Is "neo-industrial design" architect-speak for ugly as hell?

I think the "neo" means that the steel mill emissions haven't rusted the corrugated siding yet.

I thought "neo" was now shorthand for Northeast Ohio. I mean you see the "neo" thing everywhere.

But really, sorry I could not make it by the open house, however, I think the whole new housing at the corner of 9th and Brayton is an incredible improvement on what was there.

Those clumsy things overpower that portion of the neighborhood. They may be green, but they were not designed to blend in... takes away from the charm of those back streets!

so you think those high end projects are the wave of the future?

Yes, I do think projects like the neo-industrial one of which we are speaking are the wave of the future. While they may be "high end" in terms of cost compared to the houses on that street, I wouldn't describe them as "high end" in terms of materials, workmanship or architectural details. If I were buying a place in that price range I would expect solid surface counters, wood windows, decent trimwork and a floorplan that makes sense. Those places have formica counters, vinyl windows, the cheapest trim available, and the floorplan is ridiculous (I didn't make it to the open house so I have no idea what grade of fixtures were used, but I have a pretty good guess).

This project points to the fact that no one in the neighborhood appears to be paying attention to what is being built. One would hope that Tremont West would have some committee watching over these developers to make sure what is being built fits in the neighborhood and meets some standard of quality. Speaking of floorplans, for this neo-industrial design thing, someone let the developer get away with having 10' wide units, which is ridiculously narrow. Because they were allowed to be that narrow, the developer probable got 4 units in there where 2 or 3 should have been.

It seems that our CDC has taken the position that any development is good development and I am not sure that is the case. In my opinion, someone ought to stand up with a vision for this neighborhood, because unless they do, we may end up with shoddily-built orange spaceships on every corner.

To clarify park bench's #s, There are five units and they are 15' wide. I measured them myself, and also got a copy of the permit from zoning appeals.

I was appalled at the construction on this development. I lived on the original Clarence Ct. and this did not come near what should have been built. Sorry.

EH, if you feel that way, I encourage you to go to the block club meeting and make your feelings known. Phase 2 of these things is in the works and if it looks anything like Phase 1, we should be scared. It seems that some sort of reasonable review of what these developers are building must be done at the block club level, because TWDC is apparently doing nothing.

You should complain to City Planning if you don't like the new townhouses, or the formica countertops or the cheap trim or the floor plans or the metal siding, or the the red color or the 15' widths. They must review and approve all new residential construction within the City of Cleveland. The property owner must think that someone will like them, otherwise he wouldn't have built them. I won't buy one.

I don't like the idea that TWDC should be dictating architectural styles, window types, floor plans, colors, etc...to owners. That seems more like something that should happen in a gated community, or in some posh suburb.

TWDC's design input is limited to the Tremont Historic Design Review District, basically the streets fronting on Lincoln Park. The district used to include Professor and Literary but there was vocal opposition from businesses and home owners to limit the district.

You cannot expect the CDC to side with anyone else but the developer. The problem we are looking at is that every project is done by a developer.We see these Multiplexes with either 2-5 small units that look the same with the cheapest construction available. This is because they are here to make as much money as possible and will not be living there to see what they will become. These multi-unit projects exploit the charm and architectural diversity of the neighborhood.

The only way to have good development is to ensure the homes being built are single family and built by owner. CDCs do not support this unless one of 3 developers are doing the project.

David,
Wouldn't building some modern houses along with Faux Workman's Colonial revival actually increase the Architectural Diversity of the neighborhood? (or don't the style police like modern?)

Are you referring to one of the three developers that actually live in tremont? (Yes some developers who build here actually live here)

Why do you emphasise single family detached houses? The majority of Tremont's traditional housing is high density duplexes, tri-plexes and four-plexes, frequently two buildings per lot: front and back. Attached and high density housing is just more affordable, and more energy efficient. Density in inner ring suburbs is a good thing. Less cars commuting from Solon and Medina.

