1)- Young Professional-Oriented Amenities (4) - Creative Firms (1) - Unique Businesses (1)

- Businesses supporting Design District concept (1)- Businesses willing to hire homeless population (1)

Only 19 stakeholders had input regarding the at-traction or retention within the Campus District. There were some consistencies found in the sug-gestions:

Three respondents mentioned leveraging institu-tional assets to drive growth within the District. Measures to make the Campus District more busi-ness-friendly were mentioned by seven stakehold-ers—including lowering barriers for permits, etc., offering incentives or grants, better use of existing data, the Campus District Inc. creating a strong branding pitch positioning it as a great location for new development, and possible land acquisition. Remaining responses largely related to the devel-opment of the Campus District as a cohesive neigh-borhood. This encompassed the development of additional housing and affordable rents, increasing the quality of schools, inclusion of green space, and the inclusion of additional retail and amenities.

68

4.5 STAKEHOLDER INPUT

4.6.3 SAFETY

Stakeholders largely felt safe within the district—but acknowledged that the perception of safety is prob-lematic in terms of additional development.

- 37 percent of stakeholders (17) said directly that the Campus District is generally safe.

- Five respondents (10.8 percent) said directly that they felt the district was not safe.

- Many responded that the safety or perception of safety was dependent on one or more factors: time of day (2), or where within the district one is located, acknowledging that some areas are per-ceived as safer than others (5).

- Four stakeholders mentioned that homelessness is a main factor influencing the safety or perception of safety within the district. Vacant buildings, lack of people on the street, and lack of sufficient light-ing were also mentioned as factors.

- Only 10 respondents supported additional police involvement within the district—while 15 believe that additional police presence wouldn’t dramati-cally impact the safety or the area or that it is suf-ficiently covered by city and Cleveland State Uni-versity police staff.

- Expansion of the Downtown Cleveland Alliance’s Clean and Safe Ambassadors Program was gen-erally supported by many stakeholders (43.5 per-cent), but five respondents also mentioned the cost of the program being prohibitive.

4.6.4 Assets and Challenges

The assets identified by stakeholders were fairly di-verse, but largely fell into four different categories: institutions, location, population, and access. A com-plete breakdown of the mentioned assets follows:

- Institutions (28) - Academic (16) - Cleveland State University (15) - Opening to the Community (1) - Tri-C (7) - Hospitals (5) - St. Vincent’s (4) - Sisters of Charity (1) - Arts (5) - Superior Ave. (1) - Playhouse Square (3) - Trinity Cathedral (2) - CMHA (1)- Location (9) - Near Downtown (6) - Near Lake (1) - Near Asia Town (1) - Near University Circle (1) - Near Northcoast Harbor (1) - Connection between Downtown and University Circle (1)- Population (8) - Diversity (3) - Asians (1) - Artists (1) - Size (2) - Innovative (1) - Students (1)- Access (8) - Transportation Options (5) - Healthline (2) - Euclid Corridor (1) - Innerbelt (1)- Architecture (3)- Available Land for Development (1)- Underinvested Area Potential for Investment (1)- Unions and Organized Labor (1)- Businesses (1)

- Residential Projects (1)- Definable Edges (1)- Engaged Leadership (1)- Low-Cost Land (1)- Density (1)- Police Station – Protection (1)

Stakeholders offered up a much more diverse set of challenges faced by the district—but consistently addressed the competing needs of a diverse popula-tion and the need for collaboration. Identity, the In-nerbelt, and connectivity were also often-cited chal-lenges.

- Conflicting Needs (7)- Branding/Identity (5)- The Innerbelt (5)- Connectivity (4) - Between Institutions (1) - To Downtown (1) - To Lakefront (1)- Homeless Population (3)- Poverty (3)- Domination of Universities (3) - Eventual Decline of Student Population (1)- Parking (2)- Perception of Safety (2)- Vacancy (1)- Public Housing (1)- Congestion (1)- Keeping Momentum when Building Wanes (1)- Identification of Suitable Development Locations (1)- The Economy (1)- Not Leveraging Location (1)- Money (1)- Turnover in Leadership (1)- Insufficient Business to Support Residential Base (1)- Density (1)- Attraction/Retention (1)- Freeway Exits/Entrances (1)- Creating a 12 month/year, 24 hour Area (1)

69

CHAPTER 5

STRATEGIES

70

5.1 WAYFINDING AND BRANDINGSTRATEGIES

5.1.1 WAYFINDING STRATEGIES SIGNAGE



5.1.2WAYFINDING STRATEGIES SIGNS AND GATEWAYS

Early in the stakeholder interview and survey process, it became apparent that the branding of the Campus District is inadequate. Some in-terviewees thought of the area as a collection of individual districts associated with specific institutions, such as Cleveland State University, St. Vincent Charity Hospital or the Tri-C Metro. Some identified the District as the Quadrangle, its former name. The current signage does not identify the “Campus District” well. Some of the street signs say “Quandrangle” and light posts are decorated with institutional banners. There are some triangular shaped information kiosks but their brown paint does not make them visible. The District needs a stronger vi-sual identity.

The task addressed here by Studio 611 is that of making the Campus District more visible while supporting the individual identities of the edu-cational and health institutions. New signage would make the District more visible to the motorist, and to the pedestrian on the sidewalk (see Figure 1). The distinct shape of these signs would help create a stronger identity for the Campus District while also promoting individu-al neighborhood entities within the District. For example, a sign would read, “Old Chinatown- A Campus District Neighborhood.” This wording would highlight both the Campus District as a whole and the individual entity. This branding technique would be repeated in all of the way-finding signs with the Campus District brand emphasized on each.

Prepared by: Arthur Schmidt and Gregory Soltis

71

5.1 WAYFINDING AND BRANDING

The wayfinding signs are designed to address a specific user (motorist, bicyclist, or pedestrian) and would be placed throughout the District. Larger map kiosks would be placed at major gathering areas and intersections. These new kiosks would emphasize District and neighbor-hood attractions and help with navigation (see Figure 2). These wayfinding signs could also be used for the public transportation system. Cur-rently RTA uses small circle signs, which are placed on a light or street pole, at the bus stop. These larger vertical signs will display pertinent transit information to the user, and act as a landmark for bus riders.

Street furniture and walls on empty buildings could also be used for branding. (See Section 5.3.2). These spots could incorporate logos for the District along with other messages that would enhance District identity. The same tac-tic can be used on street furniture. Portable benches could act as interactive seating and as wayfinding devices. The front panel of the benches could be painted with the names of streets, neighborhoods or the District. Multiple users can use the seating in multiple ways. The benches would be wide enough on which to sit cross-legged and eat lunch, or to use for yoga. The proposed bench is bulkier than typical ur-ban benches, so other simple and straightfor-ward options are offered. The size and design of the benches could make it look as though they had emerged from the sidewalk. The size would also make it easy to place the benches in areas where sidewalk space is minimal.

5.1.3 SEATING/ FURNITURE STRATEGIES

5.1.4 LIGHTING STRATEGIES



72

5.1 WAYFINDING AND BRANDING

Other streetscape elements would include street trees and other landscaping to welcome all users. Special lighting could be oriented to the different users including motorists, pe-destrians, and cyclists. Several streets in the Campus District are currently undergoing re-pavement. A common street-lighting type im-plemented in each new road project would help visually unify the District.

Good wayfinding will push the brand of both the neighborhoods within the District as well as the District overall. The hope is that people will learn that Cleveland State University, Tri-C, and St. Vincent Medical Center are all in the Campus District. Lessons could be learned from University Circle, Inc.’s implementation of a wayfinding system in University Circle. Coher-ent streetscaping can provide a sense of place and clearly mark district boundaries.


5.1.5 PARKING GARAGE WAYFINDING

73

5.2 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTSTRATEGIES

The large amount of impervious surface in streets and surface parking of the Campus District is both a challenge and an opportu-nity. These surfaces, including parking lots, streets and rooftops, increase stormwater runoff, make the District an urban heat is-land in the summer, and make it look bleak and uninviting year round. Rain gardens, bioswales, green roofs, pervious pavement, and trees would all help to absorb, filter and decrease stormwater runoff. They would also create a more attractive environment. As noted in Chapter 3.4.4, the streets of the Campus District are bigger than they need to be to handle current levels of traffic, and can be adjusted in width to accommodate new landscaping and bike lanes.

Green stormwater management provides ways to divert rainfall from storm sewers so it can percolate on site, evapotranspirate, or be stored for later discharge when vol-ume is not as great. Green roofs and parking lots allow for on-site percolation or slowing of rainwater release. Collecting rooftop runoff in cisterns or disconnecting down-spouts can divert runoff to be used later for irrigation or in rain gardens. Rain gardens hold stormwater on site so it can percolate into soil. Bioswales remove silt and pollu-tion from stormwater runoff and are often located around parking lots or at the street edge. Pervious pavement or pavers allow stormwater to percolate to soil underneath rather than running off to the storm sewer.

Examples of green stormwater infrastruc-ture range from sophisticated examples such as Houtan Park in Shanghai, China - where turbid industrial runoff is filtered clear through a series of wetlands - to

simple swales used in a new parking lot at Cumberland Pool in Cleveland Heights. The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer Dis-trict (NEORSD) currently has funding for small demonstration projects for parking lot swales and street edges. The NEORSD is also involved in large scale green infrastruc-ture projects to reduce combined sewer overflows and manage stormwater. Fund-ing for green infrastructure in the Campus District might be available through NE-ORSD.

Streets

Wide, barren streets in the Campus District could incorporate bike lanes or a bike track (a two way bike lane) that would travel and recreation safer for bikers. Using excess right-of-way for bioswales would soften the street edge, filter stormwater runoff, and decrease the heat island effect in summer. Trees would store and release rain water through evapotranspiration and provide shade, along with a feeling of sheltering en-closure. Figure 1 below shows an example of the proposed greenway improvements on Prospect Avenue. The suggested im-provements include a mid-block crossing between East 18th and East 22nd Streets to aid the continuation of a pedestrian green-way.

Multiple federal and state sources could be tapped to fund the greenways proposed in this plan. All such funding programs require local matching funds, but some if not all of the greenway improvements proposed here could receive federal or state subsidies and help make this plan a reality. As the Met-

FIGURE 5.2.1.A GREENSPACES AND GREENWAYS MAP5.2.1 Complete and Green Streets

East 18th St.


LAKE ERIE

RED, GREEN & BLUE LINERAPID STOPS

WATERFRONT LINE RAPID STOPS

RAPID, TROLLEY, CAR

HISTORIC ADAPTIVE REUSESCHOOL, RESIDENTIAL, SHARED INSTITUTIONAL

TRANSPORTATION



RAPID, TROLLEY, CAR

SCHOOL, RESIDENTIAL, SHARED INSTITUTIONAL



EXISTING COMPLETE STREETIN PROGRESS COMPLETE STREETPLANNED COMPLETE STREETRECOMMENDED COMPLETE & GREEN STREETS

GREENWAYS

GREENSPACE

playground

dogpark

quad

plaza capphase II



BIKEWAY


LAKESHOREBIKEWAY

WEST

LAKESHOREBIKEWAY

WEST


capphase I

plazacap

phase III


EAST

PROSPECT AVEBIKEWAY

EAST



Euclid Ave.

Chester Ave.

Payne Ave.Superior Ave.

Cedar Ave.

Central Ave.

East

30t

h St

.

Inne

rbel

t

East

22n

d St

.

Prospect Ave.

collegetownprospect ave.historic district

asiatownold

chinatown

warehousebluffs

art quarter


playhousesquare

nine twelvedistrict

gateway

Prepared by: Heather Ways and Ryan Smalley

74

ropolitan Planning Organization for the region, the Northeast Ohio Areawide Co-ordinating Agency (NOACA) could obtain monies through federal Congestion Miti-gation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Trans-portation Alternatives (TA) programs. CMAQ funds are eligible for projects that reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality, such as bike facilities. Transporta-tion Alternative funds are used to beautify roadway corridors by funding projects that promote bike, pedestrian and greenway enhancements (NOACA, 2013). Addi-tional funding could be available through the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Safe Routes to Schools Program. Because the proposed greenways would be close to the proposed new site of the Cleveland International School, pedes-trian and pedestrian safety enhancements would be eligible for funding through this program (ODOT, 2013). Finally, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) has a Recreational Trails Program that spe-cifically funds urban bike trail projects and would be the most relevant funding source to apply for (ODNR, 2013).

FIGURE 5.2.1.B RAIN GARDEN PHOTOS

FIGURE 5.2.1.C BIOSWALE PHOTOS

5.2.1 COMPLETE AND GREEN STREETS

75

FIGURE 5.2.1.D PROSPECT AVENUE PLAN AND SECTION

5.2.1 COMPLETE AND GREEN STREETS

FIGURE 5.2.1.4 PROSPECT AVENUE PLAN AND SECTION (PART 2)

Figure 5.2.1.F re-design oF underPAss At eAst 21st street



FIGURE 5.2.1.G EUCLID AVENUE WITH CAMPUS DISTRICT BRANDING

76

5.2 INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGIES

5.2.2 Connecting the North to the South - Treating the Innerbelt

The Innerbelt curves through the District separating the north from the south, and the east from the west. ODOT is currently working on re-doing the highway, realign-ing on- and off-ramps and adding marginal roads. ODOT’s investment will shape the District for decades to come, which make it urgent now to work with agency on en-hancements to bridges and to cap sections of the Innerbelt trench with platforms that could carry parks or greenspace.

Activity Nodes

The Campus District is dominated by insti-tutions that stand apart from one another on either side of the Innerbelt like islands. Today, there is little need to traverse the areas between those islands on foot or by bicycle because the CSU and Tri-C cam-puses have amenities close at hand for students. Dispersing student housing throughout the district would encourage movement that would help connect areas on both sides of the Innerbelt. Improve-ments to the Innerbelt bridges or capping it would encourage people to walk to ad-jacent areas. Studio 611 has explored the following three options:

1) Wider bridges with green space2) Bridge with retail building3) Cap the interbelt in three phases

1) Wider bridges with green spaceThe bridges could be widened to provide continuous green space at the level of sur-face streets over the highway, and better streetscaping to mitigate its negative im-pact on the pedestrian experience.


2) Bridge with Building (Columbus)In 2004, the City of Columbus widened the High Street overpass above the I-670 freeway trench with a structural “cap” that supports retail shops and restaurants. According to ODOT, the developer, Jack Lucks paid $7.5 million for the develop-ment, while the city paid $1.9 million for the bridges (Kamin, 2011). That places an overall cost of approximately $10 million dollars on capping the Innerbelt with a majority of the costs being carried by the developer.

In the Campus District, such a develop-ment would be most suitable for Euclid Avenue because it would provide a con-tinuous streetscape for Cleveland’s most important street, and because it would reduce the noise caused by the highway. Such a project would require an eager de-veloper and a city government that makes it a priority (Kamin, 2011). Considering the costs of such an undertaking and the avail-ability of cheap vacant land in the City of Cleveland, it might be challenging to find a developer for such an undertaking as well as for the city to come up with the money for a stronger load-bearing bridge.

3) Cap the interbelt (Boston)The boldest idea, and most expensive, would be to cap the Innerbelt and create a continuous greenbelt connecting down-town to the Lake. The City of Boston suc-cessfully completed its Big Dig at a cost of $14.6 billion, gaining a great urban park (Kamin, 2011). Because the Big Dig en-compasses roughly 26 acres, at a cost per acre estimated by Studio 611 to be $561 million. The City of Duluth in Minnesota was able to build a park over a highway

FIGURE 5.2.2.A THREE OPTIONS FOR INNERBELT CAPS


FIGURE 5.2.2.B SUGGESTED CAP BY CITY ARCHITECTS FOR NOACA TLCI STREETSCAPE STUDY

77

on a smaller scale (Harnik, 2008, p. 79). Dal-las created a new, four block urban neighbor-hood center, the “Klyde Warren Park” at an estimated cost of $110 million, of which $57 million came from public sources. At 4.5 acres the park had an average cost per acre of $24 million. These projects were financed through public-private partnerships, bond funds, high-way funds, stimulus dollars, and private do-nations. Maintenance for such parks - should one be created in Cleveland - is important to consider and should be funded through tax revenues incorporated early in the process of design and planning.

If the City of Cleveland advocated a cap by E.22nd Street and the Bridge Center Plaza, a rough cost estimate would be at least $24 million per acre. Funding could be generated through general obligation bonds that would need voter approval. The bonds would repaid over the next 20 years imposing a burden on the tax base. Since it is hard to assess the impact of capping the Innerbelt on property values, it would be interesting to do a hedonic pricing analysis based on an in-depth analysis of property values in Boston, Columbus, and Dallas. The question is whether capping the Innerbelt to create a greenbelt would return enough value to Cleveland residents to justify the 20 year tax burden.

Studio 611 suggests three different potential configurations for an Innerbelt cap (see dia-grams).

1) Small cap between East 22nd and Cedar2) Cap from East 22nd Street bridge to Carnegie crossing3) Cap from East 22nd Street bridge to Euclid crossing

1) Small cap between East 22nd Bridge and CedarThis cap was proposed by City Architects for the East 22nd Street Plan. The two bridges are close and perpendicular. A 0.6 acre cap placed between them would enhance the pedestrian experience. Assuming an average cost of at least $24 million per acre, this cap would po-tentially cost $14 million. The significance and architecture of the Juvenile Court District building with its proposed shared institutional use would be enhanced by the cap connecting the north and south parts of the District, to be called Bridge Center Plaza.

2) Cap from East 22nd Street Bridge to Carnegie crossingIf the cap extended east to Carnegie Avenue, the parking lot next to the Juvenile Court Dis-trict building would increase in value. The area would be opened for new development and again, north-south connections would be en-hanced.

3) Cap from East 22nd Street Bridge to Eu-clid crossingCapping the Innerbelt from East 22nd Street to Euclid Avenue would create a continuous green space, providing attractive open space between institutions and a recreational venue for residents, workers and students. Property values would increase.

Recommendation

Dispersed activity nodes and housing would promote crossing the Innerbelt.An in-depth study of the costs and benefits of the above strategies would need to be un-dertaken. Boston’s Big Dig cost $14.6 billion, Columbus’ High Street Development cost $10 million and Dallas’ “Klyde Warren Park” cost $110 million (Kamin, 2011). A feasible option with less debt accumulation seems appropri-

5.2.2 CONNECTING THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH - TREATING THE INNERBELT

ate for Cleveland.

ODOT might finance a feasibility study of par-tially capping the Innerbelt and enhancing the design of surrounding streets, which they did in Columbus (MKSK Studios, 2012).

Two of the open spaces proposed by this plan (the dog park and Plaza) and one of the his-toric buildings are located immediately adja-cent to the highway. The specific location of the marginal roads will be very important for those proposals.

FIGURE 5.2.2.C KLYDE WARREN PARK IN DALLAS

78


5.2.3 Parking Strategy

One goal of the Campus District Plan is to reduce reliance on automobile travel and to promote alternative modes of trans-portation. While the plan promotes walk-ability, bike and bus travel, the reality is that Cleveland is a commuter town; many people who move to the Campus District would still need a car. It would be unrealis-tic to leave parking unaddressed.

The Campus District now contains ap-proximately 5,000 public parking spaces and 5,300 private parking spaces with ad-ditional on-street parking along many of the roadways in the District. Most of the public parking is located around CSU in multi-level parking garages. The private parking lots are generally small and scat-tered about the District with the majority located north of Superior Avenue. The vast majority of all parking areas are surface lots, which greatly increase the stormwa-ter runoff in the District and tie up prime land that could be developed.

Goals of the Campus District Plan include increasing density, reducing stormwater runoff, and filling many surface parking lots with housing, entertainment venues, or green space. However, simply removing multiple surface parking lots while increas-ing the amount of residents in the area would create more demand for parking while reducing supply. The proposed solu-tion is to build multiple shared-use parking garages. For the most part, these parking garages will be privately operated and maintained by the multiple residences and business users of the parking garages. The garages would be a required by the city in exchange for approval to build residential developments in the district. The develop-ers of those projects would pay the upfront

construction costs. Once construction is complete, the parking garages would be operated and maintained through park-ing fees and small association fees paid for by the users. Additionally, it might also be beneficial to craft agreements between CSU and the parking garage owners, in which the university would agree to pay each semester upfront for a certain per-centage of parking spots.

In order to determine how much new parking is needed in the District Studio 611 quantified new demand in relation to the number of parking spaces that would be removed as a result of the proposed developments. According to the student survey undertaken for this project, 67.6% (500 students) of students indicated that off-street parking would be “very impor-tant” to them if they considered renting on campus. Additionally 18.8% (139 stu-dents) indicated that off-street parking would be “important” to them. To deter-mine the new demand, Studio 611 used data from ESRI’s ACS Housing Survey as well as ESRI’s Demographic and Income Profile for the Campus District area from 2005 to 2009 (data collected by Studio 611). This data provided critical informa-tion regarding the number of residents per unit currently in the District (2), as well as the number of current residences in the District that own cars (roughly half). This information, combined with the total number of new housing units proposed by the housing group (1,500 units) led to an understanding of the potential new park-ing demand.

Finally, this study considered how much of that new demand would be captured inside the Campus District. This was dif-

FIGURE 5.2.3.A PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE LOCATION ON CARNEGIE

FIGURE 5.2.3.B PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE LOCATION ON PAYNE

Prepared by: Ryan Smalley and Deborah Riemann

79

ficult as some of the proposed develop-ment is along the Campus District border. Obviously, some drivers would choose to park outside the District. In areas where the proposed development lies within a block of the District border, a capture rate is assumed based on the existing avail-able parking outside of the District limits and the development’s proximity to the proposed new parking garage structure. A capture rate of 30% is applied only to the Phase 1 housing development at East 18th and Prospect, as there are many close parking choices outside of the district. Table 1 below summarizes both existing parking spaces lost as well as new parking demand within the District.

