Burnham_2011

Strap -- thanks for the article, had missed that one. I'm glad the Nautica Pavillion will be improved upon, but now have one-more-reason I hope Phase 2 is not a bust/long-shot development. The land along that Cuyahoga could be very attractive to developers and if that area ends up sitting in the hands of Rock Ohio for years without a casino building going up it'll be another chapter of our misused waterfront.

I was looking at some Flats ownership data and noticed something I had overlooked earlier. Rock Ohio bought the land behind Tower City all along the river and winding out toward Eagle Ave. I guess I had to know that, since there was earlier buzz about widening the river, but the area down there where the Rib Cook Off, and various concerts take place throughout the summer was included. I'm not saying this is bad or good -- assuming Phase II ever happens -- but so long as Rock Ohio owns that land I wonder how it could affect Tower City Amphitheater plans. I expect they'll continue with shows and events -- but any interest in further development down there would be put off.

Read about this on their website -- eager to see what they come up with. I don't know if they are still looking for people to interview, but I think the UO community has got to be on top of this: http://www.savingcities.com/initiatives/red-white-and-blueprints/

KJP, thanks for finding the right thread! I agree the Mixed use developments alone the line would be good -- but the simplest (so to speak) way would be to create a looped downtown line. Completing the Waterfront Line by bringing it through downtown near the Ave. District, CSU, Theater District, and Gateway would make the RTA line much more useful. To add one other "dream" line I believe a streetcar/BRT that went from W25 to E40 on Superior would allow the Light Rail lines to service/criss-cross much of the CBD and connect Ohio City. Developing the areas around the stations would be a good longer term goal, but for now parking lots near them allow them to be alternatives to driving into downtown, and with a Loop that services more businesses we could convert more drivers into riders.

I agree if you had a large lot in a central area it would be used without any rail line connection. The municipal lot is mostly useless though, why would someone drive into the city, get to the lot, then ride to Tower City, Settlers landing, or FEB (the only "downtown" stops) if they worked at CSU, or on E9th or near Gateway. My point is that our downtown stations (really only Tower City) don't make for a convenient use of RTA rail that would trump simply parking at the closest lot to your building. Until we have a downtown loop (similar to KJPs idea) that would allow someone getting on anywhere (be it Shaker, Brookpark, Windermere or parking at a rail connected Downtown Muny Lot) to get to within a few blocks of their office, surface lots and garages will win over transit and infill.

Not if the parking garage was a part of an urban loop. If the RTA wasn't just a commuter rail but also a means of intracity travel a garage would be an opportunity for people to park and ride, or for downtown residents to park (long term) and use rail to get around town.

Does anyone know if conventions like the Cleveland Auto Show would/could be moved here? Is the IX Center still going to be the main venue for conventions?

Wasn't sure what thread worked best (Development, Gateway, a new "surface lots" thread). But came across this map while researching Lou Frangos (as a side research after looking up the properties along Erie Cemetery). I shouldn't say I was surprised, but it's simply unbelievable when you look at what USA Parking owns and then look at the black holes of development in the city. Isn't there anything the city can do to end the strangle hold that keep real entrepreneurs from developing these areas? It appears he owns around 70% of the land in the area where that could feature the same mixed use technique as Wrigleyville. http://thefrangosgroup.com/Properties-in-Cleveland-Ohio.html

Quick Stanley Block question: even though it is going to be completely wrapped up in the new welcome center, it would seem that they have, by building around it, sort of grandfathered it in. I would also imagine that to some degree this is good because it'll force D. Gilbert to recognize the importance of developing this property. (I mean... otherwise it's a very ugly blemish on the side of his gleaming welcome center). Who currently owns the building (remind me, please) and even though Gilbert couldn't buy this before building the Casino (otherwise it would have been toast) does anyone see it being sold in, say, 2-3 years once the Casino is running and its fate is secure? It seems as though this will be starring Gilbert in the face every day and would be something he'd like to take care of. And, though i'm not certain, my guess is that once the W.C. is built, it would be unlikely that he would demolish it, if he bought it, and simply add more parking spaces to the original building.

