Building Permits: $4.5 Million Apartment Building
All information is according to the Kent Community Development Department
Downtown Redevelopment
The new 'Building C' to be built in downtown Kent at the intersection of Erie and South DePeyster streets. The building will be home to 32 apartments and new restaurant Bricco.
Glavin Feher Architects
Photos (1)
Photos
Here's the latest batch of building permits issued by the Kent Community Development Department:
- Smithers Oasis, 919 Marvin Ave., restroom renovation, $35,000
- David Sommers & Associates, 136 N. Water St., office renovation, $5,000
- Fairmount Properties, 210 S. DePeyster St., shell for Building C apartments and ground-floor restaurant, $4.5 million
In This article
-
Smithers-Oasis North America
919 Marvin St, Kent, OH -
David Sommers and Associates
136 N Water St, Kent, OH (Suite 208) -
Shannon
11:20 am on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
More apartments and another place to eat. Because that's just what that area needs.Well done city planners. Time to move, before residency is synonymous with the epic fail that will be ALL of downtown. That's what happens, when you put bureaucrats with no real world experience in positions of decision making.
Andy Koch
2:04 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
More apartments? You mean the first set of apartments downtown.... There hasn't been any official real apartments downtown yet besides for the few old businesses.
I assume youre expecting it to be student living, but guess what? It's aimed for young business professionals. You know, the ones that will bring in money to your community and help the economy in Kent thrive.
silly sally
2:12 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
please move.
Nolan
10:15 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
You're STILL spouting off your stupdity?
Please tell us where there were apartments Downtown?
The ONLY 'epic fail' is how freaking STUPID you are. Know-nothing complaining losers like you just need to shut up.
James Thomas
3:42 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
NolanJoeHomeownerderpspotterJamesThomasJackKelly,
you simply can not comment civilly can you?
James Thomas
11:15 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
By the way, NolanJoeHomeownerderpspotterJamesThomasJackKelly,
Have you taken down the Psuedo James Thomas Page you Created?
Dave
1:22 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
I know I speak for a lot of people when I say "yes, please move!"
Andy Koch
2:13 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Truth. I don't how anyone could ever be upset at the idea that there is over $100 M investment in a small town in Ohio for upscale restaurants, shopping, entertainment, living, parking, and transportation.
There are plenty of other small dilapidated towns in Ohio to move to, and in near proximity too. Move there if you don't like Kent's progress in the past few years.
You won't have to worry about people parking, shopping, or having fun there.
Nolan
10:16 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Shannon was complaining about another development downtown a couple of weeks ago. Only losers like her would be complaining about MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of PRIVATE DOLLARS being spent to revitalize Downtown Kent. Stupid complainers (like Shannon) would rather have nothing Downtown and nothing to bring people to downtown to SPEND $$.
James Thomas
6:47 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
NolanJoeHomeownerderpspotterJamesThomasJackKelly,
you simply can not comment civilly can you?
Sue JEffers
7:21 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
again, development is not the problem. poorly planned overdevelopment is. oh, and gentrification and increased inequality of access and outcomes are an even bigger problem. there are millions of dollars of tax payer subsidization of this project as well - the public monies going into this privatization spree with more to come when we are expected to bail out the overdeveloped space and 12 million dollar sidewalk. yes, there will be a few people who really make out on this, even when reality sets in and the novelty wears off. the minimum wage jobs being created will only be there as long as the business doing the hiring stays in business, and are not providing a living wage while they are here.
Jason J
8:52 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
Yes, why don't we let downtown become a dilapidated ruin, so as not to 'gentrify'!
Crumbled, useless buildings? Can't gentrify!
Can't build a building anywhere downtown without gentrifying!
Progress? No! Gentrification!
There are thousands of communities in Ohio making zero effort to rebuild. Move there. Please.
Sue JEffers
9:25 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
Jason, there is a difference between gentrification (see definition below) and infrastructure repair and a long term financial plan including all residents and their well being. there are plenty of cities who celebrate their structural income inequality. this town, so far hasn't had so much of that. you must have a terribly secure job to have no concern for such matters.
Jim Williams
1:00 am on Saturday, March 23, 2013
"there are plenty of cities who celebrate their structural income inequality."