The Campus District Plan calls for major developments concentrated in two areas: along Payne Avenue from East 19th to East 24th Streets and along Prospect Ave-nue from East 18th Street to the Innerbelt. These areas contain most of the housing, entertainment, and green space develop-ments; so logically these are also the areas where new parking garages should go. There are three parking garage sites, two in the Payne Avenue development area and one in the Prospect Avenue develop-ment area. Table 2 below provides a sum-mary of the proposed parking garages.Lastly, we looked at the cost of building the proposed parking garages. A cost of $64 per square foot was used (Reed Con-struction Data, 2013) to estimate the to-tal. The two garages along Payne Avenue would cost $3.3 million each while the garage along Carnegie Avenue would cost $9.3 million. The total cost for the new parking demand in the Campus District will be around $16 million.

Because some of CSU’ s existing surface parking lots on Payne Ave (#10,11,50,51,54 and 57) are proposed for future develop-ment of student housing, the parking spaces that are lost could be regained through an agreement between CSU and the owner of the new parking garages. As part of the agreement, CSU could update the parking rates and introduce a third hangtag. Currently CSU has two different hangtags: the white and the green hang tag. For the spring semester 2013, CSU is charging $226 for the white hangtag and $191 for the Green Hangtag. The proposal would be to raise the rates for the green hangtag and white hangtag by $10 each and to introduce the new “Healthy Hang-tag” for parking garages that require a little bit of a walk to get to CSU. The option of an agreement between CSU and a de-veloper would set the right market incen-tives to build parking structures as part of a residential development. Additionally it would save CSU costs for maintenance.

TABLE 5.2.3.A CAMPUS DISTRICT PARKING NEEDS



TABLE 5.2.3.B PROPOSED GARAGE SIZES

5.2.3 PARKING STRATEGY

TABLE 5.3.4.C PROPOSED HANGTAGS

80


5.2.4 Lakefront Connection

Lake Erie is the largest geographic and envi-ronmental feature in northeast Ohio. A key component of green space planning for any part of the region should be connectivity to the lake. The Campus District lies south of Burke Lakefront which cuts off direct access to Lake Erie. This plan addresses the challenge by proposing a transit-oriented-development on the north terminus of East 18th Street and a bridge connection at East 26th Street.

Challenge to Bridge the Gap

The north edge of the Campus District is bor-dered by four sets of train tracks, six lanes of the Shoreway, and the great expanse of Burke Lakefront Airport. In addition, there is a forty foot bluff just north of Lakeside Avenue that runs the entire width of the District. The bluff slowly decreases in height as one travels east. Currently, there is no way to traverse the bluff. Between the train tracks and Shoreway are the municipal parking Lots and overgrown, unused green space divided by South Margin-al Road. The nearest street access points are at East 9th Street to the west and East 36th Street to the east. The area presents an op-portunity for improvement for the District as it opens other areas up to residents and users of the District as well as opening prime land to development.

The City of Cleveland developed its most re-cent lakefront plan in 2004. One feature of the plan was to suggest changing the Shore-way from a traditional highway into a 35 mph urban boulevard. This would dramatically change the area’s dynamic. Stakeholder inter-views showed the majority of people in favor of more green space in the district, although lake access was not a high priority. Improving pedestrian and bike access to the area below

Prepared By John Riter

the bluff would have the greatest impact on the Campus District because it would allow more use of that green space with future lake-front access a possibility.

East 18th and East 26th Street

The easiest places to descend the bluff are at East 18th and East 26th. East 26th Street was chosen because of its peculiar geography. East 18th Street is located close to the current terminus of the Waterfront Line. The transit station there would also function as a pedes-trian bridge to cross the train tracks and de-scend the bluffs.

East 26th Street is the only street in the Dis-trict that crosses the bluff at a point where the elevation is low enough to be crossed by bike or on foot. The first option explored was to go straight over the train tracks in this area with a normal pedestrian/bike crossing and con-nect to a short access road on the other side of the tracks leading to South Marginal Road. This option was ruled out because pedestrians would have to cross four sets of active tracks. The second option was a straight bridge con-necting directly to South Marginal Road from either the end of East 26th or a nearby site. The bridge would resemble the one Cleveland Metroparks built in Valley View over Granger Road. The main issue with this concept would be achieving the required clearance over the train tracks of 25 feet. The bridge would offer amazing views of the Lake, a recreational ben-efit in itself. There are a number of different funding sources for this project ranging from federal transportation money to Clean Ohio Trails Fund and Recreation Trails Fund. Every funding source would require a local match of 20%-25% from the City of Cleveland.

The other location proposed to descend the bluff is at the end of East 18th Street.This site is above the final terminus of the RTA Water-front line. There is some conversation about re-locating the Amtrak station from East 9th Street. This plan recommends moving Amtrak to the end of East 18th Street and building a new multimodal transportation station, to in-clude rail, RTA and possibly bus. The station would be a means to descend the bluff. A resi-dential development could be located at the end of East 18th Street next to the entrance to the transit station. The entrance to the sta-tion would then connect via small bridge to a rooftop garden atop the new station. Funding would be complicated because of the number of users involved.

Recommendations

An important aspect to these ideas is where pedestrians and cyclists could go once they descend from the bluffs. As mentioned pre-viously there is currently a Metroparks bike trail along North Marginal Road. Accessing this would require crossing six lanes of traffic on the Shoreway. The city plan to change the Shoreway into a boulevard may not occur for a considerable time presenting a problem of getting people over the Shoreway. One pos-sibility for a linkage would use an existing entrance and exit bridge which moves traffic to and from the north side of the shoreway. The bridge currently has pedestrian access across the highway which would allow for use of North Marginal and the existing bike path there. There has been talk of expansion of this path with the possibility of expanding it to ex-isting lakefront parks which may soon come under Metroparks stewardship. This would be an excellent idea as it would allow people from this area access to the lake.

We do not, however, plan any access to the water in the District at this time. In addition to the greenspace proposed in the city plan, there has been discussion of possible access at the far eastern end of the airport. These do not seem however to be a priority cur-rently and leave us with a challenge of what else people can do when they get down the bluff. There could be opportunities to improve recreation along South Marginal Road. There are currently the remnants of tennis courts east of the municipal lots. These could be re-established and possibly complimented with a children’s play area or other amenity. There is also ample room for construction of trails in underused land north of the train tracks. This would provide a draw to get people down the bluff until a greater buildout can occur with the ultimate goal of providing lake access for the district. Generally, having a crossing on East 18th Street and East 26th Street would allow for more frequent opportunity to access the lake and might enhance the city’s ability to negotiate with ODOT over turning the Shore-wayinto an urban boulevard.

81

5.3 GREENING THE DISTRICTSTRATEGIES

The campus case studies (Chapter 1) found that an important part of campus planning are green spaces and pedestrian circulation. As student survey respondents reported spending on average five hours on campus the quality of outdoor open space can greatly enhance the work and study environment. As most of the streets in the District are currently lacking pedestrian quality of service, Studio 611 addressed that issue by identifying priority routes for pedestrians, bicycles, and a trolley that connect the green spaces and institutions in the district. In accordance with the vision of “Creating Quality Green Spaces” that was set out earlier in the plan, this section addresses alternative modes of transportation to get around in the Campus District as well as opportunities to turn pavement into parks and to increase green building infrastructure in the neighborhood.

Prepared by: Deborah Riemann and Arthur Schmidt

5.3.1 Getting Around in the Campus District

Pedestrian Circulation

Studio 611 determined that “walkability” should be a core design principle for the district. Therefore, the plan proposes a pedestrian network that re-establishes the former street grid. Since CSU’s development was based on closing streets, the new pedestrian network will re-establish the streets for pedestrian purposes to strengthen the north-south connections of the district. The pedestrian network will con-nect the major green spaces and destinations of the district and scale down the long east-west blocks. The pedestrian network coexists with the general improvement of the pedestrian street experience as described earlier. However, it is important to provide for pedestrians with mid-block crossings. As the residential population in the district increases, the pedestrian network and streetscape will provide a safe connection between parks for joggers, dog walkers, and families with kids (Springgate, 2008, p. 10).

Route and Connection

The idea of re-establishing the former street-grid along East 19th and East 24th Street has first been set out by the plan “Connecting Cleveland State” developed by Kent State’s Cleveland Urban Design Col-laborative in 2009. Figure 5.3.1.a shows both pedestrian walkways. Ideally East 19th Street would start on Prospect Avenue and connect to Superior. That would open up the section along the soccer field and ballpark to create a continuous connection between Chester and Payne. The new Campus International School will need open space. Studio 611 proposes a playground for the block between East18th and East 19th Street. During the day, East 19th Street could be closed for through traffic to enhance the con-nection between the school and the playground. A special street pavement could visually connect East 19th Street to the Campus International School, the park and the playground. Closing East 19th Street between Payne and Superior Ave could be done using bollards that are raised during the day and lowered at night. Campus District, Inc. would need to work with the Campus International School and the City of Cleveland on closing the street during the day. From Superior, pedestrians would be able to connect to East 18th Street and eventually to the RTA Waterfront Line Station.

RED, GREEN & BLUE LINE RAPID STOPS




asiatown

oldchinatown

warehousebluffs

art quarter

collegetown


playhousesquare

nine twelvedistrict

OFF STREET PEDESTRIAN NETWORK

HISTORIC ADAPTIVE REUSE

PEDESTRIAN LINKS

Euclid Ave.

Chester Ave.

Payne Ave.

Superior A

ve.

Cedar Ave.

Central Ave.

East

30t

h St

.

East

18t

h St

.

East

22n

d St

.

Inne

rbel

t

Figure 5.3.1.A oFF-street PedestriAn netWork

82

5.3.1 GETTING AROUND THE DISTRICT

The east pedestrian walkway along East 24th Street would connect the Bridge Center Plaza with Fenn Tower, the gym, and the dog park and would lead to the bridge on East 26th Street to get to North Marginal Road. Both proposed connectors will continue already existing efforts by CSU.One approach to financing the two pedestrian trails (that are partially built) could be naming rights. The new “streets” could be named after important Cleveland celebrities that want to sup-port positive change in their city. Another option is to hold developers responsible for new sections of the trail (between Euclid and Prospect).

Implement the Design Principle “Walkability”

Cars have received priority in the District for the past 30 years. A more residential Campus District should emphasize pedestrians and bicycles in planning decisions and should make pedestrian con-cerns a priority over driver concerns. Following suggestions in Ewing and Bartholomew’s examina-tion of best practices in pedestrian infrastructure (2013), Campus District, Inc. could work with the City of Cleveland to revise zoning codes and to establish a special Campus District Design Review District. Additionally development standards for the District could be adopted to guide private development according to the outlined vision. Some action points could be:

- Revise zoning codes and density requirements (20-60 people per acre)- Road diets to majority of the streets in the Campus District (especially east-west streets)- for Chester and Carnegie, medians as alternative to road diet- extend sidewalk on some of the streets to be able to accommodate groups of four to five walking

next to each other- crossings designed with special Campus District pavement (similar to Detroit-Shoreway)- police enforcement of pedestrian crosswalks for a period, resulting in slower traffic and height-

ened awareness of pedestrian space- seek funding through NEORSD for stormwater infrastructure.- design review for new buildings

Bicycle Network

Cycling is an active mode of transportation that provides recreational pleasure but also has more utilitarian functions. As bicycle trips are usually faster than walking, they are perfect for trips within a 5 to 10 mile radius. From the Campus District it is a quick bike ride to downtown’s East 4th and East 6th Streets but also over to West 25th or to the grocery store on East 30th Street. Addition-ally, Cleveland Metro Parks is working on a connection of the towpath trail to East 22nd Street which will have a bicycle track. Euclid Avenue is the only street with bike lanes that crosses the CSU campus. Traveling west towards downtown, the Euclid Avenue bike lanes stop at East 22nd Street.

Bike lanes are proposed for Superior Avenue by the city of Cleveland. Studio 611 suggests bike lanes on Payne, Prospect, and Rockwell as an easy connection to downtown. A viable option might be to guide cyclists to Superior or Rockwell Avenues via East 18th or East 30th Streets. CSU’s cam-pus should have a bike sharing station on campus. A possible location is along Euclid Avenue be-tween East 18th and East 21st Streets.

Figure 5.3.1.b interior greenWAy - PedestriAn connection

FIGURE 5.3.1.C PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY BETWEEN PROSPECT AND eucLid - restored eAst 19th street betWeen buiLdings

83

East 18th St.

PROPOSED NORTH - SOUTH TROLLEY LAKE ERIE

MULTIMODALHUB

EXISTING E-LINETROLLEY

760

1120

760

Euclid Ave.

Chester Ave.

Payne Ave.Superior A

ve.

Cedar Ave.

Central Ave.

East 30th St.

Innerbelt

East

22n

d St

.

Prospect Ave.

I-77


Broadway Ave.


asiatownold

chinatown

warehousebluffs

art quarter


playhousesquare

nine twelvedistrict

gateway




PROPOSED PARKING760

PROPOSED CAMPUSDISTRICT TROLLEY

C C

RAPID, TROLLEY, BUS, CARTRANSPORTATION

BUS ROUTES

Trolley Loop

With the new Flats East development, RTA is planning to operate the Waterfront Line weekdays to its terminus at the Muni-Lot, close to East 18th Street. Studio 611 proposes a transit-oriented-development (see Chapter 5.2.4) at the end of East 18th Street. That station could be connected via a pedestrian bridge over the rail tracks down to the transit station. Furthermore, the existing RTA rapid transit station at East 32nd Street (Green, Blue and Red lines) is currently not frequented by CSU students and feels iso-lated and unsafe. Taking the train to Terminal Tower and chang-ing to the Health Line adds 15 minutes to the commute to CSU. The trip time could be greatly reduced if a trolley service would pick up on East 32nd Street at the Red-Line Station and run north towards the lake, ending on East 18th Street. At the same time that would address the north-south transit connectivity in the District. It would make it easier for people to travel north and south through the District.

Funding could be applied for through a NOACA Transportation for Livable Communities Initiative (TLCI) study to explore the north-south connectivity of the District and public transit op-tions. This would create a loop allowing people to get off the train at East 18th Street and onto a trolley traveling south to CSU or Tri-C.

5.3.1 GETTING AROUND THE DISTRICT

FIGURE 5.3.1.D TROLLEY LOOP

84

5.3 GREENING THE DISTRICT

5.3.2 Pavement to Parks

Prepared by: Deborah Riemann and Arthur Schmidt

Currently, most of the open space within the Campus District is used for parking. As this plan proposes to significantly increase the residential population in the Dis-trict, the conversion of pavement to parks is highly recommended. Parks and plazas can enhance the experience of the District and provide places to play, gather, and recover. Studio 611 proposes the implementation of two new parks and plazas, the improvement of existing open spaces, and other small-scale short-term interventions to enhance the public realm.

We propose the implementation of two new parks/ plazas- The “Bridge Center Plaza” on E. 22nd Street and Carnegie- A Playground on the corner of Payne and East18th

Improvement of Existing Open Spaces- A dog park across Chester by the CSU Recreation Center- The Euclid Greens- Wolstein Park

Small Scale - Short-term interventions

The Public Value of Parks

According to the Studio 611 survey, 45% (355 students) consider greenspaces and parks a “very important” amenity for the campus district. Additionally 24% (189 stu-dents) consider green spaces and parks “important.” That means that more than half of the students value green space and most likely would appreciate an increase of green space within the Campus District.

The importance of quality green spaces has been proven throughout the literature. “When outdoor areas are of poor quality, only strictly necessary activities occur” such as running errands (Gehl, 1980, p. 100). If outdoor areas are of a better quality they allow for optional activities such as eating, playing games, and socializing with friends. They can increase property values as it has been shown through hedonic pric-ing methods and they can greatly contribute to public health in general (Eysenback, 2008, p. 20). Despite all the benefits, often time the need for quality open space is disregarded due to development pressures, parking needs, or safety concerns. Con-sidering the benefits of public open space for a campus and the traditional idea of the campus “quad,” this plan identified appropriate locations and mechanisms to mecha-nisms to ensure that new green spaces have the qualities of successful parks as out-lined by Springgate (safe and secure, well-maintained, well-designed, appropriately located, socially relevant and physically accessible; 2008, p. 11). In the following each of the proposed parks will be described briefly.

Figure 5.3.2A bridge center PLAzA - beFore

Figure 5.3.2.b bridge center PLAzA - AFter


85

5.3.2 PAVEMENT TO PARKS

FIGURE 5.3.2.F SITE PLAN OF PROPOSED GREEN SPACES

86

“Bridge Center Plaza” - Heart of the Campus District

The Bridge Center Plaza is a proposed green space built atop the redesigned Innerbelt freeway at East 22nd Street. The Bridge Center Plaza’s location has been stra-tegically chosen to heal the scars created by the high-way, in concert with the proposed redevelopment of the adjacent former Juvenile Justice Center as the Bridge Center. East 22nd Street is an essential spine between CSU, St. Vincent, and Tri-C that connects the north of the district to the south. The connection between both sides of the district are most vulnerable where East 22nd crosses the highway.

The plaza will be adjacent to a proposed senior residen-tial development with restaurants and grocery store at street level. The energy of the different parts of the District will come together at this site, and as a grocery store and the Wolstein Center create activity, the new plaza will be the place to be and to meet people.

To build the Plaza, four parcels would need to be ac-quired and Cedar Avenue closed to traffic. Car traffic could be rerouted by a right turn from Cedar onto East 22nd Street and a left turn from East 22nd onto Carnegie.

The design of the plaza would need to provide a barrier for highway noise while maintaining great vistas towards the new Bridge Center. A glass sound barrier with prints of historic[D10] houses that used to be on the site as well as tree planting would meet this need. Programming of the plaza is important to its success. Housing around the plaza and a parking deck would bring additional pedes-trian traffic.[D11] . Playground on Corner of Payne and East 18th (next to school)A school is proposed for the Third District Police Sta-tion redevelopment. It seems natural to propose a play-ground on the adjacent 72,000 square foot parcel that is currently owned by the city of Cleveland (County Au-ditor). Connections between the school and and a new adjacent playground could be improved by closing East 19th Street temporarily to through traffic making during

FIGURE 5.3.2.C DOG PARK INSIDE



FIGURE 5.3.2.D DOG PARK OUTSIDE


the day. Volunteer labor to build the playground would reduce cost. The “Open Space and Recreation Zoning Overlay District” could be applied to this parcel by the city.

Park 3: Dog park across Chester by CSU’s Recreation Center

The freeway cloverleaf north of Chester across from the recreation center is currently designed as a park but not frequently used as it is poorly designed. As the resi-dential population increases, the interest in a dog park has increased. The park would be suitable as a nicely designed dog park. The parcel that the dog park will be located on is part of the public right-of-way and is not listed in the County Auditors Database. Since it is cur-rently open space, the assumption seems safe that a dog park would be possible on this site.

Park 4: Improve Campus Green

While the plaza and the playground are still at least five years down the road, in the short and medium time-frame, the Campus District can foster improvement of existing green spaces. In the last couple years, CSU has made major improvements to their parks along Euclid Avenue. Landscaping and public art helps to create a sense of place when one is on campus. However, the block between East 18th and East 21st street contains the vacant circle that should be subject to a special de-sign. A water feature might be very well suited for that location. Alexander, Ishikawa, and Silverstein (1977) rec-ommend including water features in campus develop-ments, which can have a calming and relaxing impact on people. Seating areas should be located around the wa-ter feature. Especially during the farmers market in the summer month, seating areas are not sufficient on that block. As William Whyte pointed out in classic text The Social Life of Small Urban Places (1980), “People tend to sit most where there are places to sit” (p. 28). Alexander et al. recommend that sitting walls should be 17-19 inch-es high and 12-14 inches wide (p. 354).

87


Furthermore, trees should be planted to form en-closure and emphasize Euclid’s character as an avenue. Currently Euclid’s pedestrian pavement varies in width which negatively impacts the pedes-trian experience. Therefore it is highly encouraged to straighten the straight pedestrian walkway and enhance the experience with a tree canopy. There is also need to rethink the façade of the music and arts building as it currently shows its back to the park be-tween East 18th and East 21st Streets. Rather than having the entrance elevated to the site of the build-ing, the entrance should embrace the open space.

Another issue is the disconnection of the hidden green spaces between the student union and the library. As it connects primarily to the surrounding buildings, visibility from Euclid should be enhanced and the existing outdoor walkway between the pla-za and the music building could be enhanced to con-nect the hidden plaza with the Euclid green space.

The campus would be a natural location for a bike sharing station that would participate in a citywide bike sharing program. The bike station should be located along Euclid Avenue and close to East 22nd Street as both streets have major bicycle facilities. As the space in front of the music building is cur-rently poorly programmed, a bike sharing station might help to enhance the area. Furthermore, the data gathering about crime and safety has identi-fied the need to locate a public bathroom within the district that is similar to the Portland Loo. Locating it next to the bike sharing station would also accom-modate tourist needs.

Park 5: Improve green around Wolstein Center

Lastly, the Wolstein Center, the arena and meeting space at the southern edge of CSU’s campus, serves an important civic function through the many events it hosts. But the open space around the cen-ter does not foster civic engagement and communi-ty gathering at all. It is surrounded by lawn and trees without any seating areas that would allow people to rest or to wait for friends as they are meeting to go and see a game or a show.

The place also lacks pedestrian through cuts. Studio 611 suggests surrounding the Wolstein Center with trees to soften the harshness of the concrete plazas around the building and to cre-ate shaded seating areas with benches that al-low people to use the area on days when there are no events. Considering the proposed resi-dential development around the Wolstein Cen-ter, this parklike setting could become a power-ful community asset. Benches would especially allow students to read outside or elderly to take a break as they walk through the neighborhood. More landscaping and planting would greatly enhance the pedestrian experience. Smaller scale interventionsAs establishing a park and redrafting designs of open spaces takes time, this plan also con-sidered smaller scale short-term interventions such as parklets and public art. Both types of interventions can create a sense of community. It breaks up the institutional appearance of the District and introduce human-scaled elements.

