Campus District Plan

CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY
MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING, DESIGN, & DEVELOPMENT

SPRING 2013 | UST 611 | STUDIO PROJECT
MAY 6, 4-6:00PM
Bonda Room
Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Aairs
Cleveland State University
Light refreshments will be provided.
CAMPUS DISTRICT PLAN
STUDIO
611
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
CONNECTED, ENGAGED, 24-7.
3
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. VISION STATEMENT AND GOALS
1.1 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 ASSIGNED
2.1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS DIAGRAMS..............
2.2 FINAL SITE PLAN........................................................................
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DISTRICT DESCRIPTION
3.1 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.............................................
4
5
11
12
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
28
29
31
32
34
36
37
43
45
46
50
51
53
54
55
56
4. MARKET AND NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
4.1 METHOD.........................................................................................
4.2 HOUSING DEMAND..................................................................
4.3 ENTERTAINMENT DEMAND...................................................
4.4 OTHER IDENTIFIED NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS ............
4.5 STAKEHOLDER INPUT..............................................................
5. STRATEGIES
5.1 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
57
58
59
62
64
66
69
70
73
81
91
99
106
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 Afairs. 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-proft Com-
munity Development Corporation created to man-
age the future of an important neighborhood on the
eastern fank 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 organizations direc-
tor. The Mission of the Campus District, according
to its website, is to connect Clevelands 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-
INTRODUCTION
tions 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 eforts 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 specifc recom-
mendations in four specifc 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, CSUs chief fnance ofcer;
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 universitys 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 Clevelands
downtown. Changing demographics and an infux 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
SUMMARY
The 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 nations second-largest unifed theater district, PlayhouseSquare.
To its north lies Burke Lakefront Airport and Lake Erie, one of the fve Great Lakes, which together
hold 20 percent of the fresh water on the worlds surface. To the east lies a business district linked by
a new bus rapid transit line to one of the worlds 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 felds including education, nursing, urban afairs, 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 Colleges Metro Campus lies on the southern fank of the District, alongside the regions 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 signifcant 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 fnd 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 ofered 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 OUTCOMES
LAKE ERIE
MUTIMODAL
HUB
OLD CHINATOWN / ART QUARTER
PLAYHOUSE SQUARE / COLLEGETOWN
ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS
PHASE I PHASE II
HOUSING
HISTORIC ADAPTIVE REUSE
SCHOOL, RESIDENTIAL, SHARED INSTITUTIONAL SCHOOL, RESIDENTIAL, SHARED INSTITUTIONAL
GREENSPACE & GREENWAYS
PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III
EXISTINGCOMPLETE STREET
INPROGRESSCOMPLETE STREET
PLANNED COMPLETE STREET
RECOMMENDED COMPLETE & GREENSTREETS
GREENWAYS
GREENSPACE
RECOMMENDED COMPLETE STREET
Euclid Ave.
Chester Ave.
Payne Ave.
Superior Ave.
Cedar Ave.
Central Ave.
East 30th St.
Innerbelt
East 22nd St.
Prospect Ave.
Community College Ave. / Quincy Ave.
Broadway Ave.
playground
dog
park
quad
plaza cap
phase II
CONNECTION
TO TOWPATH
ROCKWELL AVE
CROSS DTOWN
BIKEWAY
SUPERIOR AVE
BIKEWAY WEST
LAKESHORE
BIKEWAY
WEST
LAKESHORE
BIKEWAY
EAST
campus
district plaza
cap
phase I
plaza
cap
phase III
EUCLID
CORRIDOR
BIKEWAY
EAST
PROSPECT AVE
BIKEWAY
EAST
PROSPECT AVE
BIKEWAY WEST
SUPERIOR AVE
BIKEWAY EAST
760
1120
760
col l egetown
ol d
chi natown
warehouse
bl uffs
art quarter
cedar-central
st. vi ncent
prospect ave.
hi stori c di stri ct
asi atown
pl ayhouse
square
ni ne twel ve
di stri ct
gateway
30-50
250
200
300
200
125
400 150 80
LOW
INCOME
50
6
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
PLAN 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 benefcial 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.
Studio 611 did not fnd convincing evidence through the survey of student spending and de-
mand to justify immediate creation of a defned 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, fnally, Studio 611 recommends that the former Juvenile Court Building be
renovated as a jointly-shared ofce 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 infeld of the Innerbelt on-ramp at Chester
Avenue. New way-fnding 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 Districts lighten the load imposed by the district on the regional sewer system and would
reduce storm-related combined-sewer overfows. Moreover, additional greenery, parks and
trees would soften the Districts harsh, gray appearance and reduce its tendency to become an
urban heat island in the summer.
7
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Plan Vision and Goals
The Studio 611 Plan for the Campus District is based on a fve-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)
Ofer a diferent 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 beneft 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 afordable and welcoming
to current and future residents
Support current industries that beneft 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
SUMMARY
Data 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 Districts 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 signifcant 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 fne-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 fank 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 fow of the major avenues
that traverse the Innerbelt trench; north-south movements are more difcult 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 of 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 brownfeld 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
SUMMARY
Data 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 districts 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 Agencys 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 ofences 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
SUMMARY
Conclusion 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 Districts 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 wayfnding 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 eforts to capitalize on the rich investments recently
made in the area. The opportunities are exciting and too tantalizing to waste.
CAMPUS DISTRICT PLAZA RENDERING
11
1
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 Universitys most re-
cent master plan to understand the institutions 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 of 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 DISTRICTS
the university. Connectivity throughout the campus
and to surrounding neighborhoods was emphasized.
This was identifed 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
neighborhoodsand in some cases, within the cam-
pus itselfwas 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 Universitys 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 defned 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 States master plan demonstrates
that the universitys 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.
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
13
1
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, ofces, 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 nonproft 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 staf, 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 frst phase that cost a total of $44.5
million (McFee, 2010). MRN Ltd. used a number
of public and private lenders to fnance 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 Constantinos Mar-
ket (McFee, 2011). Before Constantinos 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 Johns. 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 Ohios 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 specifcally aims to retain the young profes-
sionals graduating from the university. A mixture
of retail, ofce, and entertainment uses defnes 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
15
1
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 universitys
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-foor restaurant and ofces on the upper three
foors. 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 ofce,
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
UMSLs master plan clearly shows the universitys 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 defning presences. The dis-
tricts potential is also enhanced by adjacent
assets that include PlayhouseSquare, down-
town, the Lake Erie shore and the Innerbelt
freeway. These strengths defne the neigh-
borhoods 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 fulfll 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 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)
Ofer a diferent 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 beneft 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 afordable and welcoming to
current and future residents
Support current industries that beneft 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 PRINCIPLES
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 identifable 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 Districts 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, unifed identity but also should not erase the distinctive character of each sub-district - where they are strong. To promote connectivity across the areas substantial divisions