If you look carefully at Tremont's traditional housing stock, you will discover that they mostly looked the same when they were built, but years of rag-tag repairs, painting, reroofing, recladding with asphalt, aluminum and vinyl have produced the architectural charm and diversity you refer to. Entire streets of these houses were built by developers between 1900 and 1920, and they too were out to make money. This hasn't changed.

I have no issue with Modern or even Futuristic design, I personally prefer it. I agree that it increases the diversity and charm of the neighborhood.

I do not care where the developer lives.

Single family Housing is stable.

-Multiplexes are future rental properties (the fate of the 1900-1920 multi-unit homes built)

-They are more difficult to maintain due to the fact that there are more people sharing the building. What do you do if there is a fire in one of the units or one is not properly maintained? The same thing that happened to those units from the last Century, the whole plex starts a quick decline, it is bought and made in to rental properties.

To call these units "more affordable, and more energy efficient" is not exactly accurate.
-These townhomes are much more expensive to buy here in Cleveland than a larger stand alone in most of the suburbs.

-Energy Efficiency is a concern in few of these projects, Lori Prop. has some awesome features(in my opinion)to conserve energy but that goes unanswered.

-Efficiency and Green Building mean nothing if the structure falls apart in 30 years (More energy and materials required to rebuild), this is a stab at the poor quality we see in most new housing.

-Do you really think people in Solon and Medina are going to move to Cleveland to pay more for a 1200sqft unit than they did for their houses?

Not all of the Multi-Unit housing is bad, I love several of these in Tremont but feel that it is becoming over-abundant and will eventually cause Tremont's property values to fall or reverse the progress we are making. Money is a good thing, it is why we have made it this far but we need balance.

Your last statement is very true.

Thanks for the good conversation!

David

I've been to some of the new multi-unit homes being built in Lakewood (similar price point) and Little Italy (much higher price point) and their construction is very similar. The materials used in new construction - regardless of price - are pretty similar across the board, in Tremont, Westlake or any other place. Unless someone is paying top, top dollar, either for custom construction or for a unit in some really upscale development, it seems like it's all pretty much the same with a few cosmetic changes.

I think it would be awesome to get a developer or foundation interested in coming in to older neighborhoods like Tremont and buying older properties that are for sale and rehabbing them "green," with energy-efficient windows and doors, solar panels, floors and other construction materials manufactured from easily renewable or readily available sources, etc. Keep the look of the older homes, spruce them up and make them available to people who are interested in modern conveniences but not necessarily new construction.

While we're at it, maybe find a funding source to help folks who would like to stay in their older homes but who feel like they're being pushed out because they can't afford expensive repairs or continued upkeep. Some of these folks can't get low-interest loans and don't qualify for grants of any kind. Seems like there's lots of tax breaks and other options open to people with money...

Good to see some thoughtful posts.

Personally I've nothing against the "modern" look of much of the new construction. Some of it I am quite fond of. I think it would be wrong to dictate by committee architectural design, what color one should paint one's house or anything of that sort. I am also against designating areas "historic district". In both situations the opportunity for tyranny by committee is not only great it is inevitable. Zoning laws and set back rules are on the books already, use them. Quit giving variances to every developer who wants to squeeze in an extra unit or build right up to the property lines.

I disagree that inner-city or inner-ring suburban density is inevitable or desirable. I think this notion stems in part from the mindset that Cleveland can, should and will become a city of 700,000 plus again. Sorry no, not going to happen. Well not without annexing the inner-ring suburbs. There is no "need" to be rebuilding as dense as we are. Though there may be a short term profit in it. The risk is that it may recreate the instability and declining housing values that led to the great burning of Tremont.

