Map Boy

The way I see it, if we're going to pull new residents to our region, in addition to being more competitive in retaining those that already live here, this is the type of thing that is going to have to flourish. This whole thread is about things that fall into that category...growing our economy in ways that differentiate (make us better) than the next guy.

Also, from Crain's, this contains a little bit more on what the West Quad will mean in the long run and how it fits into the market. Forest City to develop Case's West Quad By SHANNON PETTYPIECE 9:10 am, August 26, 2005 Case Western Reserve University has signed a preliminary agreement with Cleveland-based Forest City Enterprises to develop a proposed 1.5 million-square-foot research park. Forest City was chosen from six developers who expressed interest in the plans to transform a portion of University Circle into a research hub dubbed the West Quad. Some in the real estate and research communities have speculated that Forest City would be a natural developer for the project because of its Cleveland ties and experience developing a similar research park in Boston.

I'm not into re-naming the stations, but sponsorship and advertising do seem to be on the wane. Portland did something like that with its streetcar line with print advertising at each station and automated announcements as each station was approached. I thought it was a little weird, especially considering that the business that was being advertised wasn't always located at that station. It would be like Great Lakes Brewing sponsoring West 65th. An announcement would come on and people might think that this was the exit for GLB...I'm sure they've corrected that by now, and I wouldn't be opposed to that sort of thing. But we could DEFINITELY use some more TLC at these stations. The most notable problem at the W. 25th station is the stairs...they look like they're about to disintegrate!

When is Cimperman going to run?

yeah, i'm not a big fan of the West 25th Street station. I used it as a little Wildcat in the mid-90s and again now as a commuter in the opposite direction. It's amazing how much deterioration that station has suffered from in just 10 years! I hope they're making these more recent ones more durable! As I never used the prior station, I was unaware that there was an entrance on the north side of Lorain. That would be a nice addition now, since it is kind of tricky to get over there at times. and yes, I'm more for comfort and function at transit stations than I am for aesthetics, but I am pleased that the RTA appears to be putting a little more into aesthetics and urban context than they have in years past. They'd treated all of their Red Line stations as if they were park-n-rides, ignoring the pedestrian, who I feel is on the rise again... I still think I see a canopy over the bus depot, but it really wouldn't protect the waiting passenger from much but rain...it looks like it'll do nothing to accommodate for wind and cold/hot temperatures, but when have those ever been a factor in Cleveland???

The original plan, scrapped due to unstable terrain: The new plan, which is still highly conceptual, features: 48 units at Detroit Avenue & West 28th Street (8 affordable) 74 units at Church Avenue & West 28th Street (12 affordable) 268 units at Bridge Avenue & West 24th Street (49 affordable) 12 units at West 41st & Lorain Avenue (all affordable) I have more details on these sites and they are not necessarily the only ones being considered. The following are two images from the meeting. This map shows the locations of the four sites proposed above (I've highlighted them for you!): This is a perspective view of what the building heights and density would look like:

you know i live for this stuff!

good lookin out, blinker. they're taking comments up until September 1 or 2. I agree that there is concern over whether 300+ new market rate units can be absorbed in OC. This was voiced at the Thursday night session and the response was that this will not all be built at once. It can be done in phases and a schedule will be layed out after more studies of market demand, etc. This is one of the things that has surprised me so much about the nearby Stonebridge development. As unique and exciting as it is, it's pretty isolated in relation to existing neighborhoods, yet they've built several hundred units there over the past 4 years. I don't know what their vacancy rates are, but I would say that if they can rent/sell all those units over on the Viaduct in that short period of time, then they should certainly be able to rent/sell the same amount located behind the West Side Market and in such close proximity to the Red Line, Dave's and all the other OC amenities. Another of the preferred elements of the original proposal, in my opinion, was that their units were a much easier sell. It seems that townhouses are the way to go right now and so many of those units were townhouses on streets overlooking Downtown and the river. The plan did much more to create a contiguous urban fabric, whereas the primary element of the current plan (the site behind the WSM) will just plop down a few towers and a garage without doing much for the street level. This, of course, all remains to be seen in the design phase...

oooh, i love that video! It looks like a scene out of the Sims! The design looks good and I really like the plaza and access points. It would be nice if this kicked a TOD proposal into higher gear over here. I know it's possible... And clvlndr, I'm not sure what canopies your referring to. From the renderings, it looks like there will be station canopies both on the elevated (rail) platform and down on the bus level as well. Looks great to me!

