Dino

You would think awarding $100M and leveraging $1B or so in development might warrant a special meeting- but I guess not. Whatever the cost is to clear this committee's schedule for a week so they can get this done would gladly be paid by the applicants. Call it an admin fee or whatever- it would be pocket change to the recipients.

Well, as of now I have more faith in the rumored and still unannounced Bedrock project than I do in the announced Kassouf project. But I think you're on point to question how much the market can handle.

Great work! I like how SHW makes the courthouse tower finally look like it belongs in the skyline, it always looked like an outlier. Now we just need a 600' tall Bedrock Tower between the Beacon and PNC Building!

When a second thoroughfare was proposed to the east side (Opportunity Corridor) there was so much fear that it would be a highway, a way to pass through the City without experiencing it. There was so much rhetoric about how much better a boulevard would be for the City and what an economic boost it would be. Weren't there studies that weighed economic value vs. traffic counts? And what was the final decision? BOULEVARD. And when the West Shoreway was getting redone recently, wasn't there strong support to turn it into a boulevard? Wasn't there strong support for the connection to lake, and the economic benefits of connecting to the neighborhoods? And what was the final decision? BOULEVARD. (could've been more-boulevard-like, but nonetheless, it was decided to become less highway-like) I won't debate the pros or cons- I'm just saying. Greater Cleveland has had this debate twice in very recent memory and it was decided that boulevard beats highway!

If the goal is to connect downtown to the lakefront as much as possible, I like what is probably the least likely option, Option B. Have the Shoreway merge into Lakeside and remove it. It would close the gap between downtown and the lakefront more and new development on that land could help the transition to the lake feel less choppy. Clevelanders rarely venture to the other side of town anyway :)

I think the PC members hit the nail on the head. They are recognizing that parking is a legitimate problem with more and more development, but it's a good problem to have. It's the kind of problem they'd love to be dealing with in many east side neighborhoods. I don't think they are trivializing those with parking concerns, only putting it into perspective. As a City, it's much better to be solving parking problems instead of abandoned building problems.

Coming soon to a Gateway site near you...(I wish) Hudson Site Project, Detroit, MI Designed by ShoP Architects

This all sounds too similar to Bedrock's Hudson project in Detroit to be a coincidence. Go to the website below and see the development stacking plan. ShoP Architects designed the Hudson project as well as the RoMoFiHo renovation too, so perhaps Hudson 2.0 is coming to Cleveland? Wouldn't that be sweet? https://www.hudsonssitedetroit.com/

Great point! Too often variances are needed opening the door for a process that ultimately leads to a design-by-committee. The more zoning encourages the type of development desired outright, the better. I think this is a real success story for how zoning updates could lead to better development and be less vulnerable to the people's personal preferences.

Wasn't that pretty close to the original program of that project that's now dead to all of us and shall not be named? Anyway I would love to see something of that size built. Like everyone else has said, it's all the more exciting given the players behind this. This seems like it could really happen.

I agree this will be transformative, but it's not the transformation I hope for. Greater Cleveland has a wealth of waterfront recreation and parkland; both on the lake and rivers. What I want more of is density and urbanity on the water. A riverfront boardwalk or promenade fronting on dense development would be awesome- and is something we don't already have; at least not much anyway. My dream would be to have a riverfront that aspires to be more like Chicago's.

Yes it does, and I like it. I think it's a big improvement over the last iteration. The latest design seems at least seems on par with the Quarter, Waterford Bluffs, or any number of 4-5 story buildings being built right now. Is it going to win any design awards? Absolutely not. I don't get the harsh criticisms on this one.

I don't know who's planning what, but between publicly owned land and the Nucleus site it sounds like most of Huron Rd. from Ontario to E. 7th could have some serious potential. It's right in the middle of Gilbert's interests too which is cool because he is someone who could really deliver something on a massive scale if he wanted to. Can't wait to see what's going on!

That would be cool. The vacant lot at Huron and Ontario between the Jack Garage and the RoMoFiHo is owned by the City of Cleveland. It would be cool if something got developed there too. Whether as part of this or just separately. I wonder if there's a reason that parcel has never been in play?

When a basically "shovel ready" development like Nucleus is sold, is it typical for the plans and entitlements to be transferred along with the land as well? In other words, would it be more likely that a new developer would pick up where Stark left off, or start from scratch?

Canal Basin Park circa 1910. The tallest building in the background is the Rockefeller Building. Western Reserve Building is just in front of it.

If RoMoFiHo isn't already a thing, it should be! Its so ridiculous and still better than the full name!

I was curious to get some perspective on how much space 30-40 acres is, so I looked around the auditors website. Tri-C's campus on E. 30th is close to 28 acres. So that's a pretty big site they are looking for.

Most of the redevelopment in Over the Rhine was done by 3CDC, which is a non-profit created by a partnership between the City and corporate partners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Center_City_Development_Corporation I lived there when the redevelopment was first beginning. I don't know the whole story, but the general perception was that the neighborhood was so bad that the major corporations put up the money and the City cleared all the red tape and they just got it done. The City went so far as to eliminate its Planning Department all together in 2003. You can't deny the transformation of the neighborhood, but people will be debating the merits of this approach for a long time.

The driveway off Columbus at the north end of the site is technically Brevier. Looks like the street doesn't exist anymore, but the ROW still does.

I like it! Reminds me of the Quarter at 25th and Detroit, which I think is really nice. It could still go either way based on the detailing and what all the materials end up being, but I think its a good start.

The Geis design is definitely not a show stopper, but keep this in mind: This residential urban infill project in a residential neighborhood will be, roughly speaking, twice as large as, more stories than, as tall as, and include as much retail as, a certain building designed by a nationally known architecture firm and which is currently being built in the heart of the densest neighborhood on the most high profile site in the city. I'm talking to you SHW Pavilion! All in all the Geis design will fit in nicely with the other townhomes around there and add back some lost density. It's not the gold standard of design, but it will also age much better than projects like Church and State.

I don't understand the logic behind demo'ing the garage. There's lots of vacant land downtown- and several vacant parcels adjacent to the stadium. Building on those vacant parcels will require more parking, right? The City will likely support new development with some sort of subsidy right? Why can't the City offer parking as part of it's subsidy to support new development, much like the existing parking garage will facilitate the City Club Apartments? As far as garages go, it's tucked away and not too objectionable. Just seems like a waste of resources to demo this garage when the parking will likely be rebuilt as part of new development elsewhere.

For better or worse, this sentence speaks volumes. It reminds me of another quote that always stuck with me by Cass Gilbert, a famous architect of early skyscrapers. "A skyscraper is a machine that makes the land pay."

I'm picking up on the "public art" piece here...Of course having SHW in Cleveland is the top priority and I'm sure the building will end up being "fine". But I think architecture is a form of public art and is therefore open for critique. SHW doesn't want to hear it, the architect won't act on it, but we're still free to give it! They'll still do what they want and that's fine. I think the Litt article hit on a few issues that are architecturally out of sync. Such as, why does the front of the building sprawl out onto a public park with almost open arms, yet not let people in? Why build a tower in the heart of town that begs people to look at it, and not do something more aspirational like Terminal Tower? Sometimes I think this project is saying one thing, but then doing another. I think that's what Litt is hitting on. I've been to architecture school and these are the exact kind of questions that would be getting asked in a studio class. I think it's fair to critique it as such. But on the other hand, critique isn't always the same as criticism.