Could Tremont and TWDC be doing more in terms of improving and updating its existing housing stock? Of course we could but that would require somewhat of a paradigm shift. Instead of continuing to focus on the north end where all the vacant land is/was. Shift to the south end, that’s the residential section of Tremont after all. Instead of new construction and tax-abatements for new purchases, promote and market the existing low cost re-hap programs and design new ones. Rather then fight against Steelyards Commons and Metro General expansion. Work with them to set up incentives for their employees to move into Tremont. They are doing it in University Circle we can do it north of Metro south of 490. Unfortunately there is little immediate profit in such an approach and little flash.

Res-dent, you noted in a different discussion thread on here that the 2001 Tremont plan called for access to housing from the alleyways. You are correct. My comment was that it discouraged new building on the alleyways. There is a difference between building a garage and building a house or townhouse a distinction the plan makes, I apologize for not being clearer.

Res-dent also wrote “Tremont will ultimately benefit from the East Bank redevelopment. At some point some of the apartment dwellers and condo owners will want their own yards, and nearby parks and playgrounds, and their own garage for their cars, and some real coffee shops instead the Seattle kind, and want to live in a real place in the city with some history instead of some ersatz Potemkin Village. I think Tremont will be that real place.”

I don’t see the chips falling that way Res-dent. First off we’re Americans we don’t want authenticity we want Disney Secondly, at the moment with a few exceptions we are not building single family homes with yards (a patio between your back door and garage is not a yard). We are in fact building the same thing(s) that are being proposed for the East Bank. Lastly, your assumption flies in the face of what has been the trend for the last 20 years and more. Children enter the picture, leave Cleveland. The empty nesters moving back into the city aren’t going to be shifting neighborhoods; they’ll be shifting levels of care and services. Grace hospital does give us an option on that last point.

TCJ

BOTH POSTS in THIS posting ARE correct. FEEL gonna hit a wall finally. ONLY soo many Yups. School thing. DEPENDS on WHICH schools. Elementary not bad. Tremont on Tremont pretty good. COPS do good job patrolling, doin their thing BUT....STILL lot of bluecollar, young wannabe UrbanHipChicCounterCultureSexInTheCityWunderCrew, hillbilly,etc.etc. On housing thing. SEE this FALLOUT. Banks, etc.etc.stuck w/stuff. COULD be wrong BUT....FINALLY County stuck w/stuff. Yards. To point yeah want one BUT.....A (*&*$*@ tryin to get one fixed IF go beyond basics like sparkplugs, etc.IF engine needs work, got choice. Get a spare, drop off for service in WINTER or creative landscaping.....OR just figure buy one x %# of years ..............

Steelyard. GOOD deal. Get affordable, available stuff were City can get tax $,etc.etc. Not this horrific deal of crosscountry for EVERYday common ((*$*&! stuff....Not having to beg, borrow, steal, etc.etc. Wellll. ANyways. STILL gonna have lot of that.......But least some jobs,etc.etc. OUR guyz can waltz doooown the hiiillll.....Wunder how long Steak n Shake gonna deal w/the 24 hr deal. CAN already see the ANTI crawl thru bars on the drivethru, cams,etc.etc. REALLy helps keep hood goin. Old folks to whutever. RTA,etc.etc. Presently mishmashpellmellhelterskelter whutever open/close at whutever time who may or may not take x cards, 'plans', etc.or have 'accounts', etc. EITHER way THEY are HERE. Will make X%$s. NOT gonna be the great Bonanza THEY think it will be but hey...........Stack it hi watch it fly...

Oh. PS. TremontScoops. NICE wallart. NOVEL. "Hidden' secret items. Makes one really look for stuff 'hidden' in the paintings......I have NO $ in this biz. NICE folks,etc.etc.Good place, food,etc. THEY try. Bar thing gets old......Prosperity, LincolnBar pretty good. Peace calm quit. IF want to talk, fine. If not...Stays open longER then Civilization. BUT SCOOPS should be ON the ArtWalk THEMSELVES.

I live on Brayton and everyday I almost smash a car because the tenants of "Clarence Court" do NOT use the garage and carport. Instead they park on both sides of the small curve leaving what can only be described as an accident waiting to happen, when my husband mentioned to one of the tenants that this wasnt a smart way to park he got a dirty look and a shrug. So BEWARE when turning from brayton onto fruit.

