Hessler achieves ‘honor of endangerment’ in Ohio while Landmarks Commission mostly ignore invitation to visit
-Hessler nominated a ‘most endangered historic site’ by Preserve Ohio -Landmarks Commission allows architect and architecture historian to testify, though no ‘Power Point’ unlike what the developers received -One member of the Landmarks Commission may yet accept Hessler neighbors invitation to Landmarks Commission members to visit Hessler
By Lee Batdorff
“We’ll be visiting the Hessler neighborhood to make recommendations,” said Thomas Palmer of Galion Ohio, executive director of Preservation Ohio. Known as preserveohio.com online, this is the group’s 39th annual, ‘Ohio’s Most Endangered Historic Site,’ nomination.
For 2021 the Ohio-wide organization will officially issue declarations for 11 sites nominated, Hessler being one,“either, Friday, (May 28) or Monday, (May 31),” said Mr. Palmer. Preservation Ohio came to this nomination after examining the application submitted by Hessler neighbors and judged it compared to many other applications. Apparently the Hessler application provided sufficient evidence of endangerment to achieve this dubious honor.
Landmarks Commission concedes to having experts represent Hessler—though no image presentation like the developers have received
The Hessler Coalition secured a place at the May 27th online meeting for architect and Hessler rental property owner Mark Fremont, (who made a presentation at the May 6th Euclid Corridor design review meeting on May 6th that apparently helped sway a no vote on this proposal, find here)—and architectural historian Jessica Wobig, (see here for her position about how to treat a historic district).
Mr. Fremont’s position against the proposed micro-suite building differs from that of the Hessler Coalition. While the Hessler group wants no development in the backyard of 1975 Ford Drive, he said,”I’m pro-development,” and has done some small developments himself. His visual presentation shows the site with two potential two-family homes like the ones on both sides of the site. Some of these images can be seen here.
Unfortunately, unlike what the developers of this proposal received, the presentation of visual information typical of any architectural and planning presentation was disallowed for the people contesting this proposal, according to Hessler leader Charles Hoven.
Invitation to Landmarks Commission to visit Hessler is mostly ignored
The Hessler Coalition invited members of the Landmarks Commission to visit what most people familiar with the situation say, “is a special Cleveland street,” and only one member, Michelle Anderson said she’d try to visit. Why is there such a tepid response?
At the May 6th Euclid Corridor Design Review Committee where the proposal received a no vote chairman of the committee Jerry Rothenberg visited Hessler and decided the scale of the proposed development was too large for the site.
Hessler micro-unit proposal developer’s previous project where grass was replaced with gravel
Photo, (taken in 2000 by Eric Ambos), at left shows head on, the row houses at 11319-11327 Hessler Rd. when the street was empty just before vendors arrived to set up for the Hessler Street Fair. Photo at right is taken, (by Lee Batdorff), shows from the side of the gravel covered front yards that developer Russell Berusch had installed in 2018. Presumably this gravel is saving Mr. Berusch the cost of having the yards mowed.Mr. Berusch’s partner developer Rick Maron and project architect Daniel Sirk have repeatedly offered up the side yard of 1975 Ford Drive for various iterations of being a “gateway to (a future) Hessler Street Fair”. Would this scenario mean that the side yard’s lovely bushes and grass be replaced with rounded gravel as have the yards in front of the 11319-11327 Hessler Road row houses—and further save the developers the cost of having the lawns mowed and the bushes trimmed?
Hessler petition garners at least 700 digital signatures
The Hessler Coalition has instituted an online petition requesting that the Cleveland Landmarks Commission give the Hessler neighborhood a fair hearing on May 27 with over 700 signatures on it by early Wednesday morning.
The Cleveland Landmarks Commission will meet at 9 a.m. May 27, 2021. The proposed new construction on Hessler Rd. is first on the agenda. The meeting will be simulcast streamed. Find link to streaming of the meeting here.
Clarification: The original version of this story did not state the source of the statement that the Landmarks Commission will not allow visual material at their meeting. Hessler leader Charles Hoven provided this information.
To help the Hessler neighbors make their case against this development and sign the petition click on the link here.
For ongoing discussion of the proposal click on this link here.
For more about the history and construction of wood block Hessler Court click on this link here.
Sidewalk in Hessler: What is historic, and what best replicates historic? And what is this to the Cleveland Landmarks Commission?
The new light colored sidewalk in front of the row house rooming houses at 11319-11327 Hessler Road does not match abutting tinted older sidewalk at the corner and along Hessler Court. In 1982 the late Pitter Pratt, then leader of historic preservation efforts for Hessler, stipulated that new sidewalks on Hessler Road be tinted to match the original flagstone color.
Should past historically inappropriate work by developer be taken into account while considering his new proposal?
By Lee Batdorff
In an earlier Thoroughdays.com story, The State of Hessler-1, it was said that only flagstone sidewalk slabs would suffice to keep to historic standards. Apparently this is not so.
Before their April 22nd meeting, many people wrote letters to the Landmarks Commission advocating that while considering developers Rick Maron and Russell Berusch’s proposed Hessler apartment building—that the Landmarks Commission must first conduct a review of Russell Berusch’s treatment of the sidewalk and yard in front of his building on Hessler that he had renovated in 2017.
This debate on sidewalk appearance is in regard to a stretch of white cement sidewalk that was poured in 2018—in front of the five row houses at 11319-11327 Hessler Road. While this sidewalk is not tinted, cement tinted to match the existing flagstone sidewalks is okay according to a 39-year-old document from the Cleveland Landmarks Commission and found at the Public Affairs Library at Cleveland City Hall.
On January 8, 1982 a certificate of appropriateness for a new walkway was granted only after the late Pitter (Donna) Pratt, leader of the then Hessler Design Review Committee of the Cleveland Landmarks Commission, stipulated that new cement must be tinted to match the color of the original stone slabs. (See copy of document here.)
“Discussion centered on the concern for the appearance of new sidewalks and the desire to have the entire district completed under one contract,” said John Cimperman, (no relation to the former Cleveland councilman, Joe Cimperman), who was the first Secretary of the Landmarks Commission.
“The new type of sidewalk concrete texture is almost all white. The Commission would not want that used on Hessler. Presently, the sidewalks are flagstone but the driveways are concrete. It was determined by the Commission that concrete sidewalks would be acceptable it they were of the proper color and texture. The material to be used will be determined when the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness is approved by the Commission,” John Cimperman said.
Michelle Anderson, a three-year member of the Cleveland Landmarks Commission, and an agent for Progressive Urban Real Estate in Ohio City, said after their April 22nd meeting considering this proposal, that she’d had not seen one instance of any issues about sidewalks and landscaping brought up before the commission during her tenure. “We deal in bricks and mortar,” she said.
On May 27, the Landmarks Commission will vote on the proposed 12 micro unit apartment building for Hessler.
Architectural historian: Sidewalks and yards should be included as historical features
Architectural historian Jessica Wobig said, “A district should include features of the setting, such as original street material, curbs, sidewalks, or open space/yards in addition to architecture and historic significance.
“Things like fences or original outbuildings/garages are normally included when they have good integrity (look like they did when the place gained its specialness/period of significance).”
Jessica Wobig is a volunteer historic preservation expert on behalf of the Hessler Coalition and a cultural resource consultant with 11 years’ experience starting at Cleveland Landmarks Commission before moving onto environmental consulting.
Landmarks Commission has minimal preservation standards
“The Landmarks Commission does review case-by-case for all certificates of appropriateness—they could have a preservation plan in place that would allow for agreed upon standards to guide their decisions,” said Ms.Wobig who worked for the Landmarks Commission from 2011 to 2014.
“Without that decision guide, lots of things can be overlooked and complicate new construction or major rehabilitation projects—because there is no specific guidance for the district to follow other than the very broad (U.S.) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
“These standards (provide) more guiding principles rather than district specific instructions. They really need district specific guidelines, and then an overall procedure on how to carry out environmental reviews with public comment.
“My goal on this point is that a survey and plan could be made for the district and should be in place already—(ever) since it was designated in 1975. We have to ask why hasn’t it, and why can’t it be done?
“I found one (neighborhood historical survey) for the Warehouse District from the 1990s, which was an adaptive reuse plan. The plan was used for planning activities in the Warehouse District that included changing buildings from industrial to residential use.
Historical survey studies for developers, why not for residents of Cleveland?
“So if these studies can be done when they benefit developers, then why can’t the City and/or Community Development Corporation complete studies that benefit the residents who live in the Hessler Road Landmark District?
“Even if they (Cleveland Landmarks Commision) did survey it, normally survey information older than five years is reassessed when environmental review occurs. Due to the small acreage of the district, completing such an analysis is really about 40 hours of work. Even with two staff, some kind of abbreviated study could and should happen.
“If there is precedence that sidewalks were already considered, then this should help them address that one feature. Though they have more info gaps to solve, (Editor: such as gravel covered front yards that replaced original with grass yards and small trees when 11319-11327 was renovated by Russell Berusch in 2017).
Hessler Road should be included with Hessler Court with national historic designation
While Hessler Road has Cleveland historic designation status, it does not have national historic status.
“The Hessler Court wooden pavement, a wooden road structure in the district, is also listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),” said Ms. Wobig.
“If the road structure merited designation at a national level then surely the remainder of the district would also be eligible for the NRHP or at least consideration for preservation as part of a local district.
“I’d recommend that streetscape, including sidewalks and development pattern or rhythm, should be included in the district due to the rarity of the brick and wood road surfaces as well as the residential nature of the district (you see (both) the road and homes when you look at Hessler).
“Presently, the Landmarks Commission does not have an updated historic resources survey or planning document (preservation plan or design guidelines) that (may) help us understand what is really part of the district or contributes. We’ve (the Hessler Coalition), requested that this type of assessment is done before any further landmarks review so that the district is fairly considered. We’ve asked the councilman to support this request, because it should be a due diligence requirement and part of the environmental review process,” said Wobig.
