PaxtonMarley

And I do have to say, from a vanity standpoint, it gets Elyria off CityLab's infamous list of the worst Amtrak stations...but Cleveland's still on it. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/07/these-are-the-saddest-amtrak-stations-in-america/397817/

I agree Ken. This is a great project for the city and county, one that will combine intercity rail, Greyhound and LCT in one location. And if I am mistaken, it will incorporate the old New York Central station house as well. [/img]

I agree with you ML11. I don't know if Forest City or Gilbert was the one that moved the parking ramp from Huron Ave to the Old Post Office, but it was a great move and opens up a lot of real estate for some sort of entertainment venue on the river.

Jos A. Bank would be a fine addition to downtown. They don't have any downtown locations in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, or Detroit. But they do have a downtown presence in Chicago, Pittsburgh, and D.C. I wouldn't be surprised if a "food hall" were in Tower City's near future. Since we lost the food courts at Halle and Atrium (?), I can see that happening.

Here's something though, I am familiar with Downtown D.C. and Chicago, and noticed how many office workers go shopping during lunch. The stores that get the most patronage aren't luxury boutiques but big-box stores (e.g. TJ Maxx, Marshall's, Nordstrom Rack) and mid-level stores like Forever 21 and H&M. In other words, stores that you'll find in any suburban shopping center, but in a walkable setting. Forgetting about the residents Downtown, with all that white collar employment within a relatively compact space, there's got to be some opportunity there.

I don't think so, Tower City being leased up as luxury mall was one of the biggest business blunders in Downtown Cleveland. It didn't meet the needs of Cleveland in 1990 nor in 2018. Now that Danny Gilbert owns the mall and the surrounding buildings, I think the sentiment is "what now?" The mall is not particularly well located, has a lot of B and C tenants, a dingy food court that was originally intended to be temporary but has become permanent, and not much else going on there.

Wow, thank you for this list. I don't know if anyone can ever determine the exact net gain in employment or investment from research dollars, but there is a definite link. And perhaps instead of chasing after shiny objects (e.g. Amazon), Ohio should be putting more money into R&D and growing our own businesses.

I posted the article in this thread earlier today. I have been to the one in Alexandria, Virginia. And let's just say I am not their target demographic. It's pretty popular with the "bro-grammer" crowd. In other news, I am no longer an "excavation site." I am now a "dirt lot." My wife will be so proud.

Breaking News, Amazon has chosen its finalists for HQ2... Most of the cities are the usual suspects...huge cities like NYC, LA, and Chicago as well as tech hubs like Raleigh and Austin. But if you want to root for an underdog, Nashville, Pittsburgh, and Newark are on the list. The only Ohio city to make the cut is Columbus. If I were betting man, I think D.C. has a strong chance of getting it, as 3 of the 20 finalists are in the D.C. region. Here's the link for the full list: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/amazon-narrows-list-of-candidates-for-new-headquarters-hq2-to-20.html

Without seeing the space itself, I don't know if it can be adapted for residential space and still keep the historic status. If it really can, it will be quite a challenge. The JHB is a boxy set of buildings with a lot of interior space with only two windowed walls, the shortest wall fronting Euclid and another fronting an alley. Too bad we don't build flagship retail anymore, I could see a big-box retail tenant moving in, like what has been done in Chicago and D.C.

Not that I am aware. They have the plastic sheets, which Mr. Sabracos was a little bit embarrassed about. I can only assume that the water is shut off, but I didn't ask about the roof. Sorry if it looks like I am just suddenly being active here, I am trying to get myself above "excavation site" status.

I didn't know that about 925. Wikipedia says it is owned by Optima. I don't know Optima very well, but they seem to be in a similar situation as Alto...flush with Eastern European cash and have no idea where or how to spend it. But I don't mind out of state or foreign investors per se. In fact, it can bring some great exposure to Cleveland. But if a project's backers know as much about Cleveland as I know about Mars, I cannot imagine any major project, especially one of this complexity being successful.