Is the car in question a hybrid or electric car? Because those types of cars have magnets in their engines. It could be the case that the Clarence court people parked their hybrids in back, but the magnetic pull between their engine and the big hunk of metal on the front of the units just slid the car right around to Brayton. Just a thought.

Many of the comments that are posted here are not accurate. The units are 15" wide, not 10" wide. Clearly the floor plan does make sense to many people, as 4 of the 5 units have sold thus far. The countertops on the model units are solid surface (granite)countertops. The construction methods are very high quality, and the contractor is one of the most experienced contractors in the city of Cleveland, someone that has helped build literally hundreds of homes here. And, the builder has an office in Tremont, contributing to the local economy in this way. Far from being suburbanites, one of the developers lives in Tremont. The others live mostly in Cleveland. We are city residents and employees and we want to see neighborhoods like Tremont thrive and grow.

lol. keep telling yourself that.
looked like a pepsi can to me!

Lee - We all want to see neighborhoods like Tremont thrive and grow. That is an easy thing to say. The disagreement is over how the neighborhood should grow. From the resident’s perspective, it appears that you builders’ idea of thrive and grow involves finding any vacant lot you can, and building a 35’ high structure that covers as much of the lot as possible blowing away any setback requirements or master plans. Then you want to cram as many units on this lot as possible, also needing zoning variances as you did on Brayton to make the units so narrow. Then you want to design the building using the cheapest architect possible (if you even use an architect at all), and most importantly, making no effort to design something that makes sense given the rest of the architecture in the neighborhood. Then you will use the cheapest construction materials possible (while of course putting solid surface counters in the one unit you call the “model”). What we are left with is five 15’ wide units crammed onto a postage stamp lot with corrugated metal running 35’ in the air nestled among bungalows/worker’s cottages/whatever you want to call them. Basically, you all want to maximize your profits at the expense of building something that fits in the neighborhood. So please save your pompous “we just want to see the neighborhood thrive” line. We’re not that stupid. If you really want to see the neighborhood grow, you’d read the master plan and try to follow the vision. If you can find where the Brayton units (or the units you are going to try to build off Starkweather) are consistent with the master plan, please get back to us with a line number and page number.

i think the units add to the diverse housing stock in Tremont. Tremont is an urban neighborhood that should have high density living. More people living in the 'hood = more eyes on the street, more business for the local shops, and higher values for your homes.

If you don't like the architecture, then don't buy one. But to belittle a developer who has comitted to building in cleveland, where many won't, is plain stupid.

If you've ever walked or driven down the streets off of Brayton - that area desprerately needs an influx of some money.

These developers aren't building in Cleveland out of the goodness of their hearts. They most certainly are turning a handsome profit or they wouldn't be doing it. My point is that they should do a responsible job and I don't think cramming as many units on a lot as possible with some design that doesn't fit with the neighborhood is a responsible job.

Apparently, you are among the lot that thinks that any development is good development and we should just bow down and let the developers do what they want. If that's your position, then let me know when I can take you on a walking tour of the neighborhood to show you some of the things that happen when no one injects reason into the process.

To be clear, I'm not against development and I agree with your points about higher property values, etc. My point is that we need to do a better job of asking the developers to consider what fits in the neighborhood, and not just let them build any old thing anywhere. And when a developer (or whomever's post that was I responded to earlier) starts telling us how they all just want the neighborhood to thrive, I call B.S., because there are too many projects around where their only motive was to build it big and build it cheap. Clarence Court, in my opinion, was one of those projects (certainly not the only one). If you don't see any problem with Clarence Court, then we can agree to disagree.

By the way, I note that you use a lot of words like "diverse housing stock" and "high density living." This sounds to me like language that a developer might use. Any chance you're a developer?

"High density living???"

That is one of the few statistics that can be directly linked to more crime.