Existence hard for three-year-old inappropriate cement sidewalk
This sidewalk in front of 11319-11327 Hessler Rd. was poured in 2017 and it is deteriorating already.
At left is a crack that looks like a spider web apparently made by something heavy having been dropped on the sidewalk. At right on top is a noticeable cross sidewalk panel crack and at bottom a second less-noticeable cross sidewalk crack . Why is it that cross sidewalk cracks so often occur, (here and elsewhere), outside the provide three-quarter inch deep contraction joints?
Correction made to original post of this article; the sidewalk was poured in 2018, not 2017, and was three not four years ago.
To help the Hessler neighbors make their case against this development click on the link here.
For ongoing discussion of the proposal click on this link here.
For more about the history and construction of wood block Hessler Court click on this link here.
Hessler proposal takes beating from architect; loses Euclid Corridor Design Review committee endorsement on May 6th
Kim Scott, chief planner; Rick Maron, developer; and Euclid Corridor Design Review committee members Jerry Rothenberg (his image not shown), and Jeffrey Stean. This screen shot is of the moment when Jerry Rothenberg said why he wasn’t voting for the proposal.
By Lee Batdorff
“The (Hessler) community has expressed with a very strong voice their position and desire, (which is not for the proposal),” said City of Cleveland chief city planner Kim Scott at the outset of the meeting.
She introduced Mark Fremont. He is an architect and owner-manager of a 15 suit apartment building at the northeast stub end of Hessler Road. He proved a strong voice against the proposed 12 micro-unit building in the back yard of 1975 Ford Drive.
“We’ve had a hard time getting our voice heard to be honest with you, over this process,” said Mr. Fremont. He explained that Hessler Road has a, “rhythm setup by how the architecture plays out along Hessler. The proposed building site has always been the backyard of 1975 Ford Drive.
“The buildings on Hessler are fighting for light, (with windows on all sides). This provides many eyes on the street (from inside the structures). The proposed building is almost twice the size of the buildings adjacent to it.
“Why is this building bigger than the building in whose backyard it is in? This alone causes a problem for Historic Preservation. This proposal breaks the (architectural) rhythm of the street.
“This exasperates a huge problem of parking on the street, just so you know as a landlord.” City code is that there is one parking space per suite. With suites being rented out by the room, and each tenant has a car, then there are more cars than available parking spaces.
“This is building with unusual suites,” said Fremont. “There is nothing else like it on Hessler. The suites are long and narrow, and causes a lot of architecture issues. Inside suites have a lack of windows. Instead of eyes on the street we have an eye on the street (from each suite). “These are deep units. Honestly are people really going to see out of those suites? The first floors will have blinds and screening.
“The blank wall, (with no windows), is what you see on the west side (and it is) inappropriate. This is the result of poor planning. The developer told you that the code says this or that about not being able to add windows.
‘Shoe boxes with end cut off…and you just cheap it out’
“It is a problem of concept that happened from the beginning…not necessarily compatible with Hessler. The suites are shoe boxes with one end cut off. Does this feel like a hotel?
“The partially brick façade treatment is a hotel style. Like buildings at a shopping mall. Deal with the frontal condition with brick façade and the back of the building you just cheap it out. The windows are inconsistent with (the other) windows on the street. Lack of detailing of (porch) railing doesn’t respect the other elements on Hessler.”
Hessler: a street of pedestrians who walk all around the buildings
“The design of the building is that it is approached frontally,” said Fremont. “The buildings on Hessler are approach at all angles. Few times you see a building frontally on Hessler.
“They, (pedestrians walking around), are going every which way around buildings, (and will do so around any new building).”
A direct comparison of the proposed building and existing building on Hessler
Fremont then presented a graphic comparing the floor plan of the proposed building’s design and the floor plan of a slightly larger apartment building down the street. The proposal has four long narrow suites and the existing building has four suites each taking a square quadrant.
The two center suites (per floor) have no opportunity of windows on either sides of their suite while the two outer suites have this opportunity.
The floor plan of the existing building has four suites arranged one in each corner of the square over all building. The building can be entered through the front and the back. Windows look out on all sides of the existing building.
A direct comparison of how to use a square space was presented by architect Mark Fremont at the May 6th Euclid Corridor Design Review committee meeting. The left floor plan shows the proposed “shoe box” micro apartments as compared with, on the right, a floor plan from an existing building on the northeast stub end of Hessler Road.
These four existing suites provide windows looking out on two sides providing not only opportunity to have “eyes on the street,” it is crucial to have “ears on the street,” as well, in this writer’s experience. Through personal experience, I know that a scream from an attack victim is better heard through a window than a wall, in my case, a closed window in winter. Immediately I called the police.
