w28th

There shouldn't be a design competition for every single thing built, but we sure as HELL shouldn't just be happy something is built! The Pesht project could possibly be half our damn city! If you take that stance, you will get shit project after shit project. If you think that Pittsburgh thing sucks, Crocker Park is good architecture, AND you think there shouldn't be competions to get the best product, you have some serious issues. Architecture should be pushing the reality and perception of our built environment, not be content with simply copying it's surroundings. I've never typed so quickly in my life to respond to your ridiculous blather DaninDC.

WAAAY too early to judge, but I don't think the Warehouse District project will turn out to be as interesting as the Pitts project unless Stark makes a complete 180 degree turn from what he and most developers have done. The reason Pitts project looks to be very interesting from a design and urban planning standpoint is because the city developed a design competition to seek out the best developer and architectural team to develop the city land (not the case in Stark's plan, it's his land). I believe Bialowsky Architects did Crocker Park and maybe even the conceptual renderings for WHD, and trust me, that firm is not capable of doing very interesting urban architecture, and very often developers stay with the architects that they have worked with the longest, not necessarily the most talented ones. Hopefully all that changes and Stark goes for something even more contemporary and exciting as the Pitts project. I'm not being pessimistic, I know it sounds like it, I just want the most dynamic space possible because this city deserves it. Cmon Robert, give it that to us!

Trust me... there are still things giong on with the convention center river site...

Beating a dead horse, but simply replicating old buildings trivializes both the new architecture and the old. It becomes nothing more than "decorating" a contemporary structural system with styraphome (sp), and calling any architect a decorator is just about the worst thing one can say. But for the most part, in places like Crocker, Legacy, whatever, that is the case. It is the equivalent of putting a propeller on an F15.

There are maps to the right when you walk in.

Egggh. I pray to GOD that anything built in Cleveland does not even remotely resemble that neoclassical bullshit. Merging new and old? It's merging old with... hell with it, I'll just copy/paste my most recent rant on contemporary architecture and urban design, "I understand your point to possibly seeing older styled lighting/traffic signals at W65th and Detroit because of the surrounding context, but there is a lot of merit to utilizing the idea of exposing the contrast between new and old as a dynamic design gesture. It reveals the intricacies and detail of the old (buildings, in the case of W65th & Detroit) vs. the smooth or angled of the contemporary (lighting/signals), playing off the idea of the city being a multilayered organism. This idea could be used throughout the city in a variety of different programs. In a previous thread somebody brought up the idea of using the grain silos near the Center Street swing bridge as some ultra contemporary condominium complex. I love that. Imagine how interesting this would look if some weird shaped addition to those silos was designed onto it. Maybe it engages the river somehow. It’s just an example, but it can be applied to almost anything. We need to define the time that we’ve had control of the city, and there is no other way to do that than to always be forward thinking when it comes to urban planning and design. We should be saying, “let’s use what’s left of this old industrial city to be the most progressive city in the world, aesthetically, and then one would hope at some point, socially.'" Why make architecture look like it was built 100 years ago? I find it hilarious to see some fake old building that appears "historic" to have a built date on the top "entabliture" and it says 2005. This crap drives me to drinking. It only reveals many of today's architects' extremely low self esteem and developers' unimaginative development ideas. Here is an excellent example of what we should be doing in this city and it's old structures instread of trying to match old architecture: http://wiener-gasometer.at/de/gasometer/b/

I understand all the problems that Moda had, but I don't think Cimperman should be so adament about a club not being able to open up there, or anything short of a monesstary I think is how he put it. That's a really good attitude to have... Although I received an Ohio City meeting flyer under my door yesterday that said the place is scheduled to reopen in October, so who knows. I don't think having an empty storefront on W25th Street is a positive development Mr. Cimperman. I too have noticed the upswing in the rifraf around Bridge/W25th/Lorain recently, but it isn't as bad as it was last year. Every Sunday night around 3:30, hip hop night at Moda would be over and every thug life a-hole in Cleveland would park on W28th between Bridge and Jay and bump their shit. Not very conducive to waking up for work at 7:30am. Although with Moda closing down, this doesn't look to be a problem anymore.

The stop definetely needs to be along the Mayfield, just seems so obvious (although there is always that myth that people in Little Italy don't want the type of people riding the rails hanging in their neighborhood. Hopefully they are past that). It could be a really cool station if it is squeezed into the existing urban fabric and somehow connected to the rest of the development going on there. Hopefully RTA doesn't out it in the middle of the block/off the street like many of it's other stations (Triskett is the worst stop for pedestrians ever, it's located in the middle of a sea of surface parking about a half mile off of the street. Horrible).

Tom, how expansive do you see this development being? Is it just this one phase or do you plan on continuously expanding up W28th and Detroit? The area north of Lutheran and east of W28th feels severely disjointed from the activity going on in the rest of Ohio City, and it would be interesting to see how the CMHA plan and this come together to fill the gap. There are an awful lot of surface parking lots that can be built up, so hopefully demand is high.

Other than the fact that it is a large development in Cleveland, there nothing to really get excited about: *The design looks like it could be in any city in the US *it doesn't engage the river all that much *there is no cohesion between it and the Warehouse District *Wolstein wants to keep surface parking on Shaia's land instead of 200+ living units *makes no attempt to build off of public transit *the whole eminent domain mess *tearing down everything in the area *more public funding now necessary *may detract from the momentum at E4th/Warehouse and spread the nodes of teh city out even more. The whole thing looks to be going to hell, and it's all Wolstein's fault. I say it's less than 50-50 that it even happens.