As many buildings show vacant façades to the street, a program could be set up to work with artists to paint murals on some of the build-ings. Since the Community Partnership for the Arts and Culture is an important partner in the Campus District (located in the Tower Press building), an option might be to collaborate with them to give out mini-grants to graffiti-artists to paint murals on façades. Those murals could be developed in collaboration with students and residents in the district. Of course there is also participation needed by the building owner. An-other approach would be to paint water towers on industrial buildings to create very visible land-marks and to give identity (Zelinka & Harden, 2005, p. 58). Since part of the Campus District is industrial, painting those water storage tanks on the roofs in cheerful colors would embrace the industrial heritage of the District.

Another approach is the creation of parklets as a strategy for place-making. Parklets allow pri-

FIGURE 5.3.2.E SMALL SCALE INTERVENTIONS: MURALS


88

vate businesses to use on-street-parking for outdoor dining or other forms of public open space (Zelinka & Harden, 2005, p. 103). The city of San Francisco has successfully implemented their “Pavement to Parks Program.” Community organizations, schools, property owners, and store-front business owners can apply for a parklet. After the park is approved by the city, the applicant can build a temporary park in the parking lot in front of their store or in the chosen spot in the neighborhood. The parklets have been very successful and have greatly improved streetscapes.

General Implementation Challenges

This section provides some insights into the challenges of implementing the above presented in-terventions. One challenge can be the acquisition of lots. As some of the lots are already publicly owned (where the playground and dog park are proposed), those properties should be pursued. The considerable amount of land needed for the proposed Bridge Center Plaza could be ac-quired with the help of developer impact fees, developer set asides of land, or donations (Harnik, 2008, p. 76). The biggest challenge though will be the negotiation with ODOT and their plans to develop the highway through using marginal roads which would add additional lanes of traffic.

Once the lots are acquired, the improvements need to be financed. Improvements could be financed through city funds and voter-approved general obligation bonds, private donations, impact fees, tax-increment financing, or a special improvement district. Therefore a close col-laboration between Campus District Inc and the City of Cleveland will be needed. In terms of private donations, people could sponsor bricks and be mentioned as a donor of the park (Zelinka & Harden, 2005, p. 106 and 95); that might be especially interesting for alumni of CSU and Tri-C. Additionally school parents might be motivated to help build a playground for their kids. Fur-thermore, the park departments of the institutions might want to offer their services.

Recommendations

As a first step, Campus District Inc should work with the City of Cleveland to use an “Open Space and Recreation Zoning Overlay District” for the proposed sites and to rezone them. Using the example of Salt Lake City, Cleveland could further extend its zoning code by establishing a pro-vision such as: “One square foot of plaza, park or public space shall be required for every ten square feet of gross building floor area. (2) Plazas or public spaces shall incorporate at least three of the five following elements…” (Ewing, R. & Bartholomew, K. (2013), p. 54) Additionally, a conversation with the Community Partnership for the Arts and Culture should be started about mural-artist grants to enhance the Campus District.

The dog park should be implemented immediately. At the same time, there should be collabora-tion with CSU to do a student design contest for the open green along Euclid Avenue and for the connection with the hidden plaza between the library and the student union. Once a decision regarding the Third District Police Station has been made, efforts should be undertaken to bring the playground to the site adjacent to it.

The biggest challenge will be the “Bridge Center Plaza.” As the redesign of East 22nd Street is going into the engineering phase and as ODOT is in its final planning stages, synergies should be explored. Furthermore, conversations with developers about the mixed-use building should be started.


TABLE 5.3.2.A PARCELS FOR BRIDGE CENTER PLAZA

89

5.3 GREENING THE DISTRICT

5.3.3 Green Buildings and Infrastructure

The Campus District has little green space to absorb stormwater runoff. In 2011 the North East Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) signed a consent decree with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate four billion gallons of combined sewer overflow annually. Part of the solution is managing stormwater runoff. The Sewer District plans to spend $35 million on this and will pay for the program via a monthly fee (Davis, 2012). The Campus District has many buildings that can utilize green infrastructure to capture stormwater runoff.

Rain barrels or cisterns are connected to the downspout on a building and collect rainfall A rain barrel holds 50 to 60 gallons of rainwater and a cistern holds up to 20,000 gallons of rainwater (Urban Design Tools, 2013). A 1,000-square-foot roof can accumulate about 600 gallons of water after an inch of rainfall (National Geographic, 2013). Cleveland’s average rainfall between March and November is 62.55 inches (The Weather Channel, 2013), allowing the collection of 37,530 gallons of rainwater from a 1,000 square foot roof, which can be used for washing vehicles, and watering plants and landscaping.

In 2009, the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo in partnership with the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District installed a 550 gallon cistern to capture stormwater from the Guest Service’s Building (Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer Dis-trict, 2009). The collected water is then emptied into two rain gardens and a bioswale.

At the University of Florida in Gainesville, an 8000 gal-lon cistern collects water that is used to flush toilets. The building cuts its water consumption by almost 90% (Wag-ner, 2012). At the Chicago Center for Green Technology, four 3000 gallon cisterns collect water that is used for plants and landscape around the center (City of Chicago, 2013).

Currently the City of Cleveland does not have any lan-guage intheir zoning code about cisterns, according to Liz Kukla with the City of Cleveland’s Planning Department.


Figure 5.3.3.A rooFtoP rendering - csu PArking

FIGURE 5.3.3.B EXISTING GREENROOF AT CSU GARAGE

Photographer: Kelly McGowan

90

A second issue with installing cisterns is the price. A 100 gallon cistern costs $194.26 while a 12,500 gallons one costs $10,885.79 (US Plastic Corp., 2013). NEORSD does have a “Stormwater Quality Credit” of 25% for rainwa-ter harvesting (Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, 2013).

The installation of a green roof is another type of green in-frastructure. Green roofs are rooftops that are either com-pletely or partially covered in vegetation. As seen in Table 5.1.5, the different types of roof vary in depth, weight, types of plants, and costs depending upon their use. On average, a green roof can prolong the life of a roof by at least 20 years due to the roof not being exposed to ultra-violet radiation and cold winds (City of Chicago, 2013).

The Cleveland State University Recreation Center has a green roof with a total size of 7,000 square feet which contains 15,000 plants and permeable paver walkways. (Kramer, 2009).

Chicago’s City Hall has a green roof constructed in 2001 as part of an EPA study on urban heat islands. The 38,800 square feet green roof cost $2.5 million and has been esti-mated to have saved the city $5,000 a year on utility bills (City of Chicago, 2013). Green roofs are fairly low maintenance and easy to main-tain (Table 5.1.5 2 ). Green roofs act as insulators for a building absorbing heat in the summer leading to reduced energy costs.Green roofs also help with storm water man-agement, absorbing some of the stormwater before it runs off the roof.

Assuming a roof could bear the load, a green roof could be used on most Campus District buildings. The Campus District could become a leader in Cleveland for green roof developments.Like cisterns, the City of Cleveland does not cover green roofs in their code. In conclusion, cisterns and green roofs in the Campus District could help alleviate stormwater runoff and reduce the urban heat island.

5.3.3 GREEN BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

TABLE 5.3.3.A TYPES OF GREEN ROOFS

TABLE 5.3.3.B THE AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE NEEDED ON A GREEN ROOF

91

5.4 STUDENT HOUSINGSTRATEGIES

A goal of introducing approximately 1,500 ad-ditional new housing units into the Campus Dis-trict was set. The existing 2009 Campus District Plan was reviewed, as were master plans from other universities. Data from the UST 611 sur-vey and market data was analyzed to determine if the 1,500 unit goal was realistic. The Campus District is anchored by Cleveland State Universi-ty and Cuyahoga Community College which will continue to drive demand for additional hous-ing units. Cleveland State University welcomed 1,550 freshmen in 2012, which is a 14% increase from 2011 and the largest freshman class in the university’s history (Office of Institutional Re-search and Analysis, 2012).

According to 2010 Census data, there are 1,863 housing units (see Table 5.4.1). Almost eighty-one percent are rental properties, 5.9% are owner occupied, and 13.3% are vacant. There are 1,616 households in the Campus District, 49.1% of which are family households and 41.2% of which have children.

Interviews conducted with major Campus Dis-trict stakeholders provide additional perspec-tives about housing in the Campus District. (See Section 4.6.) There is a general consensus that more housing options are needed in the area including both student housing and housing for young professionals, families, and seniors. Sev-eral stakeholders felt Mather Mansion or the Ju-venile Justice Center could be sites for housing development. The positive and negative effects of student housing generated great discussion. Stakehold-ers mentioned that increasing student hous-

Prepared by: Eugene Basile, Mark Ebner, KhrysShefton, Jillian Watson, Mat-thew Wymer, Cheng Han-Yu

5.4.1 considerations to determine housing demand

ing would add to the vibrancy and activity in the neighborhood and downtown Cleveland as a whole. More students would be attracted to Cleveland State University or Cuyahoga Com-munity College if the neighborhood had a larger student population. A greater residential base would also attract more retail, arts, entertain-ment, and other development opportunities to the Campus District. More residents are likely to improve the perception of safety on and around campus. Safety was discussed frequently during the stakeholder interviews, with most feeling that more people in the neighborhood day and night, would make the District feel safer. A possible negative outcome of additional hous-ing is increased congestion in the neighborhood. Gentrification and perceptions that the Campus District is exclusively for students are other pos-sible negative outcomes. If the neighborhood had residents of diverse age groups and income levels it would balance the transient nature of a student population that is less invested in the fu-ture of the community. Further insights came from other urban universi-ties, which share the challenges of making their campuses cohesive, student-friendly environ-ments. The most unique of these challenges is connecting a campus to an existing framework. Navigating this framework can be difficult as it can often force universities into acquiring real estate to control the influences surrounding the campus. Many urban universities, such as the Univer-sity of Pittsburgh and Wayne State, are bring-ing additional student housing onto campus.

Both universities hope to increase the number of available beds by 2,500, in the coming years, with the University of Pittsburgh already able to house nearly 44% of their full-time undergradu-ates on campus (Wayne State University, 2001, p. 18; MacLachlan, Cornelius, & Fiolini & Univer-sity of Pittsburgh, 2010, p. 14). The University of Missouri--St. Louis shares many traits with Cleveland State, with similar numbers in terms of the total student population and those that live on its campus. With 16,500 students and 1,100 of them living on campus, the school hopes to increase its total population to 18,000 and its on campus students to 2,500 (Sasaki Associates, Inc., 2006). In contrast, St. Louis University, lo-cated near downtown St. Louis, has taken the opposite approach of many universities, and has no published master plan. St. Louis University has bought properties surrounding the campus, but has not announced what specific plans they have for these sites. This has caused churn on and off campus (Bryant, 2011). Planning conveys direction and reassures stakeholders that each proposal has been thoughtfully considered. It also ensures there is a plan to increase popula-tion to fill new stock. Many urban universities have similar plans to grow their student popula-tions over the next 10 – 20 years and to provide housing that is well placed, usable, and invites students to make the urban campus their home. The student survey of Cleveland State classes sought to determine the market demands for student housing. According to the survey, 40% of respondents currently live with their parents. However, as seen in Table 4.2.2, nearly 50% of those surveyed responded that they would be willing to live in the Campus District. With a

92

5.4.1 INTRODUCTION: CONSIDERATIONS TO DETERMINE HOUSING DEMAND

three-percent confidence interval, it is estimated that potentially over 8,000 additional beds are needed in the neighborhood. The rest of the survey collected student hous-ing preferences.Two-thirds of respondents pre-ferred rental-housing apartments. Half of those surveyed preferred one or two-bedroom apart-ments. Of those currently living within one-mile of campus, 86% prefer one- or two-bedroom apartments. Eighty-five of Cleveland State stu-dent respondents said safety was a very impor-tant consideration when choosing their housing. Off-street parking, private entrances, and other security amenities are important aspects to in-clude when developing housing in the neighbor-hood. Housing affordability will a driving forces for the housing market in the Campus District. The neighborhood benefits from the proximity to the downtown Cleveland market, which has higher than average rents and lower vacancy rates. The Campus District can build off the external linkages of the surrounding neighborhoods and transportation routes as well as the universities and anchor institutions. Students at commuter colleges, such as Cleveland State University or Cuyahoga Community College, are not the cap-tive market that they often are near other uni-versities. They have more options for housing, making it difficult to rely solely on the student demographic. In fact, according to Table 4.2.1 Current Living Situation, 38.8% of Cleveland State students live with their parents. Accord-ing to the survey, the average student is willing to spend a median of $500 on housing. However, people currently living in or near the Campus

District indicated they would prefer a median rent of $624 per month. In Table 4.2.6: Current Rent/Mortgage, excluding respondents who live with their parents, 54% of the surveyed people pay between $501 and $1,000 per month for the mort-gage or rent. It will be difficult to provide housing at these costs, but this plan fo-cuses on building the neighborhood and increasing demand rather than reducing costs. Expanding the target demograph-ic for housing by targeting senior citizens and other age groups will provide a more diverse market.

TABLE 5.4.1: TENURE TABLE

93

5.4 STUDENT HOUSING

5.4.2 Campus District Housing Niche Analysis

The housing niche analysis of Campus District is a quantitative analysis that shows the net demand for housing in various household income ranges. The one mile radius from CSU student center (2121 Euclid Av-enue) is the primary market area for the analysis. First of all, we would like to see how many households in the near future as potential housing demand in dif-ferent household income ranges within the market area. Secondly, we figured how many total housing units supply in the market. (owner plus renter occupied housing units equal to total housing supply) Finally, we obtained the net housing demand for Campus District, but the total net demand may not be absorbed by the market as a result of other competitive factors. To be conservative for the master plan, we assume the rule of thumb of 40% absorption rate to construct the final proposed housing units, which would be around 1,500 units in total for the Campus District Master Plan. For the household income range below $15,522, the analy-sis indicates 909 units for students and low-income households as the rents would be paid by parents and low-income subsidy. As the HH income range is larger, various housing product recommendations would fit for different household income groups. As population in downtown Cleveland continues to grow and more job opportunities are brought into the neighborhood, the current housing occupancy rate has risen to 97% of 4,705 units in downtown Cleveland. This is positive momentum to support more housing proj-ects in downtown. For the Campus District, existing students from CSU and Tri-C are the inherent customer base for new housing projects. The CSU student pop-ulation has increased 14% since 2012 and a new CSU health innovation center at the previous Viking Hall site promises more students. Therefore, the Campus Dis-trict is a prime location to attract young professionals to live in the district. The newest housing project in the Campus District, Langston is a great example. The 194 units of phase one were leased out in 6 months, which indicates the strong rental housing market. Extrapo-

lating to the Campus District master plan, the market could absorb 388 units in each year, 3880 units in 10 years. Based on developers’ absorption rate (40%), the market could possibly accommodate 1,552 units for ten years which is close to the number reached from the housing niche analysis.

Note:1. 2011 household income adjusted to 2013 by CPI calculator.2. 2016 projected HH # within 1 mile from CSU student center. Source: Cuyahoga County Auditor Report3.Affordable Housing Value Range= 2013 HH Income Range X 2.5 ( 2.5~3.0 is rule of thumb)4. 2011 Owner Occupied Housing Units in CD source: ESRI analysis report5.NOI/Cap Rate=Housing Value è NOI= Annual Gross Rent-Operating Expenses è assume 15% of Gross rent is operating expenses, and 7.5% cap rate for downtown apartment6. 2011 Renter Occupied Housing Units in CD source: ESRI analysis report7. Total Supply=Owner Occupied units + Renter Occupied units8. Net Demand=HH numbers within the market area – Total housing supply within Campus District9. Assume 40% of absorption rate (rule of thumb information from developer)

FIGURE 5.4.2 HOUSING NICHE ANALYSIS

94

5.4 STUDENT HOUSING

5.4.3 PROPOSAL

Growth of the student body will help increase demand for new housing units. While students will be the primary drivers of demand for new housing, the overall vitality of the Campus District as a desirable downtown neighborhood depends on the addition of non-student residents. Saint Vincent Charity Hospital, the Visiting Nurses Association, and Cuyahoga Community College also serve as strong anchors for the Campus District. These anchors create a unique opportunity as they provide support for both low-income housing and senior housing developments close to the hospital. The market for new housing units within the Campus District is not without limitations, how-ever. Although the lending climate for housing (multi-family, specifically) has improved since the onset of the housing crises and recession, the availability of financing is still marked by strict underwriting requirements and data demonstrating demand for new housing. Competition for soft money has also increased as developers realize the value and necessity of public-private partnerships to get deals financed. There also existing challenges to the Campus District that are not lending-related. While the overall outlook for the downtown Cleveland apartment market is positive, it is impor-tant to understand it is a qualified outlook. The Campus District has much to offer, but getting rents similar to those of the Warehouse District and East 4th Street are currently unrealistic. Dis-trict branding efforts and the addition of restaurants, bars, and other entertainment/recreation options should help to increase asking rents over the next five years.

5.4.4 Phase I - Jewish Community Federation Building and ProspectIt is proposed that new units first be constructed along Euclid and Prospect Avenues. Specific sites have been identified (see Figure 5.4.3) that will appeal to both students and non-students. Housing units built along Euclid and Prospect Avenues will have a broader appeal to potential tenants than would units built along Payne and Superior. Euclid and Prospect are closer to the University and Theater District, offering the restaurants and entertainment amenities that most tenants look for.

The first site identified is at 1750 Euclid Avenue (See Figure 5.4.3). It is considered to be the most “prime” site for housing in the Campus District. The redevelopment of the building would include approximately 30 units while demolition of the building could make way for a new structure housing 50 units. The site’s prominence along Euclid Avenue, its proximity to the University, and the attractions of PlayhouseSquare provide the basis for achieving the highest rents in the Cam-pus District. This location also provides the opportunity to attract non-student tenants, critical to the sustained vitality of the Campus District. In addition to these units, the construction of a new mixed-use building directly behind the Jewish Community Federation on the north side of Pros-pect is also proposed. This building would include small, ground-floor retail with six stories above housing 150 apartments. Across the street, on the northeast corner of Prospect Avenue and East 18th, the addition of 80 new units will help to create a residential node in that part of the District.

HOUSINGLAKE ERIE

MULTIMODALHUB

East 18th St.

Euclid Ave.

Chester Ave.Payne Ave.

Superior A

ve.

Cedar Ave.

Central Ave.

East

30t

h St

.

Inne

rbel

t

East

22n

d St

.

Prospect Ave.

Broadway Ave.

760

1120

760

30-50

250

200

300

200

125

40015080LOW

INCOME

50




PHASE I PHASE II

PROPOSED PARKING760

PROPOSED CAMPUSDISTRICT TROLLEY

C C

HOUSING

RAPID, TROLLEY, BUS, CARTRANSPORTATION

collegetown

oldchinatown

warehousebluffs

art quarter



asiatown

playhousesquare

nine twelvedistrict

gateway

FIGURE 5.4.3 SITE PLAN HOUSING

95

Also included in the first phase of new units is a six-story building of approximately 300 apartments. This building will be located directly east of the YMCA building on Prospect Avenue (See Figure 5.4.4).

Additionally, the proposed mixed-use building on Carnegie Avenue will include approximately one hundred (100) market-rate apartments and sixty (60) to eighty (80) senior units (See Figure 5.4.5).

There are advantages to incorporating senior housing aside from the equitable principle of providing housing for all. This demographic is usually retired and home during the day while younger people are at work or socializing. The senior demographic thus provides eyes on the street and will assist in creating a safe, active Campus District. Additionally, senior housing projects tend to be stable and act as a neighborhood anchor. Proximity to Saint Vin-cent Hospital will serve the medical needs of these tenants and would be a positive marketing feature. An AARP article by Dailey (2008) discusses a growing trend in senior housing development in which seniors actually prefer living close to universities. Dailey points out that seniors enjoy being around young people and vibrant campus communities. Furthermore, the arts and cultural institutions in and around college campuses are attractive to se-niors. This demographic would enjoy the various events at PlayhouseSquare. The senior housing project would include approximately 60 to 80 units financed using low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs). As most of the target tenants will be retired, their incomes would qualify the development for those tax credits. Since Cuyahoga Community College (Tri-C) is also an important anchor institution, 200 units for Tri-C students have been included in the plan at the Southeast corner of Central Avenue and East 24th (See Figure 3).

5.4.4 PHASE 1 - JEWISH COMMUNITY FEDERATION BUILDING AND PROSPECT

FIGURE 5.4.4.C SITE PLAN FOR PROSPECT AVENUE DEVELOPMENT NEAR YMCA

Source: Google Earth

FIGURE 5.4.4B HOUSING NEAR YMCA

Figure 5.4.4A initiAL site LocAtions - ProsPect Avenue

Source: Google Earth

96

5.4 STUDENT HOUSING

Figure 5.4.4d cArnegie Avenue mixed-use site

97

5.4.5 Phase II - Payne Avenue and Tri-C

The second phase of new housing should begin in about five years after the projects introduced in Phase I have stabilized and a new wave of demand is present. In this Phase, the Campus District and the University should in-troduce an additional 400 units along Payne Avenue directly north of the Langston stretching between East 25th Street to the east and East 22nd Street to the west. Building these units close to the Langston will create a unique residential village in a non-central location within the District. Ad-ditionally, 150 units should be located on the parking lots on the Northeast corner of Payne Avenue and East 21st (See Figure 5.4.7). The renovation of the Norton Furniture building on Payne Avenue could also introduce addi-tional market-rate units if the building becomes available. The Langston’s continued success and high occupancy rates will create demand for hous-ing in this area. A development of units for lower-income residents is advisable. This proj-ect should be located at the Southeast corner of Superior Avenue and East 18th Street (see Figure 5.4.8). Currently, the site houses two businesses: Enterprise Car Rental and Avon Dry Cleaning. Both of these retail uses should be housed in the ground floor of a new mixed-use building with approximately 80 housing units above. This project could also be partially financed using LIHTCs. The addition of these units, like the senior housing mentioned above, will foster the goal of providing housing for all and cre-ating a diverse resident base.

