Map Boy

I think I had the orientation wrong...is the parking alotment in the rear? There appears to be a nice plaza/garden in front of the Mather Mansion...

I agree that Downtown should be able to support these stores, but I also agree that the Downtown residential population needs to grow first. And we're not going to grow it by simply luring high end, magnet retailers. It's going to take amenity/neighborhood retail to get people Downtown for 24-hours per day and then the other retail makes much more sense. On the other hand, with the number of visitors to Downtown every day and night, I would think that we could be supporting more magnet retailers as it is, but apparently they're discouraged by something. Maybe it is the ownership and the marketing and not the buying market. I'd like to think so. But back to the Avenue District, I do think that what they're going for is neighborhood retail first. The Galleria could definitely host more big-time retail in the near future, though, that serves these new residents and Downtown workers and visitors alike.

Wow, getting a little ahead of ourselves, are we? I wouldn't be dropping those names for quite some time. They'd be here and gone in a few short months, ala Tower City! I think that somewhere down the line, when this project (and others) are built out, we'll see more high-end shopping Downtown, but in the short-term, I'm thinking more coffee shop, bakery/deli, realtor, art gallery-type tenants. Then again, I don't know what size the spaces will be or who they're targeting, but I would think they'd be going for neighborhood retail over national retail for phase 1.

I was too young in the early 1990s to take part in the drinking, but I definitely went to my fair share of shows as a teenager at the Odeon and Peabody's. I also remember going down there on weekends as a group of kids who just wanted to be around all the excitement. We never tried to get into the bars or get drunk (we had no money)... just walking the streets on those nights was entertainment enough. I, for one, think that the future of the East Bank is very bright. I think the Wolstein project is imperative, though. If an effort this significant and with this much public support cannot come true, there will be a stigma on the neighborhood for many years to come and I'm afraid no developer will want to go near it. I can't really speak for the City's involvement in the past, though I can imagine that their police efforts were a bit misguided (visit West 6th Street on a Saturday night for more of the same...people can fight in the streets to their hearts' content, but they'd better not double park!). In the present, however, they've done much to improve public spaces and have pledged a great deal of money to Wolstein's project. Add to that the contributions of the RTA and the Port Authority and you've really got a good deal of collaboration going into this project. I think that's the best way to go forward.

In response to the Portland Streetcar reference: I believe it was funded and is operated by an independent agency, not Tri-Met (Portland's COTA). They share a fare system, but are separate entities. I also believe that a good deal of the initial streetcar line was funded with a TIF program that was created based on the entirely new neighborhood (Hoyt Street Yards) that was being built along part of its route. They laid the rails before the majority of the buildings were built and the line opened around the time when the first of the buildings were being occupied. The neighborhood seemed to spring up overnight! The initial line did travel from one well established neighborhood (NW 23rd in Northwest Portland) to another (Portland State University), but has since been extended further south to huge pieces of land that were assembled with the streetcar access in mind. They are largely secluded from most people's idea of where Downtown ends (due to the freeway) and the streetcar served to create greater accessibility and visibility, as well as a new identity as a hot neighborhood with the convenience of the streetcar that everyone has become familiar with. The Portland Streetcar has far exceeded expectations and has proven the importance of both connecting existing dense and high-use areas, but also instigating significant new development along an established transit line.

I'm impressed with this development coming out of Columbus. And as I'm always looking for a way to apply the news to Cleveland, I'm wondering what this will do for our efforts. Focusing on the positive side of things, I think that any rail development in Ohio, and especially in Columbus, will help to change the negative "we can't do that here" perception that politicians, transit authorities and citizens have about rail in Ohio. I, personally, don't understand why this is so difficult to manage here, but there's definitely a majority opinion that says we can do everything a streetcar or rail line can do with buses. They're cheaper, but do they really have the same effect? Only on high-volume routes can we really see the pressing NEED for rail, as far as congestion is concerned, but how about the economic development spinoff? That's what is so impressive about Mayor Coleman's comments. He's really buying into the rail as economy booster theory. A notion that I, for one, agree with! There are many experts that would support this theory as well, citing that the cost difference between light rail and BRT is more than made up for with private spinoff development. These people seem to be speaking up in support of Mayor Coleman's proposal and are actually getting some press...good to see!

