scg80

I would definitely support a playground in UC, but not at a high traffic intersection. I'd be more bold and suggest putting a playground on top of the green roof parking garage. this would create a real dynamic addition to the neighborhood. There's a church in CH that has a playground on its roof that could be used as reference.

I'd argue the paddle, while not the most engaging to all, helps create a more diverse selection of public art in the city. It shows how perceptions change over time, from representational bronze sculptures, to modernist ones (Edgewater), to playful Oldenberg-esque ones. My hope would be for more public art that add's to the diversity of the city.

Westinghouse?

My non-expert gut feeling to the story is Benesch purposely fed out wrong information to see who is leaking where.

Size wise, would this be on the low end of the 15 story, 350k minimum for TMUD, or bigger?

I think architecture can be a form of art, but architects should not confuse themselves into believing they are artists.

I'm going to be honest, I have not seen the proposed designs for the bike path, nor do I have great familiarity with Lake Ave. But as a parent of small children, I would be very cautious about having the sidewalk in front of my house turned into a bike lane. At our house, the sidewalk is a sort of extension of the front yard, a great place for sidewalk chalk or bouncing balls. It's where neighbors gather to chat, walk dogs or stroll aimlessly. But having walked and had family rides on bike paths like the towpath in CVNP or the Lakefront Bike Trail, and having to jump out of the way of speeding cyclists treating the path like the tour de France, I would be scared for my child's and neighbors safety if a bike trail was put in front of my house. In my head I am comparing this the a bike path that was put on Fairhill near 127th. The design of this path has the feeling of a road replacing a sidewalk. But there are no signs directing cyclists to yield to pedestrians or limit their speed. No stop signs at corners. It's just asphalt where the sidewalk used to be. The question I have is how does the design of this bike path ensure a safe environment for all? Again, I have not seen any plans.

I agree. We don't want that block to be like some of the side streets by the clinic that are lined with parking garages. Some kind of storefront would work, kind of like the argument right now in the SW thread about the garage on W3rd.

I know Pierre's doesn't have their own retail stores, but I've always thought an ice cream shop at this intersection would be pretty cool. It would be right across from Galucci's and now this new building. There's even a two story building there that would be perfect.

There is a cafe, but no sign of even an emergency exit one can sneak into the cafe from. Would have to sneak past security just to get a cup of coffee. I'm hoping the "paint museum" sticks as a forever moniker that SW has to keep batting down, so they can eventually see how arrogant of choice it was to put a building of this design and function on public square. Form follows function applies to both interior and exterior spaces, including within public design and interaction. I also find it interesting that SW didn't like Eaton's headquarters, but overall this design has a very similar feel to that suburban building.

As someone who has commuted from CH and SH to UC for about the last 25 years, I'd be hesitant in reducing traffic lanes in the CF intersection. Traveling from most of those two suburbs to UC is limited to only about 4 routes down the hill, unless one chooses to drive twice as far by going down Woodland or Superior. With this, if a backup occurs (accident, roadwork) on 1 of 4 routes, ultimately all 4 will be backed up. CF yields to the most amount of cars in the morning and afternoon and reducing traffic lanes will inevitably cause backups on all routes. Making the pedestrian experience in CF better should be a priority, but reducing traffic lanes is not a feasible solution. Also, I think our perspective on how much traffic runs through CF is skewed the last two years due to the pandemic and the UC schools/workplaces being remote.

What I have learned over time is that many people, not like those of us on UO, have trouble visualizing imagery presented by developers through both plan and concept views. It's easier to say no to something you don't completely understand, then it is to trust that what someone is putting forth is a good concept and will have provide the resources you may want in your community.

Could it be argued that with the additional parking garage built for a new development at CF, there will likely be sufficient parking spaces. Therefore the parking garage built for similar purposes at CL provides equally sufficient amount of parking? It is disappointing that the expectation is that parking should be right in front of where one is going. Somehow walking a few extra hundred yards or another block is therefore not worth the investment in your community. For me, when visiting CL, I usually park on the side streets because during non-covid times it's the only free parking in CH. But that's probably because I'm cheap and trying to lose some weight.

Was going to say the same thing. The garage was built for a development a number of years ago. Previous to it there was a parking lot there with that provided only about 1/4 of the spaces the garage does. Parking is not an issue for this area, pre or post this development. CH needs new businesses and residents, that's what this development provides.

Glad to see this is moving forward. I was fearful they'd fold to the pressure of turning the empty lot into a "park".

Imagine if or imagine when?

It's going in the current VAD development, on the corner, next to Nature's Oasis. Southwest corner of Warrensville and Farnsleigh.

I admit, I may be naive in what drives the cost up for skyscraper construction, but out of curiosity, if the depth to bedrock in UC is around 40 feet, but downtown is much deeper (I kinda recall ~200'?), would building a 40-50 story building in UC be more cost feasible than downtown?

I would have voted for Detroit Shoreway Cudell Improvement Edgewater Northwest Community Development Organization, or DSCIENCDO. Has kind of a ring to it. But nobody asked for my opinion, so...

I think affordable housing in the CBD makes perfect sense. It will help create a more diverse, equitable neighborhood, helping make accessible housing for all that work downtown. I've heard similar arguments about not having affordable housing in UC and am glad they have found ways to keep what was there intact.

This is pretty cool, but wish they'd have brought in a local artist as a collaborator. Plenty of talent here to give it a more Cleveland feel. I also wonder how operational it will be in a couple years? Projection lamps don't last forever and bulbs for something like this are expensive. For the wall, it would be better if there was a sculptural light piece that takes on one design during the day, but transforms at night to an interactive light sculpture. Would be a signature attraction for the city and square. Kind of like what was installed on top of Worthington Yards, but bigger.

Wendy Park bridge. https://www.instagram.com/p/CQfHebGjvqU/?utm_medium=share_sheet

I think if you look at the townhouses at Fairhill and 124th as a comparison, there is enough demand for quality homes at this intersection to justify building them. In all likelihood the residents here will not raise their family there, but will be families of 1-2 people. They'll likely want the convenience of a short walk, bike or drive to work,while living in an urban center with a forest in their backyard. On another note, while driving east up Stokes hill yesterday and trying to contemplate how the roads by the Artisan will be reconfigured, I wondered if planners would consider making Stokes and MLK two way roads as they go up the hill, to ease traffic and make them more pedestrian friendly?

This might be a dumb question, but could something be built over it? I would say a parking garage with decorative paneling would be an improvement over what's there now.

123rd is actually two ways as it passes this development, it turns into one way a little more south, right near where it bends toward Mayfield.