Htsguy

This was an incredible informative article, containing much that we have discussed on this board, but also filled with additional tidbits about proposed plans that we (or at least I) have not heard about in the past. Good job (did I just compliment the PD?...and I am glad the editors caught and fixed the map from the earlier on line edition which had Lot 45 on Stokes Blvd). Unfortunately, as somebody who is very interested in the development of Lot 45, as I see it as a large and important bridge between Little Italy and UC, I must admit that I threw up a little bit in my mouth when I read that the Coral Co. is one of the three final contenders for the project.

Any discussion at the meeting of what the odds are that RTA will actually get funding for this project (obviously necessary before they can even begin to solicit a private developer) in the near future or, for that matter, ever....after all they have been having trouble getting federal funds for the Mayfield Rapid Station and that has been planned for ages.

^I am confused. Who is doing the complete renovation?

Haven't "they" (who ever they are) been trying to market this property for re-development for years (and I mean YEARS). Has something changed recently making it more of a possibility?

^Does anybody know who owns the property? My guess is the Playhouse Square Association. If this is true the city is not going to hold their feet to the fire to develop in two years since they do have a master plan for the area and have already invested millions over the years. They are a whole different beast from your run of the mill owner in this instance. Moreover, as noted, the city does not seem too keen to enforce the ordiance no matter who or what.

^This demolition was brought up in the Cleveland demolition thread yesterday and the poster suggested (hoped) that he could accept the tear down because it would lead to the eventual development of the surface lot. I responded that I hope so but that I thought that had been a surface lot for a very long time (decades?) and that we often say on this board that this or that surface lot downtown is prime for development and more often than not nothing happens or nothing happens for years and years. I can see where Ink is coming from but I would feel much better if The Playhouse Square Association at least made a announcement that they had some plans for the parcel (and I am sure they do have it on their wish list...my problem it is a wish list) no matter how vague or contingent on 20 other things happening (the big one of course being $$).

Okay...here is my idea....retro fit the four floors so the originally planned Nieman Marcus can go in. MTS might like that.

Here is my take. If you lived downtown, your commute to Oberlin would be a "long" 50 minutes to a "short" hour depending upon weather conditions and traffic. From Oberlin to downtown in the morning....longer, especially if you take 90 in because it always seems to back up, and for quite a while at times. I never lived in Oberlin...it is a cute town and has the cultural advantages of the college...don't think there is much of a night life, even in surrounding towns. Since you are 40, don't think you will or would want to hang out with the college kids (and even then I don't get the impression Oberlin is a big party town like other college towns). If you did live in town I would imagine there is an interesting mix of college professors and administrators who might be fun to get to know. I cannot really think of a good mid point place to live. Most everything half way between the 2 locations is going to pretty suburban (and some of the worse type of suburbia...for example, no cute kinda urban towns like Chagrin Falls on the east side or Hudson in Summit County). I know I will be killed for this on this board, but my best suggestion for a mid point location might be Crocker Park in Westlake. I really think you would be most happy downtown given your current lifestyle. Also might want to check out Ohio City or Lakewood. My two cents.

^Actually I can think of very few townhouse projects in the city of Cleveland where most of the units are in the 400,000 range (more in the suburbs like Shaker and Cleveland Hts.). While there are some in Cleveland, I think the majority tend to be in the 250-275 range. While still pricey for Cleveland they don't seem to have problems selling (or at least did not before th housing crisis). And the more expensive ones also did not have many problems selling so I have to disagree with you about the market for these. Builders are not idiots. If they don't think they are going to sell they would not build them. I do agree with you that affordable housing in the city in key...but who would disagree with that.

^Good to hear about Zaremba. Strangbrew...is Mill Creek completely built out (I know it has been a long time since the project broke ground-maybe 15 years)? It has been a long time since I have been in the neighborhood (my grandmother use to live up Turney in Garfield Hts.) If it is and re-sale is still OK in that neighborhood, I would imagine it would be a good guide as to potential sales in the new project since that is arguably a slightly more stable area. If things are not going great there I could imagine some issues closer in.

Well first, this sounds very exciting and it is the first I have heard of it. Second, it sounds like the homeowner financing incentives are similar to those offer in the past in other depressed areas of the city and they seemed to have worked (getting people in the houses to a certain degree). The price points seem to be high for the neighborhood but what do I know. Would love the see renderings and look forward to it in the future. I am curious about Zaremba's involvement...I thought they were is serious trouble after all the problems at the Avenue District.

^I hope so too but that has been an annoying surface parking lot for a long time (decades?). We always say this or that surface parking lot should be developed, and state the obvious reasons why, but it seems to be the rare instance downtown where this actually occurs.

Lafont your nickname should be "Mr. Euclid Avenue" (pretty clever there huh?) as this is clearly your favorite thread in which to post.

Earlier news reports indicated that a major component of the plan was a 50 million dollar all weather walk way. The reports indicated that the city had already applied for a federal grant for the walk way. Does anybody know what the amount of the application was and when city applied for it (also which agency, how long for a decision and what are the qualifications and what other projects are competing for what may be limited funds....I know.... I am so demanding and inquisitive)? In other words, what is the likelyhood of such a grant given the fiscal climate in Washington and the current budget cutting discussions. If the grant is not forth coming does this kill the whole development since it seems to be such a key aspect? And where is Cleveland coming up with any funds in addition to this possibly limited or nonexistent grant. Don't want to sound like a Debbie Downer but that is a lot of money and it seems to be a key aspect of the plan.

jborger....I might be misreading your post, specifically par. 3, but it seems that you are suggesting that the retail mix-used aspect of the center is some how related to public transportation in and of itself. My view of the proposed mix used development is that we are building this more or less in the heart of downtown. Therefore, it would be a superior development if there was new retail (whether downtown currently can support new retail is for another thread) at this location and it would be patronized by office workers, residents or visitors no matter how they got downtown (whether by car, taxi, public transportation or horse drawn buggies).

^My guess is that web page is about a million or so years old, probably created when the garage was first built. Note it identifies the "client" as Ohio Savings.

^If any of this is actually true (?), I doubt the building would now be condos as orginally planned, but rather rental apartments.

My guess (if true) would be the east side, proabably Beachwood Place (isn't the Columbus store in the 'burbs?)

Is anybody in the know that can answer 327's question?

^I have never heard the term before as well but I am assuming they are the streets which run east west from Warrensville Center Road between the rear of Ceadar Center and the southern border of Oakwood Country Club.

^Also don't want to take this off topic, but the first time I read the ballot language for Issue 3 was when I stepped in the voting booth...I almost started laughing out loud right then and there...who ever was responsible for that language is a genius and deserves a big raise from his boss.

And it WAS a political attack on organized labor no matter how the Republicans tried to spin it or market it as saving taxpayers money. In fact, why would one even question this...this is what Republicans do and have done for decades in various ways...I certainly don't think they are embarrassed about it...it is their ideology...they just know they have to be sneaky about it to get their agenda passed.

^Right on point.

I don't know who this developer is and what they have done in the past...but it just looks to me like they might have had an architect design these for some development they did in some suburb and they are now part of their portfolio....so rather than come up with a unique design, they just pulled these out since they had the rights to them as it would be cheaper to do so. Of course this is pure speculation on my part, but they look so out of place, so that is my uninformed theory. My big concern is the possibility of vinyl siding and the like. These buildings are "made" for such a treatment.

^Agreed...nobody is bashing South Euclid....just bad design and inappropriate development for an inner ring suburb, especially given the great retail urban design which is being built throughout the country.