Great work KJP! It's a good sign that Calabrese was willing to meet you with what appears to be an open mind and that he's going to be allocating resources to explore this option. It's still very early on for this project and it's important to get creative (and brilliant) ideas like this in at the beginning so that people from ODOT can't say down the line that options and studies aren't feasible!

Thanks for the info, Musky. My reference to parking was that we're building garages everywhere, so why even set aside space for surface parking. The answers are probably pretty easy and plentiful...reason #1 being that the alignment of the Innerbelt and proposed marginal road are uncertain and we wouldn't want to propose a building that would be in its path! Also, it's just a single row, so I suppose I can live with it... I'm not complaining much yet about the new CSU architecture, but I think we do need to step it up a notch. I'm also not proposing that we follow in the footsteps of UC, who's campus is much more landlocked and the cramming of stand-alone, signature buildings on that tight campus makes for an often intimidating experience. Nevertheless, when you're on UC's campus, you'll know it! Pretty outstanding, really. What CSU's doing is not outstanding by any measure, but I do think it's of value to the campus and the city. My complaints to date about the new generation are really confined to the Business and Urban Affairs colleges. I like the way they relate to each other and the interiors are great, but why the reflective metallic glass? I would have hoped for something far more transparent...something that would allow passers-by to see what was going on in the buildings and for some of the light to project onto the surrounding area. My other complaint (which I've mentioned elsewhere) is that the lawn in front of the Urban Affairs college is a disgrace. There are pics of Portland State's Urban Affairs college plaza, which was built about a year after CSU's, on this thread and it puts ours to shame. This, however, is something that can still be remedied. Any words on plans for creating a more useful and inspiring space for the "front lawn" of our university's Urban Planning hub???

Interesting...I've been wondering what the plan were for this structure...and I guess I'm still left wondering! I'll see if I can get some more info on it...

well, that would be interesting and different! Though, I'd probably never set foot in it... as for the College of Ed. building...can't really tell much from those renderings, but I am curious about the need for a parking lot, considering that they're building a new garage pretty much every 60 feet! I guess it provides a buffer for the ever-evolving mystery that is the Innerbelt...you'd hate to invest in a building that ODOT was going to tear down in 10 years! Not that they'd dream of doing that to another state institution... The student center, though just a concept, is a definite step in the right direction. With all the public and private investment in the works for Euclid Avenue, it's imperative that CSU comes to meet the street. I agree that we need more than buildings, though. I know there's a greenspace master plan as well, but I haven't really checked it out yet. Guv? Musky?

Oh, good! A public meeting that only costs $50!

Yay! I'll admit that my heart leapt a little when I read that headline!

I remember seeing this building coming down when I was in high school. There was a big uproar in the community because a significant number of homeless people had set up shop in the building. Homeless advocates didn't want them to knock the building down and there may have been some resistance where people refused to vacate the building...sad, all the way around. Another tidbit...did anyone else notice that Sam Fullwood wrote an incendiary piece about Ken Lurie's decision to move his growing office to Prospect Avenue last week? One week later, what is he writing about? He's writing about the site next to Ken Lurie's current office building, which just happens to be slated for development as a "prison" or reentry facility. Do you think this might have something to do with Ken Lurie's decision to move his offices? Perhaps he proposed staying put and expanding in place several years ago, but a certain councilperson wouldn't allow it because she had plans of her own? Can you imagine that a developer might get a little ticked off when things like this keep happening and then an editorial writer talks poo poo about you on the front page of the Metro section? Interesting...

anyone hear the feature on WCPN this morning? Joe Calabrese and some national transit guy were talking about these "trolleys," the Euclid Corridor and other issues that people brought up through phone calls. It seemed like everyone that called in was talking about service issues..."why don't you train bus drivers to accelerate and brake smoothly?" "the signs at rapid stations are either missing or poorly lit...I never know what stop I'm at!" "the system needs to operate better outside of rush hour periods." Basically, every response came back to the lack of funds that are a result of changing residential patterns, lower sales tax revenues and higher fuel costs. Joe C did seem to be listening, though! But maybe he's good at giving people that impression! And on a positive note, the Transit Waiting Environments seem to be on the top of the list for upcoming upgrades. Let's hope so!