Unlike the developer and UCI, “we don’t feel this is a hole in the urban fabric. It’s the backyard of a house in a historic district,” said Fremont. You can continue the fabric through here if this building were properly planned. This building’s mass remains large, kind of gigantic. The buildings on both sides of it are the appropriate buildings to compare it to.”
The ‘lay of the land’ on which architect Mark Fremont based his testimony on.
Fremont has not taken a stand against the proposed building that aligns directly with what the Hessler Coalition advocates. While they do not want any building on that site, Fremont’s position is that appropriate buildings could be erected there, (though parking could be a problem with new buildings), and this proposal is not for an appropriate building.
Developer Rick Maron said, “He (Fremont) doesn’t understand the concept of micro-units…It’s were society is going, more individuals and less families.” The suites have movable walls, movable beds making flexible rooms. “You have to see it.
“The first floor entrances are taken care of like the rest of the street… we could put a flat roof on this. With flat roof it’ll be exactly the height of the buildings next to it. The gables are there to match the architecture of the rest of the street.
“We also want windows if we get through these committees, we’ll be dealing with the zoning department, (to secure a zoning variance) ” Maron said. “We totally endorse having the street fair. A tent could be put up on the side yard of 1975 Ford Drive for the (Hessler Hall of Fame and) Museum,” Maron said.
The side yard of 1975 Ford Drive along Hessler Road. At the May 6th Euclid Corridor Design Review meeting developer Rick Maron offered this yard as a place to set up a tent for the Hessler Street Fair (Hessler Hall of Fame and) Museum.
Daniel Sirk, architect of the proposed building said that, “while we would like to put windows in the west side of the building I will not show an element (in a design) that may have to be removed later.”
What about the Hessler design review committee once in existence?
Pat Holland, a committee member who owns property on Hessler Road said, “One of the complaints the neighborhood folks have is that there should be a local review committee. They’ve been attempting to get Landmarks to set up this local committee…This process, (for the proposed building), is not flowing well.”
Karl Brunjes, city planner representing the Landmarks Commission said, “There’s never been, as far as we can find, a local design review committee for Hessler. Euclid Corridor has acted as local design review.”
“Sorry to interrupt you,” Mr. Holland broke into what Mr. Brunjes was saying.
“I can fully attest that there was a local design review committee. My wife was on it. Your records therefore are really incomplete. That’s simply not true.”
Brunjes responded, “The need for an additional design review committee is not needed at this time.”
Hanging strings for development in lighting and landscaping
It was noted by the committee that the proposal still lacked a lighting and landscaping plan. Maron said, “We’ll make a lighting and landscaping plan by Monday and present it to the Landmarks Commission.” Since then the review of this proposal by the Landmarks Commission was postponed two weeks until May 27th.
The vote taken by chief planner Kim Scott
At 1:47:02 (hour/minute/second) of this meeting—the vote started. Committee member Jerry Rothenberg said, “I vote no for two reasons. Having gone down to the site I realize the scale of this is too large for the space. I’m concerned about safety at the rear of the building. I’m doubtful that it’s going to work well.”
While Mr. Rothenberg made his statement, Rick Maron slumped his head on to his hand shown in a screen capture ‘Cisco Webex’ portrait.
The vote was: Four against; two for; and four absentees
Pat Holland – no Dick Pace – no Jerry Rothenberg – no Christopher Trotta – no Joanne Brown – yes Jeffrey Strean – yes Ron Calhoun -absent Sandra Madison – absent Richard Van Petten – absent John Wagner – absent
Kim Scott, moderating the meeting announced, “The project has been disapproved.”
The members of the upcoming Cleveland Landmarks Commission will have to take this disapproval by the Euclid Corridor Design Review committee “under advisement,” when they decide how to vote on the project.
That meeting was postponed from May 13th to May 27th. No reason was given though the developers (Rick Maron and Russell Berusch), may be using the additional time to make adjustments to the proposal to counter the loss at the design review committee.
Questions at a Hessler Housing Co-op owners’ after party
There was discussion among the Hessler Coalition members early the evening after this decision was made. They and I sat on the second floor porch of the furthest south west of the properties owned by the Hessler Housing Co-op, an organization unique in Ohio.
HHC is a non-profit, non-equity cooperative. When the ‘owners’ relinquish their ‘ownership,’ of the property they receive no equity dividends. In return, for paying the ‘rent’ or monthly ‘ownership fee’ the Co-op is a most affordable place to live in Cleveland.
We looked out at the backyard of 1975 Ford Drive across the street where a rental truck being loaded up by tenants moving their things from suites lived in for a decade or two—gentrified out of their homes.
The discussion among the Hessler Housing Co-op members was about why four of the members of the Euclid Corridor Design Review committee of the City of Cleveland Planning Commission did not attend this meeting. This was after the four non-shows all attend an earlier meeting. It’s not like attending a Zoom meeting, once you’ve been set up to do so, it is easy to do and requires no traveling to attend.
And the Co-op owners went on. “Where was Chris Ronayne? UCI’s planning director was there. Why didn’t they speak up for the proposal (as had been done before)?”
