Dino

I think a site that would be really good for this would be the Nautica parking lots. The land is vacant and already in an area where there are some other entertainment options. There's also other surface parking around that could be used, or that could house a garage. I don't think there would need to be a ton of infrastructure needed either. And since there's not a ton of infrastructure work needed, maybe someone could find money for a pedestrian bridge across the river? I think if you placed a bridge at the end of St. Clair, you could take advantage of the existing parking and entertainment options in the WH district and FEB. I think that would also help encourage more development on the west bank.

The site they seem to be considering (southeast of Progressive Field) isn't too bad. The drawbacks to that site are the disconnect form the rest of the City and the topography. It's a really steep site. These things can all be dealt with somewhat, of course, but it will add cost and it still would feel like the Browns Stadium in a way. So close, yet so far away from the rest of the City.

There's been a lot of talk about parking on this project, so I'd like to point out a few items... These parcels are currently zoned General Retail and General Industry. Parking garages and surface parking lots are legal uses in these zoning districts. A quick estimate from the published drawings show that the building (excluding parking) contains 61,500sf of "clinic" space, and 48,000sf of Cavs practice space (this number might be larger, I can't tell). A quick estimate also shows that zoning code would REQUIRE about 600 parking spaces, maybe more! That equals 2-3 acres of parking!!! REQUIRED!!! One of several reasons this project is subject to review by the Planning Commission in the first place, is that the project will need to seek a variance to REDUCE the amount of parking it is required to provide. This is not in an overlay district so I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) a layer of retail liner is required to screen parking here. Not to mention that the publicly accessible riverfront promenade or a kayak launch is absolutely not required (or at least it wasn't until Bedrock proposed it in their master plan). I'm not advocating for this design, but I think it is worth noting how much this design already deviates from code. If Cleveland wants designers to "up their game", as the headline put it, the City needs to rethink it's own guidelines too.

I think this will be a very nice front lawn to our city. This isn't what I would choose for an urban waterfront, but I'm very happy with this plan though because it seems like a lot of people want this type of development on the lake, so that's good. I'm also glad because I prefer the type of urban waterfront that seems to be developing along the river. High rises on one side, water on the other, and me in the middle sipping a beer! We are very lucky in Cleveland to have 2 waterfronts, and I think it's great that each one is taking on a different identity. I'm very glad that one waterfront vision will not be diluting the other.

^Wow. This photo really shows how tiny typical floors at Terminal Tower are. Floor plates are probably 1/3 modern skyscrapers.

An indoor facility would be awesome. There are so few indoor sports facilities, and I think this one would be used non-stop.

This project will reintroduce the street grid, create another connection between downtown and the riverfront, create a public boardwalk and public access to the riverfront (that looks like a beach or boat launch or something), it will be built out to the street, and is showing pedestrian access from the boardwalk into what I would presume is micro-retail. Not to mention this will likely leverage the infrastructure upgrades needed to facilitate another $3B in riverfront development. And this is all on a site that has been occupied by piles of iron ore for the last hundred years and has now been so abandoned that the City blockaded the street leading to it. I'm surprised there's any negative feedback at all to this project. Honestly, with all the urban design improvements proposed, they could put a bland parking garage here and it would still be a homerun. Or should I say, SLAM DUNK!

I'm guessing they are referring to the site that has previously been proposed for a soccer stadium... https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2019/03/usl-cleveland-soccer-stadium-site-chosen.html

I like that this project will set the table for the rest of the development. And this project, in this location, doesn't really need foot traffic or retail, so it's a perfect project to start with.

^I also agree that the quality of the renderings often have a big impact on people's reactions to designs. I think the new design is ok, but the renderings don't really do it any favors. It is a subtle design that relies on detailing, which hasn't really been presented yet, and wouldn't really show in renderings anyway. I think this design is a few revisions away from being close to Quarter 2 or the Lincoln, both of which I think are very nice. I also think those projects do a good job of feeling very new, while still fitting in with the historic neighborhood. I think this project is on pace to do the same.

I don't understand what Landmarks is looking for. Landmark's job is to ensure that projects are compatible with the scale, massing, and materials of the historic district. I'm not saying I love the new design, but I have to admit, the new design does fit the context of the historic district. Just 3 blocks away is a good comparison. The new Bridgeworks design looks a lot like one of these buildings and it's not the one Landmarks approved.

It looks like a terrestrial Death Star...but in a good way.

Caution: Skyscrapers in mirror may be taller than they appear

I heard Lutheran is jealous of SHW and wants to construct a 2 story welcome center/pavilion on those lots. 🤣

I didn't know that was happening. That's going to be cool.

Great answer!

Can you at least tell us if it is a "vision" or a "project"?

I'm sure the developer did a cost benefit analysis. They calculated the cost to add balconies and weighed it against the increase in potential rent it would bring. Seems like they didn't think it was worth it. This is how a large number of design decisions ultimately get made. The contractor may have had some input, but I'm sure this was ultimately the developer's call.

When I was in architecture school I remember reading a quote from Cass Gilbert (architect famous for pioneering early skyscrapers). He said, "The skyscraper (or building) is a machine that makes the land pay". As an aspiring architect I hated that quote, but as a practicing architect I keep that quote in mind often. I think the point is that economics drives design more than anything else.

The new design reminds me of the Quarter 2, the Lincoln, and Tappan. If it turns out like those, I'd be happy. I don't think the headline rendering does the project any favors though. The quality will all come down to the detailing.

I think the comparisons to Pittsburgh's North Shore are very on point. The North Shore is on the waterfront and disconnected from the surrounding neighborhood by topography, highways and train tracks. The size of the area is somewhat comparable to the lakefront too, and both are served by light rail. The big difference is that Pittsburgh's North Shore isn't immediately adjacent to its downtown (it's across the river), whereas Cleveland's Lakefront is (Point for Cleveland!). Yet the North Shore has seen development and the Lakefront hasn't. So it makes me question all the reasons that are typically given for a lack of development on the lakefront. Do we really need a landbridge to get development going? Do we really need to move a highway? Do we really need to create public waterfront access? Those would all be nice, but I wonder if those are really impeding development. Pittsburgh's North Shore has all those same issues and it didn't stop them.

There's still a lot of surface parking in the Warehouse District....near all the law offices too. W. 9th and St. Clair would be a good spot for a new courthouse.

There's still a lot of surface parking in the warehouse district...right next to all the existing law offices. W. 9th and St. Clair would be nice.

My top pick for a new Cle Cliffs HQ would be the justice center site. Another good option would be for them to buy and overhaul the 200 PS building. It's not as exciting as a shiny new tower, but it would be nice to avoid having a huge vacancy right on Public Square in one of the City's iconic skyscrapers.

What makes you say that?