Htsguy

I am glad they are moving the main entrance of the law school to Euclid. In response to the question "what do we want to see" for the student center? I would like to see about a five story building jutting out all the way to Euclid made primarily of glass (maybe even just a "box" done well). Very transparent. It would be cool to drive or walk down Euclid at night (especially in the winter) and peer into a well lit multi-floor building jammed with people participating in a variety of activities or just lounging around. It would give the campus so well needed life and bring it out onto Euclid.

Agree with May Day. How can we criticize a proposed design that does not even exist. It appears that the challenge with the project will be coming up with a proposal that will be outstanding despite a limited budget (keeping costs under control is not such a bad idea. We are always so open to spending other people's money on this board...in this case student fees which can be used for a wide variety of things). This will clearly test their metal. Let's see what they come up with.

Cannot imagine Baker landing in the Flats. Among other things, too far away from other firms. Curious about the Forest City proposal and why Baker was not interested.

The hearing only relates to a motion to consolidate all the separate eminent domain actions into one proceeding. It is more procedural than substantive, although I imagine some substantive issues will come into play. The court's eventual ruling on the motion (maybe in a few weeks...I believe after the hearing the judge will allow the parties time to submit supplemental briefs which will take additional time) will not resolve the cases. It is going to be some time until the merits of the actions (or perhaps a single action if the motion to consolidate is granted) will be addressed.

^Good question? I remember the ceremonial ground breaking for the Euclid Corridor Project. It was months later before any real work began. The Avenue District's ground breaking is on Friday September 29. Does this mean back hoes are going to be on site the following Monday?

I don't think there is much "concern" or "backlash" in the community about demolishing the building. Steve Litt does not want to see it demolished so he searches out people in the field who share his opinion and writes an article emphasizing their views. That is the advantage of having a regular column in a newspaper. If these people were really committed to the building's preservation they would have organized months ago when the possibility of its demolition was first suggested by the Commissioners.

I have heard nothing even suggesting that they are tearing down Riverview but would have no problem with it. They are simply UGLY. Remind me of something you would find in the Soviet Bloc. Why spend millions to renovate them (even into luxury units as suggested above) when in the end you would simply have rich people living in piss poor architecture rather than seniors living in piss poor architecture. Tear them door and build some stunning, well designed towers. That said, poor seniors also have a right to great views of downtown which I am sure the current towers afford (having never been inside).

Is this the building that use to have an oriental rug business on the first floor? If yes, might this be the new offices of Climaco, Lefkowitz and Garofoli (they use to be in the Halle Building and current are "temporarily" on Huron Rd.), at least on the upper floors. The only reason I question this is because the offices were described on the firm's website for many months but that is no longer the case. They were suppose to renovate the above mentioned building, including the addition of a third floor with a pato over looking Euclid. I don't know if the plans fell through (thus their removal from the website). Maybe they just changed so much and were taking so long to implement that they just decided not to mention them any more rather than up date the site. In any event that is my guess as to what is going in, as least on the upper floor. If it is Climaco this is a good sign as their offices were always well done. Especially like the patio idea if they are still planning on adding a third floor.

Is anyone aware of any specific or special street scape projects planned by, and financed by, the Playhouse Square Association in conjecture with, but spearate from, the Euclid Corridor project? If I recall, a few years ago the Association wanted to improve the street scape in the area and make it more pedestrian friendly and lively, but kept putting off the plans since what ever it did would simply be torn up by RTA.

Thoughtful post Mister Good Day. Does anybody know what the occupancy rate for the apartments in the E. 4th area is? Is it better or worse than the Warehouse District?

If I recall the judge in the Roether common pleas case denied a temporary restraining order when the case was first filed. I tried to check the docket but could not find the case (just the 1997 tort matter). Her name may be mis-spelled somewhere. Without having read the pleadings, I imagine she has filed what's known as a "taxpayer's action" which has a statutory basis. In my experience the "independent" taxpayer usually has a connection to a party (in this case a property owner) and their attorney fees are usually paid for by the real party in interest. Looks like the property owners are attempting to fight this on as many fronts as possible. In Probate Court, a motion to consolidate the various eminent domain suits is set for hearing on September 27. I don't believe Wolstein can proceed without many of the parcels at issue. If I recall correctly a few of them are in heart of the development.