Great! I don't know how I missed that one, but I've been wondering about when this would start. This should tie in nicely - both timewise and locationally - with the Valley View project that's getting underway.

about the new board...I saw them taking it down this morning, but didn't know what they were up to...the current (now, old?) boards only gave arrival info once in a blue moon. They seemed more concerned with the terror threat level, which really isn't information that anyone needs to be reminded of every 30 seconds. I hope these new ones will be more informative!

Thanks for your optimism, X! And then for your dose of reality. I really hope it's going to be new construction...but that it's sooner, rather than later!

an important meeting? is this one with the powers that be? I'm sorry I haven't had more time to dedicate to getting the word out about this...

Here are two from today. 1001-1021 are the three buildings directly to the right of the Huntington Building. There is one remaining building between them and the Statler Arms (red brick). I'm not sure who the owner is there.

well, this sucks! I've made several trips there since moving home to buy some "bland" women's clothing for my girl, sisters and mom. As a matter of taste, I don't find their stuff bland at all. And their prices were always right on the money!

211 Prospect was long overdue...It's looked like a marked property for some time now. It's on the north side of Prospect, next to a big pile of rubble that separates it from Flannery's. It's a two-story structure that would need to be updated significantly, but would never really amount to much, due to the fact that it's only about 5,000 square feet. On the other hand, it's in a height district that would allow a building of up to 250 feet high...a significant improvement! I'm sure MRN has plans for this...let's just hope it's not for valet parking spaces or tour bus idling...

I appreciate all the commentary here and I have a few points in response: My first reaction was the same as WimWar's...that some of the more middle-market units should lead the charge and establish the neighborhood, giving it more allure and that buzz that you mentioned. That would make the high-end units easier to sell. Or would it? What's the issue with for sale Downtown housing right now? Is there too much of it or too little? All the market folks are saying that there's a shortage. Which would suggest that those units that are coming into the market...and especially those at the higher end of the spectrum...could demand higher prices. Why? Because they're scarce! (Sorry, but I just came from an econ course...) It may sound weird, but this may be a precedent that Downtown developers want to set. They don't want high-end housing in this neighborhood to be the same price as the Warehouse District. They want it to be something more special...more upscale. This may sound exclusionary, but if the precedent they create is that this is a neighborhood for homeowners who care enough about their property to drop $400k on it, then I can see it working. This won't be the Warehouse District with its all-night bars and rabble-rousers. It'll be a neighborhood where an empty nester (don't forget that this is THE BIGGEST target market right now) can live down the street from Playhouse Square and Gateway and see the lake from their balcony and grab a coffee downstairs without having to step through some vomit from last nights club crowd. I think it'll be a while before the new Avenue District is that polished, but I think that's what Zaremba (and the City) are going for.

according to a post about 2/3 of the way down page 8, parts of both the St. Clair and Superior lots will be included in phase 1. I don't know where that info came from, but I haven't seen anything from the Superior lot yet, so maybe it's not correct? I still need to drop by the sales center!

that's what compelled me to take it!

Yeah, it's kinda disappointing when you put it like that! What, about 60% of the footprint is dedicated to parking? On the positive side, the third floor of parking (there are three total: one underground, one at grade and one at mezzanine level), will be covered with a plaza for residents. Unfortunate that they're not contributing public open space, but it will provide opportunities for residents on that level to have "backyards" and rec space. Sorta like the courtyard of the new Fries & Schuele, for those of you who've seen it. If that wasn't such a prominent feature, it would seem more reasonable to build more housing on top of the garage.