eurokie

With the housing niche being targeted by A Place for Us, there is no way that they can accomplish that overall build-out. They should have demo'd a middle piece of the storefronts to insert a gateway or walkway, and built the housing behind the commercial strip. One of the most logical reasons I can envision for the way they've done things is if soils testing revealed un-fixable levels of soil contamination. In that case, they probably don't ever plan to build in the back, and just floated that rendering to overcome calls for historic preservation.

CMSD is chronically unconcerned in the success of the overall city, and only in seizing as big a piece of the pie as they can, with no regard to the quality of the overall pie. CMSD routinely demo's school buildings they can no longer fill, just to prevent competing charter schools from moving in. Columbus City Schools has done a decent job of coordinating efforts to adaptively reuse the schools it no longer needs. CMSD shows absolutely no interest in helping to retain its own history, let alone help grow the shrinking city that has caused CMSD's declining enrollment. Its beyond myopic and does call for new leadership. The Jackson administration went all-in with the district though, in an effort to ensure an easy reelection.

I live on High in the Victorian Village Commission boundaries, and I want this, the other, and that mid-rise proposal to proceed. So does everyone I know. As a resident of this stretch of street, I can tell you the biggest nuisances are the parking lots. Suburbanites weave in and out of them almost hitting pedestrians, they collect aggressive panhandlers (who always initiate contact), and constitute eyesores no matter how they're landscaped or if they have crappy arches. When I hear "We are concerned about parking," from our Victorian Village commissioners, they should be saying "We are concerned you aren't developing more of our parking lots." Left. If coming from downtown on High.

I agree. That's a bad idea.

Wasn't Lennox supposed to be nice? It's interesting because the city had the 315 "Innovation Corridor" or whatever plan... exactly the type of plan that could have helped improve these substantial economic investments, if it were implemented.

You know, I don't understand this. I think that the JRoc project at 10th and Fairfield is awesome. That whole "point" (or "pointe" if you will) of Tremont is an awesome place for denser development. I like the dense condo concept a lot better than other high-density project types (especially no building blocks in Tremont). Maybe the empty nesters of 2120's will be moving out of those gargantuan 3,000 sf townhomes that they don't want to maintain anymore, with their historic features...like massive setbacks.

I wonder if they could incorporate an outdoor fire pit to the cafe's open seating area. That could be a key programming element to activate the park during the winter months.

To me the hotel thing is just a winner in Cleveland. You have a city that has substantively turned its biggest problem (image) around, granted most of the other problems persist. The biggest distinction is that conventions and meetings really weren't a factor in Cleveland before. It was just a city that didn't compete for convention business. That alone will fundamentally change the hotel landscape in Cleveland, and then you add the special events that we are now getting with some regularity (and definitely include the NBA Finals in between the Gay Games and RNC). The apartments are also a critical mass thing, and I also see some legitimate reasons why apartment simply works better than condo in Cleveland (the schools will always be bad until poverty is solved). When Cleveland hits 25,000 downtown residents (probably soon), downtown will legitimately be one of the largest neighborhoods. That's a neighborhood for which there is definitely a market, and the more of that that can comprise the whole of Cleveland, the more of an impact downtown will make toward stemming the tide of population loss. That's a virtuous cycle. I do agree though that this particular developer justifies a "wait and see" kind of approach. I've seen a lot of these shady (mainly if developer capacity looks like an issue) out-of-state deals not pan out EVEN after paying exorbitant amounts. I would maybe even say more so in those instances. Out-of-state developers are often one of the biggest contributors of land speculation, no matter where you go.

I don't think you can fault developers for gravitating toward the rental market. It's not just the housing crash. Downtown rental is a uniquely strong market because it offers flexibility. Plus, those units can be condoized as affordable home ownership at a later date. The story will begin, "Developers built a lot of downtown rental after the 2008 suburban home mortgage crash..." We don't yet know how it ends.

Some cities tax surface lots higher. Others tax them the same as property which is nicely built-out. Just don't have a taxing structure that penalizes development, because when something as minute as thousandth-percentile profit margins make or break people, taxes are a HUGE factor. I'm scratching my head about the lot owners not wanting to sell, because if the demand is so high, there's got to be a point where they are worth far more as condos than as parking lots, and no sane parking lot owner would refuse to sell. Maybe it hasn't been reached yet but eventually they'll tumble like dominoes. I've had to stop scratching my head at some things, or else I'll go prematurely bald. I understand fully though (sadly) how things stay the same everywhere despite the "rapid progress" we have convinced ourselves of. Land speculation is an incredibly powerful force. They probably think the development boom either just makes their parking all the more valuable or that their land premium will be even higher in the future. What did surprise me is that Cincy's surface lots are "locally, family-owned," which is why I said you need to shame these people into selling. Stop treating them like downtown property owners and instead like the slumlords that they are. Usually your problem (ESP in our other C's) is the surface lots are all out of state owned.

What is in that building? That Beacon sign is cool..

Parking lot owners need to be shamed into backing down. Cities in this state need to crack the whip on eyesore property owners, especially those in our downtowns. There should be no surface parking in a healthy downtown.

EY and the Hilton definitely count, but they just aren't architectural marvels like this. Cleveland has such a huge stock of 300-400 footers that you don't even notice all of the new ones going up. One of the many ways that our beloved Land is far more urban than even we realize...