Figure 5.4.5A tri-c housing

5.4 STUDENT HOUSING

98

The location is also desirable as it is only blocks away from a proposed new transit hub to be located at Davenport Avenue and East 18th Street (see Figure 5.4.9). The transit hub will also include a transit-ori-ented development (TOD) of 100 units. The tenants of both the low-income housing development and the TOD will greatly benefit from the access to public transportation.

Other proposals, such as the new Entertainment Dis-trict within the Old Chinatown/Art Quarter area, will create an appealing sense of place in the north Cam-pus District. The greening and increased walkability of the northern section of the Campus District, as set out in this plan, will help to establish a desirable ad-dress for potential tenants in an area that is currently less attractive than the locations identified for new housing in Phase I. Redeveloping the police station on Payne into a school will bring jobs and increase ac-tivity in the northern portion of the Campus District. It should be noted that while the viability of housing in this northern area of the Campus District is antici-pated to improve, the rents will remain lower than those achieved in the centrally-located area of the Campus District along Euclid and Prospect Avenues. The plan for additional housing will allow for repopu-lation of the Campus District with a diverse group of residents. Student, market-rate, low-income and se-nior housing units will achieve this resident diversity. It must be stressed that introduction of these units into the District is a significant endeavor involving a great deal of resources. It will require complex site assembly. A strategy for achieving this goal should include the Campus District, Inc. assembling land in a fashion similar to that of University Circle, Inc. This would allow CDI to control strategic sites and make way for the construction of the units proposed above. Additionally, in order for the Campus District to truly be seen as a unique and exciting place to live it will be necessary to diversify the population to include more than just students but people from all walks of life.

5.4.5 PhAse ii - PAyne Avenue And tri-cvisionsFIGURE 5.4.5B NORTH CAMPUS HOUSING

Figure 5.4.5c LoW-income HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

FIGURE 5.4.5D TRANSIT HUB AND TOD

99

5.5 BUILDING REUSESSTRATEGIES

Studio 611 has considered possible new uses for buildings considered important to the future of the Campus District: the Third District Police Station, Mather Hall, and the Juvenile Court Building. All three are rich in history and all three oc-cupy important sites along East 21st or East 22nd Street, two of the principal north-south streets in the District. Their in-dividual locations roughly describe a north-south line reach-ing from the police station at Payne Avenue on the northern side of the District, to the Juvenile Court building near Cedar Avenue and the Innerbelt trench on the south-central flank of the District. Finding new uses for these buildings would encourage north-south movement in a District where most travel now runs east-west, especially north of Carnegie Av-enue. It would also ensure the future of three structures that contribute significantly to the District’s historic character and sense of place.

East 18th St.


LAKE ERIE



RAPID, TROLLEY, CAR


TRANSPORTATION



RAPID, TROLLEY, CAR




EXISTING COMPLETE STREETIN PROGRESS COMPLETE STREETPLANNED COMPLETE STREETRECOMMENDED COMPLETE & GREEN STREETS

GREENWAYS

GREENSPACE

playground

dogpark

quad

plaza capphase II



BIKEWAY


LAKESHOREBIKEWAY

WEST

LAKESHOREBIKEWAY

WEST


capphase I

plazacap

phase III


EAST

PROSPECT AVEBIKEWAY

EAST



Euclid Ave.

Chester Ave.

Payne Ave.Superior Ave.

Cedar Ave.

Central Ave.

East

30t

h St

.

Inne

rbel

t

East

22n

d St

.

Prospect Ave.


asiatownold

chinatown

warehousebluffs

art quarter


playhousesquare

nine twelvedistrict

gateway

FIGURE 5.5.1.A MAP WITH THIRD DISTRICT POLICE STATION, CUYAHOGA COUNTY JUVENILE COURT BUILDING AND MATHER HALL

Prepared by: Steve Litt, Ben McKeeman, Andrew Bryant, Michael Shumaker, and Kyle Julien

100

5.5.1 THIRD DISTRICT POLICE STATIONThe Third District Police Station is a six-story, 129,000-square-foot building designed in a se-verely minimalist neoclassical style by Cleveland architect Herman Kregelius (1875-1952) and built in 1926 (Litt, 1993). Located on the northwest corner of East 21st Street and Payne Avenue, the building is an imposing presence, with fierce-looking sculpted eagles perched atop twin Corin-thian columns at the main entrance, which faces south toward an Illuminating Company substa-tion that includes a fenced-in park fringed with trees on the south side of Payne Ave. The Cleve-land State University campus lies one block fur-ther south along Chester Avenue.

The police station, now outmoded, is likely to be sold by the City of Cleveland, which is planning to build a new police headquarters for the Third District at 4501 Chester Avenue, located further east in the Midtown area (Kuehner, 2012; Mid-town Inc., 2013). Cleveland State University and the Cleveland Metropolitan School District are contemplating renovating the old Third District station as part of a new permanent campus for the K-12 Cleveland International School (CIS), a joint project of CSU and the CMSD (Litt, 2011). In 2011 developer John Ferchill prepared a study for CMSD and CSU examining the feasibility of using a public-private partnership to finance and con-struct the renovation and an expansion. In 2011 the Cleveland Design Competition also made the CIS proposal to renovate the police station the subject of an online contest to come up with the best proposals.

Studio 611 agrees that renovating the police sta-tion as a Cleveland public school, to be operated in collaboration with the CSU Education Depart-ment, is by far the highest and best use for the building (see Appendix 5.5 for the highest and best use study). The CIS features an International Baccalaureate program, beginning with kinder-

garten. Currently, the school enrolls students up to grade four, and, according to the school’s prin-cipal, Julie Beers, the district intends to add 100 students each year as the school grows to K-12. At top enrollment, the school plans to have 780 students with 40 additional children in day care, or a total of 820 (Burt Hill & Stantec, 2011). The school is currently housed in a CSU building at East 30th and Chester, but with planned enroll-ment increase, the school will outgrow that space and will likely need a permanent home within three to five years.

Moving the CIS into a new and renovated campus including the Third District station would create enormous long-term value for the neighborhood and the city as a whole by enticing a new genera-tion of city-dwellers to remain in or near down-town in the coming decades. A K-12 school on the east side of downtown would enhance the value of nearby areas for residential development, in-cluding the current Greyhound bus station area, PlayhouseSquare, the Superior Avenue Arts Quarter and the budding residential area devel-oping just north of CSU along Chester Avenue. The school would function well in conjunction with the large central park proposed for the Cam-pus District by Studio 611 at the northeast corner of East 19th Street and Payne Avenue.

The Ferchill proposal would close E. 19th Street and turn the school campus into a super-block (Burt Hill & Stantec, 2011). Studio 611 instead proposes that East 19th Street between Payne and Superior Avenues remain open to traffic, but in a controlled, shared-use manner. During morn-ing and afternoon drop-off and pickup times, the street would function as a bus zone for children. During school hours, traffic would be restricted to school access (parents, visitors). After school hours, the street could function as a normally in conjunction with the adjacent park/playground

5.5 BUILDING REUSES

Figure 5.5.1.b third district PoLice stAtion - SW FACE

Figure 5.5.1.c third district PoLice stAtion - NW FACE

101

5.5.1 THIRD DISTRICT POLICE STATION

campus and the school. A suggested layout is included in this report.

Renovation of the building presents challenges. It has wide hallways, which could lead to a large amount of common space, although certain upper floors could be gutted back to structural members and renovated with new floor layouts. The building is not appropri-ate for retail/commercial uses, and multi-tenant office space would be difficult to accommodate. Housing uses are also hampered by the building layout. The Ferchill study, however, found that high floor-to-ceiling dimen-sions and large windows would be advantageous for light and ventilation.

It is assumed that the city would provide the building and surrounding properties needed for the campus to a private developer at no cost in a sale-lease scenario. Historic preservation tax credits and new markets tax credits could be tapped, along with foundation fund-ing, private donations and revenues from naming rights (Burt Hill & Stantec, 2011). The ownership entity could be a for-profit developer or a single-purpose entity cre-ated by the various partners solely to facilitate the tax credits. An analysis by Studio 611 shows that the total project value would be $19.5 million. Revenues could include $4.5 million realized from the CMSD of the Dis-trict Headquarters Building located on the Mall in the Group Plan District to a hotel developer.

Studio 611 has ranked the CIS project as not only feasible, but perhaps the single most important move that could be made in the Campus District in the next five years. It’s a single action that would have many, many positive repercussions for children, for the CMSD, the Campus District and the entire city.

Figure 5.5.1.d third district PoLice stAtion - WEST FACE

Figure 5.5.1.e third district PoLice stAtion - PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR SCHOOL

102

5.3 BUILDING REUSES

5.5.2 Mather HallMather Hall is a five-story, 17,000-square-foot masonry building located on the grounds of Trin-ity Cathedral on the northeast corner of East 22nd Street and Prospect Avenue. Built in the last de-cade of the 19th century or the first decade of the 20th (sources conflict on the dates), the building is located in a rich architectural context, to which it contributes significantly. It was designed by Charles Schweinfurth, an important Cleveland ar-chitect, whose credits also include landmarks such as the adjacent Trinity Cathedral (1907), the Old Stone Church on Public Square (1884), and four landmark bridges in Rockefeller Park (1900-1901). Mather Hall lies north across Prospect Avenue from the 1913 YMCA Building, designed by Hub-bell & Benes, architects of the Cleveland Museum of Art (1916). The historic architecture collection at the Cleveland Public Library is named for Sch-weinfurth. Mather Hall is listed both as a landmark by the Cleveland Landmarks Commission and on the National Register of Historic Places (Cleveland Landmarks Commission, n.d. a).

Mather Hall originally served as a home for the in-digent, and is labeled the “Old Ladies Home” on a 1912 Sanborn map (Sanborn Fire Insurance Com-pany, 1912-1953). The Landmarks Commission refers to the building as the Trinity Church Home. From 1966 until 1998, Cleveland State University rented the building for classroom and office space from Trinity (“Mather Hall”). The building has been vacant for several years.

Reuse of the building presents additional chal-lenges beyond those normally associated with historic structures because it lacks dedicated park-ing. Trinity Commons, a mixed-use conference, retail and restaurant complex attached to Trinity Cathedral, has a limited supply of surface parking and cannot share with Mather Hall. For any adap-tive re-use proposed for Mather Hall, parking off-site will need to be provided, most likely by CSU. This analysis assumes that Trinity Cathedral is not

likely to use the property, and would be willing to sell it. A feasible use, then, would have to justify purchase from the Cathedral, and would be depen-dent on parking provided by CSU or new parking structures that are being added as proposed in the Greenway plan.

In light of these challenges, the highest and best use for this property is limited. (See appendix 5.5 for the full highest and best use analysis.) Stu-dent housing would perform well, but the build-ing is very close to Trinity Cathedral and thus is not necessarily a good fit for undergraduates. Housing for graduate students or older students is recommended, assuming that parking could be made available at CSU’s South Garage. Institu-tional office space has also been considered, but is not recommended because of the adaptive reuse proposed for the nearby Juvenile Justice Center, described below.

The recommendation of locating graduate hous-ing in Mather Hall is supported by impending con-struction immediately west of the site, across East 22nd Street of the $45 million Center for Innovation in Health Professions, a joint project of CSU and the Northeast Ohio Medical University. The new building will rise on the former site of CSU’s Viking Hall dormitory and the 1927 Wolfe Music Building. The goal of the Center is to encourage minorities to become primary care physicians working in underserved Cleveland neighborhoods. Dr. Louis Sullivan, a former U.S. Secretary of Health and Hu-man Services, has called the program a potential national model (Farkas, 2012).

Demand for approximately 30 units in the building is easy to support. Up to 35 students will enroll ev-ery year in the four-year CSU-NEOMED program, creating a student population of 140. A percentage of those students could be eligible for housing in Mather Hall, possibly assisted by allowances or fellowships. A survey of CSU students undertaken

FIGURE 5.5.2.A MATHER HALL EAST FACE

FIGURE 5.5.2.B MATHER HALL PROSPECT FACE

103

by Studio 611 further established that 280 of 861 respon-dents said they would consider living in renovated build-ings within the district, showing that potential demand for housing on this centrally located site could be strong given its excellent location amid the CSU campus and its proximity to the Euclid Avenue HealthLine and the In-nerbelt. The survey also showed that 88 of 170 graduate students responded positively to the possibility of living in a rehabbed historic building, giving the idea a 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 as the highest value.

A pro forma for the building assumes that 30, single-bedroom apartments could be rented for $625 apiece, generating total monthly rent of $18,750. This would jus-tify total renovation costs of approximately $2.4 million. The proposal also assumes that Trinity Cathedral would be willing to sell the building for $500,000, which would bring the total project cost to $2.9 million (see Appendix 5.5).

Another option that could be considered is that of reno-vating Mather Hall as apartments for the formerly home-less residents who participate in Cuyahoga County’s Housing First Initiative. The Initiative places chronically homeless people in apartments with 24-hour on-site ser-vices and is designed to be a pathway from life in home-less shelters to stable, long-term housing. The permanent supportive housing model is a much less expensive ap-proach to managing chronic homelessness. An apartment building at 1850 Superior Ave., also located within the Campus District, is one of several across Cleveland that have been incorporated into the program. (Enterprise Community Partners, 2012). With either graduate student housing or permanent supportive housing, the building would incorporate 17 units. In both instances the building could qualify for historic preservation tax credits. Hous-ing First projects have also benefited from Low Income Housing Tax Credits, which represent another financing possibility for Mather Hall.

5.5.2 MATHER HALL

FIGURE 5.5.2.C MATHER HALL WEST FACE

104

5.3 BUILDING REUSES

5.5.3 Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Building to become The Bridge CenterThe historic Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Building oc-cupies a location vital to the future of the Campus District. It is situated just south of the Cleveland Innerbelt freeway at 2163 East 22nd St. Immediately to its south lies the St. Vincent Charity Hospital Campus and the Metro Campus of Cuyahoga Community College. The 17,500-student campus of Cleveland State University lies two blocks to the north, on the far side of the Innerbelt freeway trench. For decades, the highway has functioned as a physical, social, economic and racial barrier dividing the down-town business core from the Central neighborhood to the southeast, which is dominated by publicly supported housing operated by the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority. If renovated and brought back to strong com-munity use, the court building could help united two dis-parate sections of the Campus District that were severed in the early 1960s by the Innerbelt freeway and the dis-ruptions caused by the Urban Renewal projects that led to the creation of Cleveland State University and St. Vincent Charity Hospital.

The building’s potential to play a pivotal role in the future is matched by its impressive history. Built in 1931 in the Jacobean style to designs by architect Frank W. Bail, the handsome, brick and limestone building was considered a national model of court services for children when it was new. It was the outcome of a 30-year reform effort start-ed in the first decade of the 20th century by City Solicitor Newton D. Baker and Glen K. Shurtleff, general secretary of the YMCA, both of whom studied the condition of poor children held in county jails and started a movement to create a court specifically for juveniles (“Cuyahoga Coun-ty Juvenile Court” 1997; Gallito n.d.). (Encyclopedia of Cleveland history, 2013)

Now considered highly outmoded, the building has been vacated and replaced by the new Cuyahoga County Juve-nile Justice Center at East 93rd Street and Quincy Avenue, which opened in 2012. The older building, though, is still considered an important part of the historic fabric of cen-tral Cleveland. It is listed as a Cleveland city landmark, and

is considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (Cleveland Landmarks Commission, n.d.a). It is comprised of an historic core section with four wings surrounding an interior court open to the sky. An attached detention wing would likely be demolished to create space for surface parking, or possibly a garage.

If a new use can’t be found for the building, or if it is torn down, the loss would be serious and the perception of the freeway as a sharp barrier between downtown and Cen-tral would be hardened and perpetuated. The Campus District would also find it far more difficult in the future to represent itself as a unified area with its own identity and relevance to the city and the region.

Demolishing the building would also be deeply ironic. The Ohio Department of Transportation, which spent a de-cade starting in 2000 on devising plans for a $3 billion re-construction of the Innerbelt, was required by federal law to avoid harming the Juvenile Court Building because of its historic status, if feasible alternatives for a new right-of-way were available. As a result the Innerbelt modifica-tions designed by ODOT steer clear of the building (Ohio Department of Transportation, 2013). This sets the stage for its revival. Moreover, the ODOT redesign establishes the building as a highly identifiable structure near a pro-posed new eastbound I-90 exit for on East 22nd Street just to the southwest of the building (Ohio Department of Transportation, 2009)This gives the building a “gateway” location that will be visible to thousands of commuters daily. The building could be highlighted with signs and lighting, emphasizing its role as a unifying symbol in the Campus District – a factor that could add real value to its future.

But a new use for the building must be found. Studio 611 recommends that the building be sold by Cuyahoga Coun-ty to a private developer to be rehabilitated using state and federal historic preservation tax credits and leased as office space to the three institutions with the highest stake in the future of the Campus District: CSU, Tri-C and

FIGURE 5.5.3.A THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY JUVENILE COURT buiLding - e22nd street

FIGURE 5.5.3.B THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY JUVENILE COURT buiLding - entrAnce

105

5.5.3 CUYAHOGA COUNTY JUVENILE COURT BUILDING TO BECOME THE BRIDGE CENTER

St. Vincent Charity Hospital. In addition to insti-tutional office space, the project could include incubator space related to student-developed businesses startups. Precedents for institution-al partnerships involving historic preservation and economic development exist in the insti-tutional collaboration that resulted in the $150 million-plus Uptown development in University Circle and other important civic-oriented proj-ects, such as the renovation of the city’s down-town theater district at PlayhouseSquare and the creation of the Trinity Commons retail, edu-cation and office complex along Euclid Avenue at East 22nd Street by Trinity Cathedral in the early 2000s.

The proposal envisions a roughly $12 million project that would completely renovate the in-terior of the building, yielding 116,000 square feet of leasable space. (See Appendix 5.5 for proposed sources and uses.) Assumptions be-hind this proposal are as follows:

- Use is local collaborative office space for an-chor institutions.

- $800,000 to demolish the existing 40,000 square-foot detention cell area.

- Nearly $10 million in other renovation costs to upgrade the 116,000-square-foot interior, costing roughly $86 per square foot.

- A discounted sale price from the county of $500,000 or less.

- Developer to provide $750,000 equi-ty

Following the suggestions made by many of the 50 Campus District stakeholders interviewed by Studio 611, the group recommends that a por-tion of the rebuilt Innerbelt trench just north of the Juvenile Court building be “capped” with a landscaped platform that would cover part of the highway to create the perception of a seamless linkage between the CSU zone to

the north and the St. Vincent/Tri-C area to the south. As former Cleveland city planning direc-tor Hunter Morrison stated in an unpublished interview with The Plain Dealer several years ago, one could imagine the revitalized build-ing and adjacent park functioning as vital link along an educational pathway out of poverty for underserved children in the Central neigh-borhood, connecting Tri-C to CSU (personal communication, 2006). A new park over the Innerbelt, coupled with a renovated Juvenile Court Building, would create a powerful state-ment of education and medicine as unifying factors in the city’s urban landscape that are capable of bridging physical and social barriers and creating pathways to a brighter future. The proposal is further discussed in the greenway plan (Chapter 5.1).

FIGURE 5.5.3.D THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY JUVENILE COURT BUILDING - FLoor PLAn

106

5.6 ENTERTAINMENTSTRATEGIES

The Entertainment District Work Group examined the possibility of an entertainment district within the bound-aries of the Campus District. For the study purposes, an “Entertainment District” is a planned or naturally occur-ring clustering of entertainment-oriented businesses, largely built on dining and nightlife. The group started by identifying potential demand for additional entertain-ment business within the boundaries of the district, then selected sites that would be appropriate for develop-ment of this nature.

Notes on Cleveland Entertainment District Overlay Campus District, Inc. requested Studio 611 to examine the State of Ohio’s Community Entertainment District legislation as a potential way to kickstart a cluster of entertainment-oriented business within a potential en-tertainment district. Per Ohio law, a Community Entertainment District is a bounded area that includes a combination of entertain-ment, retail, educational, sporting, social, cultural, or arts establishments (Ohio Revised Code, 4301.80). The state established the designation as an economic devel-opment tool to be used by municipalities and townships to help address underserved or blighted areas. This tool can facilitate growth and attract investors to a defined area/district. Up to 15 liquor licenses can be issued when local leaders approve a district. The 15 liquor licenses are immediately obtainable at a cost of $1,500 per license with no broker involvement required; all licenses are is-sued by The State of Ohio. The number of licenses issued depends on the size of the district measured in contigu-ous acres. By law, any proposed district must be com-prised of no more than 20 contiguous acres.

Requirements of the Entertainment District:

· District may not be located within 500 feet of a school or house of worship. Exemptions may be granted if the affected educational institution signs a waiver.

· District must be contained within an area of no more than 20 acres.

· The price of liquor licenses is discounted for only up to 15 establishments.

Studio 611 has provided recommendations on the for-mulation of a potential Entertainment District Overlay zone, including assessing demand and the selection of suitable locations.

107

Campus-Generated An important factor in evaluating the benefit of an entertain-ment district is understanding the impact of the students and faculty of Cleveland State University. CSU’s approximately 17,000 students (Office of Institutional Research and Analysis, 2012) and 1,600 faculty and staff (Cleveland State University, 2013) are the largest potential source of demand for restau-rants and bars within the Campus District. The student surveys administered over the course of this project provide insight into student spending patterns when they are on and around campus. The survey explored student spending habits, including the amount of money spent on food and drink, as well as the frequency of visits to restaurants and bars. Analyzing these results allowed for us to extrapolate spending power in the area surrounding CSU, which can be applied to market infor-mation to determine how many establishments the student base can support. Summing the dollar amounts spent by stu-dents, and applying those to the percentage of students who indicated they eat in restaurants near campus (i.e., not in the dining halls), yielded a gross spending figure. Assuming the average student is on campus 9 months out of the year, total annual student spending on food is $7,019,866 and $1,369,434 for drinks. Faculty and staff represent an additional and strong source of demand for restaurants. Because the current study included only student surveys, faculty and staff information has been extrapolated from the 2002 CSU Campus Master Plan (Simons and El Jaouhari), and inflated to 2013 figures. This yields a spending power of $9,625,116. Taken together, student and faculty annual demand for food and drink within a walking radius of CSU’s campus totals $17,654,417. Restaurants with liquor generate $454.66 in sales per square foot annually, according to data from the Urban Land Institute’s Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers: 2004 (Kramer et. al, 2004), inflated to 2013 values. Those figures for demand and square footage would result in a gross demand for 38,830 square feet of restaurant space, at a typical size of 2,500 square feet per establishment, divided among 15 or 16 establishments within a walking radius of the district.

