MayDay

From cleveland.com - reason #52356 that Peter Lawson Jones has earned my respect: Medical Mart is a great idea, but the sales tax is the wrong way to pay for it Wednesday, July 25, 2007 Peter Lawson Jones The proposed Medical Mart/ Con vention Center clearly offers great promise. When the roll is called on the resolution to raise the sales tax to pay for the construction of the complex, it would be gratifying to be able to vote, "yes." Given our rising prominence as an international health care center and our numerous downtown tourist-oriented destinations, I am convinced that the Medical Mart project would infuse a welcome dose of economic vitality into our community. Unfortunately, I cannot support the pending resolution. More at cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/othercolumns/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1185352416235720.xml&coll=2

monte, I'm seeing the Wyndham on travelocity for around $128, the Intercontinental @ the Clinic for $139, Intercontinental Suites for $99...

Suuuure, just pop off the top, remove all the HVAC equipment (hotel guests don't need A/C or heat) and chuck a few dozen more stories onto the thing! :wtf:

MTS, how could the Marriott expand? There's no setback from the sidewalk other than the porte cochere.

With one exception, I haven't eaten at a chain restaurant in at least five years and have no plans to :-)

Football Hall of Fame inductions, I believe.

Have you tried priceline or another service? I got a priceline newsletter last week advertising a 4-star hotel for $75 per night.

It's the nectar of the holidays gods, you nincompoop!!! "A holiday ale brewed with honey and spiced with fresh ginger and cinnamon."

Monte - just a heads up, if indeed there is Christmas Ale, you have to try it. Just know that it is VERY potent. :drunk:

"find a way to remedy the parking shortage." Tell people to get off their lazy @sses and walk a few blocks.

Way to go!!! :clap:

monte, when you're dealing with a micro-climate like Cleveland, forecasts aren't accurate until 1 or 2 days before they're released.

I work one block from the site. Whenever I see significant activity, I take a photo so until there's an official webcam, it's just me and musky :-)

Seriously?

All I know is that on a hardhat tour of the Stokes tower, someone asked why it wasn't built on the Public Square lot. The spokeswoman from the General Services Administration (the people running the Stokes tower and other gov't facilities) said that they considered it but that "site acquisition alone made that option cost-prohibitive". No number was given, no rationale beyond that. Also folks, go back earlier in this thread - the Public Square lot was never considered in the list of sites for the County Admin center.

^I think he means, why wasn't 668 Euclid selected as the final. "*Site selection (why not Public Square or 668 Euclid Ave?)" The Public Square lot was considered for the Stokes Court tower and was turned down - because acquiring it made the entire project cost-prohibitive, so I'd imagine that would hold true for the County Admin Center. It may just be a parking lot, but it's still one of the most valuable (and priced accordingly) pieces of real estate in the region.

Well THAT'S current and relevant! :roll:

"^Its not always a bad thing if a private company makes some money in this city." Unless you're a Congressman from the West side. True, Forest City has made quite a pretty penny and been given a lot - however, this is one case where I don't mind so much. Do I want strict oversight? Yes. Do I want some contingency plans to keep taxpayers from footing the bill for flub-ups? Absolutely. However, I do see this as a good opportunity to build on one of this area's greatest strengths and there's no brainwashing here. Edsiou, you truly seem like a good guy and I'm sure you have good intentions and I'm glad you're part of the forum. However, with some (not all, but some) of your posts - they're so fragmented and difficult to read that they're bordering on incoherent. I'm guilty of it too when my temper gets the better of me, but maybe try to slow down and re-read your post before you click the button. I imagine people might give you less flak and your points would come across more clearly :-)

Don't bother, I can make a google map and send it your way.

Well, it *does* involve a project/construction in the heart of Detroit-Shoreway, but it's a little small to have its own thread...

"Bought a pair of sweat pants there once and still can't get the smell of the damn cologne out of them." Give 'em a few shots of Oxy-Clean spray and throw them in the wash - annoying commercials but it works! My partner will pick up stuff from A&F on rare occasions - I always chuckle when the twinky salespeople ask us if we need anything. Since he's busy shopping, I just mouth "what?" and cup my ear - after the third time they just smile, shrug and walk away. I just can't support a place like that - the first time I set foot in one, I saw some decent button-down shirts - then I noticed it looked like someone spilled coffee all over them and the stain had set. Silly me, the shirts were "Tea-Stained Vintage" - yay, pre-stained shirts for $60.00!!! :roll:

As a non-architect, I would say go with the 2 townhome option (side-by-side). A double is much more appealing when one tenant doesn't have to worry about the neighbor upstairs (creaking floors, etc.). Plus, given the location and view - it would be a shame to limit the rooftop deck to just one unit. Those are truly a sought-after amenity and I doubt too many buildings would be able to offer that, and actually have a view worth mentioning. One question - if you go that route, could you conceivably convert the West 69th entrance (stairs) into a small "deck" of sorts? In other words, remove the steps and extend the landing (and awning and railing)? That way the front unit would have a deck as well:

Just to clarify, I don't care if the new building is a skyscraper - I know some do, but I don't. What I do care about is that the new building be somewhat of architectural significance (not exactly tangible, I know), and the KPF/Madison proposal is as I said, a crystalline poo-pile. I would be completely satisfied with a handsome 10-story building provided it adequately addressed the Rotunda and the Euclid and East 9th streetscapes. The KPF/Madison proposal does neither. You're absolutely right that the County Commissioners should have released their detailed findings to the public but apparently what their constituents see as "secretive and shady", they see as "business as usual" or in the case of Hagan - "well I can't be bothered to listen to the people I serve, can I!?!".

The first person to use that as an avatar will be banned for a month. I'm NOT kidding.

You can thank the PD for that - as usual for issues like this, they did a p!ss-poor job of releasing renderings and information. For the KPF proposal, they only showed the crayola sketch; for the Pelli proposal, it was only an interior shot of the atrium... :wtf: Good job PD!!! :bang: