scg80

I have been wondering lately if a City Target couldn't succeed in Shaker Square, such as on that stretch of Van Aken between Shaker and Drexmore. I could see a more vertical one with multiple floors like the UH one. I got to believe there's enough population density there to justify one. Plus, being on the intersection of two train lines, many more could access it.

In neighborhoods where there is more pushback by neighbors, how likely is it that developers purposely propose projects larger than what they expect will be approved and/or larger than they actually want, with the expectation that they will trim back the proposal later to show they are responding to the concerns the neighborhood? So in the case of this Hessler building, is it possible that the developer really only wanted a 3 story building, but proposed more so the whole project wasn't axed?

Was there also an office building in Circle Square? Or is that not likely in the next five years?

Not sure how new this is, but road construction for Circle Square seems to be beginning as early at March 29. https://www.ugointhecircle.com/alerts/circle-square-construction?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Circle Square construction&utm_campaign=CIA Weekly

For the upper left image I am looking more at the old pick-up than the fancy building behind it. Maybe not the best focal point?

Nice article. But, I'm a bit disappointed in design of the NRP building. Would be better if they could match the architecture of the industrial buildings of the neighborhood. This would help it blend in with the area better.

As a parent my focus would be on creating more spaces for kids to run around. There's the playground at GLSC, but that is quite the hike with a 3 and 7 year old. Playgrounds don't need to be big and fancy, just have a slide and a swing. Including more play structures within the existing parks would be best, such as in Perk and Willard. I would also agree that the current green spaces lack function, other than to place statues. If the Mall had a soccer field on it, it would be used everyday from April to October.

Based on posts and articles in this thread on I understand that a street level retail, restaurant (does that mean public?) component is required for the parking garage. Would this not also be the same for where the office tower and learning center front onto W 3rd?

Never knew this. Makes sense, since it always feels like when driving down Chester we are driving through the backyards of the houses on the corner. And the corner houses don't wrap the corner like I'd expect them to.

Agree. I like bikeways in cities and see the utility of it, but it also adds more asphalt to the urban core. Trees would help break up the monotony of the street, add color and texture that is not in this part of the city. Especially ones that would grow tall and add a canopy to the street.

True, but it's 100 times better than what was there before.

Putting this here because not sure where else it should go. I'm curious about some people's aversion to setbacks on some new developments proposed. Thinking specifically to the one on E. 90th St and Bridgeworks. For the E90, the way the original design had setbacks reminded me of many of the apartments in the area, including ones on East Blvd in Glenville and ones on Overlook Rd in Cleveland Hts near Kenilworth. The buildings I am referring are all older almost century buildings, but when you walk into the courtyard your experience is transformed from an urban space to a greenish residential area. Also Shaker Blvd, between Van Aken and Coventry. This street in particular has buildings that are all set back at least 15' or more, but it has a great density like the upper east side of NYC. I feel E90 street was and is largely residential and the setbacks allow for a more comforting relationship between the buildings and the street. I understand the original design got some pushback, but personally I would prefer some of the similar courtyard-ish areas included in its final design, as well as a little distance from the sidewalk to the building. For Bridgeworks, the small courtyard/garden space on the corner makes sense to me. That bridge is very commanding in its presence and a proper transition is needed from the street to the building. I am all for density, but I do not feel every building needs to be right up to the corner. This is evident in other buildings around the city, including One University Circle and the east side of the Federal Courthouse on Huron. A little courtyard, as is being presented here, seems like a great addition to add greenery to the space, allowing for a bar or café to have a nice patio on the corner there.

Personally I would rather have a Martin Creed sign on top the taller building, rather than another sign presenting a neighborhood. Bringing in an international artist for a permanent piece feels like a good marketing strategy for the city, something for people to visit when they come here.

If the current lane reduction for Lee road northbound by Van Aken is an indication of how traffic will be if lanes are eliminated permanently, I'm not convinced this will be as successful as they say it will be. Right now, traffic gets clogged back towards Lomond because of the one lane road and worse during rush hour.

Almost looks like Prospect between I90 and E55, if some of the parking lots were filled in more.

This sounds like a wonderful idea for the neighborhoods on both sides of Chester and would be a good link for the north side of the road to the developments on the opposite side.

Does the other UC project include the Meijer store or something else?

Where does midtown end north of Perkins? There are some really great old warehouses on the northside of Perkins and even a couple blocks farther north. Also, does a historic district need to be within one defined neighborhood, or can it overlap with multiple? I can see these warehouses repurposed into some pretty fantastic lofts, especially is historic tax breaks are at play.

Is there anything structurally wrong with the building. I drive by there almost everyday and honestly haven't noticed anything glaring about the building. I like new construction, but I also appreciate the historic dynamic of that block.

That would be fine by me, as long as they configured the traffic lights to prevent continuous red lights. Traffic coming from north of Chester, between downtown and UC to the Heights relies on this passageway. Having ill times lights will cause a lot of resentment amongst these travelers. Plus, I'm assuming a new light will be needed where Reserve Court crosses Stoke? Also, would the two-way traffic continue past John Hay and all the way up the hill to Fairhill? This seems logical as then Heights traffic coming down the hill can choose between MLK to UC or Stokes towards Clinic/Downtown.

Were there two design options presented for comments for the office component? Is so, I'd prefer A over B. The breaks in the sleek glass feels more appealing and seems to connect the 10600 tower with Library Lofts well.

I agree that the David E. Davis sculpture park between CSA and CWRU needs some up-keeping. Right now NEORSD has a project there, as well as opposite the CMA's lagoon. The other public space opposite the current library I am pretty sure is a part of the 2nd phase of this project, which would include the class A office tower.

Was the parking lot on the north side of Chester avenue opposite the old police station at one time apart of this project as well? I seem to remember seeing renderings from the original proposal that included it, but may be wrong. Also, I really enjoy the density that this project is creating. I think the size and use of space is nice and will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. I wish the clinic had more of this approach to their building design.

Yes, starting pretty much at the corner of Chester and 85 then heading north on the west side of the road.

There are some homes nearing completion currently on East 85th, could these be from that developer?