Why do you say it's inorganic? In urban terms organic means that it's naturally developed and that it evolves. This means areas grow and decline over time, and populations move around based on those changes. I think people are quick to judge New York on Manhattan alone and see the boom of the last 15 years as what "New York City" is... But New York is a lot more than just the skyscrappers of midtown and extremely expensive Chelsea condos. If you take a wider lens to both the city physically and temporally you'll see that New York is one of the greatest incubators for urban studies as it has not only evolved and changed over the centuries but has moved beyond what most other American cities have because it's survived the decline in the 70s and 80s to hit a new high. It may not be your cup-of-tea, but it's very much an organic, evolving, and extreme example of what happens as an urban jungle develops.

Here's a great article about how dumb (...inaccurate) lists are compiled and why we should give cities that aren't typically on the top 10 lists a better evaluation. Note: This article seems to think cities like London and New York, who miss out on some lists, are the "greatest cities" because of their organic and "dirty" features. So it's not saying cities like Cleveland or Columbus should be up there -- however it does have some good points about why typical lists are just so dumb! (...inaccurate) http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/dd9bba18-769c-11e0-bd5d-00144feabdc0.html

I think your second point is dead on, in that they own these properties as investments to sell and not opportunities to develop. But to your first point I disagree. This is a case of lazy/unmotivated ownership. It takes capital to build and so when faced with a steady stream of present cashflow with low costs v. larger future cashflows but high costs, a good businessman will move on the longer term more profitable option. So whether it is just building a garage to take up the demand and create 3,4 or 5 times as many spots in the same footprint, or building a 14 store mixed use building with apartments, retail, and parking garages -- motivated businessmen don't just sit on an asset when they could make more moving on it. The commercial demand may not be there, and perhaps (though I don't believe so) the residential demand may not be there, but surely if they built a 5 story parking garage with competitive rates in the WHD it would draw the cars from other surface lots and bring in more money. This is about doing as little as possible with something and trying to make money from it.

I'm with Hts on this -- gotta love that the only investing these people are willing to do in the WHD is land speculation. If they put any effort into developing that land as an investment they'd find you can make money by building something! Sort of like the mortgage backed securities and the financial crisis, all this effort to make money without creating any value. It's bad enough that outside entities do it, but Jacobs group? The city should just eminent domain all of that and sell it to a developer.

Too true, McCleveland... I figured if they built it on Public Square you'd have a fighting chance for the nearby (already existing) infrastructure to fill up with units and businesses. Then again knowing our city's infatuation with surface lots I wouldn't bet against them demolishing the Terminal Tower for parking. :drunk:

Apologies to the mods as this is not development news, but a bit of humor and some perspective to follow up the long debate that started in April over what Public Square could become. First a disclaimer, I am not promoting this as an actual development, it would be extremely expensive, is about 17 years too late, and would completely change the concept of Public Square. That said, I was looking at the size of the square the other day and noticed that one could fit a baseball diamond (MLB size) in the square and then some. I then thought of Camden Yards, Fenway, and lastly the ultra-urban League Park of Cleveland. It got me thinking about an alternative reality where traffic was diverted around the square (like the Philadelphia City Hall) and the Jacobs family decided to build their tower and stadium at public square. Imagine (and you might need a Burning River Ale first) the park buil about 1.5 stories above street level with the lower level offering restaurants, retail, team shops locker and practice areas etc. The stadium would be build above with limited seating (I used fairly accurate techniques to superimpose the stadium's lower levels and mezzanine and believe, with some superb engineering that it could be done). This would provide roughly 27,000 seats. I then thought the Huntington Bank building offered a unique opportunity for "upper deck" seating. Granted, the Indians would need to buy the office space behind these seats because the lack of windows would make them very difficult to sell. One or two floors could become dedicated to concessions and people would enter the Huntington Building, take the elevator to a floor with access to the "bleachers". The Jumbo-tron would be built on a green monster" like wall, with minimal seating. Beyond this I would envision the architecture would pay homage to the central location by allowing views from Euclid into the park (not in picture) as well as showcasing the Terminal Tower behind homeplate. Lastly, I would point out that the "Jacobs tower" in this picture is not how I would imagine it. Rather, they could built a tower that bridges over the West Roadway of Public Square, and contains suites, seating, a restaurant like the Terrace Club, and of course commercial space for the Cleveland Indians administrative offices. The rest could be leased for more profits. As for the "other 6 months" of the year... It would be open to the public during the day, and could be used for Snow Days and as many other events as could be imagined. A temporary dome over the field, like they use at Wimbledon, could even make it a green park in the middle of our white winters! Try not to be too critical, this is mostly to get people smiling and thinking about the physical environment of Public Square. But I've got to say this... If it could have been done, could you imagine the national attention during the 1995 World Series?! Positively electric!