and a sense of identity, Studio 611 ofers the following design principles as a framework to help achieve specifc 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-SCALED
The built environment should not only invite individuals to learn, live, work, and explore,
but should also ofer inspiration in daily life. Building heights and designs of frst 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.
GREEN
The 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.
WALKABLE
As the Campus District develops more residential options, walkability should be empha-
sized in building design, streetscaping, and transportation infrastructure. The fne-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.
CONNECTED
The diferent 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.
IDENTIFIABLE
The District needs to enhance its identity as a unifed, 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-
fnding systems.
RE-MIXED
The District should embrace mixed-use development, and spaces inhabited by mixed-us-
ers. It needs to recognize the often surprising collaborative possibilities of diferent uses
in shared space. It should avoid single-use development or the creation of single-use en-
claves or monocultures. Integrating diferent 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 MATRIX
The overall vision for the dis-
trict is refected in each of
the four individual plans and
proposals. The following ma-
trix illustrates how the fve
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
Visions
GreenSpaces
(Chapter5.1-5.3)
BuildingReUse
(Chapter5.5)
StudentHousing
(Chapter5.4)
Entertainment
(Chapter5.6)
Providespacesforstudent-
ownedbusinesses;
Encouragemixeduse
developments
Encouragemixeduse
developments
Collaboratetoleverage
developmentopportunities
Createretailoptionsthat
servethewholecommunity
(residents,employees,
visitors)
Attractbusinessesthat
benefitfromtheproximityto
theinstitutions
Wellkeptgreenspacesand
streetscapes;
publicbathroom;eyeson
thestreet
Establishastrongmulti-
modal,north-south
connection,
Createpedestrianfriendly
environments,
environments,
environments,
increasepublicandopen
spacesandimprovegreen
spacefunctionality,
encouragesharedparking
solutions,
increaseaccesstoexisting
lakefrontconnectionsand
potentialfuture
connections
Parkingstrategy,
north-southpedestrian
walkwaysandtrolley;
lakefrontconnection
Keeptheneighborhood
affordableandwelcomingto
currentandfutureresidents,
Keeptheneighborhood
affordableandwelcoming
tocurrentandfuture
residents,
createnetpopulationgrowth-
nostealingorpoaching
createnetpopulation
growth-nostealingor
poaching
Strategies
Wayfinding,parks,
increasedpublicspace
Permanentsupportivehousing
inMatherHall(ScenarioII)
Affordableandlow-income
housingdevelopmenton
E18thandSuperior
Concernsoveractualmarket
demandforentertainment
district
a24/7district
qualitygreenspaces
andequitabledecision-
making
maximizegreenstormwater
infrastructure
Goals
Promoteasenseofplace
enticingpeopletostaythat
mightotherwiseleave
Attractdevelopmentthat
preventsaregionalzero-sum
maximizegreen
stormwaterinfrastructure
Retailandbars/restaurants
ongroundflooralong
ProspectandCarnegie
CommunityEntertainment
OverlayDistrict
Goals
Strategies
buildingdesignwillbe
important(encouragehuman
scaledbuildings)
important(encourage
humanscaledbuildings)
important(encouragehuman
scaledbuildings)
maximizegreenstormwater
infrastructure
Goals
Increasesafetyandimprove
perceptionofsafety.
Strategies
Incubatorspaceforstudent-
ownedbusinessaspartof
institutionaluseoftheJuvenile
JusticeCenter
20
CHAPTER 2
SITE PLAN WITH
GOALS ASSIGNED
21
2.1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS DIAGRAMS
SITE PLAN WITH GOALS ASSIGNED
22
2.2 FINAL SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN WITH GOALS ASSIGNED
FOUR OUTCOMES
LAKE ERIE
MUTIMODAL
HUB
OLD CHINATOWN / ART QUARTER
PLAYHOUSE SQUARE / COLLEGETOWN
PHASE I PHASE II
HOUSING
SCHOOL, RESIDENTIAL, SHARED INSTITUTIONAL SCHOOL, RESIDENTIAL, SHARED INSTITUTIONAL
EXISTINGCOMPLETE STREET
INPROGRESSCOMPLETE STREET
RECOMMENDED COMPLETE & GREENSTREETS
GREENWAYS
GREENSPACE
RECOMMENDED COMPLETE STREET
Euclid Ave.
Chester Ave.
Payne Ave.
Superior Ave.
Cedar Ave.
Central Ave.
East 30th St.
Innerbelt
East 22nd St.
Prospect Ave.
Broadway Ave.
playground
dog
park
quad
plaza cap
phase II
CONNECTION
TO TOWPATH
ROCKWELL AVE
CROSS DTOWN
BIKEWAY
SUPERIOR AVE
BIKEWAY WEST
LAKESHORE
BIKEWAY
WEST
LAKESHORE
BIKEWAY
EAST
campus
district plaza
cap
phase I
plaza
cap
phase III
EUCLID
CORRIDOR
BIKEWAY
EAST
PROSPECT AVE
BIKEWAY
EAST
PROSPECT AVE
BIKEWAY WEST
SUPERIOR AVE
BIKEWAY EAST
760
1120
760
col l egetown
ol d
chi natown
warehouse
bl uffs
art quarter
cedar-central
st. vi ncent
prospect ave.
asi atown
pl ayhouse
square
ni ne twel ve
di stri ct
gateway
30-50
250
200
300
200
125
400 150 80
LOW
INCOME
50
23
CHAPTER 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND
DISTRICT DESCRIPTION
24
3.1 HISTORY AND URBAN RENEWAL
EXISTING 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 Districts 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 districts 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 conficting 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 fgure-ground drawing from
the 1950s shows a dense, tightly woven urban fabric
that contrasted sharply with the disconnected built
The fgure-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
The area that is now the Campus District had a
population of 31,023 in the 1920 census
1
. The mix
refected 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. Vincents 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. Vincents 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. Vincents 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 fgure 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 VINCENTS URBAN RENEWAL AREA
A map of the St. Vincents 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 CommunityCollege (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 defne 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
eforts 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 Ronaynes 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 diferences in emphasis among the
plans, but not in overall concept or direction.
The RERC/URS Dalton (1987) plan was the frst
produced for the Quadrangle (recently formed
in 1983 through the cooperation of the three
major institutions, CSU, Tri-C, and St. Vincents).
It proposed new retail and residential develop-
ment along the margins of the CSU campus, an
improved pedestrian experience along East 22nd
Street, and trafc and parking infrastructure in-
vestments to allow for greater daily trafc 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 VINCENTS 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 trafc 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 foor retail to intro-
duce economic development and foster sidewalk
activity. Residential possibilities were also identi-
fed. 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 redefned 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 unifed district. Yet the problems
addressed in the plans remain. The dis-integrative
efects of Urban Renewal and mid-century plan-
ning are strongly ingrained in the Districts built
environment and pose a persistent challenge to
eforts aimed at unifying the area.
Prepared by: Kyle Julien, Heather Ways, & Arthur Schmidt
28
3.2 geography
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 Clevelands 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 districts 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 diference 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.Vincents 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-
fc. 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 Clevelands 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 zoning
Studio 611 developed the zoning and land use maps in this section by drawing upon standard sources including the City of Clevelands 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 Use
c. 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 efect 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. Vincents 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. Vincents 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 defnes the boundary that the Campus
District shares with the Central neighborhood.
31
CHAPTER 3.4
DISTRICT ANALYSIS
32
3.4.1 districts and barriers
DISTRICT ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Ben McKeeman, Gregory Soltis, Kyle Julien
asiatown
old chinatown
warehouse
art quarter
collegetown
charity
playhouse square
nine twelve
district
prospect ave.
historic district
EXISTING & POTENTIAL
SUB-NEIGHBORHOODS
FIGURE 3.4.1.A NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE DISTRICT
EAST-WEST ROUTES
FIGURE 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. Clevelands
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 trafc 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-
fc in the Campus District, which fanks 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 bluf area overlooking Lake Erie
on the north end of the district, dominated by industrial
uses and railroads, does not invite or attract trafc either
from within or outside the district.
Barriers
The northern edge of the District terminates in the blufs
that overlook Lake Erie. Until the early and mid 20th cen-
tury, the blufs constituted the natural shoreline of the
lake. Landfll 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
landfll. 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 blufs
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 frst 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 trafc and is not
welcoming to pedestrians. Along Orange Avenue is the
citys main post ofce. One of the post ofce buildings
lies directly athwart the axis of East 22nd Street, termi-
nating one of the Districts 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 citys 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 citys 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 Districts 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 citys frst attempt at a live-work
zoning overlay district, enacted in 2001. The efort 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 Clevelands 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 citys frst bus
rapid transit line that connects downtown and University
Circle, the regions two largest employers.
South of the Innerbelt are the campus of St. Vincent
