Htsguy

^That's the article Murary Hill was referencing and on which I based my post. I cannot see anything happening here for 3-4 years at the least and the article does not lead me to believe other wise. Nobody seemed firm about anything and would not go out on a limb to predict something happening soon. Perhaps they were all being coy and things are moving more rapidly but nothing in that article suggests it.

^Confused? Is there some sort of new information. Haven't we already been discussing this for the past 4-5 days.

^Such a building at that location is clearly part of the University City master plan. Let's hope that the "unidentified developer" has more resources and deal making abilities than Coral and its partners, who can't seem to get financing at a very attractive site. In any event, this would still seem to be way in the future given that the Children's Museum still does not seem to have a clue where they are actually going to go.

^Bucklely Building

^Hmmm and Hmmm. A lot of interesting points.

^Thanks. I do see that in that article but I don't know how credible it is. It appears to be speculation by some out of town expert who stated this must be the case because the county is looking to replace MMPI (when others have suggested other reasons such as MMPI is devesting itself of these types of facilities nation wide). It appears to be an off the cuff comment by somebody who really does not know the facts or even made an effort to do the analysis in this regard (but I am sure he feels real important being asked questions by THE TOM MEYER). Maybe it is true but the county has not stated that this is the reason it is looking for a new operator as far as I am aware.

^Could you cite you source for this? I don't recall reading anything to the effect since the annoucnement was made but I could have missed it.

^^I would generally say the former although the future senior housing, which appears to be subsidized, would probably draw primarily from the neighborhood.

That is such a cool picture.... but I agree, its not so bad the way it is. Could use a cleaning though. More importantly... how about re-building the building on the right instead of the lovely surface lot we have now!!! Now why would you want that? I mean it has only been a surface lot (in the heart of downtown) for just 25 years. That is why I have to roll my eyes when certain posters suggest that they have no problems when buildings are torn down and turned into surface lots because they are sure it is only going to be "temporary" because who would not want to develop a parcel in such a prime area.

Isn't there some sort of city ordinance (at least for downtown) that prevents a surface lot being developed after the demo of a building. I beleive that is why the lot on 14th and Prospect where that old Firestone Building was did not become a parking lot when it was demoed (but eventually was allowed for some reason with the development of the Hanna across the street into apartments).

My guess is that MTS would need a school of guide dogs to even find Parma. :wink:

You guys are remarkably blase about possibly losing Saks to the suburbs. The Saks in Cleveland has always been in the burbs since it was built in the 70's but I know that if it was downtown and was planning on relocating to the burbs this would be headline news and the hand wringing would be endless. As least it looks like you will be keeping a store. The previous Saks owners had been closing stores at a good pace. Pittsburgh, among many others, lost its downtown store and they did not even relocate to the burbs. I don't know about the Saks demo in Cincy and whether it is limited to Indian Hill blue hairs as suggested (at least it is bringing them downtown), but I know the Cleveland stores attracts a wide demo of people with money in all age ranges (in fact you tend to see more people in the 25-40 age range, especially in the men's department). Saks of course attracts an upscale clientel which is the type that is more and more moving into the center city.

^I thought it was the city that initiated the current court action not the owner

^Read the PD article...there is nothing in it that suggests to me this is going to be a temporary lot (especially given the lack of parking in LI) despite the spouting of the owners. They even admit they have no plans for development now.

^Well actually that was not your original point. In response to E Rocc you focus on those property owers who have "structures so decayed that they had to be demolished, owned by people waiting for a fair price", ignoring that E Rocc was suggesting that this was not the case here. Your "member of the community agument" is interesting and would probably make for a good essay question on a test in an intro poli sci course.

There's a lot of structures so decayed they had to be demolished, owned by people waiting for a "fair" price. And some of those owners are now trusts because the person waited themselves into the grave. I'm all for trying to earn a living. But if I did it by sitting on a piece of blight, I would feel ashamed. Maybe I'm not selfish enough to be in business. I think you are missing E Rocc's point. He claims (I don't know if this is true or not but let's take him at his word) that the owner of these buildings in the Flats continues to maintain them and pay property taxes even though they are vacate (and obviously could be put to better use). In such an instance (rather than where property owners let properties decay and still look for unreasonable prices based on what is happening in the neighborhood), it is E Rocc's position that, like any investment in property or other wise, he should be able to wait for what he thinks is a far price (even if his expectations are unreasonable) if he has the resoruces and the mind to do so. This is America after all.

^I think most of the people protesting the project is because in their minds it is not urban friendly not because money is being spent in Cleveland. They would love the state to be spending more $$$ in the city on projects they think are worth while (I would imagine most of that group would like enhanced mass transit).

^Who are they kidding...given the parking situation in Little Italy this will become a parking lot FOREVER. Nothing the owners are spouting about future development leads me to think other wise.

^Interesting since they had the ground breaking for the addition in June.

And something they should think of that might make sense would be a downtown delivery service (of course for a fee). Given the income range and busy schedules this seems like a no brainer. Might even think of offering it even after the store is closed (at least for non perishables). Get your order in during the day, have it picked and bagged and then just have one guy delivering after hours for those who get home late (like associate attorneys at most large firms).

^Just plain HUGE.

Looks like the guesthouse is closed and fencing around it for it's demo for medical school.

^^It appears, after three tries, that if the city and county really want this to become a reality they are going to have to look for another source of funding. The article makes it clear that these grants are very competitive and that this type of project gets a very low ranking.

From a practical standpoint this makes no sense to me. They have an interested buyer. They are generating no income (since they city closed the lot on East 4th) and they have costs associated with ownership (property taxes and I would hope insurance). More significantly they are paying a Benisch attorney (that ain't going to be cheap) to defend litigation that might drag out forever with appeals. Even if they are far apart in price why doesn't somebody do the math and deduct the attorney's fees from the price they want and avoid the aggravation of litigation. The only people winning here are the lawyers (which of course is not a bad thing :wink:) Seems like your classic my b@#ls are bigger than yours.

^I lived in Bridgeview for a couple of years (also a Carney-Rains building along with Grand Arcade) and I can attest to the fact that while I enjoyed my apartment for the most part, insulation between apartments was an issue (maybe it was because of all the brick). Along with loud music, let's just say I learned to be very quite doing "certain things" based on the "sounds" that often regaled me from my neighbors apartment. :wink: