w28th

I've explained this site to my girlfriend, and she couldn't think we are all bigger dorks.

There was a discussion in the W65th & Detroit (Cleveland)thread about overhead wires and I seemed to be the only one that understood what these do visuallyfor a streetscape. Glad I'm not the only out here with that opinion.

FYI Tuesday, October 17th 4-6 pm A Vision for the Warehouse District Developer of Eton Chagrin Boulevard and Crocker Park, Bob Stark will join us to discuss his latest vision for the future of the Warehouse District. Check back soon for event details and registration. http://urban.csuohio.edu/forum/index.shtml

CIA mentioned the Dutch firm MVRDV as a possible architect for the new building in a past article. That would be freaking awesome. Check out some of their work. http://www.mvrdv.nl/_v2/

The second option is absolute dog shit. It does next to nothing for the skyline. You'll have something viewable above the bridge line for about 150' of a nearly one mile bridge. It doesn't deal with the scale of the overall bridge at all. And if it is under the bridge views you are concerned with, the single tower cable stay is the only one that, because of its structural design, can eliminate the need to have supports near where the bridge crosses the river. The other options identity above the bridge are there for purely aesthetic reasons (not that there is anything wrong with that, ie Lorain-Carnegie pylons), but judging by what ODOT did for the bridges over I-77 (Fleet, Grant, and the rail bridges with cheesy brick covering the concrete abutements), I honestly don't trust ODOT's ability to get something that is strictly fluff, to look good. They messed up many times over, who's to say it won't happen here?

The lobby facade treatment itself is worth saving the entire building. The abstract treatment of the punched windows (by Breuer himself) would be mesmorizing when the interior illumination from the lobby bleeds out onto street level. That is not an opinion that is a fact.

Park Building is right on the Southeast corner of Euclid Avenue and Ontario Street where Jakes is. The white building in that first photo was the original May Co Building. It was demolished to make way for the existing May.

The final financing deals are something I'm not totally privy to, but the money is all private funding and from what I can tell, it's well on its way. I think there is a lot of potential for the glass penthouse construction on top of the existing structure. If done correctly, the contrast between the new and old will create a very dynamic composition.

heard it through the grape vine...

Park Building Conversion to 26 Condominiums For the past few months a development team has been preparing the Park Building on Public Square for conversion from office space into 26 condominiums units facing the city green. There are also plans for updating street level retail spaces as well as possibly rehabbing the building’s basement for office space. Some project highlights and possibilities: *Restoration of the existing 9 story building (110’), designed by Frank Barnum in 1903. *Added to National Register of Historic Places in 1996. *Possibility of adding a two-story glass penthouse level on top of the existing structure in a contemporary manner to contrast the existing brick and cast iron building. *There was some talk within the development team of approaching the owner of the May Company Building next door to make a joint project of residential offerings, but I haven’t heard much progress on this front of the project. *Model unit is in progress for prospective tenants. The photos below are from Public Square and some typical views from the proposed residential units. I hope to have some floor plans, interior renderings, and more information in the near future.

The single tower cable stay is the only option that allows for a moment of design intensity. Simply spreading out what is going on (like the suburbs of this city) atop the bridge with landscaping or whatever else does not deal with the scale of the bridge as a whole. One large, sculptural entity is the only one that gives the bridge a lasting identity. We all know landscaping would eventually be neglected. And honestly, I don’t see what the big deal is about the bridge heading out of the city. When coming into the city from the south (90, 71, and 176) a tall cable stay bridge (around 230’) would become part of the skyline regardless whether or not it is over the westbound bridge.

Well, I attended the Bridge Type presentation last night in Tremont and was less than enthused about the outcome. The number of bridge types has been widdled down to three: an arch bridge that raises about 60’ above the road deck only where the river goes under (gives the bridge no sense of scale), second, a four tower cable-stayed bridge meant to mimic the Lorain-Carnegie pylons (why copy a design from the 1930’s, and I don’t trust these designers to come up with anything interesting for the towers), and finally, a single-tower cable-stay bridge that rises 200’ above the road deck (this option has the most potential to be an interesting point of intensity, and is the only option that deals with the massive scale of the structure). Of course the general public was most interested in the bridge that copied the 4 pylon idea because of the grand experience of the Lorain-Carnegie, but fail to realize that the towers on the new bridge will be closer together, and offer nothing to the skyline when approaching from the south. The single tower cable stay is the only one I would stand behind. The arch bridge looked feeble and pasted onto the road deck, and is purely aesthetic. Everyone in the audience got caught on the topic of getting a bike right of way onto the bridge and really put the brakes on making any progress on what bridge type would be a better fit. And in a one on one conversation with one of the designers, he said with a chuckle, “yeah, and we’ll finally get rid of that concrete cold storage building on Abbey.” I didn’t let that one slide, and went on a 5 minute rant on how freeways raped this city 50 years ago by tearing down industrial structures and how they are doing it once again. He sheepishly walked away, and by that p[oint I had heard enough vomit spew from their mouths for one evening.