Charity Medical Center, Tri-Cs Metro Campus, and the
Cedar-Central neighborhood. The area is character-
ized by suburban-style ofce structures along East 22nd
Street; mid- to late-twentieth century brutalist style in-
stitutional structures on Tri-Cs campus; and public hous-
ing blocks which vary from post-war era development to
more recent Hope VI-style public housing.
NORTH-SOUTH ROUTES
FIGURE 3.4.1.C BARRIERS IN THE DISTRICT
34
3.4.2 demographics
DISTRICT 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 difcult to count accuratelycollege
students and the homelessand 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 population
DISTRICT 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 aford-
able housing or because they have disabilities,
substance abuse or illness that make it difcult
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-proft
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
Ofce 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 stafng 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 Ofce 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 mens shelter is at 2100 Lakeside Av-
enue, the womens at 2227 Payne Avenue. These
are also the intake sites for all homeless in the city.
Other homeless services are
the 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 Armys 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 infrastructure
DISTRICT ANALYSIS
asiatown
old chinatown
warehouse
art quarter
collegetown
charity
yhouse square
prospect ave
historic 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
Trafc in the Campus District fows
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 felds owned by the university.
Trafc 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 runof, and en-
hance aesthetics.
The 10,000 public and private park-
ing spaces provide the potential for
future infll 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 afect 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 Clevelands lake-
front. The railroads were built on both
sides of the mouth of the Cuyahoga
River to handle shipments of fnished
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 Clevelands lakefront. Norfolk
Southern operates approximately 35 to 40
trains per day on its tracks. Amtrak owns tracks
along Clevelands 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
Districts 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 of-ramps and University
Circle. Chester serves most of the CSU
parking garages. On top of increased
trafc 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 trafc 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 trafc.
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
trafc 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 signifcant
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
bufer 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 flls 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-
fc volumes, bike amenities could be
included. There are some parking lots
adjacent to buildings that would ofer
future development opportunities. Su-
perior Avenue has great potential to be-
come a vibrant, grand boulevard ben-
efting 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
sufcient 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 trafc 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 trafc and becomes
a pedestrian corridor between Euclid
and Chester. North of Chester, it serves
both as a local street and as an on- and
of-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
beneft 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
ones 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 campuss competitive-
ness, as well as the Districts 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 fow of regional and national trafc
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 efectively
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 afect 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-
fc to a reduced number of on- and
of-ramps. ODOTs main concern in the
redesign is to improve safety and traf-
fc fow. Businesses have challenged
whether removing exits will hurt them.
Midtown Cleveland Inc. fled a lawsuit
against state and federal transporta-
tion ofcials 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 afect 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 fnanced
(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 efects 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 safety
DISTRICT 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-
tricts 500 acres, it is important to review
crime data from two distinct areas. Cleve-
land State Universitys 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 specifc defnitions of what consti-
tutes an ofense. 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 staf. The crime fgures 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 ofences. The number of
alcohol and drug ofenses has increased
from 37 ofenses in 2007 to 159 ofences 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 staf 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 ofenses 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 fgure of 14 residents per major crim-
inal ofenses. The District with its relative
low density of just 3800 residents on the
415 acres has 23 residents per major crimi-
nal ofense. 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 mens shelter cost the
neighborhood many businesses and that one of
her employees cars is broken into at least once a
week. Additionally, while going to the interview
the student from this class witnessed the public
urination frsthand 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 ofset 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 frst step.
45
3.4.6 BROWNFIELDS
DISTRICT 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 diferent 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 flm 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 eforts for these sites and storage
tank leaks is generally outdated and
unspecifc. More detailed, site-specifc
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 classifed 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 classifed as a food 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 diferenc-
es in soil type, risk of food, or potential
for groundwater pollution for the en-
tire district and the surrounding area.
46
3.4.7 SWOT ANALYSIS
DISTRICT ANALYSIS
The following table summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the district
identifed in the previous sections. It also identifes future opportunities and
threats that the district will be facing.
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Anchor Institutions (CSU/St. Vincents/Tri-C)
Blank Canvas for identity development
New residential construction
Access to public transport
Historic building inventory
Available commercial space at reasonable rents
Highway access
Proximity to existing entertainment/sports areas
Access to educated workforce (CSU/Tri-C)
Adjacency to employment centers (UC/CBD)
Safety (or perceived lack thereof)
Clusters of poverty
Disinvested areas of public housing
Lack of local retail/services
I-90 trench
Fragmented nature of sub-districts
North/South District in an East/West City
Institution perceptions with residents
Historic building redevelopment
Extend reach of CSU police coverage
Increase number of residents/students in district
Cap sections of I-90 to increase walkability
Creation of a Neighborhood Entertainment District
Create N-S corridors to increase district interaction
Extend reach of Downtown Cleveland Alliance BSD
Create connections to existing Lakefront access
Weak leaning market for innovative projects
Possible market demand concerns for ofce/retail
Uncertainty of mixed income projects in Central
Lack of political will to accomplish big ideas
Institutional wants VS neighborhood needs
47
3.4.8 EXISTING BUSINESS INVENTORY
DISTRICT 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 LINKAGES
DISTRICT ANALYSIS
Campus District
Study Area
Campus District External Linkages Map Campus District External Linkages Map
Ryan Smalley PDD 611
Playhouse
Square
District
Playhouse
Square
District
AsiaTown
Cleveland
AsiaTown
Cleveland
Horseshoe
Casino &
Tower City
Horseshoe
Casino &
Tower City
University
Circle
University
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-
fed 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 signif-
cant social and economical benefts 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 Clevelands 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 trafc 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 3.5
EXISTING PLANS AND PROJECTS
51
3.5.1 2002 Csu Master Plan Summary
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, staf, 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 staf. 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
staf 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
identifed 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/staf 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/staf and students
driving their own car to campus. Addi-
tionally, while faculty/staf 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 fve 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/staf and .35
times for students. Varying reasons were
cited for the lack of interest in either on
or of 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/staf, and unmet
demand based on how often people ate
of 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 fnal 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 fgures 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 staf 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/staf and 4% of stu-
dents responding that there was a need,
and 13% and 5% respectively citing the
need for a hotel. The fnal 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/staf
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 fnal recom-
mendation was for 4,000-7,000 square
foot facility potentially located in Howe
Mansion. At the time of this report,
CSU ofered 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 staf
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 fnancially 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 Millionaires
Row; a business incubator north of Ches-
ter in a rehabbed building; and fnally, a
drug store and recreation center along
Euclid Avenue (pp. 22-24).

