Htsguy

^Copying in terms of concept or design? I guess I don't understand.

The massing is kind of interesting and obviously very different from previous conceptuals. Just a hunch but it might have been designed to protect the river views from the Aloft hotel.

I also note that XYZ Development is "teasing" on it's website its long delayed Via126 condo project on the former Primo Vino site across the street. While it has been a long time to finally come to fruition (I may not recall correctly but they might not have been the original developer when this project was first announced) I'm wondering if recently they are just waiting for the completion of the Mayfield Rd paving and are allowing La Collina to progress to a point where construction vehicles are not competing for scare space.

You have to give Geis credit-that La Collina site has to be a nightmare to develop. Pinned in on three sides and located on a narrow and always busy Mayfield Road. I am sure construct costs have to be higher than normal which would have turned off many a developer (but also probably reflected in the higher rents noted on the buildings website). Also, keeping the neighbors and the neighborhood association happy probably takes a fair amount of finesse. Certainly not the same as building on a former farm field in Avon.

If George, the owner of a popular business in Ohio City already, did not know about the Irish Bend project until the building was under contract as he asserts in the article, he is either a liar or an idiot. Two words: eminent domain. And it will be an easy case. He just established the far market price of the parcel.

KJP. how does that gray vertical siding on the second level look in person? From the photo it looks sort of cheap. I imagine it is the same siding as that above it but it looks worse on the second level to my eye.

^thanks for the additional information and input. While I believe that there should be something iconic and moderately tall at the point, I don't think that even if some city officials believe it would be a good idea they are up for such a battle (even if it is only a vocal minority in the neighborhood) and are just happy that the parking lots are finally being developed.

I attended the Top the Hill Development community meeting last night. About 100 people in attendance. The format was an hour or so long quick presentation by various people involved with project (nothing really in depth by anybody-city development director, principal from the developer, parking expert, traffic expert etc) and then there were 4-5 stations dealing with different aspects of the development where one could then go and ask questions. I only stayed for the first part. Should have stayed for the break out session since I probably could have uncovered more detailed information and also gleamed the thoughts and concerns of the residents. I am pretty disappointed at this point. This is an iconic location in Cleveland which should have been developed years ago. What they are proposing (about an 80 mil dollar development) is pretty mediocre in my opinion. In a nutshell: They just finally signed the development agreement and emphasized that they still had not even came up with a conceptual design (although they seemed to have given a lot of thought to siting) let alone a final design for review. They diplomatically kept saying they wanted community input in regards to the design which was one of the purposes of the meeting. That said, it appears the highest it will go is 5 stories (4 floors of apartment over retail). I am very disappointed in this. This location should have a 12-14 story building at the point to take advantage of the superior views of UC and downtown. My impression is that cost is driving this decision rather than neighborhood objections (although I could be wrong) The concept on paper right now is 250-275 apartments (no condos), 15,000-20,000 square feet of retail along Cedar, a 550 space parking garage in the middle (5 stories) with a number of courtyards. They could not talk enough about parking. I could tell it is a major concern. Almost 50% of the presentation dealt with it. I don't know if this "pressure" is coming from the city, neighbors or the developer. They want to replace the 200 or so current spaces as well as deal with the needs of the new development. Depressed that there is such a focus on parking in a dense neighborhood within a 5 minute walk of a rapid station and on a coupe of bus lines. In fact, while they have not come up with a design yet (just some preliminary siting) the are already talking about moving the parking garage closer to the point where most of the apartments will be because residents wont want to walk that far (maybe 30 yards-REALLY). Again no design, but for purposes of the presentation they flashed some pictures from their development portfolio. What was really funny is that they kept emphasizing that this was just for visualization purposes and said please don't start to go nuts over what you see. It was like they were almost ashamed of what they have built around the country. For good reason if you take a look at their website. I am wondering if they haven't already got some subtle blow back about the quality of their work. Just speculation. They talked about perhaps doing a transitional design-a more historical look closer to Nighttown that slowly got more modern as you proceed down Cedar towards the point. Not really a bad idea if they could pull it off. My fear as this particular firm, given cost restraints, won't be able to. Time line: Final design towards the end of 2018, start construction second quarter of 2019 with completion 1st quarter of 2021. All these date were said with a wink. Add 6 months to a year. All the agreements are signed including that which is necessary with the school board but no discussion whether financing was in the bag. Did not seem to be an issue but who knows.