To help the Hessler neighbors make their case against this development click on the link here.
For ongoing discussion of the proposal click on this link here.
For more about the history and construction of wood block Hessler Court click on this link here.
Bureaucrats searching for the heart of Hessler Road?
Screen capture from the April 22nd, 2021 Cleveland Landmarks Commission meeting.
By Lee Batdorff
Breaking News: Don Petit, city planner and secretary of the Cleveland Landmarks Commission on the afternoon of May 10, 2021 notified all involved parties that the final meeting and a vote on the Hessler proposal will be postponed from Thursday, May 13 to Thursday, May 27. No reason for the postponement was given. Considering that this project was disapproved by the Euclid Corridor design review committee of the Cleveland Planning Commission on May 6th, it may be possible that the developers need the time to make revisions to respond to objections made to the plan on May 6th.
A CLASH OF CONCEPTS of what constitutes a healthy residential neighborhood, a historic district, and the role University Circle Incorporated plays for “our” residential communities, occurred at the April 22, 2021 City of Cleveland Landmarks Commission meeting. (YouTube recording of this meeting here.)
The commission received 60 email letters against the project and two for it. “It almost seems like there is a conflict of interest here (for UCI),” said Michelle Anderson, an agent for Progressive Urban Real Estate in Ohio City and a three year volunteer for the twice monthly Landmarks Commission meetings.
“It appears to me that before proceeding, this needed to be sold to the people in the neighborhood,” Ms. Andersen said. “What happened between the neighborhood and UCI during this project?”
“Lack of community engagement” in development process said Landmarks commissioner
“You’re selling it to us, but you haven’t sold it to the neighborhood. There has been a lack of community engagement process and that’s why we ended up here,” said Andersen. “This has been mis-handled with the community and now we don’t have a choice. Our hands are tied.” Ms. Anderson was one of two members of the nine commissioner, mostly volunteer board, who expressed support for the interest of the Hessler homeowners.
Julie Trott, meeting moderator said she was, “torn” between the proposal and its impact on the historic district and the protesting residents.
Michelle Anderson, an agent for Progressive Urban Real Estate in the Ohio City neighborhood, and voting member of the Cleveland Landmarks Commission, spoke about her concerns on how this proposal came about.
Anderson was more strident: “It wasn’t until February that the community learned of this proposal. Real estate deals take more than two months.”
“(This town) has a collective inferiority complex. We think something must be tweaked to alleviate the inferiority complex,” said Anderson.
“I see a street that is impassioned and shows a great deal of affection and love of the street. Something about this street is almost ennobling. People who lived there 20 years ago speak up for it.
“These people are very committed to this place. It is refreshing. I don’t see that very often in the City of Cleveland. I don’t quite understand the role of UCI?”
Does University Circle Incorporated wear several hats well?
Chris Ronayne, president of UCI responded: “UCI is a community services corporation that is one part community development corporation, one part improvement district and one part chamber (of commerce) for institutions…We respect our homeowners on the street.
“We agreed to a price reduction to accommodate the (number of) unit reduction,” Ronayne said of the project. “The dollars that go out of our pocket for that purpose go out of our youth education program. It’s heavy on our hearts. “The concession of (11 suites removed from the original 23 apartment plan) is the value of 30 student summer scholarships. This is my zero-sum game.”
UCI president Chris Ronayne attends to a ceremonial duty with Sheila Crawford at the British Cultural Garden on April 12, 2016. (Photo: Clevelandpeople.com)
Anderson said, “Sell it and get the maximum number of dollars, I understand that…at the same time I would think you are answering to the people on Hessler Road. It appears to me that before proceeding, this needs to be sold as incorporating a larger vision of the neighborhood. This is a unique group of people here.”
A community is more than development—what is a community however?
Anderson continued, “It’s not just development that makes a community. I don’t have a choice here. Everything is so focused on getting things built while we don’t listen to or respect other aspects of making a community.”
Mr. Ronayne countered that creating community is what UCI is doing. “We continue to reiterate input from the community. (We’re) building a complete community that accommodates the residents, rental opportunities and for sale opportunities.”
“Someone said to me recently you need more housing for ‘real’ residents. That put some of us off, when I shared it with staff members.
“This development meets the needs of students who cannot carry their furniture from their homes across the seas…students are real residents who want to walk to school.
“We try and find ways to respect all voices and move on a project…the alternative to (the proposed apartment building) is an empty garage, a dumpster, and a gravel lot.”
Later in the meeting Mark Fremont an architect with rental property on Hessler Rd. pointed out, “other suites on the street can be furnished and for a lot less than what they are going to charge at this place.”
Hessler leader: UCI is amidst ‘willful deceit’
Laura Cyrocki with her instrument on the cover of an album by the band ‘The Waxwings’.