Since these recommendations were
made in 2002 Cleveland States 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 2009
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 identifed:
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
diferent options and price points of cap-
ping the Innerbelt. Furthermore, a transit
route has been identifed. Concluding,
the Campus District Connection Plan can
be considered the foundation of the cur-
rent work of Studio 611.
Transform E zz
nd
as Main 5treet
FIGURE 3.5.2 CAMPUS DISTRICT CONNECTION PLAN
54
3.5.3 E. 22ND STREET REDEVELOPMENT
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 Districts 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.
Vincents 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 classifed in
two diferent 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 trafc, as well. Pedestrians are few,
consisting primarily of employees in the area
who park there and walk to work. The sec-
ond classifcation 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-
fned 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 bufered from trafc 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-fnding 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 PLAN
MEADOW UPGRADED YACHT CLUB & MARINA
BOAT LAUNCH PICNIC POINT
NEW PICNIC SHELTER
BEACH CENTER
SCENIC OVERLOOK
IMPROVED SWIM BEACH
FUTURE TRANSIT STATION
LAKE AVENUE MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL / COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
SLEDDING HILL
WATERCRAFT BEACH
FISHING PIER
BEACH HABITAT
TRUCK & RAIL ACCESS
SCENIC OVERLOOK/ LIGHTHOUSE PARK
PORT RELOCATION
SHORELINE PROTECTION / BEACH HABITAT
RESTROOMS / CONCESSIONS
NEW PICNIC SHELTER
MEADOW
EVENT GREEN
NEIGHBORHOOD
EDGE NEW MARINA WITH ACCESSIBLE EDGES
UNDERPASS
PARALLEL BRIDGE
WEST BANK CONNECTOR
WEST BANK CONNECTOR
TOW PATH TRAIL
WEST 25TH GATEWAY MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL/ COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
PARALLEL BRIDGE
CONFLUENCE FOUNTAIN
LAKEFRONT BLVD.
EDGEWATER DR. LAKE AVE.
CLIFTON BLVD.
MAIN AVE. BRIDGE
MAIN AVE. BRIDGE
MEMORIAL BRIDGE
WEST BLVD.
BALTIC AVE.
W. 73RD ST
W. 65TH ST
DETROIT AVE.
DETROIT AVE.
W. 54TH ST W. 3RD ST.
E. 9TH ST.
E. 13TH ST.
E. 18TH ST.
E. 40TH ST. E. 55TH ST.
E. 72ND ST.
LAKESIDE AVE.
ST. CLAIR AVE. ST. CLAIR AVE.
ST. CLAIR AVE.
COURT HOUSE
CANAL BASIN PARK
CITY HALL
W. 6TH ST.
W. 9TH ST.
W. 45TH ST W. 28TH ST
W. 25TH ST LAKEVIEW TERRACE CMHA
WESTINGHOUSE MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WESTINGHOUSE MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
CLEVELAND BULK TERMINAL
NEW CHANNEL CONNECTION DRY RACK / MAINTENANCE FACILITY
GARRETT MORGAN WATER TREATMENT PLANT GARRETT MORGAN WATER TREATMENT PLANT
THE HARP MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL / COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
49TH STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
DON'S LIGHTHOUSE
PUBLIC-USE FACILITY AT 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 SHELTER RESTROOMS 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 PICNIC SHELTER
TERRACED GARDEN
SCENIC OVERLOOK WITH SHELTER
RECONFIGURED HERMAN PARK
MAX HAYES SCULPTURE PARK
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
RENOVATE HISTORIC STABLES
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL
EVEREADY MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL / COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
DETROIT AVENUE ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT
DETROIT AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
18 HOLE GOLF COURSE
FAMILY GOLF LEARNING CENTER PUBLIC ACCESS AROUND BURKE
PITCH & PUTT COURSE PITCH & PUTT COURSE
MINIATURE GOLF
LAKESIDE YACHT CLUB FOREST CITY YACHT CLUB
RENOVATE POWERPLANT TO WATERFRONT DESTINATION USE GORDON SHORES BOAT CLUB
BLUFF TOP GREENWAY
GOODRICH-GANNETT NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
RAILROAD TRACKS (EXISTING)
MARITIME SERVICE CENTER ODNR POLICE RESTAURANT RETAIL
KIRTLAND PUMPING STATION KIRTLAND PUMPING STATION
DRIVING RANGE
FEDERAL BREAKWATER
F E D E R A L S H I P P I N G C H A N N E L
CRAWFORD TRANSPORTATION MUSEUM CRAWFORD TRANSPORTATION MUSEUM
REDESIGNED INNER BELT CURVE RELOCATED SOUTH MARGINAL ROAD RENOVATE KIRTLAND PARK PLAYGROUND AMPHITHEATRE SPORTS FIELDS TRAILS LANDSCAPING ODNR & PUBLIC USE OF CCC BUILDING
NEW MARINA
WATERCRAFT BEACH
RELOCATED PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCH
FISHERMAN'S HARBOR
AQUAFILTER
AQUA FILTER AQUA FILTER
SWIMMING BEACH
EDGE LOOP TRAIL WITH OVERLOOKS
UPDATED INTER CITY YACHT CLUB
LAND BRIDGE
LAND BRIDGE
ACTIVE PARK
PICNIC AREA PICNIC AREA BLUFF TOP COMMUNITY RECREATION & AQUATIC CENTER
CORPORATE OFFICE/ RESIDENTIAL CORPORATE 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
OUTDOOR CLASSROOM IN PRAIRIE OUTDOOR CLASSROOM IN PRAIRIE
BEACH CENTER
UPDATED 55TH STREET MARINA
REDEVELOPED FACILITY PUBLIC USE RESTAURANT
I-90
I-90 I-90
LAKEFRONT BLVD.
LAKEFRONT TRAIL
WATERFRONT RETAIL
SKATE PARK SKATE PARK
BASKETBALL BASKETBALL
ROCKEFELLER PARK LINKAGE
ST. PHILIP NERI CHURCH
REGIONAL RETAIL AT FORMER WHITE MOTORS SITE
RENOVATE WHITE MOTORS FACTORY TO REGIONAL RETAIL
PARKSIDE RESIDENTIAL EXTEND MLK JR. DRIVE THROUGH GORDON PARK
TENNIS TENNIS
RENOVATED SAM MILLER PARK
FIRST ENERGY WITH CLEAN ENERGY PRACTICES FIRST ENERGY WITH CLEAN ENERGY PRACTICES
MODIFIED INTAKES & OUTLETS
L A K E E R I E
L A K E E R I E
OVERLOOKS & FISHING PLATFORMS (TYP.)
PUBLIC ACCESS AROUND BURKE
RENOVATED GREENHOUSES
RENOVATED CHARLES LAKE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS CENTER
FUTURE TRANSIT STATION FUTURE TRANSIT STATION
BUFFER
BUFFER
GREEN ROOF OVER STRUCTURED PARKING FUTURE TRANSIT STATION & TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
ST. VITUS CHURCH & VILLAGE ST. MARTINDE PORRES HIGH SCHOOL
MLK DRIVE
GARRETT MORGAN EXPANSION
MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL
MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL
RIVER POINT
PICNIC MEADOW WHARF HOUSING
FERRY TERMINAL FERRY TERMINAL
WATERFRONT RETAIL
GREAT LAWN
TRUCK QUEUING AREA FOR FERRY
MULTI-PURPOSE DECK
OVERLOOK
BROWNS STADIUM
MUSEUM CAMPUS
RECONFIGURED VOINOVICH PARK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE RELOCATED WILLIAM G. MATHER MUSEUM RESTAURANT & MATHER PORTSIDE ADDITION
MARITIME BASIN
USS COD ROCK HALL EXPANSION ROCK HALL EXPANSION
SCIENCE CENTER EXPANSION SCIENCE CENTER EXPANSION
CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION
GOODTIME III
WATERFRONT LINE STATION
SKATE PARK SKATE PARK
RELOCATED COAST GUARD RELOCATED HORNBLOWER'S RESTAURANT
EXISTING TERMINAL
CORPORATE OFFICE DISTRICT SERVICE COMMERCIAL
POTENTIAL FUTURE EXPANSION OF CITY GRID TO WATERFRONT AIRPORT INTERPRETATION PARK
STRUCTURED PARKING / COMMERCIAL
RIVERWALK
WATER WALL TRANSIENT MARINA
ROCK BLOCK MIXED USE HOTEL
RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ON PHASED PARKING STRUCTURE
MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
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 & MARINA WITH ACCESSIBLE EDGES NEW HARBOR & MARINA WITH ACCESSIBLE EDGES
NATURE CENTER AT ODNR FACILITY
EXTEND DOAN BROOK TO LAKE ERIE
NATURE CENTER AT ODNR FACILITY
EXTEND DOAN BROOK TO LAKE ERIE
cleveland waterfront district plan
EDGEWATER PARK HARBORFRONT DI STRI CT 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 magnicent, 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 frst 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-
lands 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 citys West Side to Gordon
Park on the East Side (Cleveland Plan-
ning Commission, 2012b). The plans
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 bluf 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 PLAN
Cleveland State University and Tri-C have
several thousand students and employees
who commute to campus every day. The
planning eforts 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 RTAs
major transportation investments until 2025.
One of RTAs 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 frst 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 citys 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 Lines 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 frst. 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 reconfguration 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).
RTAs 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 RTAs major projects (RTA, 2012).
Prepared by: Heather Ways & Sungbum Yoon
FIGURE 3.5.5 RTAS PRIORITY CORRIDORS
RTAs 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
reconfguration 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 METHOD
MARKET AND NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
The 2002 Cleveland State University Master
Plan included a student survey that collected
useful 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 CSUs cam-
pus. Some questions were re-used or altered
to refect 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
Universitys Internal Review Board approved
the survey instrument, and this approval is
necessary to conduct research through the
university.
A stratifed 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 frst 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 frst 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 fndings 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 of 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 DEMAND
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 universitys 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 defne
the housing product that will be ofered. Ta-
ble 4.2.8 allowed students to rank the impor-
tance of various housing features on a scale
of 1 to 5, with fve being very important.
High-speed internet ranked as the most im-
portant feature with of-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 DEMAND
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/cofee, 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. Daves on Payne Avenue was
frequented by 6.7% and Constantinos 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 Daves
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 Clevelands 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 didnt 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 NEEDS
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 fve 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 INPUT
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 areas 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 confdential to
ensure privacy and met the guidelines of the
universitys 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 Tommys 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 areas 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 scientifcally, 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 isnt,
perhaps because so much of its surface feels
gray and barren and is dominated by surface
parking. And, fnally, 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
techniquessimply, 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 Theorya 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
4.6.1 Identity
Unsurprisingly, stakeholder input refected
some ambiguity in the identity associated with
the Campus District. There were some themes
identifed 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 identifed the
identity of the District as being primarily tied
to the institutions located within its imme-
diate area and boundariesacademic and
medical.
- Five stakeholders mentioned the identity be-
ing fragmented or disjointed, the District en-
compassing many diferent identities.
- Stakeholders did have a positive view in terms
of an emerging, dynamic environment with
much opportunity or potentialas fve 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 fnd-
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 specifc 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)
- Cofee Shop (3)
- Food Trucks (1)
- Ice Cream Establishment (1)
- Yogurt Establishment (1)
- Healthy Food Option (1)
- Bar (2)
- Afordable (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)
- Afordable (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-
ersincluding lowering barriers for permits, etc.,
ofering 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 afordable rents, increasing
the quality of schools, inclusion of green space, and
the inclusion of additional retail and amenities.
68
4.6.3 SAFETY
Stakeholders largely felt safe within the districtbut
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 infuencing the safety or perception
of safety within the district. Vacant buildings, lack
of people on the street, and lack of sufcient light-
ing were also mentioned as factors.
- Only 10 respondents supported additional police
involvement within the districtwhile 15 believe
that additional police presence wouldnt dramati-
cally impact the safety or the area or that it is suf-
fciently covered by city and Cleveland State Uni-
versity police staf.
- Expansion of the Downtown Cleveland Alliances
Clean and Safe Ambassadors Program was gen-
erally supported by many stakeholders (43.5 per-
cent), but fve respondents also mentioned the
cost of the program being prohibitive.
4.6.4 Assets and Challenges
