dave68

An updated construction photos link. http://tribevibe.mlblogs.com/2015/02/11/photo-gallery-progressive-field-construction-updates-feb-11/ This is a link with 4 options of names for the new bar in the right field. They are asking the public to vote 1. Blues Brewhouse 2.Carnegie Corner 3.District Brewhouse 4.Tribe Taphouse http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/cle/fan_forum/bar_vote.jsp?partnerId=as_cle_20150211_40310866&adbid=565495517992345600&adbpl=tw&adbpr=52861612

Does anyone know when Cumberland is supposed to unveil some solid plans for the first phase of Lakefront development?

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2015/02122015/index.php An updated look coming to Corner Alley on 4th Street

I always laugh when someone says The Cleveland Clinic campus is not a fun place to be. I don't know of any hospital that one would ever describe as a fun place. Most of us would be happy not to have to be there.

http://www.leoadaly.com/portfolio/cleveland-hopkins-international-airport-ticketing-lobby-renovation/ This link has better renderings of the 20 million dollar renovation to the exterior and interior of the ticketing lobby at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

Michelle, from The Plain Dealer .responded to a question I posed to heron the comments section. I asked if she had any insight into the architectural elevations adjusted from January's presentation to February's presentation to the planning commission This was her response "Thanks for commenting. I just typed a very long response to your question, and then the commenting system ate it. So here is a CliffsNotes version: * In January, downtown/Flats design review members said they felt the facade looked flat. They approved the massing, scale and footprint of the building, but they wanted the developer and architect to spend more time on the details. Some members liked the taller, more compact building. One said the building looked like it had been there forever, which was a good thing. Others, though, questioned whether the design was too conservative. * Planning commission members mostly focused on the parking structure, which they didn't love. They asked about parking ratios, the elimination of the swimming pool and the lack of retail. They didn't provide a ton of design commentary. * At the design review meeting last week, two members noted the amount of work Clayco put into multiple revisions and said that they thought the renderings - not the building - might be the problem. "I think the building is nicer than you've drawn it," member Jack Bialosky Jr. said. * I don't know the details of any discussions between the developer, the architect and city planning staff between the January and February meetings. Michelle" Fascinating two members blamed the renderings as not detailing how nice the building will be. Isn't that the only thing close to showing how it will look? The finished approved project definitely seemed to go in a lackluster approach.

I am surprised they call it a proposed building. Isn't it a parking structure! lol

Dave I think you should avoid all FEB renderings. Cuz now they're just messin with you... :-D Freethink. I am glad Clvlndr and W28th agree about the renderings. I wish the Plain Dealer and The Wolstein Group never had shown the original concept for Zack Bruell's. I find it far more superior in its design. I have attached what The Flats East Bank posted on its Facebook page. I hope the planning commission asks them about that design as an option

Were these adjustments in design based on feedback they received in January? Not sure what they were asked to accomplish. I preferred the massing of the shorter design and color. I played with the detailing to give the building more movement and balance I included the design proposed for comparison

Nice. The only question I have are those really the vistas one will see out of the windows? The site is on the corner backside of the apartment building

Right, but these are capital costs that the city would have had to spend in the near future anyway, regardless of what we're doing with Public Square. In the article it states " Two City Council committees will consider legislation Monday authorizing the city to spend up to $5 million to relocate public utilities under Public Square as part of its upcoming $32 million renovation.The relocation would affect electrical lines owned by Cleveland Public Power, plus water and sewer lines and electrical lines serving traffic signals." Weren't the utilities already upgraded for The Euclid Ave BRT project? The whole point of this article was about moving utilities to accommodate traffic signals. That sure seems part of the scope of the work to upgrade Public Square.

I am confused on how this cost isn't considered part of the redesign budget. Seems odd to hear about a cost of 5 million dollars that nobody seemed to account for prior to the redesign. The project will cost 37million when said and done wether you separate the costs into two categories or one lump sum.

On top of the 32 million dollars to renovate Public Square now it will take an additional 5 million dollars below the surface to update/relocate utilities.

MrClifton88 Ask and you shall receive!

The backside of the building's base already has this detail. The Euclid Ave. portion would be restored back

The prefabricated panels lack enough dimension in the linear design. The Ontario Ave. face should have had concrete panels have more of a setback to its glass curtain wall. When you see the panels up close next to the classic beaux arts detailing on The County Courthouse you begin to see this architecture misses the use of light and shadow.

Straphangar Mr Rosales has been a great architect whom has always been receptive to ideas of others. I reached out to him when The City was looking for design proposals. I wrote to him and was excited to hear of this opportunity. He really cares about Cleveland and his work.

StrapHanger. In all the site plans I have seen they eliminated the drop off loop. That is a very valid question. With some slight adjustment of the bridges curve the bridge could pass just north of the drop off.

I received a note from Mr. Rosales. He states the following "we are actually in the process of modifying the ramp/landing and your ideas are welcome. When we get to a final layout approved by the client we will be able to share it with the general public. I will keep you posted. "

Thank you. I sent it to him.

This is absolutely how it should be done. There was a public meeting in November regarding feedback on the bridge designs. I spoke at the meeting and also emailed the team leader at Parsons Brinckerhoff (the planning firm) regarding the termination point. The guy I talked with over email seemed to be very receptive to ideas, and said they were working very hard to make it integrate well with the surrounding area. He said they were also working with Dick Pace, to make sure that the termination point would connect with his lakefront development project. The renderings, however, do not make me optimistic. Do you have the team leader's email address at Parsons Brinckerhoff. I sent the plans to The Group Plan Commission but I never hear a word back if they forward anything to the architect or engineer.

I reworked the terminus of the bridge to feel a little more incorporated to the lakefront amenities.

The terminus at North Coast Harbor is an odd location. Halfway between The RRHOF and The GLSC and not exiting on the boardwalk but rather the street feels as if it turns its back on the lake

Ikea feels it lends itself to large university areas I agree Cleveland is long overdue for one.

While I like the design I do question the long expanse without any seating designed into the bridge. I would like to see the esplanade seating carried onto the bridge. I also wish the design could have carried the trees as a shaded path IMHO. I have include some of the latest design renderings from Nov 14