5.6.2 DEMAND

5.6 ENTERTAINMENT

The calculated demand of 15-16 establishments is a gross fig-ure; the existing stock of restaurants, coffee and snack shops, and bars, already exceeds 20 within the immediate area. Sev-eral establishments exist along the Euclid Corridor, plus one or two establishments directly to the north of campus, plus several additional establishments within PlayhouseSquare. Additionally, a walking radius could include larger established districts in downtown Cleveland, including the popular East 4th entertainment district. However, as noted, the gross demand indicated above is that which is generated by the students and faculty/staff of CSU. There is likely to be additional demand from passersby and travelers throughout the region and employees in private sec-tor businesses (skewed towards the north of the district). This is a figure that is more difficult to quantify, but is not expected to represent a significant demand as the district has seen little by way of expansion or addition of restaurants and bars except for the area immediately adjacent to CSU’s campus.

PlayhouseSquare PlayhouseSquare’s influence in the Campus District is consid-erable as it boasts being one of the largest theater complexes in the US. Its original renovations helped pull downtown Cleve-land into a new era, aiding in its revitalization—and it contin-ues to be a driving force of entertainment in the downtown neighborhood. Because of its location relative to the district, it is important to understand the impact that theatergoers would have on the potential for an Entertainment District. Moreover, future plans for a $16 million investment in signage, digital displays, and amenities throughout the Theater District are in-tended to drive additional development (Litt, 2013). According to the theater district’s 2011-2012 Report to the Community, more than 1 million visitors on average attend over 1,500 events annually. In addition, the district has an eco-nomic impact of over $61 million annually (PlayhouseSquare, 2012, p. 3). Assuming that many theatergoers visit restaurants and bars both prior to and after the shows they visit the theater to en-joy, a large pool of potential demand exists for an adjacent

entertainment district, although it would also be in direct com-petition. Demand would be directed more toward downtown where entertainment already caters to the theater-going de-mographic. Nonetheless, it is important to understand Play-houseSquare’s proximity as a potential demand base on the western edge of the Campus District.

Major Demand Generators – Downtown Employees Employees in the downtown/Campus district neighborhood are an important portion of potential demand as well. Although Studio 611 did not survey this population, the group estimated the volume of the demand base for the lunch, happy hour, and dinner customers that may work close by. Daytime Population of the district was based on Costar’s Daytime employment re-port (2013), using 2121 Euclid Avenue as the center point for the 1-mile radius. The number of businesses within a one-mile radius was found to be 2,805—representing approximately 68,720 employees. The largest employers within this radius are the following:

- Diamond Building- Eaton Center- The Plain Dealer- Cleveland State University- Playhouse Square- Reserve Square- Virgil E. Brown Center- TAP Packaging Solutions- Hot cards- Distillata- Radio One- Numerous small machine and industrial shops- Saint Vincent Charity Medical Center- Cuyahoga Community College

A more robust analysis of these employers would be necessary to understand the specific number of establishments that de-mand would be able to support, and the group recommends pursuing this course of action in the future if Campus District Inc. is interested in targeting this population specifically for the purposes of an entertainment district.

108

Along with the student surveys that were adminis-tered as part of the project, Studio 611 interviewed approximately 50 Campus District stakeholders in-cluding residents, business-owners, and organiza-tional leaders within the district—as well as a few “experts” with professional experience within the Campus District.

The interviews explored questions including the fol-lowing: Would the area benefit from a Community Entertain-ment District? Would you view that as positive or neg-ative, and why?

Responses to this question largely reflect a response to this question in terms of a District, and not the District Overlay. The interpretation of what it means to be an “entertainment district” is also quite di-verse.

Another question that wasn’t directly related to the formation of an entertainment district, but none-theless is important to the perceptions of appropri-ate new business mix in the district was the follow-ing:

What’s missing from the mix of businesses and ser-vices in the district? What should the Campus District Inc. do to recruit new businesses?

These two questions elicited diverse responses that nonetheless found contained consistent themes, es-pecially when respondents considered the concept of an entertainment district within the study area.Of the 46 stakeholders interviews tallied specifically for this analysis, 32.6% directly cited restaurants, bars, or coffee shops as missing or beneficial to the district. Additionally, 31.1 percent said that the Campus District would benefit from an entertain-ment district. A few stakeholders cited examples in Austin, Memphis, and High Street at the Ohio State University as potential models for how a com-

5.6.2 DEMAND

munity entertainment district could be managed. Twenty percent of the responses implied that an entertainment district could provide value, but that the results would depend on on how the district was established and organized, and on the demographic attracted by the district.

Nine stakeholders voiced concerns with nuisance or risk involved with college-student oriented bars and entertainment within the district. Only three (6.7 percent) saw a benefit in focusing on largely student-focused entertainment; many suggested instead that the district should be oriented toward young professionals, or should build on entertain-ment already existing in Asia Town or Playhous-eSquare. Some felt it was important to build more housing first to bring more people into the area, before creating an entertainment district. Accord-ing to this view, once a critical mass of students/resi-dents exists in the area, an entertainment district would be help create more nightlife, especially on the evenings when there are no events in Playhouse Square. This would also be help existing businesses in the area that currently have very little nighttime business. On the other side of the argument, 28.9 percent of stakeholders did not see any benefit in the creation of an entertainment district. Eight respondents mentioned either competition from other districts close by or a lack of sufficient demand in the market for an additional entertainment district. As men-tioned, nuisance and a “party college” atmosphere were mentioned frequently as reasons to discourage the creation of a district. Others cautioned against relying on entertainment districts as the primary fo-cus of development or criticized the superficiality of creating a district through planning and legislation —explaining it would be better for entertainment-oriented business to pop up organically as market demand increases.

“I think that’s a terrible idea. You can’t go in and say ‘we’re going to create an entertainment district.’ If the neighborhood is strong enough, organically the de-mand will develop.” The consensus amongst many of the stakeholders was clear, whatever business is brought into the area it should serve to create a more cohesive and distinct neighborhood, not attempt to create what already exists in other areas of town. Another con-cern is simply adding more businesses geared spe-cifically to students. One respondent said it would be good to have a place to go for a drink that wel-comed all ages. “There is a fair amount of investment related to stu-dents. Quick service type of businesses, not fast food but the Chipotle type of food that is more students priced.”

Stakeholders also expressed concern about attract-ing underage drinkers - as well as a need for young people to congregate off campus.

“There is currently no cohesive entertainment dis-trict in Cleveland for young people. Somewhere in the campus district [there] should [be] an entertainment district for 18 to 22 [year-olds]. But it should be more than just bars, other things like coffee shops and other places to meet. It is all about students.”

Finally, it should be noted that one respondent said the District’s large institutions should collaborate with the city to make it easier for businesses to come into the area by easing bureaucratic hurdles or drawing on their academic and technical expertise to attract businesses.

5.6.3 STAKEHOLDER SURVEYS

109

5.6 ENTERTAINMENT

No Entertainment District Based on several factors, Studio 611 does not recommend the estab-lishment of an Entertainment District at this time. This is due to insuf-ficient demand from CSU students and faculty, as well as the overall community, lack of a significant base of non-student residents, and concerns of “poaching,” or pulling customers from one or more of the several existing downtown entertainment districts rather than gener-ating new demand from outside consumers. In the future, if residential options within the Campus District grow and create a larger residential base (student and otherwise), demand would naturally grow for res-taurants, bars, and other nighttime uses. Such demand would obvious-ly be stronger if the District succeeds in attracting the 1,500 housing units contemplated elsewhere in this report. Demand may not grow sufficiently to fit the criteria of an entertainment district (i.e., as many as 15 liquor licenses), but niche demand for a smaller-scale district, or individual establishments, will grow along with the residential popula-tion.

Bolstering Existing Districts Although Studio 611 does not recommend the creation of a new enter-tainment district at this time, supporting current districts and business already existing within the Campus District would strengthen the lo-cal economy and make it more likely that businesses established in the future would succeed. Even so, the Community Entertainment District Overlay could be used as one tool to create a more business-friendly environment that would encourage additional growth in strategic ar-eas, perhaps lowering the barriers for the kind of niche, smaller-scale businesses mentioned as market demand increases. The group analyzed the Campus District to determine alternative sites for establishing these potential overlays, if Campus District Inc. is suf-ficiently committed to the idea of doing so. The group initially set out to find at least two suitable locations for entertainment overlays within the Campus District. Criteria used to identify possible overlay zones included the potential to strengthen underutilized spaces, to connect to other active areas in the District, and drive economic development overall.

5.6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

FIGURE 5.6.4 ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS

110


i. Theater District: Playhouse Square’s influence within the dis-trict makes it a logical location to target additional growth—as a market base already exists, and with additional investment in the area, would continue to grow. Parking located in Cleveland State’s campus area gives additional exposure to the western edge of the Campus District, and could be leveraged more intensely. Using a Community Entertainment District Overlay along Euclid Avenue and Prospect Avenue between East 17th and East 22nd Streets as a potential Community Entertainment District Overlay could encour-age the influx of additional restaurants and bars, allowing the Cam-pus District to benefit from the overflow of theater patrons further east. Following the suggestions of the Housing Group in this report, entertainment venues could be located in the street-level spaces of future residential buildings, bolstering the overall goal of encourag-ing mixed-use development in the District.

ii. Collegetown: Though there has been some concern expressed about creating a rowdy, college-oriented entertainment district within the study area, ignoring the needs of the students would be a mistake. Fostering Transforming Collegetown into a more complete neighborhood would attract additional residents, which could then in turn increase market demand for food and drinking establish-ments throughout the district. If a Community Entertainment Dis-trict Overlay was already established to incentivize theater-related entertainment between East 17th and East 22nd Streets, the infra-structure would already be in place for college-oriented, smaller establishments to more cost-effectively address the increasing de-mand. One recommendation for creating a more vibrant student experience within the Collegetown area is to redevelop a “quad,” which could be a contiguous green space that would serve as pro-gramming space for casual recreational activities (Frisbee, touch football, picnicking, etc.).

FIGURE 5.6.4.A COLLEGETOWN BEFORE

FIGURE 5.6.4.B COLLEGETOWN AFTER

111

Fostering Something “New” in Old Chinatown and the Art Quarter Despite being underdeveloped today, the Old Chi-natown and Art Quarter areas possess strong assets and have the potential to offer expanded entertain-ment options within the Campus District and Down-town neighborhood. Studio 611 recommends using the Community Entertainment District Overlay along with heightened attention by Campus District Inc. to create an inviting business culture within the two areas. This would include advocating or coordinating infrastructural and aesthetic/design improvements.

· Old Chinatown: This district would provide an intimate experience fueled by Chinese culture and the predominance of Chinese students living within the area. Approximately 20-30 Chinese students live in the Old Chinatown building, and a recently refurbished lot across the street could serve as a potential site for new development—drawing from the momentum of five recent remodeling projects in existing restaurant storefronts. In addition, the planned bikepath/greenway to be constructed through downtown on Rockwell Avenue would ter-minate in Old Chinatown, giving it a unique connec-tion to the rest of the Downtown neighborhood. The assets of Old Chinatown, including culture, food, and a Buddhist temple on the top level of the Old Chinatown Building, offer a firm base on which to build a strong connection between Downtown to the west and a vibrant Asian restaurant and gro-cery scene in Asia Town to the east.

· Art Quarter: The special qualities of this district, which extends along Superior Avenue from East 18th Street to East 30th Street, include its architec-ture, history, and physical characteristics as a broad urban boulevard with wide sidewalks and deep tree lawns, along with the area’s high concentration of working artist studios. The Art Quarter could in-deed become an industrial “Champs Elysees” for Cleveland. While Euclid Avenue is the city’s historic Main Street, Superior Avenue connects the city’s


east and west sides more directly, as it extends through Public Square, where Euclid Avenue ter-minates. A high concentration of artists live and/or work in the Art Quarter area, serving as strong base of activity and potential demand.

The City of Cleveland established the city’s first live/work zoning overlay district in the Art Quarter in 2001 (Gould, 2013). The area along Superior Avenue from East 18th to East 30th encompasses an architecturally distinguished collection of mid- and low-rise factory and commercial buildings. Ground floor spaces on sev-eral are sealed with bricks or opaque fiberglass panels, but could potentially be redeveloped into shops and restaurants, as has already been accomplished in the highly popular Artefino Cafe in the Tower Press build-ing, renovated as a rental apartment building. The area’s wide sidewalks would accommodate sidewalk sales, art displays, and outdoor dining. Greater analy-sis would be necessary to determine specific demand, but the area could attract additional residents and increase the demand base for new businesses. An en-tertainment district created here would take advan-tage of this area’s lower rents, provide some connec-tion between the Campus District and the Lake Erie waterfront, and possibly attract more building con-version to artists’ live/work spaces. Care would need to be taken to ensure that an entertainment district established in the Art Quarter would harmonize with the proposal made elsewhere in this report by Studio 611 to locate the Cleveland International School in the renovated Third District Police Station at East 21st Street and Payne Avenue, one block south of Superior Avenue.

Conclusion The important focus of entertainment in the Cam-pus District going forward should be to support the growth of a complete neighborhood to increase the residential population and increase future demand for entertainment businesses. Studio 611 takes the posi-tion that vibrant entertainment areas are essential to the neighborhood (particularly in one so dominated by academic institutions), but that policy should not

FIGURE 5.6.4.C ART QUARTER BEFORE

FIGURE 5.6.4.D ART QUARTER AFTER

112

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

113

Based on Studio 611’s research and pro-posals, this conclusion summarizes the primary assets and challenges for Cam-pus District Inc. and sets out a phased approach to implement the different projects proposed in the plan. The plan concludes with tools and partnerships that Campus District Inc might like to consider in moving towards implementa-tion of this plan.

Primary Assets of the Campus Dis-trict

The primary assets of the Campus Dis-trict are the three anchor institutions, Cleveland State University, Tri-C, and St. Vincent. They have the potential to generate demand for other businesses that can significantly change the game in the district. While all institutions are cur-rently primarily commuter based, a shift towards a more residential neighbor-hood could improve the conditions in the District. As the population in the District increases there might be opportunities for an entertainment district that builds upon both the new demand and the al-ready existing demand (due to the close proximity to PlayhouseSquare (Chapter 5.6).

Strengths of the district are underutilized sites and buildings. Three prime proper-ties (Mather Hall, the Third District Police Station, and the former Juvenile Court District Building) are either already va-cant or about to be vacated. While va-cancies are perceived as negative, they also offer opportunities to be re-utilized (Chapter 5.5). At the same times there is ample opportunity to re-use sites that are currently used for surface parking. As parking is not the highest and best use in a district so close to downtown with three major, growing anchor institutions, the plan proposes student housing (Chapter

5.4), green and open spaces (Chapter 5.3), and parking garages (Chapter 5.2) to replace the surface parking lots.

Primary Challenges in the Campus District

One of the primary challenges Campus District Inc. is facing is the lack of identity for the District. Stakeholder interviews as well as survey results indicated that there is no consistency in perception of the District. The spatial analysis of the District identified some components that contribute to the lack of identity: 1) there is no consistent signage and vary-ing names are used throughout the dis-trict, 2) there is a disconnect between the neighborhoods to the north and to the south of the District as there is a lack of streets that continuously run north-south through the District, 3) the street-scaping is not coherent which reduces the legibil-ity of the District as a whole. To address this challenge, Studio 611 prepared a way-finding and branding package for Campus District Inc. that suggests sig-nage as well as streetscaping elements (Chapter 5.1).

The second challenge the Campus Dis-trict is facing is the Innerbelt. As a legacy of urban renewal and the highway pro-gram, the District is divided by the high-way into a northern and a southern part. The main proposal to address the “high-way gap” is the “Bridge Center Plaza.” In combination with the shared institu-tional office development of the former Juvenile Court District building, Studio 611 proposes to establish a new plaza on the north side of the highway (Chapter 5.3 and 5.5). Ideally, the highway would be capped between East 22nd Street and Cedar to comprehensively connect the plaza and the bridge building (Chapter 5.2).

6.0 CONCLUSIONFigure 6.1 Priorities - greenWAy Projects

Figure 6.2 Priorities - housing Projects

114

6.0 CONCLUSION

Phasing of Studio 611’s Proposals

The different proposals partially considered two or three scenarios in two phases. The scenarios depend on the direction that Campus District Inc. wishes to take. The phasing relates to the likelihood and complexity of im-plementing some of the proposed actions. Figure 6.1 il-lustrates the phasing and necessary steps to implement each sub-plan/proposal. Additionally, Figures 6.2 - 5 as-sesses each proposal based on whether it is important, whether it is realistic based on the costs, and whether it is realistic based on the collaboration that is needed. Each proposal received a total point score (between 0 and 15 points) that indicates how realistic it would be to implement the proposal.

Conclusion: Tools and Next Steps

Campus District Inc. has three primary fields of lever-age that it can use when working with partners to cre-ate positive change in the District. The three levers from a planning perspective are zoning and policy change, guidance of investment, and taxation. Obviously, none of those fields can be directly changed by Campus Dis-trict Inc. However, it is important to have a strong ad-vocate for those changes when working with the city of Cleveland and private developers. Figure 6.6 illustrates the potential tools that Campus District Inc. might wish to use. Some of the proposals in this plan contain and rely on zoning changes. As the City of Cleveland has the zoning authority for the District, Studio 611 recom-mends working with the city on the adaptation of this plan and re-zoning according to the plan. In terms of rezoning, Studio 611 proposes to implement a special design improvement district, a parking overlay district, and a community entertainment overlay district (in case Option II and III are preferred). Additionally, a policy for best stormwater management practices would greatly enhance the building quality in the District.

Figure 6.3 Priorities - buiLding reuse Projects

Figure 6.4 Priorities - entertAinment Projects

115

6.0 CONCLUSION

TIME Phase I

1-4 yearsPhase II5 to 9 years

Greenways (Chapters 5.1 - 5.3)

Scenario Option 1 Way finding; Policy for best storm water management practices; Playground; Dog park; Parking strategy

Implement Bridge Center Plaza; Complete Pedestrian Walkways; Cap Interbelt (Option I, II or III)

Action Steps needed

Work with city on:Special design improvement district; Parking overlay district; Policy for best storm water management practices Other partners- Work with Campus International School on playground; Work with ODOT on dog park; Work with institutions on parking strategy

Work with ODOT to minimize negative impact of highway; Acquire land for plaza and pedestrian connection

Student Housing Study (Chapter 5.4)

Scenario Option I:1500 Units over 10 years

Jewish Federation Building (30-50 Units); Prospect I (250 Units); Prospect II (300 Units); Carnegie mixed use (200 Units)

Tri-C Student Housing (200 Units); Payne Ave Housing Node (400 Units); Low Income on Superior and E18th (80 Units)

Option II630 Units over 10 years

1750 Euclid (30-50 Units); Prospect II (300 Units) Low Income on Superior and E18th (80 Units); Payne Ave Housing Node (200 Units)

Historic Building Reuse (Chapter 5.5)

Scenario Option I School and Third District Police Station; Juvenile Justice Building for shared office space; Mather Hall for graduate housing

Action Steps needed

SchoolIdentify pioneer for development of school renovation (Public Private Partnership); Plan for new addition and renovation of school; Construction

Entertainment Plan (Chapter 5.6)

Scenario Option I Do not create entertainment district - let market take its course Reassess demand and consider Option II and III

Option II Create Community Entertainment district overlay on E.17th

and E. 22nd Street Create infrastructure for new business development

Option III Create Community Entertainment district overlay in Chinatown or arts district on Superior; Create infrastructure for new business development

Advocate for aesthetic/ physical infrastructure improvements

FIGURE 6.5 PHASING

116

The second lever is to guide private and institutional investment. As Campus District Inc. has no site control or land they themselves own, this is a little bit more challenging. A special design improvement district can give Campus District Inc. some leverage to work with private developers. As the institutions are heavily involved with Campus District Inc., it would be highly encouraged to exchange information on new invest-ments planned on a regular basis in order to build syn-ergies. As wayfinding is one of the major concerns, it is highly recommended that the stakeholders of the District come together and invest in the production and placement of coherent signage and street furni-ture. The third lever is taxation. Generally, taxation might not be the preferred tool to use since it might discourage investment in the District. However, if the Innerbelt cap is made a priority, an option to finance it could be through a special taxation district (see Chap-ter 5.2).

The Campus District is in an exciting period where the formation of Campus District Inc. sets the first stage…

... To Make the Campus District a successful exam-ple of collaboration among anchor institutions.

... To Engage residents in building a vibrant, livable and sustainable downtown neighborhood.

... To Provide excellent education and entertain-ment for all citizens.

There are several challenges to overcome, but the continued commitment to the district by the anchor institutions can shape the future of the district, the city, and the region at large. Adopting this plan would be a first step towards a new direction.

FIGURE 6.6 PLANNING TOOLS TO CONSIDER FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN

6.0 CONCLUSION

117

WORKS

CITEDAlexander, C.; Ishikawa, S. & Silverstein, M. (1977) A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction (Center for Environmental Structure Series). New York: Oxford University Press.

Asiatown Cleveland (2013). About Asiatown. Retrieved March 23, 2013 from http://www.asiatowncleveland.com/historic.asp

Brake, A.G. (2013) Klyde Warren Park. The Architects Newspaper. Retrieved April 22, 2013 from http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6435

Breckenridge, T. (2011, May 2). ODOT to focus on Innerbelt plan’s economic impact on downtown. Plain Dealer. Retrieved May 2, 2013 from http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/05/odot_to_look_again_at_impact_o.html

Bryant, Tim. (20 November 2011). SLU Won’t Say How It Plans To Use Properties. St. Louis Post Dispatch. Retrieved March 5, 2013 from http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/slu-won-t-say-how-it-plans-to-use-properties/article_d5f491e0-3ca8-5012-ac50-6bcc8c40017d.html

Burkholder, S., and Hexter, K. (2002). Housing First: Documenting the Need for Permanent Supportive Housing. Retrieved May 2, 2013 from http://urban.csuohio.edu/publications/center/center_for_community_planning_and_development/housing_first_exsum.pdf

Hill & Stantec (2011). New design for a Campus International School CMSD/CSU collaboration [PowerPoint presentation].

Campus District (2012). Stakeholders in campus district have big opportunities and ambitious plans. Retrieved May 2, 2013 from http://campusdistrict.org/stakeholders-in-campus-district-have-big-opportunities-and-ambitious-plans

Campus Partners (2011). South Campus Gateway. Retrieved April 8, 2013 from http://campuspartners.osu.edu/what-we-do/projects/high-street-corridor.html

Case Western Reserve University (2013). Case Western Reserve University 2012 Annual Security Report. Retrieved April 5, 2013 from http://police.case.edu/

City Architecture (2011). East 22nd Street Corridor/Campus District Transportation and Redevelopment Plan. Retrieved April 23, 2013 from http://www.noaca.org/campusdistrict.pdf

City of Chicago (2013). A guide to stormwater best management practices. Retrieved April 3, 2013 from http://www.cityofchicago.org/dam/city/depts/doe/general/NaturalResourcesAndWaterCon-servation_PDFs/Water/guideToStormwaterBMP.pdf

City of Cleveland (2013). Cleveland’s Zoning for Urban Agriculture and Green Spaces. Retrieved April 20, 2013 from http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/zoning/pdf/AgricultureOpenSpaceSummary.pdf

City of Cleveland (2013). Zoning Ordinance. Retrieved April 20, 2013 fromhttp://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Ohio/cleveland_oh/cityofclevelandohiocodeofordinances?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:cleveland_oh

City of Kent and Kent State University (n.d.). Kent Downtown Master Plan. Retrieved April 5, 2013 from: http://www.kent360.com/files/University/PosterFinal.pdf

City Planning Commission (1957). St. Vincent’s Center Urban Renewal Project, October 1957. Public Administration Library, Cleveland Public Library.

City Planning Commission (1966). CSU Urban Renewal Project Binder, R-212-7. Public Administration Library, Cleveland Public Library.

Cleveland Department of Urban Renewal and Housing (1958). Revised Relocation Report, January 1958. Public Administration Library, Cleveland Public Library.

118

Cleveland Landmarks Commission (n.d. a). Charles Schweinfurth. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/arch/pdf/archdetailPrint.php?afil=&archID=216

Cleveland Landmarks Commission (n.d. b). Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Building. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from. April 24, 2013. http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/listDetail.php?identity=69

Cleveland Planning Commission (2012a). Cleveland’s Downtown Lakefront Plan. Retrieved May 2, 2013 http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/lakefront/jan2012.php

Cleveland Planning Commission (2012b). Connecting Cleveland: The Waterfront District Plan 2001 to Today. Presented at Cleveland State University by Debbie Berry on March 20, 2013.

Cleveland Planning Commission (n.d.). Cleveland Waterfront District Plan [poster]. Retrieved May 2, 2013 from http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/lakefront/iactive/poster/waterfront_poster.pdf

Cleveland State University (2013). Parking and Transportation Information Spring 2013. Retrieved April 20th 2013 from http://www.csuohio.edu/services/parking/Proximity%20based%20pro-gram%20final%20Spring13.pdf

Cleveland State University Police Department (2012). Cleveland State University Annual Crime Statistics. Retrieved April 5, 2013 from http://www.csuohio.edu/offices/police/crimestats/

Cleveland State University. (2013). At a Glance. Retrieved April 21, 2013 from http://www.csuohio.edu/aboutcsu/glance/

Cleveland, Ohio [maps] (1912-1953). Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps—Ohio. Ohiolink Digital Media Center. Retrieved April 23, 2013 from http://drc.ohiolink.edu/handle/2374.OX/62437

CoStar Real Estate Services (2013). Vacant Properties Report. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://www.costar.com/Find/

Cuyahoga County (n.d.). Cuyahoga County GIS Interactive Mapper. Retrieved February 18, 2013, from http://gis.cuyahogacounty.us/

Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court (1997). Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=CCJC

Davis, D. (November 8, 2012). Sewer district officials notify homeowners of new stormwater fee for program aimed at flooding. Plain Dealer. Retrieved April 9, 2013 from http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/11/sewer_district_officials_notif.html

Enterprise Community Partners (2012). Housing First. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://www.housingfirstinitiative.org/

Ewing, R. & Bartholomew, K. (2013). Pedestrian- and Transit-Oriented Design. Washington, D.C.: Urban land Institute and American Planning Association.

Eysenbach, M. (2008). Park System Functions and Services. In Lewis, M., ed. From Recreation to Re-creation: New Directions in Parks and Open Space Planning. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 551. Michigan: American Planning Association.

Farkas, K. (2012, April 30). Cleveland State University, Northeast Ohio Medical University partner for better health care. Plain Dealer. Retrieved May 2, 2013 from http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/04/cleveland_state_university_and.html

Gallito, R. (n.d.). A Century of Service Highlights: 1902-2002. Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from uyahogacounty.us/history.htm. April 24, 2013.

Gehl, J. (2004). Life between Buildings: Outdoor Space and Outdoor Activities. In Wheeler and Beatley, eds. The Sustainable Urban Development Reader. Second Edition. New York: Routledge.

WORKS

CITED

119

WORKS

CITEDGillett, R. (2013). Reducing Homelessness in Cuyahoga County. Presentation delivered April 8, 2013, Cleveland State University.

Gould, H. (2013). Artspace cleveland makes a difference: Cleveland’s live-work zoning ordinance allowed warehouses to be converted to lofts. Cleveland Arts Network Journal. Retrieved May 2, 2013 from http://canjournal.org/2013/04/artspace-cleveland-makes-a-difference-clevelands-live-work-zoning-ordinance-allowed-warehouses-to-be-converted-to-lofts/

Green Roof Technology (2013). Types of Green Roofs and Eco Roofs: Extensive and Intensive. Retrieved April 20, 2013 from: http://www.greenrooftechnology.com/green-roof-types

Harnick, P. (2008). Creating and Maintaining Parks. Funding and Other Means. In Lewis, M. ed. From Recreation to Re-creation: New Directions in Parks and Open Space Planning. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 551. Michigan: American Planning Association.

James, G. (2012, March 10). Northside community entertainment district approved, city awards creative tools to grow. CincyVoices. Retrieved May 2, 2013 from http://cincyvoices.com/2012/03/10/northside-community-entertainment-district-approved-city-awards-creative-tools-to-grow/

Kamin, B. (2011, October 27). Ohio highway cap at forefront of urban design trend; retail complex atop Columbus expressway offers model for Chicago. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved April 20 from http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2011/10/ohio-highway-cap-at-forefront-of-urban-design-trend-retail-complex-atop-columbus-expressway-offers-m.html

Kent State University-Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative (2009). Connecting Cleveland State. Presented March 2013, Cleveland State University.

Klyde Warren Park (2012). Our Story. Retrieved on April 22, 2013 from http://www.klydewarrenpark.org/About-the-Park/our-story.html

Kramer, A., Sabath, R., and Buchmeier, R. (2004) Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers: 2004. A Study of Receipts and Expenses in Shopping Center Operations. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.

Kramer, D. (2009, August 6). Two women bring $250,000 rooftop garden to life atop CSU’s Recreation Center. Plain Dealer. Retrieved April 6, 2013 from http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/08/two_women_bring_250000_rooftop.html

Kuehner, J. S. (2012, May 13). Plans for new 3rd district police station in Cleveland: Whatever happened to ...? Plain Dealer. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/05/plans_for_a_new_third_district.html

Litt, S. (1993, March 7). Glorious renewal looms for shabby police building. Plain Dealer, p. 3H.

Litt, S. (2011, August 28). Cleveland design competition comes up with fresh visions for Cleveland International School. Plain Dealer. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://blog.cleveland.com/archi-tecture/2011/08/cleveland_design_competition_c.html

Litt, S. (2013, April 2). PlayhouseSquare aims for a bright lights, big city feel with $16 million in signage, digital displays and amenities. Plain Dealer. Retrieved May 2, 2013 from http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2013/04/playhousesquare_aims_for_a_bri.html

MacLachlan, Cornelius, & Fiolini & University of Pittsburgh (2010). Proposed Institutional Master Plan Update University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved January 23, 2013 from http://www.facmgmt.pitt.edu/MasterPlans/2008.pdf

Mather Hall (n.d.). Cleveland State University Archives Photograph Collection. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://images.ulib.csuohio.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/csu&CISOPTR=107&CISOBOX=1&REC=5

120

WORKS

CITEDMcFee, M. (2010, July 29). Developer MRN Ltd. to break ground Monday on Uptown project in University Circle. Plain Dealer. Retrieved April 4, 2013 from http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.

ssf/2010/07/developer_mrn_ltd_to_break_gro.html

McFee, M. (2011, October 11). Stores, restaurants sign on at Uptown; University Circle project attracts grocer, local chefs, chains. Plain Dealer. Retrieved April 4, 2013 from http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/10/stores_restaurants_sign_on_at.html

Midtown Inc. (2013, April). Third district police station. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://www.midtowncleveland.org/third-district-police-station.aspx

Minnesota Population Center (2011). National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. University of Minnesota. Retrieved April 1, 2013 from www.nhgis.org

MKSK Studios (2012). I-70/71 Innerbelt Design Enhancement. Retrieved April 22, 2013 from http://www.mkskstudios.com/projects/i-7071-innerbelt-design-enhancement-columbus-ohio.html

Murphy, K. (2012, August 29). Portland Loo, a public toilet that skips to the head of its class. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/29/nation/la-na-08-29-portland-loo-20120829

National Geographic (2013). Purposes of Rain Barrels. Retrieved April 10, 2013 from http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/purposes-rain-barrels-2659.html

NEO CANDO (2013). Social and Economic Data. Retrieved April 5, 2013 from http://neocando.case.edu/neocando/

Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (2012). Improvements on East 22nd Street in Cleveland. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://www.noaca.org/CUYE22nd.html

Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (2013). Applications for Federal Funding. Retrieved April 23, 2013 from http://www.noaca.org/fundsapp.html

Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (2013). Draft 2013 Regional Bicycle Plan. Retrieved April 22, 2013 from http://www.noaca.org/multimodalplanning.html

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (2009). Sewer District unveils stormwater management demo project at Cleveland Metroparks Zoo. Retrieved April 18, 2013 from http://www.neorsd.org/zoo-demo-2009-0419.php

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (2013). Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Stormwater Fee Credit Manual. Retrieved April 8, 2013 from http://neorsd.org/I_Library.php?a=download_file&LIBRARY_RECORD_ID=4699

Office of Institutional Research and Analysis, Cleveland State University. (2012) Fall 2012 Enrollment Report. Retrieved April 21, 2013 from http://www.csuohio.edu/offices/iraa/enrollment/Enroll-ment_Fall%202012%20Midterm-Final.pdf

Ohio Department of Commerce (n.d.). Ohio Tank Tracking & Environmental Regulations (OTTER). Retrieved April 8, 2013 from https://apps.com.ohio.gov/fire/otter/?tabid=0

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (2000). GIM County Search. Retrieved April 8, 2013 from http://ohiodnr.com/soilandwater/soils/surveydata/tabid/15384/Default.aspx

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) (2013). Grant Opportunities and Results from all Available ODNR Grants. Retrieved April 23, 2013 from http://ohiodnr.com/tabid/10762/Default.aspx#parks

Ohio Department of Transportation (2010). Division of rail programs statewide rail plan. Retrieved May 2, 2013 from http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/StatewideRailPlan/Docu-ments/Chapter 3 - Ohio Freight Rail System ProfilEast.pdf

121

WORKS

CITEDOhio Department of Transportation (2013). Cleveland Innerbelt Plan. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/ClevelandUrbanCoreProjects/Innerbelt/Pages/default.aspx

Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) (2013). Safe Routes to Schools Program. Retrieved April 23, 2013 from http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/SPPM/MajorPrograms/SafeR-outes/Pages/default.aspx

Ohio EPA, Division of Environmental and Remedial Response (2013). Ohio EPA Brownfields Inventory Shapefile.

Outcault, Guenther, Rode and Bonebrake (1966). CSU Preliminary Report Campus Planning Study. Public Administration Library, Cleveland Public Library.

Partnership for Sustainable Communities (2012). Transit as Transformation: The Euclid Corridor in Cleveland. Retrieved May 2, 2013 from http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/45000/45700/45740/Cleveland-euclid-corridor.pdf

PlayhouseSquare (2012). Exciting Destination: 2011-2012 Report to the Community. Retrieved May 2, 2013 from http://www.playhousesquare.org/report/

PlayhouseSquare (2013). About PlayhouseSquare. Retrieved March 23, 2013 from http://www.playhousesquare.org/default.asp?playhousesquare=16&urlkeyword=About-PlayhouseSquare

Reed Construction Data (2013). Construction Cost Estimates for Parking Garages in Nation, US. Retrieved April 23, 2013 from http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/rsmeans/models/garage/

RERC and URS Dalton (1987). St. Vincent Quadrangle Areawide Development Program. Prepared for St. Vincent Quadrangle, Inc. Public Administration Library, Cleveland Public Library.

RTA—Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (2004). Transit 2025. Long Range Plan. Retrieved April 6, 2013 from http://www.riderta.com/pdf/transit2025/Transit_2025_March_2006_Final.pdf

RTA—Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. (2013a) Transit 2025 Homepage. Retrieved April 6, 2013 from http://www.riderta.com/transit2025/RTA—Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (2013b). Priority Corridors. Retrieved April 6, 2013 http://www.riderta.com/images/stratplan/FigC_PriorityCorridors_2550x1650.jpg

RTA—Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (n.d.). Priority Corridors. Retrieved April 6, 2013 from http://www.riderta.com/images/stratplan/FigC_PriorityCorridors_2550x1650.jpg

San Francisco Planning Department (2013). San Francisco Parklet Manual. Retrieved April 20, 2013 from http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/docs/SF_P2P_Parklet_Manual_1.0_FULL.pdf

San Francisco: Pavement to Parklet (2013). Retrieved April 20, 2013 from http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/

Sandvick Architects (1997). The Quadrangle Revitalization Plan. Public Administration Library, Cleveland Public Library.

Sasaki Associates, Inc. (2006). University of Missouri St. Louis Master Plan Update: Executive Summary. Retrieved January 30, 2013 from http://www.umsystem.edu/media/fa/management/facilities/UMSL%20report4_19_hi.pdf

Schneider, K. (February 5, 2013). Development Aims to Bring Kent State and Its City Closer. New York Times. Retrieved April 5, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/realestate/commercial/development-aims-to-bring-kent-state-and-its-city-closer.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1365381240-YB8I1HWTIQekIiUbG2MSYg&

Simons, R. A. & El Jaouhari, A. (2002). Economic and Market Analysis for the Cleveland State University Master Plan Update. Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State Uni-versity.

122

WORKS

CITEDSpector, H. (2013, March 4). Tough Cleveland State dorm policies spark student backlash. Plain Dealer. Retrieved from http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/03/tough_cleveland_state_

dorm_pol.htm

Springgate, L. (2008). Defining Parks and Park Systems. In: Lewis, M., ed. From Recreation to Re-creation: New Directions in Parks and Open Space Planning. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 551. Michigan: American Planning Association.

Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

The Weather Channel (2013). Monthly Average for Cleveland, OH. Retrieved April 9, 2013 from http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/USOH0195

3 Rivers Wet Weather (2013). Green Solution--Green Roof. Retrieved April 3, 2013 from http://www.3riverswetweather.org/green/green-solution-green-roof

Town of Normal, Illinois (2013). Chapter 14—Design and Construction Standards for Recreational Facilities. Retrieved April 20, 2013 from http://code.normal.org/ManualOfPractice/Ch14.asp

U.S. Plastic Corp. (2013). Black Vertical Polyethylene Tanks. Retrieved April 11, 2013 from http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=24879

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2013). EPA Geospatial Data Access Project. Retrieved April 8, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/enviro/geo_data.html

University of Akron (2012). University of Akron Annual Crime Statistics. Retrieved April 5, 2013 from http://www.uakron.edu/safety/annual-safety-report/crime-statistics.dot

University of Toledo (2012). University of Toledo Crime Statistics. Retrieved April 5, 2013 from http://www.utoledo.edu/depts/police/Crime_Statistics.htmlUrban Design Tools (2013). LID Urban Design Tools—Rain Barrels and Cisterns. Retrieved April 19, 2013 from http://www.lid-stormwater.net/raincist_specs.htm

US Census Bureau (2013). American Factfinder. Retrieved May 2, 2013 from http://factfinder2.census.gov

van Dijk, Pace, Westlake & Partners (1994). St. Vincent Quadrangle Master Plan. Public Administration Library, Cleveland Public Library.

Wagner, M. (March 12, 2012). Cisterns help UF buildings cut water use. Gainesville Sun. Retrieved April 9, 2013 from http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120312/ARTICLES/120319917

Walker & Murray Associates (1966). Final Project Report, Part 1, Application for Loan & Grant [Urban Renewal Program], Binder No. 8. Public Administration Library, Cleveland Public Library.

Whyte, W. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation.

Wilonsky, R. (2013). The day before their meeting over tax assessment district, Klyde Warren Park chair pleads case to Arts District bigwigs. Dallas News. Retrieved April 22, 2013 from http://cityhall-blog.dallasnews.com/2013/03/the-day-before-their-meeting-over-tax-assessment-district-klyde-warren-park-chair-pleads-case-to-arts-district-bigwigs.html/

Zelinka, A. & Harden, S.J. (2005). Placemaking on a Budget: Improving Small Towns, Neighborhoods, and Downtowns without spending a lot of Money. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 536. Michigan: American Planning Association.

123

PLANNING

TEAMOrganization:Steering Committee: Deborah Riemann, Heather Ways, Matthew Wymer, John Riter, & Mike SchumakerFinal Document: Kyle Julien, Steven Litt, & Heather WaysFinal Presentation: Ryan Smalley, Tom Michaels, John Riter, & Arthur SchmidtLayout of Final Document: Tara SturmFinal Event Organization: Jillian Watson, Khrys Shefton, & Deborah RiemannSurvey Group: Eugene Basile, Mark Ebner, Kelly McGowan, Jillian Watson, Andrew Bryant, Cheng-Han Yu, & Sungbum YoonStakeholder Interviews Group: Steven Litt, & Tara SturmGIS Maps: Ben McKeeman, & Doug RiebelGraphics Team: Arthur Schmidt, & Gregory Soltis

Data Gathering:Campus Case Studies: Eugene Basile, Tom Michaels, Mike Schumaker, Kelly McGowan, & Arthur SchmidtHistory and Urban Renewal: Kyle Julien, Heather Ways, & Arthur SchmidtSpatial Analysis and SWOT: Ben McKeeman, Gregory Soltis, & Kyle JulienHomeless Concerns: Heather WaysInfrastructure: Andrew Bryant, Steven Litt, Deborah Riemann, & Ryan SmalleyCrime and Safety: John RiterBrownfields and Environmental: Doug RiebelExternal Linkages: Cheng-Han Yu, Mark Ebner, & Ryan SmalleyHousing Research: Khrys Shefton, Cheng-Han Yu, & Hannibal SmithEntertainment Research Group: Andrew Bryant, Kelly McGowan, Mike Schumaker, & Khrys Shefton

Proposed plans:Vision Statement and Goals (Chapter 1.2 and 1.4): Class input summarized by Deborah RiemannDesign Principles (Chapter 1.3): Kyle Julien, Heather Ways, Arthur Schmidt, Deborah Riemann, Steven Litt, Matthew Wymer, & Gregory SoltisGreenways Group (Chapter 5.1-5.3): Kelly McGowan, Deborah Riemann, John Riter, Arthur Schmidt, Ryan Smalley, & Heather WaysStudent Housing Group (Chapter 5.4): Eugene Basile, Mark Ebner, KhrysShefton, Jillian Watson, Matthew Wymer, & Cheng Han-YuHistoric Building Reuse Group (Chapter 5.5): Andrew Bryant, Kyle Julien, Steve Litt, Ben McKeeman, & Michael SchumakerEntertainment Group (Chapter 5.6): Tom Michaels, Doug Riebel, Hannibal Smith, Greg Soltis, Tara Sturm, & Sungbum Yoon

Appendix A: Streetinventory

Lakeside Avenue

Appendix A: Streetinventory

Figure 1 – Lakeside Area Map

Figure 2 –Existing Typical Section

1

2

Figure 3 – Lakeside at E20th looking east

Figure 4 – Lakeside at E20th looking west

3

Street Assessment Lakeside

Right of Way Width 65ft

# of Lanes 2 lanes, on street parking on both sides

Sidewalk/ treelawn width 5’ treelawn with 5’ walk from E18th to E20th, Full width

sidewalk, 10’ to 14’ wide from E20th to E26th

Public art? None

Types of buildings along the

street (# of stories, businesses/

land uses)

Light to Medium Industrial most single to two stories in height

Setbacks None, most buildings adjacent to Right of Way

Overhead utilities? Overhead power, telephone lines on both sides

Traffic Counts None

Condition of road way Roadway is asphalt and in ok shape. Walk and curb in poor

condition, many cracked sections. Overall Rating - C

Pedestrian Safety Few Pedestrians, some at west end. No marked crosswalks, few

curb ramps. Street has lighting

Other amenities

Bike Safety None

Bus Access None

Streetscaping elements? None

Open spaces No open spaces

On-street parking Conditions On street parking along both south and north side of the street

Former Street Car Right of Way? N/A

Summary

An industrial corridor, no real need or desire for road diet or pedestrian measures. Functions well as

industrial road.


