SixthCity

The foundation of Coastal Taco. Water Taxi platform under construction.

Work being done on 811 prospect where a new Moxie is proposed to open. See ya New York Spaghetti House This is where the old Tops and Bottoms strip club was. It was closed down after a shooting in 2013. Not sure how old the sign is. I think this is the buildout of the BW3s. Ontario side: Prospect side:

D*mn, those are dead sexy imo.

Just speak in hypotheticals.

Man, the first renderings I saw for this project a while back were a lot funkier. I'll take it over whats there currently in a heartbeat though.

Oooooo buddy. I am freaking stoked for the 925 project now though.

The current state of things

Yes, for the love of god. Please let "South Beach Flair" stay in South Beach.

Mmmm I didn't get that impression. I saw adults playing football.....good football, for a change.

I want to be put on record now as a full blown Johnny believer. I think the kid has the chops to be our franchise QB. Also, I think fears about his off-field "issues" are overblown. Consider this my public statement.

That is music to my ears. "Santa put you pyants byack on." Start at 2:45

^ Yeah, but luckily we're getting some pretty sweet new urban fabric to replace it soon.

How about the Courtyard Marriott in University Circle? http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/clece-courtyard-cleveland-university-circle/ Also, the Westin on 6th and St. Clair is very cool.

Love ya buddy. <3

Not entirely sure but to my knowledge, Geis only had an option. Off the top of my head, I would think that required an RFP but I'm not sure. The bidding process may have come and gone but I don't recall either. From the article: After an hour-long discussion, the Cleveland Landmarks Commission voted 8-to-1 in favor of landmarking the Cod, which is docked off North Marginal Road just west of Burke Lakefront Airport. The decision now heads to Cleveland City Council, which will have to decide whether to override objections from city administrators. This is the problem in a nutshell. The Landmarks Commission is essentially in charge of voting to give itself more reach. It will be interesting to see how this happens in Council but Cimperman is on board with the landmark status and I expect the rest of Council to probably fall in behind him. I think Geis still has a lot of influence with the Mayor hence the objections by City administrators. But this is going to hinge on Geis' influence with Council. I, like you, want public access to the water. But keeping the Cod where it is will surely inhibit, not help that.

^ KJP[/member] I hear ya but I don't think that's a full picture of what's going on here. Here are the facts as I understand them: The City owns the land that the Cod is moored to. The Cod presumably has a leasing agreement with the City which is essentially acting as a landowner/landlord in this situation. They have talked about redeveloping this property and have developers interested in doing so. The City as the owner has the right to dispose of their property. Normally, if a tenant wants to locate themselves in a spot they have to negotiate the terms of their lease - the Cod has presumably done this with the City. The terms, duration, and price of the lease will be determined by the value calculated by the tenant. So if the Cod has a year lease and are at risk of getting booted for a development project, then so be it - they should have gotten a longer lease. And the City retains the ability to do this. What the Cod is now attempting to do is to give itself a near perpetual lease for free by landmarking itself. Now, instead of the leaseholder, landowner, and possible future developer negotiating the use of the property, we have a 3rd party commission who is tasked with historic preservation making the ultimate decision with which it has a very strong veto power. That's not an efficient process at the very least - nor is it very democratic at all. Furthermore, if the City is interested in public access to the waterfront, which I'm sure it is, then it can put that into the deal with the developer. That seems to have more democratic input than punting the decision to the Landmark Commission. Further still, this decision does not grant public access to the lakefront - quite the opposite! It just determines that the Cod will remain where it is, which hardly gives public access to the lake at all. I just don't see this as an egalitarian provision of a public good here. This is a self interested party using government to give itself a near perpetual use of land which doesn't appear to benefit the public much at all. It benefits the interested party immensely however. If we are really interested in the provision of a public good, then requiring the developer to maintain access to the water in its development is by far the best route. This can easily be done during the land deal. We have done it successfully with FEB, the Lakefront Plan, the towpath on Scranton Penn., etc. There is nothing to suggest the City's interest would change here. But landmarking the Cod doesn't do that, not even close. It just requires that a huge ship remains on the water's edge. Who does that benefit? Edit: If there are any facts that I've gotten wrong - I hope someone would correct me.

No. That was said in response to this: I won't be accused of being a basement dweller forum kvetcher (although 90% of forum activity is kvetching) and neither can you. Good. Edit: Active involvement in the process or not, the landmarking of the Cod is still a very bad idea.

^ I'm actively involved in redeveloping property in the urban core of Cleveland - my money's where my mouth is. Are you?

If this gets landmarked, the opportunity cost of that decision, which you don't see upfront, will be huge. You have removed private parties ability to negotiate with each other on equal footing. That may or may not mean much to you but that is not how efficient decisions/tradeoffs get made - in business, in social relationships, and certainly in land use. If it gets landmarked, the screw up has already occurred.

From what I can tell, there is a "threat" of redevelopment on the site. This is the site that Geis has had under an option for years now. Redeveloping it would probably require a move for the Cod given its size and position on the most valuable waterfront access on the site. I'm assuming this has mobilized the interest group for the Cod which is now using the godd*mn guvment as a way to ensconce its interests and the godd*mn guvment is eager to oblige. So yes, keeping the Cod in its place would drastically detract from a lakefront development on the site and may even make it unpalatable given the cost. I am saying this as someone who loves the Cod and Cleveland history and would love to see the Cod remain an attraction. But they have no right to use the government as a shield to protect themselves from making tradeoffs. Keeping the Cod where it is comes with costs and benefits - and they should have to negotiate those like everyone else. This gives them an offramp from those negotiations, or at least gives them a pretty nice shield. EDIT: If Geis or other developers walk away because of this then shame shame shame. And we'll still b*tch about an undeveloped lakefront.

An impromptu demo. Bummer. Firefighters battle early-morning blaze on Cleveland's East Side http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/12/firefighters_battle_early-morn.html#incart_river_home

Better to make things as difficult as possible. If this blocks development on those lots, then we have reached a new low. I love the USS Cod but it takes up the entire shoreline, I don't see how development could tout waterfront access and have it. Plenty of other places it could go. Government inserts itself again. USS Cod gains traction as Cleveland landmark, despite pushback from City Hall A local landmark designation would apply to both the submarine and the half-acre piece of public property where it has been moored for more than 50 years. That means the Landmarks Commission would have veto power over any development proposal for the land or any request to relocate the vessel. Assistant Law Director Jonathan McGory, who represents the city's airport system, stressed that the port control division respects the Cod and its history. But he questioned whether the land next to the Cod has any historic significance and asked the commission not to restrict the city's flexibility. "We're not currently asking to move the Cod, right now, for development," he said, "but we are getting word from developers that they're interested in this parcel. ... We don't want to dismiss the Cod and all that it brings to the city of Cleveland. We just want to make sure that we have the ability to get the most out of our lakefront that we can." http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/12/uss_cod_gains_traction_as_clev.html

I think Matt Berges did the Bradford townhouses.

We should threaten to use the site as an open air garbage incinerator during the RNC if we don't get the money.

Construction fencing is up and dudes are on the roof jackhammering away. Looks like demo will start soon.