Only in Euclid can the same issue be debated off and on for 25 years. No, I'm not talking about marina development, but, rather
Shore Cultural Centre. What should be a deliberate process guided by good planning, and competent management is instead kicked around like a worn football.
On Sept 7
th, Council granted the Coral Co. the manager of Shore for the past 15 months a 15 month
extension thru Dec. 2011. At the same meeting, Council also granted capital funds to install a modern boiler and thermostatic controls (70K expense)
For those of you just tuning in, the City's history with Shore has been a dreary exercise of befuddlement and neglect if not outright hostility.
Bought from Euclid Public Schools in the mid 80's to be a Cultural Center, the City's management has drifted from the Economic Development Department to the Rec Department. Not having the skills to
actually program and run the facility, much of the responsibility drifted to the volunteer Shore Board.
Passionate about Shore, but, lacking the expertise to run such a large facility, the Board was left with a difficult task of advocating for Shore, while splitting programing duties with a City Administration at times openly hostile to its existence.
At various times, the City has cooked up deals to demolish Shore for a Tops Super Market, or to
develop various housing schemes at Shore. None really had any solid facts to support those
plans.
The City has "winged" it with Shore for decades: there was never any operational, capital or strategic plan for the building. Without a plan, the results could only be bad.
That's not to say that good things weren't happening INSIDE Shore They were: theatre productions, Euclid Orchestra, Euclid Hunger Center, Red Cross, etc. Former City Councilman Pat Delaney spearheaded the drive to bring the Euclid Culinary School to Shore. But these were predominately in spite of the Administration, not because of it.
Two years ago, I wanted to change the debate and solve the "problem" of Shore once and for all.
My assumption (which many others had before me) was that managed right, Shore would take its rightful place as the catalyst for downtown rebirth.
This concept has been done all over N.E. Ohio. Areas benefiting from arts as economic development include:
Collinwood (Arts
Collinwood) Shaker Square,
Larchmere (Cleveland)
Gordon Square (Detroit & w 65
th) Beck Center (Lakewood).
I made the initial contact with Coral, and, they were interested in managing Shore. The Mayor
was adamantly opposed. But after going through a lengthy proposal process, where the City solicited over 40 firms only three remained. Coral's management plan; Spies Group (building a new library in place of Shore); and, City Architecture's plan to build subsided housing at Shore.
Asking the residents to pay for a new library was a non starter; no firm was willing to commit to housing at Shore. That left Coral.
Coral came on board in May of 2009: They immediately laid out a management plan, and spent the summer of 2009 seeking input on the condition of the building.
Experts (heating, electrical, structural) brought in by Coral immediately concluded that many of the false rumors of a building in dire need of immediate millions in repairs was not valid. At the same time, Coral held numerous public meetings and meetings with City officials. Going into these meetings, Coral held no preconceptions that that the building should even be saved.
Last Sept. Coral unveiled their strategic plan for Shore Cultural Centre. Their first conclusion;
Shore has value! Shore should stay! Backed by exhaustive data, the plan laid out how to build on what Shore was already doing. Coral clearly understood that City finances were limited when it came to Shore.
But the plan laid out several options that could be implemented for minimal cost that would immediately improve the operations of the building.
In short, Coral provided the operational, capital and strategic planning so sadly lacking. They provided the path to lead Shore out of the wilderness.
Last Sept, 2009, Coral's vision for Shore was debated by council (a three hour debate) and, was finally accepted. Now the City only voted to fund the management portion of the contract. We did not fund the marketing portion or, fund the position to raise money for Shore.
So, where are we after one year? Well, from comments of the Administration, and, some council members, they act like there was failure.
The spectre of closure and demolition has again been brought up. Yet, these very same folks can not tell you how they would close the building. Would they simply board up Shore and let it rot? Would they moth ball it, meaning that it would have to be heated? How much would this cost? How much to demolish Shore? What is the economic impact on the downtown area with no Shore?
NO SUCH ANSWERS HAVE EVER BEEN PROVIDED!The truth is, that Coral's management of Shore has been a resounding success!
Projected last year with an operational deficit of 144K, it was only 100K after one year. Revenue is up, expenses are down, new tenants are moving into Shore. Shore is cleaner and more vibrant than ever. More people are using Shore meaning that more folks are visiting our downtown. And that is only the beginning. Coral's plan calls for even more revenue generation through some key City investments, investments that are far far less than the cost of closure and demolition.
Coral's management of Shore is a success.
We should back success!More on Shore and other matters soon.
Posts
