Cleveland Heights and University Heights Observatory

I would like to see a discussion of the growing list of large properties that are being, or have been shut down, in many of our neighborhoods. The future use of these parcels is of interest. In Cleveland Heights our homes and commercial districts/public use areas are integrated and part of a sensitive physical fabric that influences quality of life here.

The Sun Press reports today that school board has voted to continue to explore its approach how it handles the future of Milliken School in the Oakwood/Crest neighborhood.

Other notable large properties whose futures' are up for grabs:

St. Louis church and school, just north of Mayfield Road on Taylor
Oakwood Country Club
The vacant used car building on the NE corner of Mayfield/Monticello

Please add to this list and please post your comments on current planning issues in Cleveland Heights.

Millikin school is the only one of these properties that is any of our business, since, as taxpayers in the district, we own it.

St. Louis is nobody's business but the bishop's.

Oakwood is for sale - if you want to decide its fate, make an offer.

The former Pontiac dealer is nobody's business but Motorcars. Note that Motorcars is a major contributor to CH's economy, and respecting their property rights might be in the city's best interest.

What is the asking prince of Oakwood?
Or, perhaps, what is it worth on today's market?

I guess my point is not to belabor each individual property and the right of the owner to do whatever they want to do with it, but to point out that these properties make up a whole, and without a comprehensive long-term plan for the city, there is no direction laid out,no guidance, even for a starting conversation, about what the community might want to see happen to the physical fabric of their neighborhoods when big things go away.

"Community participation lies right at the heart of sustainable development. Sustainable communities will take different forms from place to place, but one thing that none of them will be able to do without is a broad and deep level of participation."
Action Towards Local Sustainability, website introduction, 1999

Wow. How many people here asked what the community might want them to choose as a career? Certainly there are people whose talents are just as valuable as several acres of undeveloped land. How many people asked their neighbors how large their family should be? That certainly has an impact, after all.



The fabric of a neighborhood, physical or otherwise, is in the people who live and work there, and I doubt there's anyone here, me included, who would suggest that we should control WHO should be allowed to live and/or work in our neighborhood.

As for community participation, that last point is significant. Most of the segregation of a few generations ago was the result of pretty concerted community participation, and it was stopped by laws saying that anyone who had the price of a house had a right to buy it and move in with whatever form of family they wanted, regardless of community sentiment about the impact on "the fabric of their neighborhoods.

There's a well known phrase that addresses this pretty concisely:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods - and goods includes real estate.

The disposition of properties is something that is the responsibilty of the property owners. However, there is great logic to the concept that great cities have been planned, not just happened. It takes more than the narrow interest of the marketplace to make great communities and cities. It also takes enlightened and socially responsible property owners who recognize that there is value beyond a balance sheet at the end of any given year. Fortunately, many, many property owners in Cleveland Heights believe and act that way. For example, it is rare that an owner of our Historic Landmark properties do anything that is in great conflict with keeping their properties well maintained and they are generally sensitive in how they execute additions and alterations. These owners are to be appreciated because not all communities are like this. As for existing vacant properties, owners can dispose of them as they wish, but they can still be judged by the rest of as to whether or not they are acting in a responsible manner or not. That judgement by a community is justified. We are all stakeholders in the quality of the place we live. That's the way a community works.

BY VOLUNTARY CHOICE. Like I said, buy the land, and plan away.



Sure, but then, so also is justified judgement by a community of many other personal choices, which also have an impact on the quality of the place we live. However,you'd probably call a lot of that intolerant. Funny how tolerance is all a matter of whose sacred cows are being slaughtered. You probably get all worked up when someone tries to impose values you don't hold on someone else, but you're blind to your own value impositions.

First, just to correct one of the previous comments, I also believe other personal choice and behavior issues also warrant community comment. Opinions may vary as to what is acceptable, but in our society we have the right and responsibilty to protect our community and its quality of life. There is too much silence about this, and it comes across as tolerance. It's not.
But this thread is about the empty "white elephant" properties in our city, so back to the topic. An empty property that is secured and not a nuisance or a safety risk is fine to be left vacant. It's usually better to keep the property standing until economic opportunites come along to make sale or rehab attractive to the owner. There's no point in landfilling stable buildings. Creative adaptive reuse can make these properties architecturally more interesting than typical new construction. Look at the condos in and around the former English Lutheran Church at Derbyshire and Euclid Hts. Blvd. Consider the Nottingham Spirk Design Center at the former First Christian Science Church overlooking University Circle at the top of Cedar Glen. Vacant churches, car dealerships and schools can all be re-used for new purposes. More developers, realtors, designers and builders should remember to consider this as an attractive option. It can be a real bargain over new construction. And it's the greener option too. I don't see a significant role the city needs to play here except maybe to introduce developers to builders and designers who can team up to find good solutions. We live in a community of creative people. Our properties should reflect that.
Lastly, as I've said before, I believe we have a dramatically shrinking population in our region. Cleveland Heights will lose population too, but not as much as it would be without our proximity to booming University Circle. We really don't need to add new development to the open space that remains. In fact, we would benefit from removal and re-landscaping of some of the most blighted abandoned properties. A city-wide plan for that could serve as local employemnt, re-development and improved property values.

Wow Brian. You've had quite a reaction to the simple suggestion that vacant-but-prominent cornerstone properties are worth discussing.

I haven't seen any suggestions that the owners are beholden to anybody, or that anybody is going to try to take their property.

But what you seem to be saying is that if someone has property for sale, and a person would like to put it to use but doesn't have enough money or the right combination of skills to do so, then it would be a violation of Biblical proportion to talk with others about working together on finding a way to make the property productive.

Personally, I'm not aware of where the Bible covers the topic of discussing such issues. And I know the U.S. Constitution covers it pretty specifically in the first amendment.

_________________
Lifetime resident
FutureHeights Board Member (speaking on my own behalf)
Site Moderator