More people, more crime. How much money or education an individual has makes no difference.

No particular background or current social status imparts any more or less likelihood of commiting any particular crime. Just how the individual may be treated if caught; and what resources to address the law enforcement process may be available to them if or when they get caught.

Just some food for thought for anyone who wants to engage in trying to improve the quality of living in Cleveland.

Which I do truly believe the vast majority if not all of those posting here are hoping will happen.

not a developer...just an educated individual who knows how to use words properly.

I understand your points. You may not care for Clarence Courts. I wouldn't buy a unit there - it looks like a strange abstract barn with the coloring, etc. However, 4/5 of the units have sold...someone must like them or they wouldn't be sold.

I just disagree with you that developers need to build units that fit into the existing housing stock...in my opinion, building small worker cottage-type houses do not fit into an urban landscape like tremont. If you ask me, I would love if the entire neighborhood (or any in Cleveland for that matter) would look like Literary/W7th with the walkup homes.

Although the new Valley View buildings are better then what stood there before, it is a development that I feel looks better situated in Westlake, then in an urban neighborhood.

"No particular background or current social status imparts any more or less likelihood of commiting any particular crime".

A guick google search found about a million claims to the contrary

Professor Resident, it seems like you and I have a significant amount of common ground.

You said: "I just disagree with you that developers need to build units that fit into the existing housing stock...in my opinion, building small worker cottage-type houses do not fit into an urban landscape like tremont."

I respond: I am not of the opinion that developers should be limited to building small worker cottage-type houses just because that's what's already here. If my earlier post gave that impression, I drafted it inartfully. I do think that, to be responsible, developers should consider how (or whether) what they are proposing fits in the neighborhood.

I completely agree with your assessment of the walkup homes and would cite that as an example of appropriate development. I would have put bigger front porches on them, but that is a matter of personal taste. And the only other issue with them (and generally) is why all new construction has to be built to the absolute maximum height allowable by law. In any event, if the Clarence Court developer had put something closer to those units on Brayton, I don't think we all would be having this discussion.

My take on why 4 of 5 of the units have sold is that those 4 units were in a unique price point for Tremont. I think there is a demand for new construction around $200,000 and those places are the only thing in that band. Note that the last unit is more expensive (likely due to the solid surface counters that have been touted) and has not sold. My sense is that the fact that those 4 units sold (even looking like they do) in that price range was not lost on developers, and I expect we will see more development in that range.

In my opinion, the fact that 4/5 have sold, however, does not ipso facto transform Clarence Court into a success. For the developer, certainly it was a success. They were able to cram lots of thin units on the lot and sold them. But look at what the neighborhood residents have to say about whether Clarence Court was a success:

"I think the "neo" means that the steel mill emissions haven't rusted the corrugated siding yet."

"Those clumsy things overpower that portion of the neighborhood. They may be green, but they were not designed to blend in... takes away from the charm of those back streets!"

"I was appalled at the construction on this development. I lived on the original Clarence Ct. and this did not come near what should have been built. Sorry."

"These multi-unit projects exploit the charm and architectural diversity of the neighborhood."

"Zoning laws and set back rules are on the books already, use them. Quit giving variances to every developer who wants to squeeze in an extra unit or build right up to the property lines."

"looked like a pepsi can to me!"

"I wouldn't buy a unit there - it looks like a strange abstract barn with the coloring, etc."

In my opinion, these comments speak volumes. At the end of the day, I am completely in favor of new development in the neighborhood. The extent of my complaint is that I would like to see developers exercise a little more "sense" (for lack of a better word) in the projects they propose. And I would like to see more residents speak up when something being proposed is objectionable to them. Historically, the neighborhood and TWDC have basically let developers run amok and, as this thread demonstrates, not everyone in the neighborhood is on board with that approach. If the neighborhood decides that it can live with its streets looking like what one might call an "architectural garage sale," then that is fine. Because if we continue to let the developers decide what is going to be built on their own, that is apparently what will result.