The assets identifed by stakeholders were fairly di-
verse, but largely fell into four diferent 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. Vincents (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)
- Defnable Edges (1)
- Engaged Leadership (1)
- Low-Cost Land (1)
- Density (1)
- Police Station Protection (1)
Stakeholders ofered up a much more diverse set of
challenges faced by the districtbut 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.
- Conficting 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)
- Identifcation of Suitable Development Locations (1)
- The Economy (1)
- Not Leveraging Location (1)
- Money (1)
- Turnover in Leadership (1)
- Insufcient 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 BRANDING
STRATEGIES
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 specifc
institutions, such as Cleveland State University,
St. Vincent Charity Hospital or the Tri-C Metro.
Some identifed 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-
fnding signs with the Campus District brand
emphasized on each.
Prepared by: Arthur Schmidt and Gregory Soltis
71
The wayfnding signs are designed to address a
specifc 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 wayfnding 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 wayfnding 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 ofered. 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
Other streetscape elements would include
street trees and other landscaping to welcome
all users. Special lighting could be oriented to
the diferent 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 wayfnding 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 wayfnding 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 DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGIES
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
runof, 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, flter and
decrease stormwater runof. 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 trafc, 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
runof in cisterns or disconnecting down-
spouts can divert runof 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 runof 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 of to the storm sewer.
Examples of green stormwater infrastruc-
ture range from sophisticated examples
such as Houtan Park in Shanghai, China
- where turbid industrial runof is fltered
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
overfows 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, flter stormwater runof, and
decrease the heat island efect 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 MAP
5.2.1 Complete and Green Streets
East 18th St.
LAKE ERIE
RED, GREEN & BLUE LINE
RAPID STOPS
WATERFRONT LINE RAPID STOPS
RAPID, TROLLEY, CAR
SCHOOL, RESIDENTIAL, SHARED INSTITUTIONAL
TRANSPORTATION
RAPID STOPS
RAPID, TROLLEY, CAR
EXISTING COMPLETE STREET
IN PROGRESS COMPLETE STREET
RECOMMENDED COMPLETE & GREEN STREETS
GREENWAYS
GREENSPACE
playground
dog
park
quad
plaza cap
phase II
CONNECTION
TO TOWPATH
ROCKWELL AVE
CROSS DTOWN
BIKEWAY
SUPERIOR AVE
BIKEWAY WEST
LAKESHORE
BIKEWAY
WEST
LAKESHORE
BIKEWAY
WEST
campus
district plaza
cap
phase I
plaza
cap
phase III
EUCLID
CORRIDOR
BIKEWAY
EAST
PROSPECT AVE
BIKEWAY
EAST
PROSPECT AVE
BIKEWAY WEST
SUPERIOR AVE
BIKEWAY EAST
Euclid Ave.
Chester Ave.
Payne Ave.
Superior Ave.
Cedar Ave.
Central Ave.
E a s t 3 0 t h S t .
I n
n
e
r b
e
l t
East 22nd St.
Prospect Ave.
col l egetown
prospect ave.
asi atown
ol d
chi natown
warehouse
bl uffs
art quarter
cedar-central
st. vi ncent
pl ayhouse
square
ni ne twel ve
di stri ct
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 trafc 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-
cifcally 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 of-ramps and adding marginal
roads. ODOTs 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 space
2) Bridge with retail building
3) Cap the interbelt in three phases
1) Wider bridges with green space
The 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 Clevelands 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 fnd 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 fnanced 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 diferent potential
confgurations for an Innerbelt cap (see dia-
grams).
1) Small cap between East 22nd and Cedar
2) Cap from East 22nd Street bridge to
Carnegie crossing
3) Cap from East 22nd Street bridge to
Euclid crossing
1) Small cap between East 22nd Bridge and
Cedar
This 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 signifcance
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 crossing
If 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 crossing
Capping 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 benefts
of the above strategies would need to be un-
dertaken. Bostons 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 fnance 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 specifc 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 runof in the District and tie up prime
land that could be developed.
Goals of the Campus District Plan include
increasing density, reducing stormwater
runof, and flling 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 benefcial 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 quantifed 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
of-street parking would be very impor-
tant to them if they considered renting
on campus. Additionally 18.8% (139 stu-
dents) indicated that of-street parking
would be important to them. To deter-
mine the new demand, Studio 611 used
data from ESRIs ACS Housing Survey as
well as ESRIs Demographic and Income
Profle 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
fcult 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 developments 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 diferent
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 of 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 bluf just north of Lakeside Avenue that
runs the entire width of the District. The bluf
slowly decreases in height as one travels east.
Currently, there is no way to traverse the bluf.
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 areas 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 bluf 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 bluf 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 blufs.
East 26th Street is the only street in the Dis-
trict that crosses the bluf at a point where the
elevation is low enough to be crossed by bike
or on foot. The frst 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 ofer
amazing views of the Lake, a recreational ben-
eft in itself. There are a number of diferent
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
bluf is at the end of East 18th Street.This site
is above the fnal 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 bluf. 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 blufs. As mentioned pre-
viously there is currently a Metroparks bike
trail along North Marginal Road. Accessing
this would require crossing six lanes of trafc
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 trafc
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
bluf. 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 childrens 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
bluf 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 citys ability to
negotiate with ODOT over turning the Shore-
wayinto an urban boulevard.
81
5.3 GREENING THE DISTRICT
STRATEGIES
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 fve 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 CSUs 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 frst been set
out by the plan Connecting Cleveland State developed by Kent States 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 feld 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 trafc 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
prospect ave.
asi atown
ol d
chi natown
warehouse
bl uffs
art quarter
col l egetown
cedar-central
st. vi ncent
pl ayhouse
square
ni ne twel ve
di stri ct
OFF STREET PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
PEDESTRIAN LINKS
Euclid Ave.
Chester Ave.
Payne Ave.
Superior Ave.
Cedar Ave.
Central Ave.
E a s t 3 0 t h S t .
E a s t 1 8 t h S t .
East 22nd St.
I n n e r b e l 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 eforts by CSU.
One approach to fnancing 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 Bartholomews 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 fve 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 trafc 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 downtowns 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. CSUs 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
MULTIMODAL
HUB
EXISTING E-LINE
TROLLEY
760
1120
760
Euclid Ave.
Chester Ave.
Payne Ave. Superior Ave.
Cedar Ave.
Central Ave.
East 30th St.
Innerbelt
East 22nd St.
Prospect Ave.
I-77
Broadway Ave.
col l egetown
prospect ave.
asi atown
ol d
chi natown
warehouse
bl uffs
art quarter
cedar-central
st. vi ncent
pl ayhouse
square
ni ne twel ve
di stri ct
gateway
RAPID STOPS
SCHOOL, RESIDENTIAL, SHAREDINSTITUTIONAL
PROPOSED PARKING 760
PROPOSED CAMPUS
DISTRICT TROLLEY
C C
RAPID, TROLLEY, BUS, CAR
TRANSPORTATION
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 of 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
5.3.2 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 signifcantly 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 benefts, often time the need for quality open space is
disregarded due to development pressures, parking needs, or safety concerns. Con-
sidering the benefts of public open space for a campus and the traditional idea of the
campus quad, this plan identifed 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 briefy.
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 Plazas 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 diferent 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 trafc. Car trafc
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 trafc.[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 trafc 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 CSUs 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 fve
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 sufcient 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 Euclids character as an
avenue. Currently Euclids 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 faade 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-
fed 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 CSUs 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 interventions
As 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 faades 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 grafti-artists
to paint murals on faades. 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 trafc.
Once the lots are acquired, the improvements need to be fnanced. Improvements could be
fnanced through city funds and voter-approved general obligation bonds, private donations,
impact fees, tax-increment fnancing, 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 ofer their services.
Recommendations
As a frst 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 foor area. (2) Plazas or public spaces shall incorporate at least
three of the fve 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, eforts 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 fnal 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
5.3.3 Green Buildings and Infrastructure
The Campus District has little green space to absorb
stormwater runof. 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 overfow
annually. Part of the solution is managing stormwater
runof. 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 runof.
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). Clevelands 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
Services 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 fush 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 Clevelands 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 diferent 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).
Chicagos 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 of 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
runof 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 HOUSING
STRATEGIES
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
universitys history (Ofce 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 efects 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.
Gentrifcation 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 difcult as it
can often force universities into acquiring real
estate to control the infuences 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 specifc plans they
have for these sites. This has caused churn on
and of 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 fll 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 confdence 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-fve of Cleveland State stu-
dent respondents said safety was a very impor-
tant consideration when choosing their housing.
Of-street parking, private entrances, and other
security amenities are important aspects to in-
clude when developing housing in the neighbor-
hood.