I'm a fan of neighborhoods with a little dirt under the fingernails.

Ohio City is definetley a bit rougher around the edges compared to Tremont since they knocked down the Valley View Housing Projects on W7th. But from the statistics I've heard, around 35% of the housing units in Ohio City are public housing units. A pretty ridiculous percentage. Yet I still prefer Ohio City because of the public tranportation connections (maybe why OC is perceived as rough), the Markets (West Side, Bier, Dave's) and ABC The Tavern.

3 is the only one worth anything. Fleischman's proposal is a complete bag of ass. And why does Pelli want to built another atrium to take away significants fromthe existing rotunda? Seems conterproductive.

From the last renderings I've seen none of the proposals are intriguing. And the whole wind turbine with roof top gardens sounds nice, but wait until reality sets in, those will be the first things to go unfortunately.

I agree that they just don't want to pay the bill. If they really gave a damn about the Terminal Tower's symbolism in the city, they would figure out a way to light it during the renovation. Put some spot lights on the Renaissance Hotel, the Skylight office tower, and the Prospect Building, and keep it lit up. The skyline without it at night just isn't the same.

The Terminal Tower was lit up last night from the main shaft down. Obviously with Forest City sponsoring the GOP visiting the city, they wanted to light it up. So why can't they do it every night for us common Clevelanders?

How those 2 or three buildings haven't been renovated on the upper floors is beyond me. Just because there are no side windows doesn't mean it would be that difficult to make into apartments or condos. There are plenty of buildings that have make it work.

Ha! "Froggy Eats Pigs Ass" is some of the funniest graffitti I've seen. Some other good ones are "Chillax" on the side of the newly "renovated" STUMPEE'S building on W25th, and then there is a frowning question mark on the West Side Community House. It is a shame those buildings were torn down earlier this year for an extra 2 feet right-of-way for the Euclid Corridor. I took a few bricks from the pile when they were torn down. If the building at E57th and Euclid goes down, I'll be right with jamiec on the letter writing.

I wonder why the development agreement didn't work with Duane Cameron. Did the guy just want to sell his parcel at top dollar to get out and not deal with getting involved with the Pesht development? Is the new owner interested in getting into Pesht and that's why they bought the land? I know earlier in this thread that the new owner is just another parking lot tycoon, but have they ever done any sort of development deals? I really hope so.

Good to hear he will try to get a development agreement for the lot at W9th and St. Clair. If that part of the Warehouse District remains parking, it will never be the complete urban project we all want. Damn I hate surface parking lots. Its the embarrassment of the city. And to hell with retail in other parts of Cuyahoga County, bring it all Downtown!

The building on E57th and Euclid is my favorite building in Cleveland. There is a hole in the door on the E57th side that you could stick your head through, look up, and see the underside of the roof. The northwest part of the floor on every story has caved into the basement. But it looks freaking sweet to see the old finishes on the upper floors. I have a very blurry picture that I'll try to find and post of it. I believe it used to be called the Euclid Hotel. I bet that building has some stories. And the brick work on the exterior is imaculate. If I only had a million dollars, that is what I would buy and renovate. Just some old lonely building in the middle of the city.

Dude (MyTwoSense), settle down. I’m just stating the FACT that 99%of suburbanites would not want to walk around in that neighborhood. The fact that I don’t agree with their perception of it being some downtrodden, worthless place, doesn’t matter, that is what they think. I’ve accepted that, and now it’s just a matter of making this city a better place so that even the narrow-minded suburbanite would realize it. And I guess if I have to prove that I’ve been in that area recently, here are a few pictures from my recent jaunt. Yes I’m white, and yes I took the bus to and from that intersection. The #6.

Clearly a work of fiction. Thank you Photoshop, a lifetime supply of Pampers couldn't convince a mother and father to walk that intersection with their child. Although I guess that would be a bad deal for anyone, who needs diapers when they are 18?