Hamilton Avenue

Figure

Figure

Figure 5 – Hamilton Area Map

Figure 6 –Existing Typical Section

4

5

Figure 7 – Hamilton at E23rd looking east

Figure 8 – Hamilton at E23rd looking west

6

Street Assessment Hamilton Avenue

Right of Way Width 60 ft

# of Lanes 2 lanes, on street parking on north side (approx. 34’ pavt width)

Sidewalk/ treelawn width Full width sidewalk on both sides, 10’ wide

Public art? None



land uses)

Light to Medium Industrial all single to two stories in height

Setbacks None, most buildings adjacent to Right of Way

Overhead utilities? Overhead power, telephone lines on both sides

Traffic Counts None

Condition of road way Roadway is asphalt and in ok shape. Has some cracking and few

pot holes. Walk and curb in decent condition, some cracking

Overall Rating - B

Pedestrian Safety Few Pedestrians, No marked crosswalks, few curb ramps. Street

has lighting

Other amenities

Bike Safety None

Bus Access None

Streetscaping elements? None


On-street parking Conditions On street parking along both south and north side of the street


Summary

An industrial corridor, has an alley-like feel. Tighter roadway with many loading docks. Street is dull.


St Clair Avenue

Figure 9 – St. Clair Area Map

Figure 10 – Existing Typical Section

7

8

Figure 11 – St. Clair at E24th looking east

Figure 12 – St. Clair at E24th looking west

9

Street Assessment St Clair


# of Lanes 4 lanes, on street parking on both sides (approx. 60’ pavt width)

Sidewalk/ treelawn width Full width sidewalk on both sides for majority of roadway, some

treelawn in spots. Walk about 18’ wide on both sides

Public art? None



land uses)

Light to Medium Industrial and light commercial, mostly single

to two story buildings

Setbacks Some commercial buildings setback from right of way. Industrial

buildings have no set backs

Overhead utilities? Overhead power, telephone lines on north side

Traffic Counts None

Condition of road way Roadway is asphalt and in ok shape. Has some cracking and few

pot holes. Walk and curb in decent condition, some cracking

Overall Rating - B

Pedestrian Safety Somewhat pedestrian friendly. Has trees, marked crosswalks,

curb ramps and lighting. Decent pedestrian traffic. Wide walks

Other amenities

Bike Safety None

Bus Access RTA buses available along St Clair

Streetscaping elements? Some trees with grass


On-street parking Conditions On street parking along both south and north side of the street,

wide street so parking seems spacious

Former Street Car Right of Way? Possibly, very wide

Summary

More pedestrian corridor. A lot of pavement width and walk width. Street as some commercial

buildings. Could be a candidate for more pedestrian friendly amenities. By old asiatown.


10

Rockwell Avenue

Figure 13: Rockwell Avenue looking east from E. 21st

Street

11

Street Assessment Rockwell

Right of Way Width 35 feet.

# of Lanes Two plus parking lanes.

Sidewalk/ treelawn width Approximately 10 feet.

Public art? Row of Chinese Zodiac animals opposite Emperor’s Palace

Restaurant.


street

Undistinguished stucco structure houses Mardis-Gras

restaurant; Emperor’s Palace is an impressive three-story brick

structure.

Setbacks Approximately 10 feet from curb.

Overhead utilities? Yes.

Traffic Counts N/A

Condition of road way Very poor; lots of ruts and cracks slow traffic.

Pedestrian Safety Adequate because of light traffic.

Other amenities None


12

Superior Avenue

Figure 14: Superior Ave. at E21st St. looking east

13

Street Assessment Superior

Right of Way Width 150 including street and sidewalks/treelawns

# of Lanes E. 18th

to E. 30th

– Four lanes, plus center turn lane and parking

lanes.

Sidewalk/ tree-lawn width 10 foot sidewalks, 10 to 15-foot tree lawns and 3 foot concrete

strips at parking meters.

Public art? Yes, steel structure resembling gazebo in front of Tower Press

building.


street

The $40 million Plain Dealer Building fills the north side of the

block from E. 18th to E. 21st and faces the impressive Tower

Press Building to the south. The ArtCraft building, a former

textile factory, anchors the east end of the section at E. 26th St.

Other impressive factory buildings create a solid wall on the

south side of the street from Tower Press east to the Inner Belt;

the north side is less distinguished, but occupied mainly by early

20th century commercial and industrial buildings.

Setbacks Setbacks vary: Where buildings exist, they come close to

sidewalks.

Overhead utilities? Light poles; electric lines are buried;

Traffic Counts E. 18th

to E. 21st

: 11,480; E. 21st

to E. 30th: 17,570

Condition of road way Fair to good; B rating.

Pedestrian Safety Faded pedestrian crossings; pedestrian signals at intersections.

Other amenities

Bike Safety No bike amenities; could be adapted for bike use.

Bus Access RTA No. 3 bus.

Streetscaping elements? Mowed lawns and street trees typical from E. 18th to E. 26th.

Open spaces Occasional gaps between buildings occupied by surface parking

or driveways; no significant open space other than wider than

normal setback and planted beds in front of Plain Dealer.

On-street parking Conditions Plentiful metered parking.


Summary

Superior Avenue was beautified following construction of The Plain Dealer Building in 2000 and

renovation of the Tower Press Building soon thereafter. The avenue presents itself as an important

city street, yet generally low traffic counts during much of the day indicate that lanes on Superior

could be used for bikes or a planted median.


14

Payne Avenue

Figure 15: Payne Avenue looking east from E. 21st

Street intersection.

15

Street Assessment Payne

Right of Way Width 57 feet

# of Lanes Four, plus parking lanes at curbs

Sidewalk/ treelawn width 10 feet

Public art? No


street

Eight story Norton Furniture Building on S.E. corner of E. 21st

and Payne; six story Third District station catty corner;

otherwise, scattered one-story commercial or industrial bldgs.

Setbacks Approximately 10 feet.

Overhead utilities? Yes.

Traffic Counts Under 6,000 daily.

Condition of road way Fair to poor.

Pedestrian Safety Speeding cars pose hazard.

Other amenities CSU parking lots have wrought iron fences and lawns that meet

city landscape ordinance.


16

Chester Avenue

Figure 16: Chester looking West at E24th Street

17

Street Assessment Chester

Right of Way Width

# of Lanes E30th to E24th: 6 lanes plus turning lane plus median

E24th to E18th: 4 lanes plus turning lanes plus median plus 2 on-

street-parking lanes

Sidewalk/ treelawn width Median has trees between E24th and highway;

treelawns on sidewalk without trees (median drops on E23rd

street)

Between E21st and E19th: Parking lot, treelawn, sidewalk,

treelawn, sidewalk, parking > odd width of sidewalk for no

adjacent uses/ reason to be on the sidewalk

Public art? Chester and E18th Street > big sculpture (has landscaping but

underutilized by pedestrians)


street

Parking lots, Library and Fenntower, Gym, Krenzler Field,

Langston

Setbacks Inconsistent

Overhead utilities? Only on one side

Traffic Counts On Campus: 17,760

Condition of road way C (plenty potholes and cracks in the road)

Pedestrian Safety Pedestrian crossing paint > nice on CSU campus

Other amenities

Bike Safety None

Bus Access Greyhound bus station is on Chester and E13th > frequently big

busses on Chester; Bus number 55 and 55F on Chester, 75,263

Streetscaping elements? Not really

Open spaces In front of library/ Rhodes Tower: between E21st and E22nd >

has potential for little pocket park with nice big trees

On-street parking Conditions On street parking between Highway and E18th > confusing

because no parking during rush hour, awkward to drive

E30th to HWY: No stopping 7 to 9.30am and 4 to 6.30pm; 1

Hour parking 9.30 am to 4pm

E21st to E18th: No Stopping 7 to 9.30 and 4 hour parking 9.30

am to 6pm

Former Street Car Right of Way? No

Summary

It’s the street of parking garages and “back sites” of the buildings (except for the Langston

development) BUT it is also the street of sport facilities. The streetscape feels very inconsistent

which is exaggerate by CSU landscaping on the Southside of the street but not on the Northside.


18

Euclid Avenue

Figure 17: Euclid E18th and E21st

19

Street Assessment Euclid

Right of Way Width

# of Lanes E18th to highway: 2 car lanes, 2 bus lanes, 2 on-street-parking

bike lanes pick up past E22nd going East

Partial small median to cross streets for pedestrians

Sidewalk/ treelawn width Mostly treelawn on north side, partially on south side

Public art? Not really


street

E18th to Highway South Side: 4 to 6 story buildings with

storefronts on the bottom

E18th to Highway North Side: School buildings and Open Spaces

Highway to E30th: 2 to 6 story buildings, partially parking to the

side of the building

Setbacks No setback; up to the sidewalk with storefronts -

parking in the back

Overhead utilities? none

Traffic Counts (NOACA) Count at E16th: 11,090

Condition of road way A+ (new road!)

Pedestrian Safety A+

Other amenities

Bike Safety Bike Lane from E30th to E22nd; drops towards downtown

B+

Bus Access Health Line, E-Line Trolley, School buses parked on Euclid; Bus

number 9

Streetscaping elements? Designed bus stops, street lights, trash cans, signage; flower

beds

Open spaces E18th to E21st - Between Law School and Student Center

(under-designed)

E22nd to E24th - Between main classroom building and

Fenntower

On-street parking Conditions Mostly on CSU campus on both sides; not past highway going

East

E18th to E22nd: One hour parking 7 am to 6 pm

E22nd to Hwy: 30 minutes parking between 7am to 6pm

Former Street Car Right of Way? Yes > used by health line now

Summary

Great pedestrian and transit oriented street; landscaping efforts of CSU increase the aesthetics of

the street; problem with lack of bike lanes through campus and lack of public art could be a

potential


20

Prospect Avenue

Figure 18: Prospect at E30th Street

21

Street Assessment Prospect

Right of Way Width

# of Lanes E18th to E22nd: 4 lanes

E22nd to Highway: 4 lanes + turning lane

Highway to E30th: 4 lanes

Sidewalk/ treelawn width Highway to E30th: sidewalk-treelawn-wider curbstone; trees

look younger

E22nd to Highway: no treelawn but trees in little square beds

Public art At Stephanie Tubbs Jones Transit Center > see picture


street (stories, businesses/ land

uses)

- University Buildings (including soon to be built, 9 story

Heritage Hall, Stephanie Tubbs JonesTransit Center, Wolstein

Center)

- highway to E30th: Church on corner with E30th, primarily two-

story buildings of companies with a lot of adjacent parking

Setbacks Mostly up to the sidewalk with parking lots adjacent to the

buildings

Overhead utilities? Limited overhead utilities (only on the south side of the street)

Traffic Counts (NOACA) Count at E4th: 6,191 cars

Condition of road way Pretty bad potholes on intersections; B-rating

Pedestrian Safety Decent

B rating

Other amenities: Awesome view of terminal tower

Bike Safety Currently no bicycle infrastructure; cycling might be dangerous

during rush hour; low traffic volumes during off hours would

allow increased bicycle activity

Bus Access Stephanie Tubbs Jones Transit Center is on Prospect

Corner of E18th and Prospect: 8,11,12,33,55,55F,75,263

Bus number 8 between E22nd and E18th

Streetscaping elements? Parking lots have nicer fencing, some “midtown” signage

Open spaces A lot of surface parking between E30th and Highway

On-street parking Conditions E18th to HWY: On street meter parking > No Stopping 4 to 6.30

pm; 1 hour parking 7am to 4pm

E30th to HWY: No Stopping 3.30 to 6pm; 2 Hour parking 7am to

3.30pm

Former Street Car Right of Way? Yes (at least downtown; e9th to e 4th) > loop with Euclid?

Summary

Prospect has a great residential feel to it and a lot of “open parking lot” areas that might offer

options for new residential housing. It is also the transit hub with the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Transit

Center. Needs greater connectivity to Euclid. Inconsistent streetscape that breaks at highway.


22

Carnegie Avenue

Figure 19: Carnegie at E21st looking west

23

Street Assessment Carnegie

Right of Way Width

# of Lanes E22nd to E30th: 4 lanes + 1 turning lane

E22nd to E18th: 6 lanes (widens to 7 lanes at E19th)

Sidewalk/ tree-lawn width E22nd to E30th: tree lawn is not consistent; if buildings are all

the way up to the sidewalk, it disappears

E22nd and E18th: no tree lawns; small sidewalk up to the street

Public art? No


street

HWY to E30th: Gas station, fast food places, Car Dealership; 1

story buildings

E22nd and E18th: Parking structures, Wolstein Center

Setbacks Setbacks vary:

HWY to E30th: Far setbacks with parking in front of buildings;

closer to highway: some buildings up to the sidewalk with

adjacent parking (no treelawn)

E22nd to E30th: far setbacks, occasionally up to the streets, lots

of surface parking

Overhead utilities? Yes

Traffic Counts None (but Highway losses between Central Exit and Carnegie

Exit a lot of cars: 131,230>117,020)

Condition of road way E22nd to E30th: dilapidated; C rating

E22nd to E18th: new; A rating

Pedestrian Safety Painted pedestrian crossings

Highway exit ramp awkwardly angled for pedestrians

Other amenities

Bike Safety No bike amenities; probably dangerous to bike on

Bus Access No bus

Streetscaping elements? Some parking lots have nicer fencing

Open spaces At intersection of E22nd and Carnegie on SW corner: Open

Space with billboards

Around Wolstein Center: Greening but not really accessible for

pedestrians (no park)

On-street parking Conditions In front of Wolstein Center: Four hour parking from 7am to 6pm

Otherwise: No Stopping between 7-9.30am and 3-6.30pm; no

parking other times

Former Street Car Right of Way? No

Summary

Very inconsistent streetscape with varying number of lanes, setbacks and treelawns. Makes it hard

to “read” the street. Also, signage is inconsistent with Euclid and Prospect. CSU signage on light

bulbs change to Community College and St Vincent.


East 24th

Figure 20 – E24th Area Map

Figure 21 – Existing Typical Section

24

25

Figure 22 – E24th at Superior looking north

Figure 23 – E24th at Superior looking south

26

Street Assessment E. 24th


# of Lanes 2 lanes (except between Euclid and Chester, pedestrian street),

on street parking allowed on west side of street (approx. 30’

pavt width)

Sidewalk/ treelawn width Varies some full width walk and some treelawn. Most treelawn

in CSU Campus, northern section more industrial and full width

Public art? None



land uses)

University buildings, housing (both single family and campus),

light industrial

Setbacks Some setbacks north of Superior, but almost all buildings to the

south are adjacent to the right of way

Overhead utilities? Overhead power, telephone lines on west side

Traffic Counts None

Condition of road way Roadway is asphalt and in bad shape, north of Superior and

between Chester and Payne, in ok shape elsewhere. Walk and

curb in decent to good condition overall, Overall Rating - C

Pedestrian Safety Pedestrian friendly south of Chester, north of Chester is decent.

Has some trees with treelawns, marked crosswalks, curb ramps

and lighting. Good foot traffic south of Payne. Only negative is

highway entrance/exit north of Chester. Potental still for ped

upgrades north of campus.

Other amenities

Bike Safety None

Bus Access There is bus access close to the St Clair, Superior and Eucild

intersections but none actually on E24th

Streetscaping elements? Some streetscaping between Eucild and Chester as this area is a

pedestrian corridor

Open spaces Only between Euclid and Chester on Campus

On-street parking Conditions On street parking along west side of street


Summary

Lofts are being constructed on Superior, could be a prime street to try and connect the campus

northward. Decent sized R/W for side street.


Appendix B: Building Re-Use

Highest and best Use Study for Juvenile Court Building

Juvenile Court Building Apartments Student Housing

Low Income Housing

Institution Cultural School Hotel

Auto traffic 0 0 0 1 0 -1 1

Adequate parking -1 0 1 1 -1 1 -2

Pedestrian access 1 2 2 1 1 1 1

Highway access 2 2 2 2 2 -1 2

Bus service 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Noise level -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 -1

Resident base 1 2 2 0 0 1 0

Infrastructure 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Zoning 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Compatibility of structure -2 -2 -2 0 -1 0 -2

Expandabl e footprint 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Competition 1 1 -1 0 -1 0 -1

Compatibility with neighboring uses

1 2 2 2 0 0 -1

Totals 8 12 11 13 6 7 3

Highest and best Use Study for Mather Hall

Mather Hall Graduate Housing

Storage

Institutional Office

Classroom Space

Apartments

Demolish/ Parking

Auto traffic 1 0 0 0 0 2 Adequate parking 1 0 0 0 -2 2 Pedestrian access 2 0 2 2 2 0 Highway access 1 0 1 1 1 2 Bus service 2 0 2 2 2 2 Noise level -1 0 0 0 -1 2 Resident base 2 0 0 0 1 2 Infrastructure 2 2 2 2 2 0 Zonin g 0 2 2 2 0 0 Compatibility of structure 1 -2 2 1 1 -2 Expandable footprint -2 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 Competition 1 0 0 0 1 -1 Compatibility with neighboring uses

1 1 1 2 1 1

Totals 11 3 10 10 6 8

Highest and best Use Study for 3rd District Police Station

3rd District Police Station School (CMSD)

Apartments

Student Housing

Hotel

Office Space

Community

Center

Incubatio

n

Institution

al

Union Services

Auto traffic 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adequate parking 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pedestrian access 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Highw ay access 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 Bus service 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Noise level 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Resident base 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Infrastructure 1 -1 -1 -1 1 0 1 1 1 Size of parcel 2 1 1 0 0 -1 1 1 0 Compatibility of structure 1 -1 -2 -2 1 1 0 1 1 Expandable footprint 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 Competition 2 1 0 0 0 -2 -1 -2 0 Compatibility with adjacent uses

2 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 2

Totals 18 10 9 6 12 7 9 11 13

Pro-forma Juvenile Court District Building - Front-Door

Front Door Analysis

Former Juvenile Court Complex 2210 Cedar Road

Cleveland, OH 44115

Rental Income Total Sq Ft Adj Sq Ft Rent / SF Total Rent

Existing Building 166,750

Efficiency Factor 70%

Adjusted Area 116,725 116,725 $13 $1,517,425

*semi gross lease

Operating Budget

Income Year 1 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year 5th Year

Gross Potential Rent $1,517,425 $1,547,774 $1,578,729 $1,610,304 $1,642,510

Vacancy 15% -$227,614 -$232,166 -$236,809 -$241,546 -$246,376

Effective Gross Income $1,289,811 $1,315,607 $1,341,920 $1,368,758 $1,396,133

Expenses

Property Management - 5.0% EGI $64,491 $65,780 $67,096 $68,438 $69,807

Real Estate Taxes - 2.0% $25,796 $26,312 $26,838 $27,375 $27,923

Insurance per sf $2 $333,500 $340,170 $346,973 $353,913 $360,991

Total Expenses $423,787 $432,263 $440,908 $449,726 $458,720

Net Operating Income $866,024 $883,345 $901,012 $919,032 $937,413

Cap Rate 8%

Value $10,825,306

Maximum Loan & Cash Flow

Value at 8% Cap Rate

$10,825,306

75% Loan to Value $7,577,714

Debt Service Constant: 6% rate, 20 year loan 8.37%

Annual Debt Service $634,255

Debt Service Coverage Ratio 1.37%

Annual Cash Flow

$231,770

Cash on Cash Return to Equity

30.90%

Sources & Uses

Sources

Debt - Financed Loan, 20 yrs, 6% $7,577,714

Developer Equity $750,000

Ohio Historic Tax Credits: 25% of Rehab Expenses $2,856,591

Target Development Funds/Grants $742,058

Total

$11,926,363

Uses

Site Acquisition & Purchase 116,725 sf $500,000

*discounted by County?

