Htsguy

Hmm. That is an interesting site for a whole host of reasons. I definitely would like to know more details with price point being first on the list.

I just glanced at the report but it seems like most of it was very old news (often 3-4 years). Very little in the way of updates (especially for people like us who keep on top of things and even make things up in our happy little development minds LOL)

Interesting that even though they don't vote until May they have started some minor demolition and a sign is up. I imagine that even with a close negative vote the project will go forward. Disappointing that the apartments were exorcised from the development (although getting rid of the retail is probably not a big deal). The center of town could use some upscale rentals as an option for residents as they are rare in the area. The NIMBY's should really watch out. They could end up with the city simply selling the land to a developer and let then do what they want within zoning guidelines without the input they have currently.

I agree with X re: dental school. Yes the renderings were not promising and yes it looks worse in real life. Disagree with the comment about the medical school. The Foster and Partners design (which I like) looks better with a buffer surrounding it.

^I am really anxious to read the minutes of the Feb 6 meeting (I had to leave very early and it apparently went on for a long time) to get a feel for what actually happen. There was apparently some so sort of "go ahead" vote so that the developer feels confident enough to start construction drawings which will take months to complete. My impression from what I did observe at the meeting is that the developer was seeking final approval and was becoming a bit frustrated by the process (as suggested in the Cleveland.com article). I am speculating that many city officials (planning director, city manager and some members of city council) are starting to appreciate this frustration and are doing their best to get things moving. This hybrid "approval" /changes to be made administratively may be an example of that. Moreover, I think the headline is a bit deceiving. What was presented was way more than conceptual. It was the second time before design review and they made significant changes to the design between the two meetings. They were actually presenting material types and color representations

^All those buildings combined are way more than 1,000 apartments.

^^Would you invest tens of thousands of dollars of your own money to open a retail establishment in that neighborhood now or even in the future? Having owned a retail establishment in the past and knowing the in and outs I certainly would not.

^yeah I can see them coming up with the money for that.

That was kinda fun to watch. Thanks for all the additional information. Hopefully a final vote is conducted soon. I believe they want to get shovels in the ground sometime during the last quarter of 2019 but the longer they drag out the design review process the less likely this will occur. I recall the developer saying at the Dec 27 meeting that construction drawings would take 8-9 months after final approval. I imagine there is then a lag time after the drawings are ready for review and bidding by the various subs. Realistically we are probably looking at an early 2020 ground breaking. That is if the developer doesn't run for the hills before then given everything the city has put them through to date (it is interesting to watch various officials sheepishly admit as much to the developer's reps).

Changes were made after the December 27,2018 Design review meeting and attempt to incorporate the comments and criticisms of the 3 member board made at that meeting, You can read of the minutes of the meeting on line and view their comments. These changes were presented at the recent Feb. 6 design review. I could not stay for the whole meeting and do not know if they voted although the developer was clearly looking for final approval at that gathering. Does anyone know if a vote was taken? By the way, the public comment portion of the meetings are incredible revealing and mind altering. Apparently mostly people against the design attend and their inarticulate and ill informed ramblings are a sight to behold. The NIMBYS in the audiences (which were packed at both meetings) especially scream about the height and the "modern design". It is agony to watch the Board politely listen to the speakers.

One relates to neighborhoods on the east side of Cleveland and the other discusses developments in the separate city of East Cleveland.

^Before Cincinnati they were the Rochester Royals. Also Jerry Lucas played with Oscar Robinson in Cincy. Cincy traded Robinson to the Milwaukee Bucks around 1970 and he won an NBA championship with them his first year. I remember the Royals playing one or two games a year in Cleveland when they were in Cincy before the Cavs came into the league in 1970.

Actually they were the Kansas City Kings (they also spilt games with Omaha when they first moved and were called the Kansas City/Omaha Kings). The Kansas City Monarchs were a Negro League baseball team.

Has anyone in a position of authority ever attempted to explain why a neighboring state spends a billion annually (I am assuming that is per year) while we spend only 35 mil? I would love to hear the rationale.

^that said the depicted massing makes me worried about the Huron side. It lose like it could turn into a dead canyon (given surrounding buildings) even with first floor retail (which might be a hard sell compare to Prospect or alley retail).

Are these renderings really what those in the business would call a "design". Isn't it more a site plan and a detailed massing. I would imagine as we go along much will be re-imagined, although the percentage of uses (office, parking retail, residential) will pretty much stay the same.

The Woolworth's on E. 4th was around until at least the early 90s.

Question for those in the development and construction industries. Is it common or rare to begin drafting construction drawings before design review is completed? The reason I ask is that I was at a recent design review hearing for Top of the Hill in Cleveland Heights and they indicated they would not even begin preparing actual construction drawings, apparently an eight or nine month process for that firm, until the final design was approved (even though the site planning and final concept is pretty much done). I certainly would be thrilled it this project began by the end of the 2019 but wonder if that is possible given where they are at in the design review process. I was hoping some of the arch. design work could move forward even without final design approval.

Do we know if they have any potential tenants lined up for the office portion? In my mind 175,000 square feet is a lot of space in Cleveland for a speculative building, especially in a neighborhood that is not considered a primary office market. Could the lack of at least one major tenant affect financing and possibly delay the optimistic ground breaking date suggested in the article?

^I believe the original cost estimate was 140 million with the public contribution being 70 mil. I think the total cost has increased due to extras and is now 185 mil with the Cavs picking up the additional 45 mil.

I thought this would be obvious to most people on the board. I am really surprised by how many people are getting their panties in a bunch over something that didn't have a chance in hell of happening when it was first proposed way back when. This whole development has always been pie in the sky Cleveland. Does Jeff Jacobs even still live in Cleveland most of the time?We really must be desperate for stuff to talk about.

I wonder if this guy is one of those Israeli "investors" who buy multiple marginally flipped houses in primarily blue collar inner suburbs and then rents them out. In other words your classic absentee landlord except instead of just living in a wealthy far off suburb he is really far off...like about 6,000 miles. I get that impression from the article.

^Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't most of the (now dead) Weston development suppose to be residential (although not townhouses and not sure if any were going to be condos). I don't think they were looking to build much of anything in the way of offices. In any event it looks like we are still going to have parking lots there for the foreseeable future unless some of KJP's new speculation becomes a reality.

Ha ha. I note that in October of 2014 when I started this thread I predicted that the first to start would be "Brickman's Duck Island project". I also see that the first reply post agreed with me. Boy were we off base. At this point we don't even know who the future project developer is (since Brickman is now out) and what the proposed concept is. In other words we went from what I thought was a nearly shovel ready development to something that might not even happen more than four years later. Oh well. Any way, as of today...Top of the Hill or Phase 3 of the Flats (both in late 2019) are my guesses. But as history has shown, what the hell do I know?

That kind of sucks for us. It also says something about the state of print journalism now a days (or maybe just the PD) that the staff is at such skeleton levels that they don't have enough reporters to chip in and cover this beat for a year.