surfohio

Thanks for posting, I haven't seen that before. I hope you're right and that it's not too late for Wolstein to address this issue. To clarify, I'm not suggesting Main St. had to be retail, but at the very least some large windows for the "eyes on the street" factor would make the area feel safe and welcoming. We have enough pedestrian dead zones in CLE already. I think that area (brick pavers, hilly street, under the bridge) is actually a very cool and unique spot. It's easy to imagine the National Terminal apartments across the street opening up some of those bricked over windows along that stretch. New windows and patios! You have an instant micro neighborhood with sidewalk life and character.

I may be jumping the gun, and I feel like I've been overly negative, but from what I can tell the new building will have very little connection to the Main Ave sidewalk. You would assume that Main Streets connection to downtown would be a vital pedestrian link and extremely important to connect FEB with the Warehouse Dist. However where I expected windows and storefront-esque portals, there appears only a windowless concrete wall and then parking garage. This design, or lack thereof would be echoes of the new West Bank architecture, and a real missed opportunity imho.

Do you remember the renderings Rock Gaming released? They intentionally left the Stanley looking absolutely decrepit in the middle of their sparkly new hot wheels garage. The fact that they didn't even spend 5 minutes of photoshopping to make the Stanley look good spoke volumes...they wanted the place gone asap.

I don't know why it's so hard to find U of A renderings lol. Getting a lot of this: "Sorry, the page you requested could not be found. Please make sure you entered the URL properly." I did find this, which I'm betting you've seen: http://akronrrclub.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/university-plans-to-raze-akron-union-depot/

Best I could find...College of Ed was to be "future building" on the right side. Sorry I can't find the rendering of the actual building. http://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/155048.jpg p.s. fittingly enough, this pic is already on urbanohio!!

Thanks for clarifying, they are good points.

That's a good article. I think it's off base to make this a where to invest money: "free parking/consumers vs. residences" issue. My point is that free parking would be a cog in the process to jump start development across the board, including residential. Keep making downtown a better place to be, and it will continue being a better place to live. I'm not sure I get your parking question though. During the week (for work) I concede I have to pay 2.50 for parking. I personally know all of the free places to park on nights/weekends and generally don't mind walking. As a matter of principal I don't patronize the big surface lots ever.

^ ^^ Live in the present for a moment. Do you think that if Rock Ohio cedes control to the "preservation wing" of the stockholders, that the Maloofs will not save the building? I'm going to "side with" the Maloofs as long as there is a chance they'll redevelop a historic structure. For right now, I could care less that they've been jerks in the past, I just want the best chance for the place to be redeveloped.

I agree. If you know where to look, it's not hard to find a free spot. You'll probably have to walk 2+ blocks to get where you want to go, but it would be ridiculous to say that is too burdensome. Guys, if retailers assumed consumers used common sense they'd all be bankrupt. They are lemmings!

And from everything I've read, the universal downtown development playbook is to do just as the urban panelists suggested -- residential first. And if you have to subsidize it to get it, then you do it. The other stuff follows. Consider the possibility that free parking sparks more shoppers downtown, which leads to better, more vibrant retail. Better retail leads to livelier streets and sidewalks. The perception and value of nearby properties goes up in value. More taxes go to the city for services and schools. More people begin to consider downtown a viable option for residency. I'm not at all suggesting free parking means we'll turn into Portland. But it's just one of those igniters that helps turn the tide toward CLE becoming the city we want it to be.

While I think you're dead-on about the cities you've mentioned, I don't think we're anywhere close to them to warrant a good comparison. I don't think Cleveland is fine at all; or can afford to be in any way passive in confronting serious issues. I think more immediate and drastic measures need to be taken to fight our way back into prominence. For me, the current pace we are at is unacceptable.

Fantastic! I like the mix of hotel/apartments/office space. This would give the place a 24/7 vibe that office space alone could never achieve.

You are missing the point. Who said anything about lot owners volunteering land? You and I know there's on street parking. The reality of the situation doesn't matter however, when the perception is that it's a pain in the ass or "expensive" to come downtown.

In the above article by Michele Jarboe: ......Long owned by members of the Maloof and Anter families through Macron Investment Co., the building became the subject of a shareholder dispute after Rock Ohio Caesars LLC, the casino developer, bought a stake in Macron. Since then, the property has been tied up in court, as the shareholders argue over who controls the building and what should happen to it.

Ha. Those bands were very cutting edge in 1982.

I don't think the "parking" argument should be discounted. "Free parking downtown" would be a tremendous selling point and result in a net gain imho. The city will subsidize the big developers to a large extent. I see free parking as nothing more than subsidizing consumers. Done the right way it could also devalue the mighty swath surface lots, thus making the property more suited for development. However I suspect nobody will ever have the political clout to take on the lot barons.

Putting aside your strong preservationist tendencies, wouldn't you do the same from a business perspective? It's an eyesore in its current condition (with no immediate plans for that to change) right across from and attached to a major financial investment. Part or maybe even most of the reason it is an eyesore is because of Rock Gaming. So you can't disassociate.

Off topic alert - that's nothing. They have misleading pictures of units in my complex. They always show an exterior of Building 1, granted the units for sale are in Buildings 2, 5, 8 10 & 11. How hard is it to get accurate pictures from the board?! There are a ton of historical pictures on MC! Wow, that's just unacceptable...yet educational. d.robuck check these places out in person!

^ my gosh, some of those Howard Hanna pics are not doing the place any justice! Can't they get MayDay or someone to take some decent building shots lol.

I think you should check out the Gold Coast section of Lakewood. KJP can really help you out, he lives in the neighborhood.

Great....the show just starts and my boss comes in for an impromptu meeting. SHUT UP!

^ No barbed wire

Well, my only point of contention would be if the Coast Guard station is an impediment to public access. My suspicion is that it will be surrounded by barbed wire just like before - and I really hope I'm wrong about this. Instead the best idea would be to allow for as much public access as possible. The best recruitment tool for the Coast Guard would be to locate along the future walking path. They could use the facility as an educational resource. Where I grew up in Jersey the Coast Guard was everywhere, and a big part of the culture. Their facilities weren't blockaded with fences and security guards. At least not in my neck of the woods.

Hey Justine, ever watch the Brady Bunch? :wave: Just kidding. Actually I'm glad you asked this and hope somebody on here has some good advice.

I couldn't agree more, but there is some strong contention on both sides on that topic. Are you sure about renderings for the College of Education? I don't recall them ever releasing anything. Last I heard they were still working on the programming of the building (size of departments and even who would be in the building), then it got put on hold. Yes I'm sure. But they were super-preliminary, dating from at least two years ago. Probably even older....I've searched "landscape for learning" but sadly, I can't find hardly any renderings for campus.