Demolition of existing holding cell area 40,000 $20 $800,000

Mech/Elec/Plumbing Rough-Ins per sf $30 $3,501,750

Interior Buildout: Framing, Finishes per sf $40 $4,669,000

Exterior/Façade/Sitework $900,000

Soft Costs, 10% Total: A&E, Misc Consultants, Legal

$1,037,075

Developer Fee/Contingency, 5% Total $518,538 $86.60 per sf

Total $11,926,363

$0

Pro-forma Juvenile Court District Building - Back-Door

Project Costs

Site Acquisition & Purchase $500,000

Demolotion of holding cell area $800,000

Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Rough-Ins: $30 psf $3,501,750 Interior Buildout: Framing, Flooring, Finishes: $40 psf $4,669,000


Soft Costs, 10% Total: A&E, Misc Consultants, Legal $1,037,075

Developer Fee/Contingency, 5% Total $518,538

Total $11,926,363

% of Project funded with Equity

6%

Cash Flows

Loan Statements

Year 1

First Year Cash Flow $231,770

Loan Amount $7,577,714


Cash Flow + Annual Dbt Svc = Req'd NOI $866,024

Total Operating Expenses $423,787

Effective Gross Income $1,289,811

Vacancy -$227,614

Required Gross Potential Income $1,485,984

Forecasted Potential Rent $1,517,425

Excess Forecast Income $31,441

Pro-forma Mather Hall - Front-Door-Analysis

Front Door Analysis

Mather Hall - Prospect Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44102

Unit Mix #

Units Avg SF Avg Rent Total Rent

1 BD 30 650 $625 $18,750

$0

2 BD 0 $0 $0

Operating Budget


Gross Potential Rent $225,000 $231,750 $238,703 $245,864 $253,239

Vacancy @ 5% -$11,250 -$11,588 -$11,935 -$12,293 -$12,662

Effective Gross Income $213,750 $220,163 $226,767 $233,570 $240,578

Expenses


Controllable Costs - staff, legal, advertising - $500 per unit $15,000 $15,450 $15,914 $16,391 $16,883


Insurance/unit $150 $4,500 $4,635 $4,774 $4,917 $5,065

Total Expenses $30,188 $31,093 $32,026 $32,987 $33,976

Net Operating Income $183,563 $189,069 $194,741 $200,584 $206,601

Cap Rate 8%

Value $2,294,531



$2,294,531 0,0872

75% Loan to Value $1,720,898




Annual Cash Flow

$33,500


5.84%

Sources & Uses

Sources


Equity $573,633

Ohio Historic Tax Credits: 25% of Rehab Expenses $515,000

Local Target Development Funds/Grants $134,469

Total

$2,944,000

Uses

Site Acquisition & Purchase 16,000 sf $500,000

Mech/Elec/Plumbing Rough-Ins per sf $50 $800,000

Interior Buildout: Framing, Finishes per sf $60 $960,000


Soft Costs, 10% Total: A&E, Misc Consultants, Legal $256,000

Developer Fee/Contingency, 5% Total $128,000 $153 sf

Total $2,944,000

Pro-forma Mather Hall - Back-Door-Analysis

Project Costs

Site Acquisition & Purchase $500,000

Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Rough-Ins: $50 psf $800,000 Interior Buildout: Framing, Flooring, Finishes: $60 psf $960,000


Soft Costs, 10% Total: A&E, Misc Consultants, Legal $256,000


Total $2,944,000


19%

Cash Flows

Loan Statements

Year 1




Cash Flow + Annual Dbt Svc = Req'd NOI $183,563


Effective Gross Income $213,750

Vacancy 5% -$11,250

Required Gross Potential Income $232,688

Forecasted Potential Rent $225,000

Excess Forecast Income -$7,688

Pro-forma Third District Police Station - Front-Door-Analysis

Front Door Analysis

Old 3rd District Police Station

2001 Payne Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44115

Rental Income Total Sq Ft Rent / SF Total Rent

Existing Building 104,912 $12.50 $1,311,400

New Construction 25,000 $12.50 $312,500

*semi gross lease

Operating Budget


Gross Potential Rent $1,623,900 $1,656,378 $1,689,506 $1,723,296 $1,757,762

Effective Gross Income $1,623,900 $1,656,378 $1,689,506 $1,723,296 $1,757,762

Expenses



Insurance per sf $2 $209,824 $214,020 $218,301 $222,667 $227,120

Total Expenses $404,692 $412,786 $421,042 $429,462 $438,052

Net Operating Income $1,219,208 $1,243,592 $1,268,464 $1,293,833 $1,319,710

Cap Rate 8%

Value $15,240,100



$15,240,100 0,0688

75% Loan to Value $10,668,070




Annual Cash Flow

$485,245


12.13%

Sources & Uses

Sources


Equity $4,000,000

*combined from CMSD & State

Ohio Historic Tax Credits: 25% of Rehab Expenses $3,774,092

*Stantec report identified $8M eligible

Target Development Funds/Grants $650,000

Charitable Donations $504,206

Total

$19,596,368

Uses

Site Acquisition & Purchase 104,912 sf $0 *donated by City

New Construction of Addition 25,000 $180 $4,500,000

Mech/Elec/Plumbing Rough-Ins per sf $50 $5,245,600

Interior Buildout: Framing, Finishes per sf $60 $6,294,720

Exterior/Façade/Sitework $1,000,000


Developer Fee/Contingency, 5% Total $852,016 $144 per sf

Total $19,596,368

$0

Pro-forma Third District Police Station - Back-Door-Analysis

Project Costs

Site Acquisition & Purchase $0

New Construction of Addition for gym, cafeteria, etc $4,500,000

Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Rough-Ins: $40 psf $5,245,600 Interior Buildout: Framing, Flooring, Finishes: $50 psf $6,294,720

Exterior/Façade/Sitework $1,000,000



Total $19,596,368


20%

Cash Flows

Loan Statements

Year 1




Cash Flow + Annual Dbt Svc = Req'd NOI $1,219,208


Effective Gross Income $1,623,900

Vacancy $0

Required Gross Potential Income $2,028,592

Forecasted Potential Rent $1,623,900

Excess Forecast Income -$404,692

Appendix C - CSU Student Survey Results

1. Enrollment status

Frequency Percentage Full Time 727 84.1% Part Time 137 15.9% Total 864 100%

2. Student status

Frequency Percentage Undergraduate 618 71.1% Graduate 219 25.2% Law 14 1.6% Non-Degree/Cont. Ed. 18 2.1% Total 869 100%

3. Gender

Frequency Percentage Female 490 56.6% Male 375 43.4% Total 865 100%

4. Age

Age Group Frequency Percentage 18 - 20 233 26.7% 21 - 25 370 42.4% 26 - 30 121 13.9% 31 - 50 123 14.1% 51 or older 25 2.9% Total 872 100%

5. Marital status

Frequency Percentage Single 709 81.9% Married 136 15.7% Divorced 21 2.4% Total 866 100%

6. How many children do you have under 18?

Number Frequency Percentage 0 755 87.1% 1 43 5.0% 2 40 4.6% 3 or more 29 3.3% Total 867 100%

7. Home zip code (write in)

Unique Zip Code* Frequency Percentage 44107 56 6.7% 44115 35 4.2% 44130 32 3.8% 44060 27 3.2% 44114 25 3.0% 44124 24 2.9% 44134 24 2.9% 44102 22 2.6% 44118 22 2.6% 44106 21 2.5% 44111 20 2.4% Total 836 100% *Only zip codes with at least 20 students are reported

8. Place of work (select all that apply)

Work Status Frequency Percentage Do not work 194 22.4% Multiple jobs 96 11.1% Off Campus 536 61.8% On Campus 118 13.6% Total Unique Responses 868

9. If you selected "Off Campus" or "Multiple Jobs" for the previous questions

(#8), where is your main place of work off CSU? Place of Work Frequency Percentage Campus District near CSU 23 3.8% City of Cleveland outside of a) or b) 118 19.7% Downtown 81 13.5% Outside of Cuyahoga County 114 19.0% Suburb in Cuyahoga County 263 43.9% Total 599 100%

10. This semester, how many hours a day are you on campus on?

Day of Week On Campus* Percentage

Total Hours Median Mean

Monday 669 83.4% 4,625 5 5.77 Tuesday 673 83.9% 4,793 5 5.98 Wednesday 665 82.9% 4,753 5 5.93 Thursday 689 85.9% 4,801 5 5.99 Friday 479 59.7% 3,206 2 4.00 Saturday 122 15.2% 1,311 0 1.63 Sunday 95 11.8% 1,174 0 1.46 * Out of 802 total responses

11. In a typical day, are you on campus?

Frequency Percentage

After 6 PM 127 15.4% Before noon 359 43.6% Both 337 40.9% Total 823 100%

12. In a typical week, how many times do you go to one of the following

establishments that iswithin a 20 minute walk (one mile) of campus?

Location Total Visits Median Mean

Coffee House 725 1 1.38 Bar 263 0 0.50 Restaurant 942 1 1.79 CSU Farmer's Market 128 0 0.24 Total Unique Visits 528

13. On average, how much do you spend (food + tax + tips) when you eat

within a 20 minute walk(one mile) of campus? (respond in dollar amount)

Response Frequency Total Median Mean Breakfast ($) 181 $ 1,264.04 $ 5.00 $ 6.98 Lunch ($) 486 $ 4,698.58 $ 9.00 $ 9.67 Dinner ($) 283 $ 3,732.29 $ 10.00 $ 13.19 Snack/Coffee ($) 399 $ 2,065.04 $ 5.00 $ 5.18 Drinks Only ($) 306 $ 1,776.10 $ 4.00 $ 5.80 Total Unique Responses 653 $13,536.05

14. What is your preferred price range for a meal at new restaurant in the

neighborhood?

Frequency Total Median Mean

Minimum 725 $ 4,756.45 $ 5.00 $ 6.56 Maximum 775 $ 10,552.95 $ 10.00 $ 13.62

15. If you live on campus or within a 20 minute walk (1 mile) of campus,

where do you do your grocery shopping? (select all that apply) Supermarket Options Frequency Percentage Constantino's in the Warehouse District 9 1.3% Dave's on Payne Avenue 48 6.7% I don't live near CSU 564 78.9% Reserve Square 18 2.5% Steelyard Commons 114 15.9% Other: Various Dave's locations 2 0.3% Other: West Side Market 2 0.3% Total Unique Responses 715

16. What districts have you visited in the past year for entertainment and

dining? (select all that apply)

Districts Visited Frequency Percentage Art Quarter (Superior Ave. between East 17th and East 30th) 131 17.8% Asiatown 157 21.3% Coventry Village 361 48.9% Gateway (Prospect Avenue) 175 23.7% Lower Euclid (East 4 to East 6) 328 44.4% NineTwelve District (Perk Park & Walnut Wednesdays) 39 5.3% Old Chinatown 83 11.2% Playhouse Square 397 53.8% Tower City 511 69.2% West 65th and Detroit 167 22.6% Total Unique Responses 738

17. In your opinion, what other amenities are needed within a 20 minute walk

(1 mile) of campus (Respond 1 to 5, Not Needed to Needed): Additional rental housing units Not Needed to Needed Frequency Percentage 1 154 22.2% 2 57 8.2% 3 145 20.9% 4 123 17.7% 5 215 31.0% Total 694 100% A new grocery store Not Needed to Needed Frequency Percentage 1 88 12.1% 2 43 5.9% 3 140 19.2% 4 158 21.7% 5 300 41.2% Total 729 100% Better connections to existing grocery stores Not Needed to Needed Frequency Percentage 1 87 12.6% 2 55 7.9% 3 184 26.6% 4 163 23.5% 5 204 29.4% Total 693 100%

Drug store Not Needed to Needed Frequency Percentage 1 102 14.2% 2 95 13.2% 3 180 25.0% 4 151 21.0% 5 192 26.7% Total 720 100% Hotel Not Needed to Needed Frequency Percentage 1 252 37.6% 2 141 21.0% 3 163 24.3% 4 56 8.3% 5 59 8.8% Total 671 100% Live music Not Needed to Needed Frequency Percentage 1 124 18.1% 2 84 12.2% 3 156 22.7% 4 135 19.7% 5 187 27.3% Total 686 100%

Night club Not Needed to Needed Frequency Percentage 1 176 25.7% 2 102 14.9% 3 147 21.5% 4 117 17.1% 5 143 20.9% Total 685 100% Sports bar Not Needed to Needed Frequency Percentage 1 145 21.2% 2 98 14.3% 3 146 21.3% 4 130 19.0% 5 166 24.2% Total 685 100% Neighborhood pub Not Needed to Needed Frequency Percentage 1 146 21.3% 2 99 14.5% 3 169 24.7% 4 112 16.4% 5 158 23.1% Total 684 100% Dine-In restaurant Not Needed to Needed Frequency Percentage 1 87 12.5% 2 63 9.1% 3 155 22.3% 4 181 26.1% 5 208 30.0% Total 694 100%

Fast food restaurant Not Needed to Needed Frequency Percentage 1 194 27.8% 2 87 12.4% 3 120 17.2% 4 120 17.2% 5 178 25.5% Total 699 100% Organic, wholesome food store Not Needed to Needed Frequency Percentage 1 84 11.6% 2 55 7.6% 3 113 15.5% 4 138 19.0% 5 337 46.4% Total 727 100%

Other amenity needed within a 20 minute walk (1 mile) of campus (write in) Response Frequency Percentage Parking 17 17.5% Chipotle 6 6.2% Clothing Stores 6 6.2% Tanning Salon 5 5.2% Park area/green space 4 4.1% Coffee Shop 3 3.1% Hookah Bar 3 3.1% Ice cream/frozen yogurt 3 3.1% Movie Theatre 3 3.1% Affordable Housing 2 2.1% Comic Book Store 2 2.1% Arabic Food 2 2.1% Gas Station 2 2.1% Gentleman's Club 2 2.1% Post office 2 2.1% Starbucks 2 2.1% Vegan/Vegetarian Options 2 2.1% Healthy food 2 2.1% Total 97* 100% *1 included in total

18. What best describes your current living situation?

Current Residence Frequency Percentage Own home or Condominium 160 18.8% Rent at Langston 15 1.8% Rent farther than a 20 minute walk (1 mile) from campus 198 23.2% Rent within a 20 minute walk (1 mile) from campus 63 7.4% Resident in CSU dormitory 85 10.0% With parents 331 38.8% Total 852 100%

19. Would you consider living on or near campus (20 minute walk/1 mile) if

more housing were available and affordable?

Frequency Percentage

Yes 420 49.7% No 327 38.7% Already live on/near campus 98 11.6% Total 845 100%

20. If yes to previous question (#19), what type of housing best suits your

needs?

Frequency Percentage Dormitory Housing 57 11.6% Rental Housing Apartment 328 66.8% Condominium: Loft style 134 27.3% Condominium: Townhouse 142 28.9% Live-work (Stripped down and cheap) 24 4.9% Total Unique Responses 491

21. If you live on or near campus (20 minute walk/1 mile), or would consider

living here, how much would you be willing to pay for monthly rent (utilities

not included)? Count Total Median Mean Rent willing to pay 535 $281,587 $500 $526.33

22. If living on or near campus (20 minute walk/1 mile), what type of housing

unit do you prefer? (select all that apply)

Frequency Percentage I don't live near campus now 320 46.0% One bedroom 142 20.4% Studio 68 9.8% Three or more bedroom 63 9.1% Two bedroom 173 24.9% Total Unique Responses 696

23. Which of the following represents your monthly rent/mortgage? Frequency Percentage Less than $400 88 11.0% $401 - $500 66 8.3% $501 - $750 159 19.9% $751 - $1,000 123 15.4% $1,001 - $1,500 62 7.8% $1,501 or higher 21 2.6% Live with parents 281 35.1% Total 800 100%

24. Please rank the importance of the following housing features (1 Low to 5

High):

Renovated older building Importance (Low to High) Frequency Percentage 1 106 14.6% 2 70 9.6% 3 200 27.5% 4 153 21.0% 5 198 27.2% Total 727 100% New construction/recently built Importance (Low to High) Frequency Percentage 1 68 9.2% 2 61 8.3% 3 192 26.0% 4 183 24.8% 5 234 31.7% Total 738 100% Open floor plan/loft style Importance (Low to High) Frequency Percentage 1 68 9.3% 2 77 10.6% 3 192 26.3% 4 183 25.1% 5 209 28.7% Total 729 100%

Separate bedroom Importance (Low to High) Frequency Percentage 1 19 2.6% 2 19 2.6% 3 87 11.8% 4 175 23.7% 5 439 59.4% Total 739 100% Washer/dryer in unit Importance (Low to High) Frequency Percentage 1 33 4.5% 2 41 5.5% 3 95 12.8% 4 142 19.2% 5 430 58.0% Total 741 100% Washer/dryer in building Importance (Low to High) Frequency Percentage 1 50 6.9% 2 29 4.0% 3 101 14.0% 4 158 21.9% 5 385 53.3% Total 723 100% Cable Importance (Low to High) Frequency Percentage 1 100 13.7% 2 58 7.9% 3 131 17.9% 4 126 17.2% 5 317 43.3% Total 732 100%

High speed internet Importance (Low to High) Frequency Percentage 1 15 2.0% 2 7 0.9% 3 34 4.6% 4 94 12.6% 5 595 79.9% Total 745 100% Off-street parking Importance (Low to High) Frequency Percentage 1 25 3.4% 2 19 2.6% 3 57 7.7% 4 139 18.8% 5 500 67.6% Total 740 100%

Other important feature (write in) Frequency Percentage Pets Allowed 13 14.9% Parking Total 12 13.8% Air Conditioning/Heat 5 5.7% Gym 5 5.7% Improve Safety 4 4.6% Paid Utilities 3 3.4% Security 3 3.4% Security Improvements 3 3.4% Affordability 2 2.3% Dining 2 2.3% Dishwasher 2 2.3% Downtown 2 2.3% Green Space 2 2.3% Maintenance 2 2.3% Pool 2 2.3% Rooftop Usage 2 2.3% Total Responses 87* 100% *1 included in total

25. Do you pay rent by? Frequency Percentage Bed 50 19.2% Unit 211 80.8% Total 261 100%

26. What neighborhood do you consider Cleveland State to be in?

Responses Frequency Percent Downtown 303 49.4% Cleveland 67 10.9% Negative Description 33 5.4% Campus District 30 4.9% Urban 23 3.8% Positive Description 25 4.1% City 20 3.3% Playhouse 17 2.8% Don't Know 14 2.3% Campus 11 1.8% Euclid Ave/Corridor 11 1.8% Theater 11 1.8% Midtown 10 1.6% Other City/Neighborhood 10 1.6% Other Responses 10 1.6% Cleveland State 7 1.1% East 4 0.7% Quadrangle 4 0.7% Own Neighborhood 3 0.5% Total Responses 613* 100% *2 or less included in total

27. How do you typically get to CSU?

Frequency Percentage Bike 15 1.8% Carpool with others 52 6.2% Drive own car 582 69.4% Public Transportation 189 22.5% Walk 129 15.4% Total unique responses 839

28. Do you own a bike?

Frequency Percentage No 430 51.3% Yes 408 48.7% Total 838 100%

29. If you answered "yes" to 28, when the weather allows you, how many days

a week do you ride your bike outside?

Days a week Frequency Percentage 0 205 46.2% 1 71 16.0% 2 43 9.7% 3 62 14.0% 4 18 4.1% 5 21 4.7% 6 7 1.6% 7 17 3.8% Total 444 100%

30. If there was a more exclusive parking pass than the current green tag how

likely would you be to purchase it? (1 Low to 5 High)

Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 232 30.2% 2 68 8.8% 3 125 16.3% 4 92 12.0% 5 252 32.8% Total 769 100%

31. How important are the following neighborhood amenities when choosing a

place to live?

Greenspace/parks Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 50 6.3% 2 60 7.6% 3 135 17.1% 4 189 24.0% 5 355 45.0% Total 789 100% Bike lanes Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 206 26.9% 2 145 19.0% 3 187 24.4% 4 94 12.3% 5 133 17.4% Total 765 100%

Bike/pedestrian connection to the Lakefront Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 179 23.3% 2 106 13.8% 3 185 24.1% 4 129 16.8% 5 169 22.0% Total 768 100% Dog park Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 296 38.3% 2 132 17.1% 3 146 18.9% 4 79 10.2% 5 119 15.4% Total 772 100% Recreation center Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 46 5.9% 2 40 5.1% 3 127 16.3% 4 192 24.6% 5 375 48.1% Total 780 100% Walkable neighborhood Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 31 4% 2 13 2% 3 63 8% 4 156 20% 5 528 67% Total 791 100%

On street parking Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 81 10.5% 2 55 7.1% 3 185 23.9% 4 152 19.6% 5 302 39.0% Total 775 100% Access to public transportation Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 78 10.0% 2 68 8.7% 3 135 17.3% 4 154 19.7% 5 345 44.2% Total 780 100% Safety Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 10 1.3% 2 5 0.6% 3 29 3.6% 4 49 6.1% 5 705 88.3% Total 798 100%

Cafes and shopping nearby Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 24 3.1% 2 24 3.1% 3 95 12.2% 4 190 24.3% 5 448 57.4% Total 781 100%

32. How safe do you feel within a 20 minute walking distance/1 mile of

campus?

East of campus (towards University Circle) Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 231 29.6% 2 167 21.4% 3 200 25.6% 4 96 12.3% 5 86 11.0% Total 780 100% West of campus (towards Downtown/Playhouse Square Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 78 9.9% 2 81 10.3% 3 202 25.7% 4 238 30.2% 5 188 23.9% Total 787 100%

North of campus (Campus Arts Quarter) Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 132 17.2% 2 136 17.8% 3 298 38.9% 4 132 17.2% 5 68 8.9% Total 766 100% South of campus (Carnegie) Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 216 27.8% 2 196 25.2% 3 231 29.7% 4 90 11.6% 5 44 5.7% Total 777 100% Cedar Central Neighborhood Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 222 29.6% 2 163 21.7% 3 238 31.7% 4 75 10.0% 5 53 7.1% Total 751 100% On CSU campus itself Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 30 4.1% 2 39 5.4% 3 145 20.0% 4 216 29.8% 5 296 40.8% Total 726 100%

33. Would you consider living in the following locations if they were

redeveloped? (Respond yes/no)

Former Juvenile Court Building - East 22nd

Frequency Percentage Yes 115 15.6% No 349 47.4% Maybe 273 37.0% Total 737 100% Superior Ave Frequency Percentage Yes 169 22.7% No 313 42.0% Maybe 263 35.3% Total 745 100% Payne Ave and East 21st - Former Police Headquarters Building Frequency Percentage Yes 154 20.8% No 334 45.1% Maybe 252 34.1% Total 740 100% Cedar Central Neighborhood Frequency Percentage Yes 106 14.4% No 359 48.6% Maybe 273 37.0% Total 738 100%

34. If the rent and apartment conditions were what you are looking for, would

you consider living in a mixed-income development?

Frequency Percentage Yes 205 26.6% No 296 38.4% Maybe 269 34.9%

770 100%

35. A typical proportion of regular market-rent units in a mixed-income

development is between 20% to 80%. If you were to live in a "mixed-income

development", what's the minimum (lowest) proportion of market-rent

residents that you would feel most comfortable with?

Responses Median Mean Yes/Maybe 322 40% 40.6%

36. Besides rent and apartment conditions, how important are the following

apartment characteristics in selecting housing (1 Low to 5 High): Security Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 10 1.3% 2 5 0.6% 3 18 2.3% 4 84 10.7% 5 670 85.1% Total 787 100%

Available transportation to campus Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 43 5.5% 2 51 6.5% 3 103 13.2% 4 151 19.3% 5 433 55.4% Total 781 100% Nearby stores Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 17 2.2% 2 27 3.5% 3 95 12.2% 4 189 24.2% 5 452 57.9% Total 780 100% Other CSU Students Low to High Frequency Percentage 1 131 17.1% 2 90 11.7% 3 134 17.5% 4 128 16.7% 5 284 37.0% Total 767 100%

Date post:	10-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	taradsturm
View:	73 times
Download:	0 times

Campus District Plan

Documents