Htsguy

Drove through this "development" for the first time yesterday. While never a big fan of the project from day one, it really turned out worst that I thought it would. Ignoring the horrible design and cheap looking materials, the site plan is such that most people will want to get in their cars and drive from one section to another rather than walk. Also noticed that they appear to be having trouble leasing space. It seems that at this late date in the project more that 50% of the smaller store fronts had "for lease" signs on them. It could be that this area is over built retail wise.

Driving down Chester I noticed the sign at 79th for the housing development at that corner (that had been removed, tore down, stolen during the summer...take your pick) is now back up (and with cute little flags). However, there seems to be very little progress in terms of moving dirt (in fact none) at this corner or at the larger Chester 82 site down the street despite the fact that both projects were announced quite some time ago. Anyone have the inside scoop?

Actually, I could see "resistance" from the city in regards to tearing down the Dollar Bank Building, although it will be hesitant to kill the project.

^Does anybody on the board have more information regarding the 668 project? It seems pretty far along (as least as suggested by the article...construction activity in six months) in terms of development planning, even if the sale has not been completed yet. I would think somebody here would have some inside information (or even some good speculation).

While scanning the election results I noticed that a zoning issue relating to the area around the intersection of Detroit and Crocker Rd. passed. I seem to recall that Stark (Crocker Park) was pushing some sort of zoning change so he could go ahead with plans for a hotel in the parking lot at that intersection (next to the just finished Fidelity Investments branch). Does anybody know if this indeed is the case and that we may soon be seeing a hotel at Crocker Park? (I know plans for the first hotel fell through...the one in the vincinity of Golds Gym). Also, about a month ago I was chatting with an employee of the Westlake Building Department and he made mention that Stark is finally taking steps to build on some of the vacant interior lots at Crocker Park. Specially, he mentioned the two vacant lots that flank the approach to Dicks Sporting Goods. I believe he said there was a residential component to the new construction although I am not sure (it just came up briefly in a conversation that center on different issues and it has also been a while and finally, I am just getting old and my mind does not work as well as it use to).

A thought hit me as I was passing by the Beachwood JCC today. It has been in the news, and I believe briefly discussed in another thread, that the Jewish Community Federation (did I get the name right?) is discussing moving its headquarters from 18th and Euclid to the suburbs for a variety of reasons, including the need for more space. At this point, I guess another downtown location is not out of the question and some Jewish movers and shakers are lobbying for a continued presence downtown. I believe Stark is very active when it comes to Jewish charities and I would imagine his opinion carries a lot of clout. Question: if Stark looking for tenants for Pesht, I wonder if he is courting the Federation. I imagine it would prefer to own its own building rather than lease, but I am sure Stark could work something out in that regard if only to have a key player in Cleveland (not to mention a large number of highly compensation white collar workers) in the heart of his development. Could his involvement with the Federation be considered a conflict of interest so their is no possibility of this?

^^What exactly makes this an "editorial"? It simply rehashes what has been stated in other news articles. I guess the last sentence is an opinion but hardly controversial or thought provoking. Did a third grader offer this for publication as part of a class project?

^Very good point. Possible (again, maybe something was lost in the edit) "speculation journalism" in an article that should be fact based. Pet peeve of mine as well.

^I see where you are coming from and agree that maybe the cupola should have been nixed given the revised portico. That said, I think the revised portico works better than one with a pediment. Maybe it has to do with shape of Benton itself or maybe it just works better with the new steps and porch. Looking forward to additional pics of Farmer in the future.

Ink...As always, thanks for the pics. Just curious what you found odd in the last picture. Does the portico not work in your opinion or is it just strange, in general, to see Benton reconfigured after all these years?

Passed by site today and they finally put a sign up. It is a CVS. This is of course good news since we definitely need another one. I sure it will be an architectural masterpiece.

^^I know the newsletter is a marketing tool and all, but the language seems a bit over the top (maybe somewhat kin to "world class signage").

^As the article mentioned, there is apparently going to be very little in the way of general merchandising for various reasons so it will not be like Crocker Park in terms of national chain stores like the Gap, Banana Republic, Talbots etc. Given the description of the retail, while it will not be your standard mall brands, it does not appear much of it will be local in nature (exception...a grocery store). I do not see how we can really criticize or praise at this point. I think everything out there right now is conceptual and is still evolving as suggestion by a number of posters above (Wolstein has said in the past he is using multiple architects). I doubt that there is a completed design for even one building yet (and the site plan is still up in the air) although it seems that they are gettin close and we should be seeing "pretty pictures" soon.

Like it...should be cool at night.

Thanks for posting the article Jpop. It is chock full of new information and should help answer many of the questions recently raised in this thread (although I am sure it will generate scores more).

This is very disappointing news. It appears Coral has been trying to wrest this portion for South Euclid for some time (if I recall correctly previous comments of one of the principals) and were finally successful. I too wonder what happen to the Arkansas firm. I am not a big fan of Coral. Their work is just plain routine. Poor design and I even have to question (from a visual standpoint) workmanship. And boy are they SLOW (Further evidence in the article. Plaza was to close at the end of this year for demolition...now they are talking about fall of 2008...and half of it is already deserted and starting to look even shabbier than it was). Look at their previous projects...University Square at the Corner of Taylor and Cedar, UH side of Cedar Center, Courtyards at Severance. All mundane. Especially disappointing since good design and executions as these locations could have really done much for the respective neighborhoods. A neighbor who is an architect told me that she had considered buying at the Courtyards at Severance but considered the construction shoddy. The design would have been enough to turn me off. They have had Shaker Square for quite some time now and while announcing grand plans way back when have done very little to implement them. I hope they prove me wrong but I am not expecting much with this project expect lots of parking.

David...What "kind of people" live in Hyde Park (I am a Clevelander and don't understand your reference).

^I'm grouchy too...7 or 8 years is not a remarkable amount of time for a development of this size. In fact it is very reasonable. A suburban development of 300 homes would easily take that long. The development my parents bought in Solon during the booming 70's (at least booming in Solon) took about 10 years to complete and was only slightly more than 200 homes.

^Cannot say that I disagree but it was pretty much the standard Holiday Inn high rise design when it was built in the early 70's and you see them across the country.

The former Cookers has been a Tony Romas for about 6 months now.

ciccolmt, I guess I am confused by your use of the language "if no commercial project is approved" language as if there is some governmental approval process (other than the standard ones which every project goes through). Perhaps you are referring to approval in terms of financing. Like X said the developers are courting tenants such as Eaton. If they can make a deal that makes sense, something will get built. And of all the leases (companies) mentioned, I cannot imagine any will be leaving town (in fact hasn't somebody suggested that Eaton has decided against new construction...maybe there landlord decided to give them a great deal they could not pass up at their current digs).

^Thanks

KJP, your comments above suggesting the residential portion of the FEB will be delayed is something I have never heard before (and quite disappointing). Can you give us the source of the information?

^Hi ciccolmt and welcome to the UO. As you can gleam from previous posts in this thread and in the Pesht thread, most people would LOVE to see ALL the projects completed (even thought the proposed Jacobs Tower is still really a mystery). The debate centers around the reality that downtown Cleveland can only support so much new office space, so what form of new development is preferrable given the economic issues. While I would love to see a Tower on PS I personally would prefer to see the parking lots in the Warehouse District disappear. That said, and not to be a wet blanket, I think you are relying too much on the magically powers of a tall building relative to Cleveland's "comeback". By the way, I personally don't think we need to comeback from any where (over the past 30 years that term has worn thin, both positive and negative).

I have to agree with you My Two Sense. It is amazing now a days what people consider "high end".