Hessler Rd. an owner-occupier Laura Cyrocki said after the meeting, “When renovation at the Ford Drive buildings are referred to as ‘restoration’ and/or ‘rehabilitation,’ UCI is again using willful deceit to garner support for the development to those who would support the restoration and rehabilitation of old buildings. (This is) covering up the real motive to renovate old buildings for the purpose of increasing occupancy and rents is not something done in community spirit.”
Gentrification in action. Moving truck behind 1975 Ford Drive for leaving tenants.
The proposal does not encourage long term residency
Before speaking on his own behalf, Mr. Fremont, an architect who owns a 15-suite apartment building on Hessler read the comments of attorney Frank Ford, one of the founders of the University Circle Tenants Union in the 1970s and of the Hessler Housing Co-op in the 1980s.
Mr. Ford: “Microunits are not designed to encourage long term residency. (This type of development) turns the street into a dormitory community (where renters live in the neighborhood for two years or less).
“The neighborhood, (to be healthy), needs residents who count their tenure in years, not months. It is the longterm residents who organized refuse removal during a sanitation strike and organize the block watch campaign.
“A dorm hotel is not consistent with the historic status of the street,” said Ford.
Frank Ford, an attorney, was a founding member of both the University Circle Tenants Union and the Hessler Housing Co-op in the 1970s.
Fremont said he rents to mostly graduate and post-doctorate students. “I have a building down the street with 15 units. Would the city like me to turn this into 30 units?”
The Hessler Hall of Fame and Museum garage: A place cherished by the neighborhood or a mechanism to force a no?
“Obviously there is a bit of a campaign going on to defer, delay, to potentially use the garage as the mechanism to force a no (on the Landmarks Commission to this proposal),” said Chris Ronayne.
While the developers secured nine parking spaces in the UCI Ford Road parking garage at the going monthly rate, (currently $130 a month (the rooms will go for about $900 each)), to serve the 1975 and 1981 Ford Road buildings, there was concern by some commissioners that some tenants will, “take their chances parking on the street.”
“We could have gotten twice the number of letters of support, (from students living on Hessler). We didn’t do it,” said Ronayne.
After the meeting Charles Hoven, a Hessler owner-occupier said, “Students are concerned that the higher rents planned for the three buildings will result other landlords on Hessler raising rents as well. They are also concerned that the new suites will make parking (on Hessler Rd.) even worse than it is now.”
On March 19 the Case Western Reserve University student newspaper The Observer published an editorial about gentrification of the area that the Hessler micro-suite proposal would help bring about. Read it here.
This innocuous century-old two bay garage that is part of the Hessler Historic District serves 363 days a year as incidental storage for University Circle Inc. and two days a year as the Hessler Hall of Fame and Museum.
Ronayne: ‘weaponization’ of word ‘community’ “hurts our hearts”
Ronayne was the most forceful speaker at the April 22, 2021 Landmarks Commission ‘Zoom’ meeting.
“We think you as a commission collegially talking with the architect and the planners (working this out) without a ballot box that gets stuffed with letters,” Ronayne stated. “We didn’t go out and get the alternative.”
Ronayne reiterated later in the meeting, “Because we didn’t go out to get the alternative, we didn’t think it respectful to the neighbors (to do this) …This project respects what the neighborhood is evolving into and (it) continues to evolve.
“If hurts our hearts to see the signs that say, ‘my community is not your commodity.’ The reason it hurts our (Ronayne and UCI staff) heart(s) is because it’s weaponized the word ‘community.’ (Without this project), we’ve taken the opportunity of being part of that community away from global visitors.”
Hessler leader: UCI weaponized development
Mr. Hoven, when asked to respond to Ronayne’s comment after the meeting, said:
“Chris Ronayne has totally disrespected the community on Hessler Road throughout this whole process, only notifying the community of University Circle’s plans after plans for the proposed development were well underway and the transfer of the property to the developers was imminent.”
Charles Hoven is editor of the Plain Press as well as a Hessler Housing Co-op owner.
Councilman Blaine Griffin gives early support for development, saying he ‘fell short’ for the Hessler homeowners
While Councilman Griffin’s comments showed that he wrestled with this development, he surprised the Hessler neighbors by coming out for the proposed development at this meeting and not waiting until the coming final Landmarks Commission meeting to make this announcement. He said he was being fair because the developers did everything he asked for. Then he said “I fell short because the neighbors are not happy.
“I wish they could buy the property but that did not happen…Hessler is a magical place—I understand the mystique around Hessler. My job is to provide fairness…The neighbors are very frustrated and disappointed.
“I want this to be a litmus test. Are we not going to remove any structures in historic neighborhoods? …this seems to come up in these historical districts. “We need to have a discussion as a city. Are we not touching or allowing any development?”
Councilman Blaine Griffin, 6th Ward of Cleveland in 2021.
Councilman Griffin’s quest for ‘clarity’ on developing within historic districts
Griffin said, “There needs to be some clarity. I’m going to challenge the city planning group, (the Cleveland Planning Commission), and others to really give some kind of guidance because this kind of tension always comes up in these historical districts …then you have landowner rights and you have to listen to the voice of the residents.