Anyone else go to the public meeting today? I did! I love being back in town and getting to sit in on these totally accessible meetings for such huge projects... There was nothing colorful or even visual at all to share from this meeting, but the overall feel was that bringing the cost of construction within range without losing the most critical features will not be a problem. Representatives from the CFA, engineers, City Planning, and Convention Bureau, as well as preservationists, event planners, builders, etc. all weighed in. The meeting was structured well and all in attendance were allowed time to comment and question issues that were brought up. This is by no means an official transcript, but the main topics of discussion revolved around the following issues that will help reduce the cost of construction: 1) Replacing "clear span" exhibition hall with a hall that will have columns at 90' intervals. The "columnless" feature is regarded as one of the main competitive selling points of the new center and there was much opposition to this. 2) Reducing the recommended square footage of the main exhibition hall from 300,000 square feet to 275,000 or less. Much like the previous recommendation, this was opposed, but will be considered. 3) Considering the options and cost factors of building above or below ground. There were arguments that supported each and the result is that both will be considered. 4) Further evaluation of tax credit options for restoration of historic structures. This applies primarily to the existing structure, which may or may not be renovated as a part of this project. 5) Pursuing federal and other outside public funding for the inclusion of multimodal transit facilities on a northward expansion option. This was one of the main features of the proposals of the late 90s. 6) Consideration of options to build either westward, on the opposite side of Mall B, or northward. The northward expansion seems preferred at present because land acquisition costs are not an issue, whereas land on the west side of Mall B is currently not secured. 7) Exploration of revenue producing components of the plan that could pay for themselves. This consisted, primarily, of discussion of a large parking garage that could be built over the train tracks in a northern expansion. Other issues, such as closing the existing center for a period in order to speed up construction, were nixed. There was also discussion of probable scenarios that would arise involving the I-X Center. These would likely not occur before 2008-2009 and as late as 2013.

thanks for the comments, urbanlife. I really haven't looked through the windows and didn't notice how the spaces were divided. I'm just a big dork for Whole Foods and couldn't get the image out of my mind! on your other comments...I agree. There's ample sidewalk space for cafe/restaurant seating and plantings. An earlier comment here questioned if they were waiting for Euclid Corridor construction to finish up before throwing a bunch of money at sidewalk improvements that might have to be moved for construction anyways...

OK, last nights meeting---round two in this stage of public meetings about the project---was MUCH better, for what I understand. I attended this meeting and there was never any feeling of things being out of control, though there were comments made with passion and unease and maybe a little bit of anger. I'm pretty sure that OCNW, CMHA and Telesis went back to the office and said, "We've got to take control of the next meeting." They brought in a facilitator who's lived in the neighborhood for nearly 30 years and the whole thing went a lot more smoothly. That's not to say that people didn't get to speak their minds. The difference, in my understanding, is that they were able to lay out more of the "givens" and "not givens" at the beginning, so that people would understand that the plans before them were not already set in stone, but merely the first version of a potential plan. That being said, the presentation went well (I'll post more on this when I'm at home) and the questions/comments/response were, for the most part, intelligent and well-answered (in my opinion). The major concerns at this meeting were not about density, but about the urgency of the planning for this version and the rapidly-approaching deadline. That deadline is the end of September and $8.5 million in federal dollars are attached to that date. The question then becomes: do we rush into this proposal for the sake of keeping that funding or do we run a much greater risk of making a much more costly mistake if we don't take our time and get it right??? That's the most important question that I took out of this meeting. Everyone's being rushed here...the developer, the CDC, the public...is it possible to get an extension? will the money definitely get pulled if we don't meet the deadline? will a plan thrown together in this short amount of time even get approval from HUD??? It's drastically different from the initial plan that CMHA received funding for in 1996, so there's still the possibility that HUD will say, "we understand that the parameters changed, but this isn't nearly what you proposed 9 years ago, so we are pulling the funding." That's my understanding. I'll post images, "givens" and "not givens" and other details later.