Please cite specific locales and detail in what way a city would want to "celebrate" a portion of its citizenry living in abject poverty, while others live in splendor.
Also, I've been watching this plan grow over the better part of two decades - how is this not a long-term financial plan that includes substantial infrastructure repair?
Shannon
4:29 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
Sue Jeffers is typing out the most astute observations that can be found on this website. Steeped heavily in facts, well worded, and indisputable. Well done. I will now watch EVERYTHING you write Sue. It is nice to see someone articulate coherently against the stepford Kent group think.
Sue JEffers
9:21 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
When "urban renewal" of lower class neighbourhoods with condos attracts yuppie tenants, driving up rents and driving out long time, lower income residents. It often begins with influxes of local artists looking for a cheap place to live, giving the neighbourhood a bohemian flair. This hip reputation attracts yuppies who want to live in such an atmosphere, driving out the lower income artists and lower income residents, often ethnic/racial minorities, changing the social character of the neighbourhood.
It also involves the "yuppification" of local businesses; shops catering to yuppie tastes like sushi resaturants, Starbucks, etc... come to replace local businesses displaced by higher rents.
The term was coined by sociologist Ruth Glass, who is quoted below.
"One by one, many of the working class quarters of London have been invaded by the middle-classes—upper and lower. Shabby, modest mews and cottages—two rooms up and two down—have been taken over, when their leases have expired, and have become elegant, expensive residences .... Once this process of 'gentrification' starts in a district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the original working-class occupiers are displaced and the whole social character of the district is changed."
-Ruth Glass (1964)
Jason J
9:46 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
Seriously? How many "lower income residents" live in downtown Kent? Does anybody actually live in downtown Kent? Assuming there are a few, are we supposed to 'protect' them from any attempt at progressive development? Who exactly is "driving out the lower income artists and lower income residents"? I love local art, but I wasn't aware that our local community had to subsidize art in place of supporting reasonable development for the rest of us non-artists.
Are you kidding me!!?? What are you smoking!!?? I want some!!
Sue JEffers
11:37 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
I failed to credit the site that provided the example and quote http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gentrification
Sue JEffers
11:13 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
i see Jason, that you are being intentionally obtuse, or really cannot comprehend the concepts I'm speaking of. I'm done wasting time.
Jason J
12:35 am on Saturday, March 23, 2013
No, Sue, I comprehend your absurd concepts, but that doesn't make them any less absurd and pathetic. I do agree with you that you are wasting our time though.
Kent has always been a diverse and open-minded town, yet you degrade a brand new sushi restaurant, for no reason at all? Prejudice, maybe?
Or maybe "hippie" sushi would be acceptable to you, but not "yuppie" sushi?
I still want to know what Kent "neighbourhoods" have been displaced by this new "urban renewal" in Kent. And no, the Water St/Erie St. block that looked like Beirut a few years ago does not constitute a neighborhood.
We have the first new urban housing in downtown Kent in over 50 years, and you want to try to make it a bad thing? Exactly how many "low income artists" have been displaced by this sushi-eating yuppification? Again, pathetic.
Jim Williams
12:51 am on Saturday, March 23, 2013
I guess that I'm curious about the negative connotation of "gentrification." Isn't it a net positive if the core is rebuilt to attract higher income businesses, visitors and residents? As an artist, I know that my clientele skews toward a class or two above my station, so I would be happy to see this development, as long as I could tap into it.
The social character of an area is not dependent upon income, but on tolerance, creativity, open-mindedness and education. To say that Kent is losing its character because a few blocks of downtown are improving is overstatement. Look at the businesses that are moving in: Outfitters, coffee shops, jazz clubs, frat bars, music clubs, manufacturers, upscale and downscale restaurants, funky toy stores. That's diversity, baby! Who's going to benefit? artists, musicians, entrepreneurs, students, professors and long-time residents. More specifically: The Kent Stage, Kent Natural Foods, McKay-Bricker, Downtown Gallery, Franklin Square Deli, Rays, and on and on.
It's a really big picture, and you have to remove your blinders and take it all in. With the exception of several rentals along the esplanade, there's just no evidence that this development has driven out any one sector of society, rich or poor, but it will attract a new, diverse audience to the town, and that's a positive development.
Also, condescension isn't necessary, Sue. Disagreeement ≠ not comprehending.