A few weeks ago, I met with Michael Sabracos at Alto Partners, and discussed this project in detail. And to be honest, even though I think he is a decent fellow, I really think he is biting off more than he can chew. First of all, by quickly perusing their flashy website, one would assume Alto Partners is a major developer of luxury malls and energy infrastructure in Eurasia. But actually, beyond the website, which hasn't been updated since 2014, Alto Partners seems to be more of a fiction than a reality. Mr. Sabracos is a Baltimore-based investor hired by Alto about a year ago, and has no office or personnel here in Cleveland. The original founder of Alto, Yusuf Sarimsakci, has no personal involvement or investment in the JHB complex or Alto's newest investment in Erieview. So, Mr. Sarimsakci, who stylizes himself as the Turkish Donald Trump, won't be seen dining at Lola any time soon. Because Mr. Sarimsakci got into some legal trouble for not paying real estate commissions and contractors for a project in Dallas...that may be for the best. As noted already, the backbone of the JHB project is not its after rehab appraisal or its cashflow, but it's the historical tax credits, which according to Mr. Sabracos, are quite favorable in Ohio. Since all of Euclid Avenue has been listed to the National Register of Historic Places, including the JHB, he sees this project as quite attractive. I am no expert in the historic registry process, but I cannot fathom that a half-mile stretch of Euclid Avenue, old buildings and new, would be listed to the Register as a whole. But that's neither here nor there. So, I also asked Mr. Sabracos what returns he was expecting for his investors, who hail from Kazakhstan and Russia, and he told me he is looking at upwards of thirty percent. I was taken aback by that, as someone who has seen Downtown Cleveland's ups and downs over the decades and is personally accustomed to real estate projects in hot coastal markets returning in the ten to twelve percent range. I am always happy to see folks moving in and investing in Downtown Cleveland. Always. But, honestly, the situation here is quite an oddity, a very complex historic property (a) deep in receivership, (b) requiring at least $50 million to rehabilitate, © that no local developer (Stark, Weston, K&D, Millennia, etc...) want to touch, and (d) backed by foreign money with the promise of a thirty percent return. I didn't ask Mr. Sabracos to see his numbers, but I honestly wish him the best of luck. But you know what they say about things that sound too good to be true...

Okay, so somewhat related to the Shaker / CTS merger but not entirely. It was cool at one point that Cleveland has a heavy rail, light rail, and now a BRT system. But when APTA aggregates its ridership totals, each mode is listed separately and surprise, surprise, Cleveland comes out at or near the bottom of both rail modes and is average at BRT. (See http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/FactBook/2016-APTA-Fact-Book.pdf) Now some of that comes from Cleveland's uniquely bad timing of being large enough in the 1950s to justify a heavy rail system but too small in the 2000s for it to succeed. I guess this may only fulfill a pet peeve of mine, but numbers do count when applying for government projects. And economies of scale are important in purchasing equipment and training personnel. While we can't do much with BRT unless we spend millions to stick rails in Euclid Ave, but are there at least any long range plans or proposals to use joint rail equipment and hopefully have a single combined light rail system?

With all this 3C (Cleveland, Columbus Cincinnati) bellyaching, I whipped up a quick table comparing the urban areas in Ohio of 250,000 or more people. I looked at core city/MSA/CSA/UA populations and land areas and noticed basically depending on how you cut it, the three areas are very similar or tied in lots of metrics. All three cities usually either first, second, or third in most categories. Some things do stand out though. The Columbus MSA will most certainly over take the Cleveland-Elyria MSA by 2020, but the Columbus MSA has a land area more than twice that of Cleveland taking up ten counties compared to Cleveland's five. But Columbus has a much smaller urbanized area, so therefore the vast majority of the Columbus behemoth is sparsely populated.

Thanks everyone. The map was an update of maps found in “A History of Cleveland and Its Environs” (1918) by Elroy McKendree Avery and "Cleveland: The Making of a City" (1950) by William Ganson Rose. Other info was found in Case's Encyclopedia of Cleveland History and shakersquare.net too. Lots of great stuff out there.