“I support it. This probably was the most difficult development decision I’ve made because these folks really love this street. They really sacrifice to live there.
“At some point in time the city really needs to find ways to fortify the residents to get the kind support they need. So that residents making long-term sacrifices are supported.”
Griffin reiterated his speaking up for the Hessler homeowners. “The residents that make long term sacrifices, like the Hessler Housing Co-op, their president and vice president and the rest of their members really, really, know that their voice maters in this process.”
Moving truck waiting in Hessler Road to pull into to the gravel back yard of 1975 Ford Drive and move tenants out of a gentrified apartment. Trucks like these try to leave Hessler by driving forward only to find an illegally parked car on Hessler Court and the corner with Hessler Rd., making it impossible to leave except to drive in reverse all the way to Ford Drive.
Councilman Griffin’s Hessler proposed sinkhole repair—will a total upgrade to modern drainage standards be pursued?
As for repairing sinkholes in the Hessler Road brick pavement, Griffin said “I identified some of my council discretionary dollars and cobbled them (together) from every corner (of city hall) that I could get at.” An April 7th memo from City Council President Kevin Kelley shows that the city allocated $108,000 for what could be called “an emergency repair” given the long term condition of Hessler Road being in a hydrogeologically challenged area. So far a schedule for the repair has yet to be set. (A previous version of this story erroneously said this figure was unconfirmed.)
In the view of Hessler homeowners, a full upgrade of Hessler Road to modern drainage standards, sometimes called “green drainage standards” would be equivalent to instituting the UCI initiated ‘Hessler Streetscape Plan’ in 2014.
The Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson administration did not approved this proposal after the Cleveland Planning Commission spent effort designing the project. According to Elise Yablonsky, UCI planning director, “The Mayor’s Office of Capital Projects also raised concerns about the installation of green infrastructure within the public right-of-way.”
Hessler activists don’t buy this and say that Mayor Frank Jackson declined funding the city’s $600,000 match to this innovative project—because Jackson instead turned his focus on the then upcoming Republican National Convention of 2016.
Then there is a school of thought that the real reason Jackson didn’t go for this was because he didn’t want every neighborhood to want $600,000 plus for projects such as this.
A broken curb on Hessler Road greets visitors from around the world. Will Councilman Griffin’s and the City of Cleveland’s proposed infrastructure repair of Hessler Road deal with this as well as the street’s notorious sinkholes? Will a long term plan for ‘green’ storm water control of Hessler Rd., (as promoted by UCI in 2014), be pursued?
Hessler’s ‘green’ dream that was instilled by UCI
Now that the Hessler homeowners have been provided, (by UCI), a vision of improved storm water drainage of a rebuilt and well-maintained world class historic district, with modern “green” drainage techniques—and now the urge to institute this vision is great.
Making Hessler Road into a well-maintained historic district to show off, including properly rebuilt curbs and a full ‘green’ drainage revamp—is likely to cost in the million dollar plus range given the amount of the proposed budget for the 2014 Hessler Streetscape Plan. This was lead by UCI, involving the Hessler Neighborhood Association, and the City of Cleveland, working together in an attempt to request a grant from the Northeastern Ohio Regional Sewer District to produce the Hessler Streetscape Plan.
Hessler is ‘something special to protect’
Ben Faller, attorney for the Hessler Neighborhood Association said, “We as a city have something special that needs to be protected. As the first historic district in Cleveland, it is unique. It is because of the work of Hessler residents (in the 1970s and 80s), that we have a Landmarks Commission.
“This district is fully intact. None of the buildings have been demolished,” he said. “In fact this is a backyard (of 1975 Ford Dr.).”
“The garage, (the Hessler Hall of Fame and Museum during Hessler Street Fairs), served as part of the gateway to Hessler Street Fair, (coming in from Ford Dr.). (This) has been a series of missed opportunities that has brought us to this point.”
Attorney Ben Faller representing the Hessler Neighborhood Association
A ‘viable’ 1979 anti-gentrification plan for Hessler ignored by UCI
“The overall concept is not acceptable,” said attorney Faller. “Part of the history is that there is the 1979 plan, praised by the likes of the late Norman Krumholtz, (Cleveland’s planning director for decades and leader of the equity planning movement). A viable model of engagement (between UCI, the City and Hessler Neighborhood Association), is in the 1979 Hessler Road Area plan.”
City of Cleveland Planning director Norman Krumholtz, a leading proponent of ‘equity planning’ with Mayor Carl Stokes in the late 1960s. Equity Planning: Equity planning is a framework in which urban planners working within government use their research, analytical, and organizing skills to influence opinion, mobilize underrepresented constituencies, and advance and perhaps implement policies and programs that redistribute public and private resources to the poor and working class. This approach diverges from the downtown-oriented land-use planning tradition of most U.S. cities. Mr. Krumholtz had much praise for the activists on Hessler and wanted their approaches to be emulated through out other city neighborhoods.