In this photo, this block looks the best it probably ever will, with Enhance Clifton and the church still standing...

Just from experience of actually trying to live in downtown Columbus without a car. I have two more months left on this year-long pledge, and I don't know if I'm going to make it... buying a car is too tempting. Next time a planner/architect/designer/(anyone in the community planning process) gets the urge for a dash of urbanist bravado, I recommend trying something else. Sadly, too few people in Columbus are really cognizant of what car-less living entails, to the point that this community has deluded itself into thinking that we've solved the problem with CoGo, Car2Go, CBus, COTA, etc. Nothing will bring transit to Columbus besides real transit, period. For being the #1 issue in Columbus, it's not really getting any attention in the mayoral/council races, either. That tells me to expect more lip service to continue through a Ginther term.

Well as long as we are deluding ourselves, why don't we plan the biggest most expensive walking trail that has ever been done... go big or go home. All in the name of waste! edit: not directed at you, as I'm also well-aware of the contingent that considers Burke A, a good use of real estate, and B, a worthwhile fiscal drain.

Reading the part that states, "Planners wanted to encircle Burke Lakefront Airport with a walking trail, but found that may not be feasible due to rules imposed by the FAA..." makes me wanna scream that you cement "connections" with DEVELOPMENT, not with contrived "trails," which we've been doing left and right forever. I think everybody knows that the airport has to be closed. Surely everyone, regardless of whether they'll say it or not, knows that?

I held a conference at CSU last summer, and with most of the attendees being young or young-at-heart and very well-traveled, I was surprised that many stayed at the Cleveland Hostel. We had an entire contingent from St. Louis stay there, even though the conference hotel was closer. They were surprised there wasn't one closer to CSU (they had to take the E Line or HealthLine, or walk, to Tower City and take the Red Line one stop over), which to me seemed like a dual phenomenon of not realizing how close W 25th is despite all of the transit connections, and also not realizing that CSU doesn't get a reliable stream of visitors. West 25th is the no-brainer spot for a hostel, and I understand they're doing quite well. University Circle might also do well with a hostel once some of the TOD ever gets built.

Because highway advocates have spoken more loudly in MORPC's service area than transit/bike/intermodal advocates. Same deal for OKI. But I can tell you NOACA has become pretty forceful about using CMAQ for its intended purposes. More friends are being added to the MORPC board and replacing the highwaymen, but it is going to take time. So anything you and others can do to help to foster more transportation choices and support maintenance of existing road infrastructure is appreciated. Similarly, I'm all ears. I sometimes get the impression that Columbus wants to be urban more than Cleveland or Cincinnati, but two things erode that cause: 1, the feeling of "too much change too soon" in terms of making demands; and 2, complacency and delusion amongst the natives that "Cbus" is some sort of "Austin of the North," which is of course borderline comical.

You seem to have an extreme coastal bias, yet have convinced yourself that Cleveland is second only to Chicago for hotspots between the coasts. Can't speak to the food scenes in Albuquerque or Atlanta which I imagine to be very culturally rich, but KC actually gets a ton of food tourism. Ever heard of BBQ? I always drop in at Arthur Bryant's or Oklahoma Joe's when I'm passing through KC. Houston is also widely regarded as a top foodie city. Houston's metro is experiencing the largest aggregate growth of any metro in the nation right now, adding over 100,000 residents in 2014. It's also a city that has the third-most embassies, counts foreign royalty among its residents, and is so congested that the market preference has shifted to high-density infill. https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/ashby-high-rise-lawsuit-houston-developers-sprawl Rag on Houston all you want, but you only make yourself look behind the times.

Seriously, it's the usual garbage that Pelli's firm is now churning out with regularity these days, and CSU had better options. They chose this, over better proposals, after they chose to demolish the historic Wolfe Music Building. CSU is compensating for its generally low profile in its own hometown through the "institutional expansion" approach, rather than pursuing opportunities to blend into its surrounding urban fabric.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/03/demolish_school_near_shaker_square_and_larchmere_neighborhood_or_convert_to_apartments.html#incart_river Effort underway to save the Jesse Owens School on MLK and Larchmere. Truly astounding that it takes a citizen outcry to get CMSD to even consider saving a beautiful historic building located right between St. Luke's and Larchmere's strip. This is a turning point where a community either gets serious about revitalizing-in-place, or resigns to accepting the ebb and flow and decline-flight-gentrification-structural inequality. Saving the best remaining historic fabric is the only hope left for Cleveland's less-glamorous neighborhoods.

Be careful with that "G" word. Exciting stuff though. Also, not sure if anyone saw this (particularly since the G word was floated around on the last page), but here is a link to Forest City Square's LIHTC proposal. They've definitely invested a lot in the design..but their costs may be high, and they didn't get Frank Jackson's priority. https://ohiohome.org/lihtc/proposals/2015/New%20Units%20-%20Urban/The%20Forest%20City%20Square%20Apartments.pdf ---- Side note, Leisy Brewing on Vega is set to become Gypsy Brewing. So that's what was behind the Ohio City brew farm LLC.. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/03/leisy_brewing_co_building_will.html Sad to see what that building once looked like, but exciting to see what is left get rehabed and generate 50 jobs for the SoLo neighborhood.

Yes, this is what I was referring to.. sorry didn't realize the magnitude of this thread when I responded!

So that Linda's Superette building is supposed to be demolished and the higher and better use proposed is...a more rounded street corner.