That area doesn't look THAT bad, but then again I've never been there. I'm thinking that's what the area around E55th-E69th & Euclid used to look like before they started tearing everything down. Cincy is luck to still have a lot of the structures still standing.

Damn, all that and then some was a steel mill at one time. I wish I could have seen this city at full tilt.

I'd vote for W28th Lofts.....

I understand your point to possibly seeing older styled lighting/traffic signals at W65th and Detroit because of the surrounding context, but there is a lot of merit to utilizing the idea of exposing the contrast between new and old as a dynamic design gesture. It reveals the intricacies and detail of the old (buildings, in the case of W65th & Detroit) vs. the smooth or angled of the contemporary (lighting/signals), playing off the idea of the city being a multilayered organism. This idea could be used throughout the city in a variety of different programs. In a previous thread somebody brought up the idea of using the grain silos near the Center Street swing bridge as some ultra contemporary condominium complex. I love that. Imagine how interesting this would look if some weird shaped addition to those silos was designed onto it. Maybe it engages the river somehow. It’s just an example, but it can be applied to almost anything. We need to define the time that we’ve had control of the city, and there is no other way to do that than to always be forward thinking when it comes to urban planning and design. We should be saying, “let’s use what’s left of this old industrial city to be the most progressive city in the world, aesthetically, and then one would hope at some point, socially.”

Mister Good Day, I'm fine with the fact that our definitions may differ, that's what makes this site interesting and why I continue to post. I just enjoy seeing the city as a space that doesn't have to be prepared for visitors to come and enjoy. Now it may be utility poles that are removed first because people don’t like overhead wires, next it is old school paintings on buildings you see on the buildings along Fleet Ave because people will say the area looks faded or rundown, then traffic lights are removed to speed traffic because people have to drive right? (Little Italy’s light at Murray Hill and Mayfield was removed, and with it ease of crossing Mayfield for pedestrians and the hustle and bustle of stop and go traffic, not good for commuters, but we should be worrying about the pedestrian here) etc, etc. Then what? We are left with a poorly planned, suburban visitor friendly, homogenized version of what something once was. I realize the nature of cities is that of change, but it should be change for the better, and hopefully if these utility lines are buried something progressive is designed and built there to properly replace the old. I guess what I’m saying is that we need better planning at a city level, (if they got some of us here from urbanohio, I think we’d be getting better results, or at least some arguments). Also, if these utility wires are buried, what will the new lamp posts look like? Hopefully "new" is the operative word for their appearance, and that the city doesn't see this as a place to install neoclassical light posts. It would be great if we, gulp, had a DESIGN COMPETITION for new lamp posts replacing the old ones here in Cleveland. New York City had one a few years ago and the results are pretty cool: http://www.nyc.gov/html/ddc/html/citylights/

I would check http://www.clevelandmemory.org/ Go to FIND IMAGES and you will find just about anything you can imagine photo wise for Cleveland.

^The same can be said of East 4th Street.

I don't think the area around W65th and Detroit is going for the pristine, cosmopolitian look that certain parts of downtown should maybe be going for. Stripping away layers of urbanity doesn't make a more enjoyable setting, just take a look at what has happened to Coventry. It's a shell of it's former self urbanistically.

I like having overhead wires crisscrossing the city streets. Visually it gives the street a bit of a ceiling and adds to the clutter of urban streetscapes. I say leave them.

Hard to believe it would take 5 years to reface the Terminal Tower. I've talked to a few people that involved with the project, and apparently Forest City hired a company that has never even done restoration before. They are close with FC and they just tossed them the job. Apparently the construction manager would put vinyl siding the building if he could. FC really is not that great of a Cleveland business citizen and is putting the city's symbol at risk to give a job to people they know. Hell with FC.

My girlfriend lives at Stonebridge and we often hang up on the bridge and read the paper. The cobblestone street shows how streets really should be constructed. It's lasted 130 years and looks imacculate, leave a freeway bridge to its own devices, and it would fall apart within 5 years.

Yeah, it's public housing for the elderly, but about 5 years ago it was surrounded by some of the roughest housing projects in the city along the slope down to the river. It's surprising a private developer hasn't taken a piece of land on W25th and built luxury condos along the rim of the river valley. The views are phenomenal.

No, there is no security or desk of any kind. Just walk on in through the main entrance off W25th and head north within the building to the elevator. For some reason I couldn't get onto the top floor terrace, but the 14th floor has just as good a view. I can't imagine what that looks like at night. Sounds like another assignment...

Your explanation looks pretty accurate. I've seen layouts of the convention center plan at my place of employment and it willl be casino, convention center, parking, hotel, etc on the Terminal side. The aesthetics are attrocious with the center hulking over the river and a huge truck delivery ramp going to the 6th floor of the center on the river side. Sounds incredible/horrible/inefficient, but it is true. I haven't seen renderings of the Scranton Penninsula developement however. I'm assuming Forest City will wait until teh last possible minute to build on that land. Remember what Forest City has said in the past, "we don't create demand, we react to it." Thankfully Robert Stark does not see it that way. I really think FC will miss the boat on this city.

Earlier this week I ventured a few blocks to W25th Street to check out the views from the Riverview Tower. Some may question the sanity to make this visit, but I can assure you that once I got over the fact that I am a skinny little white boy (from Cleveland Ohio, come to drink your women, and chase your beer...) heading into a CMHA housing project, there is nothing to worry about (it's mostly elderly housing these days). The views were some of the greatest I've ever experienced and would suggest checking it out to everyone if you get the chance. Here are some photos: