Htsguy

A good article. Balanced which is rare in news articles now a days and provides the necessary facts accurately with delving into opinion which is also rare today. Somebody (like a NY Times reader) learning about the issues for the first time would find the article very informative for such a quick read.

^My point is very logical. It is just that many people on this board live in la la land. Further, my point is that the guy who wants to do the Four Seasons already has asked the question "What if we___" and the answer was no. Let's not criticize him because he reached that conclusion (again it is his $$) and whine that we are getting something less from the guy who asked "what if we__" and decided a Staybridge rather than a Four Seasons makes economic sense for that location in Cleveland. Pretty simple stuff.

Since you asked...my point is that there is clearly a need for such a hotel in Cleveland or the people fronting it would not be putting up the $$$. They or anybody else do not see the need for a Four Seasons. These are smart people. They do marketing studies before risking their hard earned cash (at least I hope they do). If somebody thought they would make a profit with an upscale hotel downtown, simple economic principles would suggest that one would be built. I guess my real point is that we very easily spend other peoples millions on this board when we might have second thoughts if it was our own $$$.

^It clearly meets a need, that is why somebody is risking his $$$ to meet the need. Of course a Four Seasons would be nice. Would you care to look into investing? Does not look like is being built to address a "tourist" need. Seems as though it will cater to the guy (or gal) who has a 6-7 week project in Cleveland.

^I don't think so either. I am sure the county would love to reappraise the property at that value and keep sending him a nice fat tax bill twice a year. I bet that Kassouf only settled on the Fagan property because his partner (Khouri) forced him. As you can tell from this post and others I am not a big fan of the guy. Thanks Musky for the post. It answers my question. Now lets start doing the site prep. and see some real designs.

I have a question which I am not sure anyone can answer for sure but here goes. From what I can tell the trial has been put on hold after more than 3 weeks as the judge wants the parties to make another attempt at settlement. The word on the street is that 3 of the 4 remaining property owners are close to a deal with Wolstein including the owner of the Hustler club. But as part of the settlement with Hustler it appears that the owner wants to be able to move to this new "strip club zone" down the river. As such the city, including the mayor and Cipermann have become involved. However, legislation must be approved to go forward and this could take a couple of months given the committee hearings which must first take place and the slower past of things with City Council during the summer. So my question is, since it appears that settlement with at least the Hustler property owner is contingent on the City approving the zoning change, which could take a while, is the Probabe Court willing to hold off on the trial mid stream for a couple of months while the parties see if this settlement contingency is realized? Most judges I know would not mess up their docket like this. Complicating things is that Kassouff apparently is not interested in settling so the trial has to go forward in any event even if the other 3 settle. Just curious.

^Neither Eton or Legacy claim to fall in the New Urbanism mold. They are just shopping centers and don't pretend to be more than that. Eton was a shopping center (small boutiques) since the mid to late 70's. I believe the attached office building was constructed before Stark owned the property (although I may be wrong...it is about 10 years old). All Stark did was rebuild the shopping center and he certainly has never claimed he was following new urbanism principles (and in fact it would be difficult on such a small lot). I recall reading an article when Legacy first open (I think it was by Steve Litt) where the architect admitted the place was nothing more than a life style center...in other words...shopping. There is minimal mix use (small amount of office space but even La Place had that for a while and it was built in the 70's before the idea of New urbanism) and obviously no housing. Legacy does not follow New Urbanism principals and never intended to do so. So like it or hate it, it is what it is. A life style center like so many being built across the country. By the way...If Crocker Park is "new urbanism" it is a mediocre attempt.

You know I think the vision is wonderful and all the planning is great and neccessary. This whole "idea" is not something you just jump into. That said, I just wish somebody would take a shovel in the next year and start building something on that parking lot (lots) between Superior and St. Clair. Right now I'd almost settle for a Dunkin Donuts.

May Day. I will forego the refund. Just pay up with some interesting talk about urban (or suburbans) issues rather than t-shirts.

Exactly what does all of the above have to do with Crocker Park (other than it has an H and M store as does Beachwood Place)? I feel like I clicked on the thread under false pretenses.

Agree with Morning Theft. If I lived on 4th Street I certainly would not be pleased to have what was described in Louisville going on at my door step every summer weekend. If residential living and retail other than entertainment is the goal of 4th street (combined with the bars and restaurants) this is not a good idea. Have to have a happy medium.

Very good news. As I figured, Kassouff continues to hold out.