Housing afordability will a driving forces for
the housing market in the Campus District. The
neighborhood benefts from the proximity to the
downtown Cleveland market, which has higher
than average rents and lower vacancy rates.
The Campus District can build of 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 difcult 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 difcult 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 fgured 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 fnal
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 ft
for diferent 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 Report
3.Afordable 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 report
5.NOI/Cap Rate=Housing Value NOI= Annual Gross Rent-
Operating Expenses assume 15% of Gross rent is operating
expenses, and 7.5% cap rate for downtown apartment
6. 2011 Renter Occupied Housing Units in CD source: ESRI
analysis report
7. Total Supply=Owner Occupied units + Renter Occupied
units
8. Net Demand=HH numbers within the market area Total
housing supply within Campus District
9. 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, specifcally) has improved since the
onset of the housing crises and recession, the availability of fnancing 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 fnanced. 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 qualifed outlook. The Campus District has much to ofer, but getting
rents similar to those of the Warehouse District and East 4th Street are currently unrealistic. Dis-
trict branding eforts and the addition of restaurants, bars, and other entertainment/recreation
options should help to increase asking rents over the next fve years.
5.4.4 Phase I - Jewish Community Federation Building and Prospect
It is proposed that new units frst be constructed along Euclid and Prospect Avenues. Specifc
sites have been identifed (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, ofering the restaurants and entertainment amenities that most
tenants look for.
The frst site identifed 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 sites 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-foor 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.