Sometimes I think people on this board paint the evil "suburbanites with too broad a brush. Just because they prefer to live in the suburbs for one reason or another does not mean they are constantly bad mouthing downtown Cleveland or don't enjoy what it has to offer. Many people make ignorant comments (including those who actually live in the city and we don't bash them), but you hear those same comments about city life across the nation. My siblings are perfect examples of suburbanites who enjoy Cleveland and are boosters of the town. None of them has every work or lived downtown as I have. Currently two live in Hudson and one in Bainbridge. They prefer to live in those communities because they have kids and want good schools, enjoy a large lot and want to be close to where they work, among other reasons. Still they enjoy going downtown and University Circle for the restaurants, theaters, sporting events, museums and special events which happen in the city (they certainly don't shop downtown, but there is a good reason for that...no place to shop...I don't even shop downtown any more...in years pass almost 90% of my shopping was downtown). They certainly have no irrational fear of crime and have no problems walking the streets at any time of the day or night. I guess my point is that not everybody is cut out for urban living, but that does not make them the enemy. The people who make uninformed comments (again either suburbanites or city dwellers) will never change and we probably should not waste our energies trying to convert them. Just give them a roll of the eyes or a knowing smile and leave it at that.

I checked the Probate Court docket to determine who was representing the property owners. Based on the reputation of a couple of the attorneys, I would say a negotiated settlement is very unlikely for all of the land at issue. The motion to consolidate was filed by the Port Authority so they must see some sort of strategic advantage to having everything heard in one action (or maybe the Port is just seeking judicial economy and the cost savings (attorneys fees) that follow).

While not discouraging news I don't know that it is "encouraging". Applying for the permit is a pretty routine event. They must be desperate for news to release if this has to be posted on their website. Majority of the article was just a re-hash.

I like the idea of widening the sidewalks and getting rid of those ugly concrete planters. Also makes sense to put the trees where pedestrians are rather than in the middle of the street. Hopefully, wide enough sidewalks will allow them to do a double row of trees on both sides which, when mature, will provide alot of shade. Narrowing the street and getting rid of the median will also make 12th less intimidating to walk across in my opinion. Was confused (or maybe the word is concerned) about Volpe's statement "construction on the first phase of the project...could begin next winter or spring". Given the next sentence ("But he hopes to begin construction on the streets and sidewalks within the first phase within about a month"), it is clear he was referring to the buildings and not the street. I was under the impression ground breaking was much closer. If I had reserved a unit when they first where put on the market I would be going nuts with the delay. How do you plan your life (selling you current residence, etc) with such uncertainty?

Didn't Harvey Oppman also own Carter Manor before it was foreclosed on by HUD? Not a good sign.

Frankly, I find it a little difficult to critique the proposals at this early stage given the limited number of pictures and perspectives. I also imagine that the proposals right now are at least 50% conceptual and will develop over time. I look forward to seeing more details and hopefully more renderings. Maybe Steve Litt will do a column in Sunday's PD and will have more information. Still, at this point I find many of the critiques and opinions interesting. That said, the posts I have to dismiss out of hand as lacking credibility (even those will some very valid points) are those which reject the designs at this stage (or indeed at any stage in the process) simply because the proposed buildings are not tall enough. I just don't understand what good architecture or urban design and planning has to do with the height of buildings or a city's skyline. Houston and Dallas have well developed skylines and I doubt anyone on this board would consider them urban paradises. I have never been to LA but have viewed its downtown skyline may times and it is quite impressive from afar. However, from everything I have read its central business district is dead after hours. DC has no high rise buildings at all but most of the city neighborhoods are very lively. On the other hand, right across the river is Rosslyn which is basically a concrete jungle of poorly designed highrises and intimidating street life. This does not mean that a great skyline does not equate a lively, livable city (e.g. Toronto, Seattle, Chicago, Boston), it just means tall buildings (especially those which are poorly designed and don't respect their surroundings) do not necessarily equal great urban planning. There are obviously many arguments to be made in favor of and against the demolition of the Ameritrust Biding. Many have already been offered in this thread. But to preface an argument with the statement "in a town lacking in downtown skyscape rs we're actually considering demolishing one of the few we have and replacing it with a squat boxing building" shows a bias which makes some legitimate points suspect. Many posts seem to want a tall biding on the site no matter what. It appears they would prefer a "bad" tall biding (although I am sure they would prefer a "stunning" tall building) over a very good plan that consists of elevations no higher than 15 stories. I'm sorry but I just don't equate good architecture with height. Not that what has been proposed is great or even good architecture (again I want to see more details). I enjoy an interesting skyline with tall buidings and would look favorable on a well designed "imposing" building on the site. However, if the architects can come up with a 15 story design that respects the Rotunda, gives some life to both East Ninth and Euclid, is receptive to public transportation (as I am sure many of the public employees working in the building with ride the bus) and is pleasing to the eye, bring it on.