“This building sets a dangerous precedent,” said attorney Faller. It would send the message that no historic district in the city is safe, (from historic buildings being demolished). If there is any place for the Landmarks Commission to take a stand it is here. Taken together these issues can’t addressed in a design review.
“Since you are reviewing the concept only at this stage, the Hessler residents invite you to visit the district, (and see it for yourself).”
Hessler leader says, “we don’t know about it,” to Ronayne’s statement that HNA “spokesperson” was approached about joining the UCI board
Ronayne said: “We have a long standing engagement with the president of the Hessler Neighborhood Association., (Pat Holland)…I talked with one of their spokespersons about the Hessler Neighborhood Association talking with our board about joining (the UCI board) as a non-profit organization.”
To this, Hoven, a Hessler leader, responded, “If he talked with anyone of us, we don’t know about it.”
Then, once again, at the 5:05:00 time stamp, Ronayne brought up again that “these people come to America and won’t have to furnish their suites,” in the $1,600 a month micro unit suites proposed for the site of the Hessler Hall of Fame and Museum.
Don Petit, Landmarks Commission city staffer, “historic districts can’t be frozen in time,” and recalls being kept on his toes by Pitter Pratt and Pat Holland
Don Petit, city planner and non-voting secretary of the Landmarks Commission stated that while “Hessler Road is a special place we do not treat our historic districts if they’re frozen in time. We determine if a proposal is appropriate. We don’t expect historic districts to be museum pieces. We look at projects on their merits…we haven’t weight in on the demolition of the garage.”
Mr. Petit recalled working with the late Pitter (Donna) Pratt and her surviving husband Pat Holland, (who still represents the HNA to UCI and is on the Cleveland Planning Commission’s Euclid Corridor design review committee).
“They were our main contact point between the commission and the neighborhood. They kept us on our toes…our historic districts have to grow…We have to resolve if the garage is important enough to save…I love the Hessler Street Fair, though I don’t think that the garage rises to the level of being an impediment of this project.”
Saving the Hessler Hall of Fame and Museum garage – they want to do it
Daniel Sirk, architect of the proposed micro-unit apartment building made a proposal on how to save the garage as a temporary structure just for the fair, in the yard along Hessler Rd. on the north side of 1975 Ford Rd.
Daniel Sirk, architect for the project, proposed a way to save a down sized garage for the Hessler Hall of Fame and Museum.
Mr. Sirk’s informal proposal was to replace this side yard which now has well maintained bushes and grass with a 10 by 20 foot cement slab where a smaller structure, made from the garage could be temporarily erected for future street fairs. This is along with Rick Maron, the project developer repeatedly proposing turning this side yard, into “a gateway to the street fair.” At a previous Euclid Corridor design review meeting both Chris Ronayne and city planner Karl Brunjes mentioned moving the garage to the open lot behind the three two family homes next to the proposed building. Rick Maron wasn’t for that.
Mr. Hoven, one of the Hessler leaders said that putting the garage where fair goers couldn’t see it wouldn’t be workable. A case could also be made that if the project is built, any future street fair would be hobbled because the gravel back yard of 1975 Ford Road provides an essential place at the fair, a place to sit down and dine within view of the fair.
This well maintained yard with trim bushes spans about 15 feet from the side of 1975 Ford Drive to the sidewalk running along Hessler Road. If the architect’s informal proposal to have a 10 by 20 foot cement slab in place of the grass and bushes shown here, utilized just once a year for an encampment of a reduced sized museum–would it be progress?
Developer Maron pushed the commission members for assurances
Maron, the developer said, “it makes no sense to continue making changes to the plan if (the Landmarks Commission) won’t approve it. He offered to stop working on this proposal then asked, “Give us feedback (about the possibility of approval).”
Rick Maron, developer of the Hessler project along with Russell Berusch.
“It really isn’t a social thing. Are we going to have a vote of everyone in Cleveland,” Maron continued. “Can there be a project or not? Should we go through all the architectural review for nothing?” Three members said that they’d vote for it.
Commission secretary Petit said “Good things have come because of all the neighborhood opposition. It was scaled back and redesigned. And now the councilman is moving ahead on addressing the infrastructure issue on the street.”
The final meeting and vote on this project will take place at Landmarks Commission on May 27, (postponed from May 13), at nine a.m. and is available through this link here.
Freddy Collier, the City of Cleveland Planning director is the only city employee with a vote on the Cleveland Landmarks Commission. The remaining eight members are volunteers from the community.
In a surprise, on May 6th 2021, the Cleveland Planning Commission’s Euclid Corridor design review committee voted to “disapprove” this project which the Landmarks Commission is to take “under advisement” at their Thursday, May 27, 2021 meeting , (postponed from May 13), when making their decision concerning this proposal.
To help the Hessler neighbors make their case against this development click on the link here.
For ongoing discussion of the proposal click on this link here.
For more about the history and construction of wood block Hessler Court click on this link here.
