Htsguy

And I don't want to be the one to throw cold water on this but I hope it is not the same kind of "development agreement" that was signed with Coral for Intesa (giving them an option for a year which has long passed) allowing them time to seek tenants and financing. I hope financing is already in order and this is basically a go.

I am guessing there is definitely something to this as this is the second recent post (although both vague) regarding the spot (see "go tribe" 's post from the previous page Reply 2242) suggesting development will be sooner rather than latter. OK Michelle time for you to jump on this :wink:

the supports are what make it "retro".

^Michelle really does a good job of reporting and laying out all the relevant information. As far as this happening (and I think I am one of the more positive people on the board)...hopefully before I die.

In addition to the utility work I mentioned yesterday, when I drove by today there was construction fencing going up along the street (Chester). Clearly this long awaited project is "starting". With the new med school across the street this will really transform this portion of Chester.

When I drove by this morning I noticed a couple of pieces of heavy equipment on the site, some trees down and it looked as though they were doing some minor utility work.

^I am pretty sure that even if the building comes down it will never be a temporary surface lot (if that is what L and R is hoping for). I would imagine the instances where those unfortunate "temporary lots" have lingered the city had a good relationship with the owner and were working with the developer or at least hoping that the development would take place and turn a blind eye to the length of time. I doubt this will ever be the case in this instance given how hard the city is fighting the owner.

^^It doesn't matter what it looks like it is all pie in the sky.

I am confused....what does this mean in terms of the courts March 15 (I believe) deadline?

At least on Euclid (and of course I want to wait and see until they are actually up before final judgment) but I like the idea that they sorta define or encompass the area and hopefully make what is basically a "street" suggest more of a "square" (or am I asking too much?)

Is it possible for somebody to red flag this thread when somebody actually is discussing something that is being built or is going to be built so I don't keep clicking on it hoping for some news about something?

Which means that the building which use to house Seeglin's Florist and Potter and Mellon will be demolished. Obviously this building did not have long given what the Clinic has done in that area, but it is discouraging given there are two huge surface lots on the northeast and southeast corners of 105 and Carnegie which are begging to be built upon.

^^it seems to be looking out the window

If I recall correctly, in order to get federal guarantees (or what ever) for financing when the original conversion was done, a number of units had to be (maybe 10%) below market, although I don't know if they fell technically within the Section 8 program (does the federal government even refer to that program as such any more?). The rest of the units were supposedly market.

that's why the article noted that who ever buys it is going to have to make a serious investment in the property. However, the article also suggests that the current owner is not taking that into consideration re: reasonable sale price.

^anybody know what "Flats East Gateway" is all about?

The huge (must be 200 apartments) 5 story apartment building at the intersection of Green and Chagrin in Beachwood is also wood framed.

^Wasn't Ontario suppose to be totally eliminated and Superior kept open but closed for special events.

Actually, correct me if I am wrong, but that is one thing, under city ordinances for that area, that they cannot do (tear it down for parking).

kinda like the changes to the dog pound side.

boy the east 21st street side of this building is even more of a disaster than the rest of it.

^Obviously I don't know what the status of the negotiations are but if I were the owner I would be willing to give Weston a "pain in the ass" discount (especially since they really are just, at least in Cleveland, parking lot investors and they don't have access to the parking lot).

I just don't understand what the owner is trying to accomplish. It is not only paying big time lawyer fees but now is being invoiced by Richard Bowen. Why is this out of state investor so intent on keeping this property (headache) that is bleeding money (especially now that there is no revenue from parking and would not be any under their "proposal" since the new "development" eats up the parking lot). It has got to be just a blip in their portfolio. Why not just dump it on Weston (a rare willing buyer) at a reasonable price, be done with it and enjoy the sunshine in CA. The only thing I can think of it that they are doing it for tax reasons.

^^I am in no way an expert in this field at all...however, it would seem to me that international flights are even more of a long shot now that we are no longer a hub and there are not "feeder cities" to Hopkins. Even when we had the hub and the planes coming in from smaller markets the airlines did not seem to think it was worth while to initiate international business from Hopkins but simply rely on their other hubs. Now that it would simply be the regional population, I would think any business model (even with a great terminal) would not allow for international flights, especially with so many other options.

Looks pretty elaborate...is funding in place?