ryanfrazier

I'm glad SW is staying in Cleveland, building a new skyscraper, and eating up (some) of the surface lots they purchased, but here's the nit I'm going to pick: the ground floor "Active Use" retail liner on the W. 3rd side of the garage is incredibly shallow. There were indications of this from prior releases, but by my eyeball exam of the schematic the space is about the width of two parking spaces. Not two car lengths, car widths. What retailer or restaurant could possible operate in a space that size? This seems like malicious compliance with the zoning requirement. I don't know the specifics of what the code requires, but if there is no depth requirement that was poorly drafted.

I guess the cleveland.com article is missing a link to a video?

Not sure where to put this, but the NY Times looked back at Cleveland's prominent Black reporter Charles Loeb, who defied the military and institutional media in reporting the true effects of radiation sickness after Hiroshima: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/science/charles-loeb-atomic-bomb.html

Scranton Peninsula may have accidentally benefited by failing to land SW's R&D facility, given the size and scale of this project. I envision SP as a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly, walkable neighborhood. This R&D facility would take up a lot of space and need a lot of parking. Such an institutional facility could've really killed any vibrancy on the Peninsula. Seeing how reluctant SW is to put street-level retail in their building downtown, I'd imagine they would be even less likely to have any in R&D facility in an emerging neighborhood. Hopefully something better can be built on the Peninsula.

Doesn't look like they locked up the web address yet: http://www.clevelandguardians.com/

Are there utilities hooked up on that spit of land? Enough to build a high-rise? If not, that added expense could make it more feasible as parkland or other passive use.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm skeptical that the remaining surface lots will be built on anytime soon. The SW parking garage will not have capacity for 100% of its employees. These lots were already parking before, now there's going to be increased demand for parking from the new HQ next door. The effects of supply and demand simply point to parking. Unfortunately it is a low-overhead (cheap) way to make money off land downtown, while adding virtually nothing to the urban fabric. Time to tax surface parking downtown!

Arlington, Virginia's Courthouse and Jail are a good example of how secure buildings can meet the street and fit into a diverse, walkable neighborhood. https://goo.gl/maps/NuFTx7uRVJiuX1kr7

Do they have good water pressure up there?

@KJP if the stadium were built on this site, do you think the Rapid would be out of commission for an extended period of time during construction?

This doesn't have to be an either-or proposition. Vibrant spaces, on the lakefront or elsewhere in cities generally, involve mixes of uses. Having recreational space makes offices and apartments more attractive. Having offices and apartments near recreational spaces allows more people to use the spaces. The best way to plan and build is all of the above.

One issue with lakefront development I would like to see revisited by local leadership is the citing of the Coast Guard and Army Corps offices on the east side of E. 9th Street. Being across the street from the Rock Hall would be prime land for restaurants/hospitality/apartments. I know the feds don't want to move, but I wish there was some organized to get Ohio's Congressional delegation to make them move somewhere else on the lakefront. It's prime land currently fenced off for security purposes. Short of that, I don't see why there can't be a small amount of fill in the harbor on the east side of E.9th across from Voinovich park, north of the Coast Guard site. Just enough to add some more 1-3 story buildings so that the tequila bar isn't so isolated and there's more motivation for foot traffic at the end of the pier. I know its in the flight path of Burke, but it seems far enough away to build something short.

According to this Columbus law firm a claim of adverse possession can use "tacking" wherein successive owners' claims are added together, so I don't think a past transfer would preclude a claim. Also, the required length of the use is 21 years. So if successive owners have been using it for 21 years, in a way that is open, continuous, exclusive, adverse, and notorious, then they have a claim. But they have to prove it. https://josephandjoseph.com/articles/adverse-possession-legally-stealing-real-property/

Are you talking about federal Dept. of Homeland Security? Why do they have a say in the matter?

This situation calls for the city to use eminent domain. It would have been preferable to do so earlier when valuation would arguably be lower.

The video above, at 1:11, says it will be completed "early this summer".

A courthouse tower on/in the pit would be a better use that the current parking lot, but I always wanted to see high-rise development there. The lake views would be phenomenal. I just assumed that it was undeveloped because of soil/foundation issues. If so, the same would add costs to a courthouse tower. That lot is artificial fill below the original shoreline right? Does anyone know if the soil conditions would make a courthouse tower prohibitively expensive? I guess the lot is big enough that you could spread out instead of up.

I like the idea of moving the Justice Center to the park; one thing that will need to be addressed is vehicular access for transporting prisoners. With an off-site jail there will be a lot more activity of vans or busses coming and going. That entrance would have to be highly secured so I would expect it would be removed from the north or east sides of the park, where the general public accesses the garage. It would be unsightly on Lakeside, so that leaves the W. 3rd side. There should be room, but its something that needs to be taken into account.

Yeah, the cost escalation certainly is a valid concern, but that's all the more reason why this should be a quicker process. There are also costs to leaving a big hole in downtown. I hope a decision about the next 50+ years is not penny wise, pound foolish. I look forward to the next KJP rumor update.

So I'm no engineer, I'm just some guy who posts on the internet, but the placement of a new courthouse tower doesn't seem that complicated to me. If you look at the Justice Center block, such a small portion of it is occupied by the tower. Moving the jails and CPD HQ off the site leaves over 3/4 of the block to build a replacement tower on, while the existing tower stays in use. Then you can do any number of things with the site of the old tower. And sure, this is an oversimplification, and the buildings are all connected so you've got to plan carefully, but in the big picture this seems pretty straightforward. And at this stage we're still working on the big picture, so I don't know why its taking so long.

I agree that northern super block should have a passthrough, but it doesn't look like SW is planning to make that happen. In my opinion, that parking garage shouldn't go so far west, instead push it north, so that a pedestrian passageway can run north-south near the middle of the block. I suspect SW doesn't want to do that bc zoning would require the frontage on St. Clair to have storefronts (which is good for urbanity, but not what SW specializes in). I haven't seen much from SW or KJP to indicate the company is doing much to make their buildings welcoming to the street level pedestrian.

My guess on the notch is loading/executive garage entrance. But its so early in the process it could end up looking completely different.

The "learning center" on the Jacobs lot is listed as 50k-80k square feet. From the released plan, the footprint of the buildings looks to be roughly 170ft by 170ft. That's an area of 28,900 per floor. So we're talking a 2-3 story building on the Jacobs lot on Public Square. Weak sauce.

I agree with all the voices on here criticizing the lack of street-level activity in this design. The only thing I have to add is that the "security" concern doesn't even make sense! What do they think is going to happen if there's a coffee shop on the ground floor of their building? Look at prominent, successful business districts in NYC, Chicago, DC/Northern Virginia, or any major city and there are office buildings full of important corporations and law firms with street level retail. They all care about security too, but it doesn't stop them. It would be one thing if there was actually a trade-off here between the security/success of SW's business and ground floor activity, but there is no trade-off.

Your post just filled me with dread, this seems way too plausible.