Irrespective of any differences of opinion, I think this has been a great discussion and illustrates what a great tool Tremonter is for the neighborhood.

everyone in the neighborhood has a chance to speak their mind: first, at the local block club meeting where every builder has to present their plan to the neighbors in order to get the block club letter of support, and then again at the board of zoning appeals meeting where every builder has to present their plan to the board members for their approval. that's your chance to speak (or scream) your mind and make your case. if you didn't speak up then, then shut up now. if you did speak up then and were overruled, oh well-- that's life. be happy someone wants to build in the hood and someone wants to buy in the hood. talented people are fleeing this area by the thousands every year. take your sour grapes and make it into wine and enjoy the neighborhood for what it is.

Although I agree with some that has been said here, those houses are not my cup of tea either, I do believe that they help a portion of the neighborhood that is sometimes overlooked. I have appraised one of the units myself, looked thru the last unsold one, and have talked to the builder at length about the others. I think that some people on here are giving the houses/builders/current owners a bad rap. To each their own, ya know. The interior was well done. All surfaces were nice including flooring and countertops. Both units I saw had granite for all counters, hardwood floors, and a fireplace. Sure it might not work for you, but it worked for other.
Have you done your research? How much have the others sold for? How much are they asking for the last one? I'll tell you, you will find a lot of similarities in those prices, I researched it. And there is a lot less profit in there than you think. Why some people complain about new construction confuses me. On one hand I would hope that it would open some people's eyes to want to live in this thriving urban area... and on the other I would hope that current residents would think, wow, there is really some improvement to the place I live, I want to contribute to that. Sure they aren't for me (design wise), but they are for someone, so let it go.

We shouldn't blame "the developers" for buying land that's for sale (or approaching homeowners to acquire property not on the market) and building on it. They've got every right to do it and unless there are constraints on that property requiring variances, there isn't much anyone can say or do about it. (That said, if you oppose a development, I highly recommend taking your issues to the block club and the zoning board. Block clubs have way more power than most developers would like and, in some cases, more than they should have.)

I wouldn't want to live in one of the Clarence Court properties or any of the new development in Tremont (not my style) but people do want to live there - whatever the price point - and I'm glad I live in a desirable neighborhood where people are making an investment.

I will say it makes me sad when I see old Victorians in need of some TLC - like one sitting up on a hill on W. 7th (or is it W. 5th?) - with big signs in front that say "Will build to suit," meaning the house will be torn down to build something new as soon as a potential buyer calls the property owner. In the case of the one I'm thinking about, it's especially sad since that house sits on a lot surrounded by other older homes which are not up for sale.

Too bad we don't have more funding available to rehab older homes so that their owners either could keep them or put them on the market at a price point high enough the property wouldn't be attractive to a developer looking to knock down the old and build the new regardless of the impact on the surrounding neighbors.

Color me shocked that a real estate appraiser, someone who works for a realtor, and someone on the board of TWDC would show up in this discussion to take up the side of the developer.

Development is great for the neighborhood, and we should do everything we can to encourage and support development. But the current method of merely looking the other way isn't working. Even the real estate appraiser and TWDC board member acknowledge that the neo-industrial design units are not a good fit for the neighborhood. And that's what happens when we (residents, block club, TWDC) let the developers decide on their own what should be built. As Professor resident stated way back up there, if the developer would have built something that makes sense in the neighborhood, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

When they come to us seeking variances for narrow units, or variances for setbacks, or variances for anything else, we should be asking them why. Why do you need to put 18 units on this postage stamp lot? Why does it need to be 87 feet high? Why does it need to be made of steel? Why is it so frigging ugly? Why if you say you care about this neighborhood would you not design something that fits in?

If we had been asking these questions all along, maybe we wouldn't have "orange crimes against the neighborhood" (to quote TCJ) and 35' tall spaceships, errrr innovative neo-industrial design with an open floor plan and a roof deck just steps away from neighborhood hot-spots.