cadmen

Nooooooo

A couple things...while l preferred keeping the police headquarters downtown (the old PD building seemed like a natural place to relocate it) l have to admit the new design is pretty cool and seems inviting to the public rather than the usual closed off look these kind of entities usually have. Plus, I'd never seen Fire Station 26 before. What a great looking building. I can't imagine what it could be repurposed for in that neighborhood but it would be a shame if its torn down.

If nothing else putting that foundation in place now shows proactive thinking in case the building is a go. Plus it's another indication that it IS a go. I'm curious to know what business issues went into the decision to build a smaller second tower vs. a larger first tower? Ken, did you come across any info along those lines when you were first doing your investigation?

Hey another way to look at it...What's the definition of success? The automobile lobby arm twisting traffic engineers to create an auto-centric sidewalk. Touchdown!!

I know we Americans love our cars but an auto-centric sidewalk takes the cake.

^ Good point. I may be in the minority here but I love that bridge. Driving in from the west side I think the view (albeit a quick one) crossing the river is my favorite one of downtown. And from its base in the Flats it serves as a physical and visual connector to both sides of the river. Plus it's blue lol.

Well Ken it seems to me one obvious way to determine the seriousness of the Innovation District is to determine the seriousness of the participants. It's not just government money either but the buy in along with that money. I can remember over the past 30 some years when Cleveland was selected (along with other cities) to receive a large influx of Federal dollars that were supposed to be game changing for a neighborhood. It would be front page news on day one but after that either the money was less than expected or it just didn't have a transformational experience. Or maybe it lacked personal oversite and follow through. At any rate...the initial hoopla was followed by pretty much disappointment. I know your background is a news journalist and local development is a particular interest (of which those on this site are quite grateful, thank you very much!). I can only assume you are aware that a strong economy leads to strong development. It also helps if that strong economy is diversified while focusing on jobs of the future and not those of the past. So the reason I am interested in this particular development is (based on your writing) it sounds like it has the potential to inject much needed $$ plus office/lab space to create medical/IT and tech jobs. That kind of focus (if real and large enough) has the ability to piggyback on the work already being done by our first rate medical community. And as I said up-post, medical research is my background and I have personally experienced the value of its innovation both in terms of wealth generation, international reputation and yes, local jobs. It's one thing that keeps us in the first tier. We don't have to take a back seat to larger cities. Maybe I am jumping the gun. I should just let things play out as you suggest. But my interest is in medical research development so pardon me if I can't wait. I just want a little peak around the curtain to to see if I can get a glimpse of the future. Finally lockdog, as for my comment about Pittsburgh being 20 years ahead of us...yes, I'm repeating the same quote we've been reading for some time now. But it's not based on shade. Just count the number of tech companies that chose to open an office there while pointedly NOT opening one here. They made those decisions based on the existing research already being conducted out of its universities. Investment produces more investment. Lack of investment...well you get my point, right?

I can't figure out if this Innovation District is the real deal or just another in a long series of great sounding but ultimately empty ideas to create a 21st century research economy in Cleveland. Are we just Don Quixote tilting at a different kind of windmill? As someone who spent 25 years managing clinical trials at a local biotech firm as well as CCF I am acutely aware of the money and brainpower this kind of work brings to the area. It's no secret that expertise in medical, IT and plain 'ol tech research can catapult a region straight into the future. It's one reason Pittsburgh is probably 20 years ahead of us. They hitched their economic wagon to Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh research while we were still focusing on manufacturing jobs. So is the Innovation District real or not? Are the current players (government, private developers etc.) serious? Is the financial backing deep enough? Or is it simply to early to tell? I would love for this to be real but I just don't know.

^ Of course being fiscally responsible SHOULD be something every mayor takes seriously...but many don't. Hey, I SHOULD have hair on my head but I don't. That's right...it is what it is.

This report is not surprising - at all. One can view the Jackson years as a mixed bag. While he deserves much credit for maintaining fiscal responsibility (rare in these times) he routinely came up short when it came to vision. As an old school rust belt big city mayor he displayed the misguided belief that the city should hang onto institutions (like the airport and WSM) even when it was obvious that an outside entity compromised of professionals steeped in their field would likely have better results than favored political cronies. It remains to be seen what kind of mayor Bibb will be but if he can come close to matching his rhetoric we will all be the beneficiary's of a stronger and more vibrant city.

I wasn't sure about the condition of the ballroom. If it's still a viable and valuable structure then there's an argument for keeping it. My main reason for removing it was to create space for an addition to the hotel. I know l've seen a rendition of an addition on Superior and l thought it was the perfect design compliment and placement. The picture l saw blocked the view of the ballroom so l assumed it was torn down. If there is room for both all the better. If not then the question is what is the better purpose - a viable ballroom or a hotel addition that seamlessly interfaces with the sidewalk. Because right now that section of Superior just to the south is of a hole in the foreground and in the background an awkwardly placed, esthetically challenging block of a structure that in no way fits with the classic architecture of the Terminal Tower complex.

What to do regarding the Justice Center has me a little conflicted. I usually have definite opinions on design/development (you all can determine whether l'm spot on or just another babbling idiot). To that end, on one hand it seems to make sense logistically to have the Courts, Police Hq. and jail in one central location as we have now. But the jail is an obsolete structure and fails to meet 84 state standards. Plus, is it a good look to have the primary jail in the heart of downtown? Where do other large cities have their main jail? It needs space and needs replaced. So convienence be damned, the jail has to move away from the Courts. While l'm happy to see the Opportunity Corridor get a high profile institution which may help kickstart much needed development l don't want to see the Police Hq leave downtown. That's a lot of activity leaving and we need all the life we can get so that's a disappointment l think. Hopefully we still get a Courts tower of some magnitude. That's assuming we abandon the Justice Center tower. Another question is if we tear down the jail, move the Police Hq and build a new Courts tower is the Justice Center tower reusable? Probably not but if we tear everything down we lose a highrise and end up with another massive parking lot for god knows how many years. Alot of questions. I hope we find the right answers.

I don't mean to be greedy and l know it's still a ways off but l wonder what are the chances we get a sizable addition to the hotel across the street? First things first l guess - the much needed investment to bring the existing hotel up to date and then knock down that newish addition (ballroom??) add a 10-16 structure and we get a nice little center of activity on that stretch of road. With the new construction (SHW, hotel addition) plus the rehab of the 2 buildings on the north side of Public Square we might even see real activity in the square. You know, the casual interaction and life you see in those smaller urban parks in New York and Philadelphia. If you've spent any time in there you know what l mean. At this point the new Public Square is mostly a disappointment when it comes to use. Wouldn't it be great if it was a place where people casually hung out and wasn't just a pass-through?

I think we're doing a pretty good job with lighting although a little more creativity would be appreciated. Let's get started on those bridges in the Flats now. But God yes. We NEED color added to the palette. This building has a chance to be a gamechanger if poor quality materials don't cheapen it. We'll have to wait for the finished product but if it's done right it will be an attention grabber and could spur other developers here to add color to their next project.

I know design is subjective and that particular one does have a very 1980's vibe but I have to say I always thought it was a great look especially for such a prominent location. Another one of my favs was the never built very skinny structure that was proposed adjacent to the current SHW downtown offices. You know the one with the giant Cavs banner. The way it angled with Ontario St. seemed like it was enveloping you, welcoming you to downtown. Now all we have is another semi-finished building like the blank wall of the Standard or the two unfinished sides of the Federal building and what does that say but "We can't get our sh*t together."

^ Location location...

As a fan of city density as well as TOD this project is a welcome addition to ongoing development in the area. I know NIMBY'S in Little Italy have had success in blocking or scaling down projects and l'm concerned the very thing l like about it (scale) may be its downfall if local neighborhood activists think it's too large. Fingers crossed they see the project as an asset to the community and not a liability.

Of course. Relating to the street or its context is just as important as what the building looks like, maybe moreso. I'm not espousing either/or but both. A 30 story high rise fits better in the 9/12 district while 4 to 6 story infill that mirrors the existing buildings on West 6th is ideal. Flip them and it doesn't work.

A final point before I walk the dog...sometimes better design doesn't even have to cost more. Case in point; those ridiculous white strips on two sides of the Luman. It stands to reason that it costs more to add them than not. Right? When we first got a look at the Luman I was ecstatic because we were getting another all glass facade which IMO is a massive break from Cleveland beige. Unfortunately one of our experts overselling their brilliance with a flourish came up with "TaDa! Stripes!" But only on two sides not four. Masterful! I only wish they had stayed in bed that day with a cold.

^ Thanks for the input. I am not an architect but I have read enough to understand that returns (rent/sale) play a significant role in determining the final look of anything built in our market ie. low rent/low design or high rent/high design. Couldn't there also be a middle ground? We tend to think low cost always means poor quality fixtures and knock-off designs. That is mostly true but... In another thread I satirically wrote about looking through architectural magazines for ideas. I think a design firm could incorporate more interesting renderings without adding exponentially to the cost. It doesn't have to be cutting edge. Just make it a little more appealing. What are our peer cities doing with design? I think Cincinnati is doing a great job with infill especially in Over the Rhine. How do they pull it off? I've seen some pretty nice results in other cities around the country none of which were New York, Chicago etc. Yes, we do have economic constraints but I think there is a middle ground to pursue here.

I get your point LiamaLawyer but l agree with MyTwoSense. Sure we'll often be settling for B+ designs because the development community is relatively diverse and there are many factors that determine a finished product. Still, if the city pushes back with knowledgeable arguments l'm positive we can get better results rather than just rolling over for every submission. It starts with raising the bar across the field from the planning commission to local architecture firms to any developer with a proposal. It's not impossible it just takes a better effort and yes a more knowledgeable professional class than what we're used to. If we have to import that by being less insular so be it. Other cities demand better results, we can too.

I realize the bottom line in any development comes down to money but it doesn't cost anything to flip through a few of those architectural design books, you know, the fancy ones with all the high gloss pics of interesting and appealing buildings and steal some ideas. A little of this, some of that, you could even throw in something from your own head (you are an architect right?). Mix it up a little so you can't be sued for plagiarizing and l bet you come up with something infinitely better that the crap proposed. Hello...Geis? Anybody there? Hello?

Well that's ironic. The planning commission has to postpone a development because a member of the commission had to leave a meeting to speak at the City Club about development. Brilliant!

This kind of behavior is what l have complained about in the past. Forget a sense of urgency, too often local government agencies show little regard for the routine. Not only is it a bad look it's bad for business. Expecting better is not unreasonable. I don't want to place to much on the incoming Bibb administration but he does appear to understand that doing business the same old way is not an option. If he means that l hope he can impart some of that conviction onto agencies he doesn't control. Imagine the results if government had half the desire those on this forum have to see a vibrant Cleveland. One that actually gets things done and moves the city forward.

Hey guys just to let you know l got a peak at the revised renderings and the changes really stand out if you know what to look for. First, the light beige panel on the corner wall is a full half inch larger than the original. Second, the chocolate section above the now larger beige panel is darker. That's right, if you look at the chocolate color spectrum (1 to 100) you will see that the original was a 66 and the revised color is a 67. Those with a discerning eye will notice the changes immediately and those who don't...well just leave it to the experts as they know best.