^No information in that regard. The above PD article does seem to imply that George and Droe were the closest to settlement (or at least were willing to continue to talk) and that Kassouf was still being his irrational self (you would think after 30 years he would get a clue). So maybe those two have settled and the idiot continues to hold out. Again, no firm information.

Checked out the RTA website today and it reveals that the proposed traffic circles at E. 89th and E. 100th are not working and RTA wants to go back to the original intersection design. The Clinic appears to still want the circles and is attempting to work out the problems. This has apparently caused a project delay as the contractor was suppose to start work in this area in May and is still on hold. This looks like it could get messy.

^I have to agree with Urbanelife that the "news" in the article (although it certainly is not top of the fold front page news) is the lack of oversight by those at the city who should have approved the plans. This is a worthy topic (and thus new worthy) and should have been the focus of the article. Looks like the reporter did very little investigation regarding this very important point. Is the city failing in this regard and jeopardizing other developments. What other planning and construction details are they neglecting. I would like to know who is screwing up at the city level. I also feel for the homeowners to a certain extent. From the pictures in the article the spaces are ridiculously tight and I am sure they are not exaggerating damage to vehicles which we all know (even a minor ding) can be very expensive to repair.

I am pleased how the art museum east wing is turning out as construction progresses. I was initially fearfull that it was going to overwhelm East Blvd., but now do not think this is going to be the case. The stone looks great and of high quality and the strategic placement of glass seems to lighten up the mass. During the winter, with the lights on, I think those galleries are going to look sharp from the outside.

As implied in a couple of posts, this has to be basically conceptual at this point. Wolstein mentioned in his PD article that he will be hiring a number of architects and that this has not even occurred yet. There is still a year and half of planning before any ground breaking for actual buildings takes place (the hope is that utility work can begin this fall).

^I am not so sure about that for the simply reason that I don't think it is all about "money" like most of the "experts" following this case seem to believe. If the court finds there are no grounds for a taking (phase one of the trial) they will not even go on to the jury part of the trial where valuation comes into play. The property owners simply keep their property. The majority opinion is that at that point Wolstein will have to come in and simply "over pay" for the remaining parcels he needs. But I have this gut feeling that this is (or has become) more of a personal thing and guys like Tony George and Kassouf do not want to sell no matter what. They want to become "partners". I think ego is playing a big role in all of this. At that point I would simply suggest hiring somebody in the "knee cap business".

^It is on the East Sixth side.

Downtown retail is tough in all mid size American cities, especially in the midwest. Most have no or just one department store. Read posts on urban Ohio about the death of Center City Mall in Columbus or the troubles at Tower Place in Cincy (and Cincy has a pretty good retail core with their Saks downtown and Macys right on Fountain Square) I read the Pittsburgh Post on line a fair amount and they are always doing articles about the recent desertion of retail downtown and what is being done to try and revive it. Downtown retail has not existed in Detroit for years. I may be wrong but I think the only downtown Dillards store in the nation is in St. Louis and they have over 200 stores. I am pretty sure Baltimore does not have a classic downtown department store nor does Denver. This is not strictly a "Cleveland thing".

Maybe somebody should start a seperate Cleveland "leeches" thread. Getting back on topic, does anybody know if the actual hearing started yesterday or is going forward today? The court docket is silent on this.

Great pics May Day. You certainly have an eye. Question you may or may not know the answer to. Did the same architects design both the Old Cuyahoga County Courthouse (on Lakeside) and the Mahoning County Courthouse? They are very similar.

I truly doubt that 80 witnesses will testify. It is a regular practice of litigators to identify almost everybody who has anything to do with anything on their pre trial witness list. Most of the time only a fraction really take the stand. Couple of reasons for this. If a person is not on the list it is the customary practice for the judge to exclude that person from testifying. A trial lawyer may really have no intention of calling a particular witness, but may change his mind during the course of the trial depending on how things (or issues) are going. So it is just a safe practice to have all potentially relevant names on your list. Also, a long list of witnesses " scares" and "confuses" the other side (not really but lawyers continue to think it does). I note from the court docket (yesterday) that the preliminary hearing was continued again. However, it looks as though this was only because they did not complete hearing all the pre trial motions and were working on that yesterday. I would imagine that they will start as soon as they finish going through all the motions (in other words the hearing has not been continued for weeks or months like in the past, just a day or so). Thank God for hard headed people (both sides). They keep the lawyers in their BMWs.

I don't think they are a "viable candidate" to move downtown since they just expanded in Mayfield Hts. but I would like to see Parker Hannifin

Funny. With all the different agendas mentioned by "x" is sounded like a WTO protest.