HOUSING
LAKE ERIE
MULTIMODAL
HUB
East 18th St.
Euclid Ave.
Chester Ave. Payne Ave.
Superior Ave.
Cedar Ave.
Central Ave.
E a s t 3 0 t h S t .
I n
n
e
r
b
e
l t
East 22nd St.
Prospect Ave.
Broadway Ave.
760
1120
760
30-50
250
200
300
200
125
400 150 80
LOW
INCOME
50
RAPID STOPS
SCHOOL, RESIDENTIAL, SHAREDINSTITUTIONAL
PHASE I PHASE II
PROPOSED PARKING 760
PROPOSED CAMPUS
DISTRICT TROLLEY
C C
HOUSING
RAPID, TROLLEY, BUS, CAR
TRANSPORTATION
col l egetown
ol d
chi natown
warehouse
bl uffs
art quarter
cedar-central
st. vi ncent
prospect ave.
asi atown
pl ayhouse
square
ni ne twel ve
di stri ct
gateway
FIGURE 5.4.3 SITE PLAN HOUSING
95
Also included in the frst 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 fnanced 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 fve 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 Langstons
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 foor of a new mixed-use building with
approximately 80 housing units above. This project could also be partially
fnanced 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 beneft 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 identifed 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 signifcant 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-cvisions
FIGURE 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 REUSES
STRATEGIES
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 fank
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 signifcantly to the Districts historic character and
sense of place.
East 18th St.
LAKE ERIE
RAPID STOPS
RAPID, TROLLEY, CAR
TRANSPORTATION
RAPID STOPS
RAPID, TROLLEY, CAR
EXISTING COMPLETE STREET
IN PROGRESS COMPLETE STREET
RECOMMENDED COMPLETE & GREEN STREETS
GREENWAYS
GREENSPACE
playground
dog
park
quad
plaza cap
phase II
CONNECTION
TO TOWPATH
ROCKWELL AVE
CROSS DTOWN
BIKEWAY
SUPERIOR AVE
BIKEWAY WEST
LAKESHORE
BIKEWAY
WEST
LAKESHORE
BIKEWAY
WEST
campus
district plaza
cap
phase I
plaza
cap
phase III
EUCLID
CORRIDOR
BIKEWAY
EAST
PROSPECT AVE
BIKEWAY
EAST
PROSPECT AVE
BIKEWAY WEST
SUPERIOR AVE
BIKEWAY EAST
Euclid Ave.
Chester Ave.
Payne Ave.
Superior Ave.
Cedar Ave.
Central Ave.
E a s t 3 0 t h S t .
I n
n
e
r b
e
l t
East 22nd St.
Prospect Ave.
col l egetown
prospect ave.
asi atown
ol d
chi natown
warehouse
bl uffs
art quarter
cedar-central
st. vi ncent
pl ayhouse
square
ni ne twel ve
di stri ct
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 STATION
The 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 ferce-
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 fnance 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 schools 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 fve 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 trafc, but
in a controlled, shared-use manner. During morn-
ing and afternoon drop-of and pickup times, the
street would function as a bus zone for children.
During school hours, trafc 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 foors could
be gutted back to structural members and renovated
with new foor layouts. The building is not appropri-
ate for retail/commercial uses, and multi-tenant ofce
space would be difcult to accommodate. Housing uses
are also hampered by the building layout. The Ferchill
study, however, found that high foor-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-proft 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 fve years. Its 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 Hall
Mather Hall is a fve-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 frst decade of the
20th (sources confict on the dates), the building
is located in a rich architectural context, to which
it contributes signifcantly. 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 ofce 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 of-
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 ft for undergraduates.
Housing for graduate students or older students
is recommended, assuming that parking could be
made available at CSUs South Garage. Institu-
tional ofce 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 CSUs 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 Countys
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 benefted from Low Income
Housing Tax Credits, which represent another fnancing
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 Center
The 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 buildings 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 efort start-
ed in the frst decade of the 20th century by City Solicitor
Newton D. Baker and Glen K. Shurtlef, 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 specifcally 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 cant 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 fnd it far more difcult in the future to
represent itself as a unifed 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 modifca-
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 identifable 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 ofce 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 ofce 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 citys down-
town theater district at PlayhouseSquare and
the creation of the Trinity Commons retail, edu-
cation and ofce 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 ofce 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 citys 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 ENTERTAINMENT
STRATEGIES
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 Ohios 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 defned
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 afected 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 beneft of an entertain-
ment district is understanding the impact of the students and
faculty of Cleveland State University. CSUs approximately
17,000 students (Ofce of Institutional Research and Analysis,
2012) and 1,600 faculty and staf (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 fgure. 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 staf represent an additional and strong source of
demand for restaurants. Because the current study included
only student surveys, faculty and staf information has been
extrapolated from the 2002 CSU Campus Master Plan (Simons
and El Jaouhari), and infated to 2013 fgures. 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 CSUs campus totals
$17,654,417. Restaurants with liquor generate $454.66 in sales
per square foot annually, according to data from the Urban
Land Institutes Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers: 2004
(Kramer et. al, 2004), infated to 2013 values. Those fgures 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 fg-
ure; the existing stock of restaurants, cofee 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/staf 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 fgure that is more difcult to quantify, but is not expected to
represent a signifcant demand as the district has seen little by
way of expansion or addition of restaurants and bars except for
the area immediately adjacent to CSUs campus.