^good luck, it is a wonderful building in a great location

Hey eastside, welcome to the loony bin. I think that would be a wonderful idea in a city that had cranes as far as the eye can see, but I really can't see spending millions and millions to create new developable land when we have so much prime vacant land downtown which we struggle to build on.

^mrnyc..are you referring to the two fish shack buildings proposed for along the river. If yes where did the residential aspect come from. They are only a total of 6000 square feet and the article states they will house restaurants. Are you referring to residential for the still to be revealed building on the parking lot between the first apartment building and the EY Building?

^Actually the parents of the baby boomers ("the greatest generation")...during the "redevelopment" of our cities during the 50s 60s and early 70s, baby boomers were infants, children, pre-teens, teens and, in the later years, just starting their careers, and hardly in decision making positions.

^Beachwood, Copley and Strongsville

Cannot answer your questions KJP. Just wanted to chime in that when I started a thread entitled "What will be built first and why" back in 2014 or 2015 I embarrassedly (at least now in hindsight) picked this project as my number one (I believe at the time a few other forum posters agreed). Boy was I wrong...now I am wondering if it will ever go forward.

So many impediments for this site including the easement which supposedly put the nail in the coffin of the last attempt to develop this lot. Glad to see they are still trying but reading between the lines so many issues have to be worked out that by the time this happens we could be in a down cycle which could dash the development once again. I am going to try to attend the scheduled Top of the Hill community meeting next week which is mentioned in the article. Hopefully that is much further along. The last community meeting was Sept 2017.

^brick?

Developers are always more optimistic than what is actually occurring. That might be true with many developers but that is not my observation when it comes to Wolstein.

^Wolstein is quoted in the recent article relating to the buyout of Fairmount that "the private financing is not a problem". Apparently just trying to work out the usual public subsidies with the city.

^More like close to $29 million.

^Isn't that a pretty old imagine? What is the purpose of Pace appearing before the transportation committee at this time?

^I could see such a scheme being problematic as well. Many people would not want to make an investment in a building where there are a significant number of rentals (and while not an expert I bet it would be hard to get a loan as well in such a building), so you are going to have a smaller pool of possible buyers.

^Great. A developer that gets things done despite the obstacles so I really believe this will happen, if not for a short while. By the way, those who moan and groan about the lack of condo construction downtown (in contrast to all the rental construction) only need to read that article to get a taste of the financing issues impeding such development in a market like Cleveland. 50% pre sales is no easy task, especially when combined with all the other impediments.

^You shouldn't "laugh" at threatened lawsuits. No laws have to be broken to start the ball rolling. Really the only thing preventing a lawsuit is cost and the amount of time a person or persons have to devote since it could be a long and drawn out process. Will this project require a simple zoning variance? In Cleveland, a significant apartment development was proposed for a blighted site in Little Italy and numerous zoning variance were required. The lengthy and expense (retention of real estate experts for the presentation the zoning board) process was initiated and the city granted the variances. There after a single nearby homeowner with apparent deep pockets and a lot of time on his hand began the statutory appeal process challenging the variances. The case lasted for more than 3 years (going to the court of appeals twice). The city and developer won at all levels on the substantive issues and had a strong case to win over all, but recently (for unknown reasons-possibly increase costs due to the delay) just gave up and the project is dead. Reading Curbed New York I am constantly amazed by the nit-picky grounds that are used to support lawsuits by opponents of developers and they seem to go on and on.

Wow, this is really getting interesting. I don't think I've seen a thread stray so far off topic since that last time I read the Cincy Street Car thread. ;D

^they whittled the initial submissions down to three for the competition and each group was given a stipend (I believe funded by the Cleveland Foundation) to come up with a proposal.