And here is the Key to that Map. KEY TO ANNEXATIONS MAP A. Original Village of Cleveland, incorporated by legislative act of December 23, 1814. B. Annexation by act of December 31, 1829. C. Annexation by act of February 18, 1834. D. Incorporated with A, B, and C as City of Cleveland by act of March 5, 1836. E. Remainder of Cleveland Township Annexed by act of March 22, 1850. F. City of Ohio Annexed by act of June 5, 1854. G. Annexation of part of Brooklyn Township passed by legislative act of February 16, 1864, and granted by County Commissioners, September 6, 1864. H / I. Portions of Brooklyn and Newburgh townships Annexed by act of February 28, 1867, and approval of County Commissioners granted, August 6, 1867. K. Annexation of part of Newburgh Township granted by County Commissioners. March 9, 1870. L. Ordinance to Annex East Cleveland Village passed, October 24, 1872. M / N / O. Annexation of parts of Brooklyn, Newburgh, and East Cleveland townships granted by County Commissioners, February 8, 1873. P. Annexation of Portion of Newburgh Township granted by County Commissioners, December 8, 1873. R. Annexation of part of Brooklyn Village granted by County Commissioners, November 10, 1890. S. Annexation of Portion of East Cleveland Township granted by County Commissioners, September 28, 1892. T. Annexation of Portion of Newburgh Township granted by County Commissioners, November 15, 1893. U. Annexation of West Cleveland Village granted by County Commissioners, March 5, 1894. V. Date of Annexation of Brooklyn Village fixed by passage of ordinance by its council, June 15, 1894, after authorization passed, April 30, 1894. W. Portion of Village of Glenville Annexed by grant of County Commissioners, February 26, 1898. X. Annexation of Portion of Glenville Village granted by County Commissioners, November 18, 1902. Y. Annexation of Portion of Linndale Village ordered by County Commissioners, December 19, 1903, and resolution adopted on April 11, 1904, declaring said Annexation as part of Cleveland. Z. Ordinance to Annex a Portion of Brooklyn Township rejected, May 31, 1904. AA. Annexation of Portion of Brooklyn Township ordered by County Commissioners, July 11, 1904. BB. Annexation of Portion of Newburgh Heights Village ordered by County Commissioners, September 25, 1905. CC. Ordinance to Annex Glenville City passed, June 19, 1905. DD. Ordinance to Annex Village of South Brooklyn passed, December 11, 1905. EE. Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing Corlett Village, December 28, 1909. FF. Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing the Village of Collinwood, January 21, 1910. GG. Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing a Portion of Shaker Township, June 22, 1912. HH. Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing the Village of Nottingham, January 14, 1913. II. Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing the City of Newburgh, February 10, 1913. KK. Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing Portion of Euclid Village, August 27, 1914. LL. Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing Portion of East View Village, December I, 1914. MM. Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing Portion of Shaker Heights Village, February 12, 1915. NN. Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing Portion of Brooklyn Township, August 7, 1915. OO / PP. Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinances Annexing Portions of Brooklyn Township, August 10, 1916, and April 12, 1917, respectively. QQ / RR. Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinances Annexing Portions of East View Village and Warrensville Township, September 15, 1917. SS. Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing Portion of East View Village, February 10, 1919. TT. Village of West Park recorded, January 3, 1923, per Record of village incorporations, County recorder's office. UU. Annexation of Portion of Euclid Village granted by County Commissioners, October 15, 1926. VV. Annexation of Portion of Warrensville Township granted by County Commissioners, March 9, 1927. WW. Annexation of Portion of Brooklyn Heights Village granted by County Commissioners, June 6, 1927. XX. Annexation of Portion of Warrensville Township granted by County Commissioners, May 25, 1927. YY. Annexation of Portion of Warrensville Township granted by County Commissioners, July 21, 1927. ZZ. Annexation of Portion of Miles Heights Village granted by County Commissioners, April 25, 1928. 50. Annexation of Miles Heights Village ordered by County Commissioners, December 29, 1931; Annexation Passed, March 28, 1932. 51. Portion of old West Park Village Detached from the City of Cleveland by Court of Common Pleas, October 28, 1932. 52. Portion Detached from the City of Cleveland to South Euclid by County Commissioners, March 12, 1943. 53. Annexation of Portion of Brookpark Village granted by County Commissioners, March 28, 1946. 54. Annexation of Portion of Riveredge Township as part of agreement between City of Cleveland and City of Fairview Park, July 1, 1992. 55. Additional Annexations of Portions of City of Brook Park, part of airport expansion between 1992 and 1996. 56. Portion Detached from the City of Cleveland to City of Brook Park as part of settlement agreement, July 1996. 57. Annexation of Portion of City of Brook Park as agreed by Cleveland City Council and agreed by Referendum of City of Brook Park on August 7, 2001. 58. Portion Detached from the City of Cleveland to City of Brook Park as agreed by Cleveland City Council and agreed by Referendum of City of Brook Park on August 7, 2001.

First post / long time reader. I was checking out the PD articles about the proposed merger between Cleveland and East Cleveland and started to check out past controversies on Cleveland land annexations. Some things are still in recent memory like the Cleveland / Brook Park lawsuits on airport expansion in the 1990s which resulted in a land swap in 2001. But other things are just as fascinating and almost forgotten like how Bratenahl seceded from Glenville as residents feared Glenville would eventually merge with Cleveland (which as we all know it did). Stories like this are all around the area. So I tried to find an annexation map, but sadly the last map was last updated in 1950, so I decided to update it and bring it to the Internet Age.