PlayhouseSquare

PlayhouseSquares infuence 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 revitalizationand 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 districts 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-
houseSquares 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 Costars 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 2,805representing 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 specifc 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 specifcally 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 districtas well as a few
experts with professional experience within the
Campus District.
The interviews explored questions including the fol-
lowing:

Would the area beneft from a Community Entertain-
ment District? Would you view that as positive or neg-
ative, and why?
Responses to this question largely refect 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 wasnt 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:
Whats 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 specifcally
for this analysis, 32.6% directly cited restaurants,
bars, or cofee shops as missing or benefcial to
the district. Additionally, 31.1 percent said that the
Campus District would beneft 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 beneft 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 frst 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 beneft in the creation
of an entertainment district. Eight respondents
mentioned either competition from other districts
close by or a lack of sufcient 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 superfciality 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 thats a terrible idea. You cant go in and say
were 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-
cifcally 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 of 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 cofee shops and other
places to meet. It is all about students.
Finally, it should be noted that one respondent said
the Districts 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-
fcient demand from CSU students and faculty, as well as the overall
community, lack of a signifcant 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
sufciently to ft 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-
fciently committed to the idea of doing so. The group initially set out
to fnd 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 Squares infuence within the dis-
trict makes it a logical location to target additional growthas a
market base already exists, and with additional investment in the
area, would continue to grow. Parking located in Cleveland States
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 infux of additional restaurants and bars, allowing the Cam-
pus District to beneft from the overfow 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-efectively 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 ofer 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 developmentdrawing from
the momentum of fve 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, ofer a frm 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 areas high concentration of
working artist studios. The Art Quarter could in-
deed become an industrial Champs Elysees for
Cleveland. While Euclid Avenue is the citys historic
Main Street, Superior Avenue connects the citys
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 citys frst 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 foor spaces on sev-
eral are sealed with bricks or opaque fberglass panels,
but could potentially be redeveloped into shops and
restaurants, as has already been accomplished in the
highly popular Artefno Cafe in the Tower Press build-
ing, renovated as a rental apartment building. The
areas wide sidewalks would accommodate sidewalk
sales, art displays, and outdoor dining. Greater analy-
sis would be necessary to determine specifc 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 areas 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 611s 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 diferent
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 signifcantly 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 ofer 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 identifed 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-fnding 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 ofce 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 CONCLUSION
Figure 6.1 Priorities - greenWAy Projects
Figure 6.2 Priorities - housing Projects
114
6.0 CONCLUSION
Phasing of Studio 611s Proposals
The diferent 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 felds 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 felds 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 years
Phase II
5 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 II
630 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
School
Identify 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.17
th
and E. 22
nd
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 wayfnding 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 fnance 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 frst 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 frst step towards a new direction.
FIGURE 6.6 PLANNING TOOLS TO CONSIDER FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN
6.0 CONCLUSION
117
WORKS
CITED
Alexander, 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 plans 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 Wont 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_frst_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). Clevelands 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 from
http://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/fles/University/PosterFinal.pdf
City Planning Commission (1957). St. Vincents 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?afl=&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). Clevelands 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%20fnal%20Spring13.pdf
Cleveland State University Police Department (2012). Cleveland State University Annual Crime Statistics. Retrieved April 5, 2013 from http://www.csuohio.edu/ofces/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 MapsOhio. 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 ofcials notify homeowners of new stormwater fee for program aimed at fooding. Plain Dealer. Retrieved April 9, 2013 from http://www.cleveland.com/
metro/index.ssf/2012/11/sewer_district_ofcials_notif.html
Enterprise Community Partners (2012). Housing First. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from http://www.housingfrstinitiative.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
CITED
Gillett, R. (2013). Reducing Homelessness in Cuyahoga County. Presentation delivered April 8, 2013, Cleveland State University.
Gould, H. (2013). Artspace cleveland makes a diference: Clevelands 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-diference-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 ofers 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-ofers-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 CSUs 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
CITED
McFee, 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_
fle&LIBRARY_RECORD_ID=4699
Ofce of Institutional Research and Analysis, Cleveland State University. (2012) Fall 2012 Enrollment Report. Retrieved April 21, 2013 from http://www.csuohio.edu/ofces/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/fre/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 ProflEast.pdf
121
WORKS
CITED
Ohio 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 Brownfelds Inventory Shapefle.
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.
RTAGreater 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
RTAGreater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. (2013a) Transit 2025 Homepage. Retrieved April 6, 2013 from http://www.riderta.com/transit2025/
RTAGreater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (2013b). Priority Corridors. Retrieved April 6, 2013 http://www.riderta.com/images/stratplan/FigC_PriorityCorridors_2550x1650.jpg
RTAGreater 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 Afairs, Cleveland State Uni-
versity.
122
WORKS
CITED
Spector, 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). Defning 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 14Design 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.html
Urban Design Tools (2013). LID Urban Design ToolsRain Barrels and Cisterns. Retrieved April 19, 2013 from http://www.lid-stormwater.net/raincist_specs.htm
US Census Bureau (2013). American Factfnder. Retrieved May 2, 2013 from http://factfnder2.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
TEAM
Organization:
Steering Committee: Deborah Riemann, Heather Ways, Matthew Wymer, John Riter, & Mike Schumaker
Final Document: Kyle Julien, Steven Litt, & Heather Ways
Final Presentation: Ryan Smalley, Tom Michaels, John Riter, & Arthur Schmidt
Layout of Final Document: Tara Sturm
Final Event Organization: Jillian Watson, Khrys Shefton, & Deborah Riemann
Survey Group: Eugene Basile, Mark Ebner, Kelly McGowan, Jillian Watson, Andrew Bryant, Cheng-Han Yu, & Sungbum Yoon
Stakeholder Interviews Group: Steven Litt, & Tara Sturm
GIS Maps: Ben McKeeman, & Doug Riebel
Graphics Team: Arthur Schmidt, & Gregory Soltis

Data Gathering:
Campus Case Studies: Eugene Basile, Tom Michaels, Mike Schumaker, Kelly McGowan, & Arthur Schmidt
History and Urban Renewal: Kyle Julien, Heather Ways, & Arthur Schmidt
Spatial Analysis and SWOT: Ben McKeeman, Gregory Soltis, & Kyle Julien
Homeless Concerns: Heather Ways
Infrastructure: Andrew Bryant, Steven Litt, Deborah Riemann, & Ryan Smalley
Crime and Safety: John Riter
Brownfelds and Environmental: Doug Riebel
External Linkages: Cheng-Han Yu, Mark Ebner, & Ryan Smalley
Housing Research: Khrys Shefton, Cheng-Han Yu, & Hannibal Smith
Entertainment 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 Riemann
Design Principles (Chapter 1.3): Kyle Julien, Heather Ways, Arthur Schmidt, Deborah Riemann, Steven Litt, Matthew Wymer, & Gregory Soltis
Greenways Group (Chapter 5.1-5.3): Kelly McGowan, Deborah Riemann, John Riter, Arthur Schmidt, Ryan Smalley, & Heather Ways
Student Housing Group (Chapter 5.4): Eugene Basile, Mark Ebner, KhrysShefton, Jillian Watson, Matthew Wymer, & Cheng Han-Yu
Historic Building Reuse Group (Chapter 5.5): Andrew Bryant, Kyle Julien, Steve Litt, Ben McKeeman, & Michael Schumaker
Entertainment 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
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
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. 21
st
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 Emperors Palace
Restaurant.
street
Undistinguished stucco structure houses Mardis-Gras
restaurant; Emperors 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. 18
th
to E. 30
th
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. 18
th
to E. 21
st
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. 26
th
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
20
th
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. 18
th
to E. 21
st
: 11,480; E. 21
st
to E. 30
th
: 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. 18
th
to E. 26
th
.
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. 21
st
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. 21
st

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
Its 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 E30
th
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 24
th

Figure 20 E24th Area Map
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
Expandable 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 Graduat
e
Housing
Storag
e
Institution
al Office
Classroo
m Space
Apartment
s
Demolis
h/
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
Zoning 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 3
rd
District Police Station
3rd District Police Station School
(CMSD)
Apart
ments
Student
Housing
Ho
tel
Office
Space
Comm
unity
Center
Incu
batio
n
Instit
ution
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
Highway 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/Faade/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

Property Management - 3.0% EGI $6,413 $6,605 $6,803 $7,007 $7,217

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
psf $960,000

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

Property Management - 10.0%
EGI $162,390 $165,638 $168,951 $172,330 $175,776


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/Faade/Sitework $1,000,000

Soft Costs, 10% Total: A&E, Misc Consultants, Legal $1,704,032

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
psf $6,294,720
Exterior/Faade/Sitework $1,000,000

Legal $1,704,032

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
Undergraduate 618 71.1%
Graduate 219 25.2%
Law 14 1.6%
Non-Degree/Cont. Ed. 18 2.1%
Total 869 100%

3. Gender
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
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?

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%

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%

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

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

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

1 102 14.2%
2 95 13.2%
3 180 25.0%
4 151 21.0%
5 192 26.7%
Total 720 100%
Hotel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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%

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)

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%

23. Which of the following represents your monthly rent/mortgage?

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

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

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

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

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

1 50 6.9%
2 29 4.0%
3 101 14.0%
4 158 21.9%
5 385 53.3%
Total 723 100%
Cable

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

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

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)

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?

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 31 4%
2 13 2%
3 63 8%
4 156 20%
5 528 67%
Total 791 100%

On street parking

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

1 78 10.0%
2 68 8.7%
3 135 17.3%
4 154 19.7%
5 345 44.2%
Total 780 100%

Safety

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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 22
nd
Yes 115 15.6%
No 349 47.4%
Maybe 273 37.0%
Total 737 100%

Superior Ave
Yes 169 22.7%
No 313 42.0%
Maybe 263 35.3%
Total 745 100%

Payne Ave and East 21st - Former Police Headquarters Building
Yes 154 20.8%
No 334 45.1%
Maybe 252 34.1%
Total 740 100%

Cedar Central Neighborhood
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?
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

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

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

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
1 131 17.1%
2 90 11.7%
3 134 17.5%
4 128 16.7%
5 284 37.0%
Total 767 100%

Campus District Plan

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Campus District Plan

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY

MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING, DESIGN, & DEVELOPMENT

FIGURE 6.5 PHASING

Potrebbero piacerti anche