Didn't see a thread for this exclusively. Thought as info comes up we could use one: http://www.2014gaygamescleveland.com/ P.S. I snapped a screen grab of the quote below. Hopefully others will begin to see Cleveland in that same light (::cough cough:: RNC/DNC)

Urban prairie not only fits the landscape design, but alludes to the F.L. Wright style of prairie school architecture in the buildings -- these are really beautiful modern townhouses.

Having been a member of this community for a while now, I've been particularly impressed with the ideas and creative solutions many have put forward for issues our urban neighborhoods face. I thought a thread where people could discuss both personal ideas and actual examples of best practices for solving any of the various urban infrastructure and development issues would be interesting. So I'll start: Here are two images from Washington D.C.'s streets that solve two problems (but could even be used for other reasons. The first image of of a black in China Town. The area of DC's China Town is very densely developed with many old rowhouse style commercial buildings (and many new larger ones). The picture shows a facade that has been erected outside of an industrial development in the area. As it is the only industrial building, the city did not want them to ruin a very walkable area with a 'deadzone' and so they created what appears to be 6 distinct buildings. They each contain unique architecture, though they lack functional doors and windows. They also double as functioning vents for the industrial building behind. All in all walking by most would not notice they weren't passing retail and commercial unless they looked closely. I was taken aback by it and thought it was brilliant (and did not look expensive at all). The second picture is of a series of rowhouses which line a block. These rowhouses are home to restaurants, retail, and commercial in the upper floors. What's amazing, though, is that the company that bought the space specifically designed a 12 story 'skyscrapper" (by DC standards) to be set back off the block keeping the existing retail. The result is ground floor human-scale street retail and thousands of square feet of office space above. Again, innovative and very pro-urban living.

Wow... Hachiko Square pedestrian crossing - Shibuya, Japan

Has anyone seen or heard about interest from Mr. Gilbert to alter the right of ways for pedestrians at the intersection of Prospect/Ontario. I would imagine there is interest in painting (paving?) a diagonal walkway across the intersection so that guests could cross with both lights on "Red".

1300 units would certainly be a stretch, but you're right that with multi-use designations (retail, a gym, internal administrative offices, and of course hallways, larger units, and misc. storage etc we could probably see around 950 units or about 4 "Residences at 668 Euclid" sized apartment buildings. That's still a LOT of housing, but if the prices were similar to 668 it's possible the market would soak it up. This kind of project, assuming it did not pull renters from other CBD area apartments would be transformative for downtown in that it would add significant foot traffic and commercial potential to the Ninth and Euclid intersection.

KJP - If the Huntington Building were repurposed as residential -- that's 1.3M square feet -- minus what one would hope could be set up as retail at the bottom level -- how many units would you estimate that would create. Also, I've read here before that the building simply does not have good enough natural lighting to create appealing units due to the distance central rooms have from the exterior walls. Thoughts/examples for ways to get around that?

Just a quick mock-up of MayDay's photo. I used the height projections discussed in this thread to get it "about" right.

I live in D.C., don't worry about Brickskeller's closing -- go to RFD in Chinatown if you want a beer selection. They boast the "largest selection of beer" in the country. Maybe. I live in Capitol Hill and HIGHLY recommend walking around East Capitol Street and the residential roads around there. If you are into Rowhouses and old architecture it's gorgeous. PM me if you have other questions.

And my morning got-that-much worse. Thanks... :-(