cadmen

Macy's, we've been around so long we're dieing.

I'm thinking if a developer is having trouble paying for plywood to cover some windows they aren't going to be in a position to pay for actual re-construction. Christ, l probably have more in my bank account than this company. And you call yourself a developer? Embarrassing

I like the idea. Any new high rise residential can be built on that giant parking lot next to the powerhouse.

I just read an article about the downtown Pittsburgh office market. It said something between a third and a half of their downtown office space was in trouble. I know we can't put the genie back in the bottle but...damn WFH is reaping havic on much of downtown America. I wonder if SHW will even build phase ll. If they do they will really be swimming upstream compared to much of corporate America.

I think it's more than wishful thinking if just a couple of things work in our (Cleveland) favor. If the politics continue both presidential candidates are on record as opposing the Nippon buy and it wouldn't be unsurprising to see Congress chime in too. The other thing is the financials are looking better for Cliffs too. Anyway, a guy can hope can't he?

Thanks for the article Ken. I'm sure l'm the only one on this forum who prefers that this iteration was tabled. Such a vanilla project for what l consider a prime Cleveland site. I understand why the previous design is no longer financially possible but once this disappointment is built we're stuck with it. Better to wait for a better economic climate and build something worthy of the location.

That upperdeck area with the increased airflow should be more environmentally friendly. Definitely saves on air conditioning.

I think this is good news. It's another blank space going from dark to light in a pretty important location. Too bad the old BOE space won't be filled by a company wanting to locate on a main street not in but near downtown. A location like that used to be a great area for not quite ready for prime (downtown) time. Oh well, another conversion from office space to residential is better than another teardown but man l miss the old days of actually working at the office.

The built in advantage that chains have is deep (corporate) pockets. Which allows them to pay higher rent. Of course most landlords would prefer to rent their space at the higher rate which inevitably makes it very difficult for an independent business to open or stay open. Yes, that's American capitalism. We appreciate capitalism for the most part. For the most part, and that's the rub. Because many of us also appreciate the ambiance of these cool and organic neighborhoods. And what sets them apart is often the retail mix. Lose the mix - lose the charm - lose the neighborhood. So the conundrum is how do we follow two masters? Finding that answer is an endless battle. In a small way its like fighting for the soul of America. We've pretty much lost the independant corner store to the impersonal corporate giant. We're at the point where we sell what's left of our remaining soul to save a couple of bucks. Mercantilism in its purest form minus the human element.

Plus most of Canada lives within 200 miles of the US so development is squeezed along the border. Canada may cover a huge swath of the earth but its people don't.

I'm sure there are economic metrics that indicate what a paticular property can rent for based on square footage and (city) location. But that shouldn't be the only metric. In the first place if it's deemed desirable that a livable, healthy retail environment should have room for local start-ups and small business as well as national chains then there has to be a mechanism for small to compete with large. Whether it's small business grants or simply the owner not taking the renter for every last penny if we don't want to live in a world of cheap big box retailers society has to make sacrifices. If we value independents (and we say we do) then we have to find a way for them to survive. Otherwise we'll live in a world of Wallmarts and McDonalds. Modern America is already sterile enough. Do we really want more?

Big pet peeve of mine too. Sure, in the grand scheme of things it's nothing but our skyline before SHW looks a little underwhelming but WITH it it looks solid and then some. And maybe it's because all of us here are just skyline nerds but still, when city promos highlight a skyline to indicate city vibrance which creates a more positive impression there has to be more to it than just a pretty picture. So everyone, just update the damn picures to reflect who we are now, not who we were. Rant over.

That's not good. Used to be downtown highrises were built for office space, government abd residential. Now with business downsizing l'm afraid we're left with government and residential. I wonder how much America's skylines will be changing going forward? Slowly l'm afraid.

Mayby it's as simple as low hanging fruit. It's easy to add something to an already established park while it's more difficult to deal with new housing in a city already built out. My Lakewood house was built in 1908 and while it's in pretty good shape one house next to me is falling apart because the widow living in it for the last 40 years can't maintain it. The house on the other side has a couple in it who are in their late 70's. Somehow, someway Lakewood needs new housing and younger homeowners.

It's not just commercial landlords jacking up the rent. Housing landlords are doing it too. There must be something going on other than greed. Or maybe it IS just greed. Don't want to de-rail the topic, just my two cents as this has been bothering me ever since l read about it.

A new building?

This kind of development, while not sexy, is necessary to rebuild the neighborhood after decades of abandonment. Add the fact that these units are not luxury housing is also a plus. Little by little.

If Ohio were to get this it would be the first time since we were routinely placing pols in the White House that Ohio was back in the national eye. I am tired of reading about the same states over and over that are leading the country in whatever metric we use to showcase growth and relavance.

So we used to read that with the high costs of labor/building materials developers were unable to build here because the market wouldn't allow for higher rents. But now we are one of the higher rent cities and yet we still have limited new construction rates. There must be more to the story. What am l missing here?

One of the many things l love about Europe is the skinny trams running on surface streets. I never noticed that they were slow, just efficient. They are a perfect solution. No need for expensive rights of way. No need for bulky, in the way platforms. Sharing the right of way with cars is the best, most affordable AND easiest solution. It's been working on the crowded, cramped streets of Europe for a hundred years. The only reason we don't do it here is probably some combination of lawyers and scale, meaning we like to do grand in America, not quaint and workable.

When does that last smokestack come down?

I like this version because it keeps the team downtown although my preferred location is just south of the muny lots but nevermind. The only drawback l can see is it will take more time because first a new post office needs to built in Brookpark, then the old one comes down, then the new stadium is built. That whole scenario might add a year or so on top of whatever time it takes to build a stadium. At any rate l hope this idea can be pulled off. Once this gets the greenlight we can all argue about costs, design etc. Should be fun.

I can't wrap my head around a project like this...skyline changing hotel with residences? I would have thought a project like that is at least 10 years in the future if then and only IF we increase our growth rate. An investment like that in our downtown now either means a bigtime corporation is projecting bigtime growth very soon or they just don't understand development. I don't know what to make of this news but it is titillating. And just to throw this out there, l wonder if the Browns leaving downtown would have an impact on projects like this? I can't imagine that it wouldn't. Downtown hotels are leaving a lot of money on the table if they lose that business.

@DO_Summers l think the difference is depending on the amount and kind of pollution there are rules/laws that say it may be safe enough to walk on for a limited amount of time vs. living on it.

@GREGinPARMA l completely agree with you. It IS a pet peeve of mine too when a company uses a stock photo that is completely out of date. I am really looking forward to seeing the view from the Flats showing the Detroit Superior bridge in the foreground with Public Square in the background. It will be a game changer as views go and will show us having a real skyline.