agreed...all good points KJP. It's not that I wouldn't want to see one built...I'm just having a hard time justifying the cost for a center that most of us won't ever set foot in. Your comments take into account this factor.

another stroll by this week reinforced my earlier statement...I like the aesthetics of this building a lot! The different glass materials encasing the garage reflect the historic buildings around 515 in a very attractive way. nice job. also, there are no "for rent" or "for lease" signs on the structure...does this mean they've got a tenant lined up??? can you imagine if they put in a Whole Foods and built the tower on top??? Those places would sell like hotcakes!!! And the apartments all around (East 4th, Euclid, Prospect, etc) would get a nice boost as well...

Saw this on the ticker of the Ohio News Network today and it made my afternoon! Great recovery... Though, I don't know that this means they'll be building new facilities...

Nobody's rushing into anything and that's a good thing, but what's it going to take to make them drop the whole thing??? This has been going on for about a decade and there's clearly no easy answer...not to mention no proof that this is something we actually NEED.

by the way, why is it that CWRU acknowledged the fact that residents of its apartments might want to look out onto the neighboring property to see what was going on, whereas the stonebridge development completely ignored the viaduct in its mid-rise phase and placed hallways, not balconies, along the viaduct side??? just a small gripe i have...

it's a good bet with all the new development going on nearby, let alone the history of the venue

I'm less worried about color and contrast at this point...I'm more concerned about faux-facades. There are patches of the false brick facade already coming off of the earlier phases, so I hope they can up the ante a little for phase 5 and really go for high quality stuff. The interiors of the existing buildings may be high quality (I don't know, I've never been inside), but the exteriors leave a lot to be desired. on a side note...I know I've complained a lot about the absence of ground floor retail in the newer buildings both on the viaduct and river levels...and I still am disappointed, but there are several "for lease" signs in older buildings around the viaduct and no one seems to be filling them up...so what needs to happen to convice retailers to get in on the act??? Is the restaurant doing well? Is there programming on the park end of the viaduct? Are people moving into the apartments? curious...

great images...great perspectives...excellent work!

I'm very excited to see all this talk of TOD either in the works or proposed and that the RTA has begun making it more of a priority...it's such a simple notion for them...use land around our stations better and our ridership will increase. And as for the idea that only poor people in cleveland use transit...that may be true to a greater extent than other cities like those on the East and West Coasts, but rush hours are always very diverse and I feel that there are more people living near stations out of choice than there were, say, 10 years ago when I lived here last. I'm car-free by choice and I feel that my transit options are pretty solid. And I think that there's a growing number of people like me in town...especially on the West Side. I would venture to say that this may be a result, at least in part, of the RTA's efforts to redevelop stations along the western route of the Red Line.

I'll be attending tonight and will do my best not to sit on my hands... more later!

excellent feature and a nice overhead shot as well... really helps pull the site and scale together. I rode my bike down the viaduct the other day and aside from being immensely disappointed in the viaduct level frontage of the new condo tower, I was very pleased with the overall scale of the development (phases 1-4) and how it will serve to bring this area alive. I also did my usual "gazing wistfully over the northern railing" at the sea of parking lots that make up the majority of the rest of the inner west bank and just let my imagination go. It's amazing what potential there is! Phase 5 will be an excellent start to get the momentum going for the rest of the neighborhood...

I can't think of a site in OC for a development of this scale...unless there's some industrial property along Detroit or something south of Lorain that they're talking about. All the recent development has been rehabs or one side of a block...a lot of scattered stuff, but nothing monumental. This, I'm assuming, is going to be the size of a Battery Park or thereabouts. Also, what will the future of the Riverview site be? There's so much land to be developed both around the towers and behind the market, all the way from Lorain to Detroit. But with the status of the hillside, what will it take to develop it? What if we just built closer to West 25th and made the easternmost portion a winding park??? Sounds good to me!

but at that point, all of the construction of today and the last 5-10 years will have their abatements expiring...are we seeing this as a potential negative force or are we just thinking that new abatements will hurt more than help in the short-term? Basically, will people who own a house that is losing its abatement look to build anew or will they stay put? I guess if we achieve a higher level of density and new construction isn't that easy to do anymore, then people will stay put...