Htsguy

I pretty much understand that is what happens. I also imagine there is an element of "not wanting to piss off the developer" who may be doing things elsewhere in the city and, if pressed, may just say they are going to take their ball and go home. This will probably especially be the case at this location given everything Bedrock says it will be doing on the riverfront and how the city generally bends over backwards for the company. I afraid this site may be a parking lot for a long time to come unless Bedrock sells to another developer. As I have stated in the past, I am still trying to figure out why they bought the property in the first place.

I would like to see these development conditions in connection with demo and the creation of a surface lot finally actually enforced by the city. Does anybody actually calendar these deadlines. Still waiting for the city to enforce the conditions on the New York Spag House surface lot.

West 73rd apartments received final approval today from Planning Commission. What an ordeal. Glad the developer stuck it out, especially after the previous developer dropped out. Hopeful ground breaking happens soon and this project does not fall into "post final approval limbo", which seems to be happening a lot lately.

The Garfield Hts site makes much more sense for so many reasons. And its not like it is in Strongsville or Solon. It is like a 5-7 minute drive to the Cleveland border.

Does anybody know if the developer, since all city approvals have been given, can start pulling permits, even though the financing paperwork has not been finalized? Obviously, they would not act on the permits until all the financing “I’s” are dotted and “t’s” crossed, but it would be nice if they could actually start demo as soon as the paperwork is done and not have to wait for permits which, as I understand it, takes a while once the application is submitted to the city

Thank you for that @KJP I have been very confused so far to tell you the truth. There will be posts suggesting that Gensler is working on an actual building for the development and then there will be other posts suggesting who might be moving to the development in the near future (perhaps Rocket, perhaps a Cavs practice facility, perhaps a boutique hotel, perhaps a downtown Cleveland Clinic facility, perhaps some mystery company that would move to the suburbs if they could not find new Class A space downtown), but I don't believe we have, to date, tied Gensler to a specific project. Almost as much secrecy as SHW. Ken do you know if the hotel is suppose to go on top of the practice facility and whether Gensler is also involved in that design?

I remember that testimony in front of council as well. I cannot recall who the gentlemen was but he was very pessimistic about raising additional funds from entities like foundations, corporations and well heeled individuals, the usual suspects when seeking private funds for such a venture, for the reason stated by @Henke above. In a nutshell they are reluctant to help bridge the funding gap when the city gives the impression that they could give a flying fig, which is exactly the message sent when council substantially slashed the requested funding for basic maintenance. Even if council had authorized the amount the administration was seeking, a huge sum still has to be raised for just the basics. This argument went right over their heads.

Glad to see that the developer of the W. 73rd St. apartment building is seeking final approval at Friday’s planning commission meeting. I thought they may have been scared off by all the objections raised by the neighbors and council person, since it’s been so long since they received the schematic approval.

That could be a good guess but it seems strange that an old fogey company like SWH would decide to move because their offices were so outdated and a supposedly hip young company like Rocket would find them acceptable. I guess it could all be about saving money.

Sounds like they are turning Progressive Field into one big restaurant and bar. I hope fans will have time to actually watch the ball game.

Even more troubling is that the deferred maintenance philosophy is still the a guiding principle at the council level as they have only authorized $10M (in I believe ARPA funds) for the stabilizing work. Unfortunately I don't believe the "fun stuff" can happen until the Market finds other sources of funds to fix the roof, plumbing and electrical, among other basic needs.

Another project Ken reported on in this article is the Monmouth Building on Euclid which is being developed by WXZ. I was unaware of the development and am pretty excited by it. Along with the historic tax credit, WXZ was previously awarded an Ohio Brownfield Remediation grant as reported by Ken in an earlier article. Not only is this building being renovated but new apartments will be construction on the rear parking lot. Glad to see all the financing elements coming together. WXZ moves somewhat carefully (in other words slowly) but they do quality work and this will be a great addition to Uptown. I am sure it will easily outshine its recently constructed mundane neighbor to the west of the Monmouth Building.

I thought everybody on the forum loved those planters. Me not so much.

Neither does University Hts. At least when I owned a home there. That was a while ago. May have changed since then.

that island in the last pic was well overdue

I know we have talked this issue to death and it is water under the bridge but they should have done the original plan with intersections and at least one stop light between the bridge and Clifton. NOBODY does 35 MPH as currently designed. Would have probably opened up more development opportunities. Anyway Blah Blah Blah

Have been wondering the same thing

I was watching the Heights City Council meeting last night online (I know sad...but I am kind of house bound) and found at least one item of interest regarding development. I might be getting some things wrong since this was another instance were I was only half listening. However, this time it was not because I was doing other things simultaneously, but due to the nature of your standard CH meeting (basically...talk, talk, talk....repeat, repeat, repeat....digress, digress, digress with a fair amount of whining until your head wants to explore). Generally why CH has trouble moving forward on a development front despite its location and institutional advantages-EVERYTHING has to be talked to death FOREVER by EVERBODY. But I digress...I guess I really am your classic Hts. resident. Council was trying to quickly pass legislation authorizing $1.5 million in ARPA funds toward construction of the Cain Park strand which is a component of the multi-million Taylor Rd. development being spearheaded by my heroes WXZ Development. Again, I was only half listening but I think the urgency was that WXZ wanted to include this action as part of an upcoming TMUD application. I got the impression that the city and the developer thought having this money authorized would give it a leg up with those who review applications for the state. So I guess what I am trying to get across in my usual long winded manner is that we must be closing in on another TMUD round and WXZ will probably be seeking an award from the state for the Taylor Rd project or perhaps some other state subsidy...I think they were already awarded historic state tax credits. As I was finishing up this post I checked the state website and learned that TMUD applications are already closed for 2023. Maybe WXZ already applied and wanted to supplement its application with this information since the actual decision by the state is still pending.

Of all the many things I did on my last visit to NYC, including some incredible meals, walking the High Line was definitely the favorite part of my trip. What a gem for the city.

I still cannot figure out why Bedrock bought this property unless certain events to which we are not privy turned the focus to the riverfront right after closing. I am not an expert but maybe there are some corporate tax benefits in the short term with the long term plan being to sell it to other developers at a profit. My biggest bummer is that years later there are still no plans to re-hab that little historic building on Prospect which more or less kick started the purchase by Stark from those out of state investors way back when.

I know its frustrating but I learned a long time ago not to feed this troll.

I may be wrong since, to be honest, I was doing other things and only half listening to the Planning Commission meeting, but I thought they denied the demo request at this time because CWRU was still working on it campus master plan and had no idea what may or may not go at this site.

That is what makes me a bit nervous. I have watched way too many city council committee meetings where members seem to be generally clueless about such matters-almost like they live in another city. I hope Blaine Griffin is on board.

@KJP I have a number of thoughts which I am sure forum members are holding their breaths to read-but my big initial question relates to what seems to be two contradictory quotes. Jon Pinney at KJK and TurnDev was quoted as confirming the capital stack was "complete"-although they continue to work with the city (which I guess means they want further public subsidies of some sort). Later in the article Anthony Delfre of Brown Gibbons states "KJK is finalizing the city incentive package which is the FINAL PIECE OF THE PROJECTS'S CAPITALIZATION IN ORDER TO CLOSE" So which is it? Is the capital stack complete or do they still need more public subsidies in order to close a gap?

Well this is definitely an article I am looking forward to since I, like many, don't have a lot of faith in this developer given their track record.