SKID ROW??? My God the 12th Street St. Clair buildings are one block from 9th Street.

To its credit, when the GSA moved the FBI from the federal building in Cleveland (located on East 9th and Lakeside in the heart of the city) for similar "security reasons" about 3-4 years ago it was able to keep the building downtown, about a half mile away from its previous location. While in a more isolated and less traveled area of downtown, it is an easy walk from most places and in fact will be only a couple of blocks from a new major residential and retail development which will be breaking ground next month. The problem is that it looks like a fortress so if this is "necessary" (as the GSA sees it) I don't think I would want the building in the heart of the business district. Since there is little reason for most people to "drop in" on the FBI and regional offices tend to be small (less than a 100 agents in a city the size of Cleveland), keeping them out of the central business district (although still downtown) may not be a big deal. This is not the case with other federal agencies and you would hope that paranoia would not force something like a local FHA office to have to locate in the middle of no where or on the fringe of the city. Cleveland was fortunate that the chosen site was available (although it would have been better used for housing as it is on a bluff over looking the lake) and, if I recall, elements in the city actively lobbied for a site in the central business district rather than the far reaches of the city (although I don't believe the suburbs were ever really in the running). Cincy may not be as fortunate, especially if they are looking for such a large parcel. It will obviously be difficult locating 8-10 acres in the heart of the city, and again, given the fortress like nature of the building you may not want it taking up valuable land in the central business district.

Brief but thoughtful discussion of this issue (lower price condos in downtown districts versus more expensive units) on page 4 of "Cincinnati: Downtown: One River Plaza" thread.

So far "Pesht" is completely conceptual and basically consists of some interesting newspaper articles. "West Bank" has not even reached that point. Newspaper articles promised in September. What makes you think that these proposed developments will not require eminent domain and subsidies and will not feature bad site planning and uninspiring architecture (I mean look at Eton Collection and Crocker Park (especially Crocker Park, a nightmare of parking garages). I cetainly hope both projects get off the ground and are done well, but it is hard to get excited, like many on this board, with two projects which really have not been "revealed". It is also hard to pan these projects at this point. I am sure everyone here will do a good job of that once more information is offered.

Thanks for the pics. Looks like the B-school Building is going to be huge although I do like the fact that it is being done in "wings". Gives the impression of an old building that was added on to over time. I hope it does not overwhelm East Quad. Couple of questions which you may or may not be able to answer. A few years ago I think I read something about a possible reconstruction of slant walk (done in red brick). Is that still in the works or am I just completely wrong about this? Also, I have always been curious about the lighting now used on campus. Sometime in the mid 80's they started replacing the Victorian style light posts with the "modern" posts you see in the pictures. I am sure they are more engery efficent, but sure do look out of place on campus. I have been on enough campus with more attractive period lighting and have always wonder why Miami of all places would change to such and ugly design which really is not compatible with the architecture. It is especially strange since the letterhead for the univeristy trumphets a traditional latern style light.

Actually, it is my experience that Justice Center employees are probably some of the biggest users of public transportation downtown and if they do drive they seek out the cheap out of the way lots, not those in the heart of the warehouse district as most are not that highly compensated. Also, I cannot see a bunch of suburbanite parkers taking the time and effort to "organize" to protect some parking spaces. As is always the case they will always find some place else to park. That said the retail component will clearly be the hardest part of this proposed project. Except for perhaps 7 or 8 major American cities, all downtowns have trouble attracting or retaining downtown retail for a variety of reasons (check out what our friends in Cincy and Columbus are saying about downtown retail in their threads). I am glad to see somebody making the effort and taking the risk and wish Mr. Stark all the best.