Htsguy

^Sort of what you would see in many of the large parks in London. Like them as well but they look expensive.

What work are they doing? Maybe somebody made a bold executive decision to bite the bullet and close the tracks all at once for a month instead of perhaps doing the working over the course of 6 months and closing only on the weekends and the like. Such a scheme could also possibly be cheaper in the long run as they might be less in the way of moblization and staging costs Just throwing that out there as I have no idea.

I'm surprised, given all the development in Ohio City recently, that the non Cleveland Clinic parcels (it is going to be tough for them to give up their parking), on the western side of W 25th nearer to Detroit are still under used. Ken might be in a better position to answer this question, but I wonder if the problem might be the same thing that is occurring on Detroit closer to Gordon Square. That is, property owners with unrealistic opinions as to the value of their holdings who are just sitting on them waiting for the goose that will lay the golden egg. Once these lots are developed I am hoping for some height here. Maybe even buildings that will need variances.

I haven't taken Amtrak in a LONG time... I get the on time thing. However, from all the many reviews I have read over the years as well as YouTube videos I rarely hear complaints about cleanliness.

And probably for 90% of the games you will probably end up sitting in a seat at some point unless they rope you off in some area or really police it.

The demo was only recently approved at Landmarks Feb. 23rd meeting, so they are really hopping on this. My only hope is that the demo contractors paper work gets messed up and they accidently wander over to the George property and tear that building down as well.

Again, it has been suggested, speculated, hinted about and wished for on the forum and there might even be some unreported behind the scenes movement that somebody like Ken might know about...however, nothing concrete per the confirmation you were seeking in your post and certainly no site has been identified. Remember, this is a developer that took forever to get the construction ball rolling on the downtown site for a variety of reasons (look back over the thread) and that was when interest rates and the construction environment were much more favorable to developers than they are now.

Sometimes this forum is like playing telephone. I guess the next post will be that City Club is definitely building a 60 story tower on top of the art museum. It has been suggested/speculated that City Club has an interest in UC for a second development. There might even be some unannouced concrete basis to this like many things suggested on the board which are in early stages. Or again it could just be pure speculation. Certainly, at this point, no site has been identified and certainly nothing has been "announced" by the developer.

That is not my definition of "walkable". Some of those amenities are less than a 10 minute walk away and you don't have to cross a 8 lane road to get to them as you traverse the residential portion of the neighborhood.

I was watching the City Council finance committee meeting this week and the TIF was before the committee and I assumed it passed in committee (I stopped watching before the outcome) as everybody was speaking favorably and Council was impressed by the developer and the large number of affordable units. If it did pass in committee I would imagine it then passed at the full council meeting that night as that usually is the way it happens. Again don't know for sure.

Your albatross will cost way more than $500 million.

Great. Let’s start from scratch again with another developer that then won’t get the job done.

How if at all does this tie end with the $5 million worth of engineering and environmental studies‘s that are supposed to be completed by the end of this year and which were initiated by the interest of the Haslam‘s in spearheading Lakefront renewal?

Are these lots in any way generating income for the owner? I understand, holding it to get the best deal but at some point paying property taxes and other administrative expenses on a piece of property generating no income makes no sense. Any increase in value you think you’re going to get in your own delusional mind by holding it is wiped out by the costs. Maybe there are tax benefits that I haven’t figured out.

Did you mean "Playhouse Square". There has been a hotel in the heart of the square for more than 25 years. Was initially a Wydham and now is branded a Crowne Plaza. While not high end it is not exactly a flop house. My office use to be on PS and we use to have drinks in the hotel bar a lot of the time when it was the Wydham.

Wasn't the owner of one of these properties a big opponent of the Baracelli apartments next door? Maybe not...could have been somebody nearby...but if yes he/she apparently has seen the handwriting on the wall and wants to take advantage. I would especially love to see the yellow one demoed if a great building is put up. Normally it would be a shame to see houses like these torn down. However, like so many other houses in Little Italy, they have been bastardized so much over the years that they have lost all historic appeal and it would cost way too much to correct the damage and renovate appropriately.

I 100% agree that the Clinic is too walled off and I am on the team that feels it should be doing more to engage with the surrounding community as well as simply making its campus more pleasurable for employees and visitors alike. However, of all places on the campus where this should be happening, the pathogen research lab on Cedar would be about 100th on my list of places resources should be expended to reach this goal. Lets start big on all of Euclid as well as parts of Chester and Carnegie and then focus on the more outlying areas.

I have never understood why the city has never put out an RFP for a parking garage with a high rise development on that parcel. Seems like a no brainer, especially if it could possibly increase the number of parking spots for the market. The only problem I could see is the temporary lose of a lot of parking during construction, but I am sure bright people could come up with a solution.

^I have a similar story from about 20 years ago with an engineering expert I was dealing with who was based in New York. He was coming into Cleveland for a case I was handling. When he was here we were waking down St. Clair near the mall and he asked me what that body of water was pointing to the lake. I assumed this guy was college education so I was somewhat taken aback. I mean I have never been to Milwaukee in my life but I know it is on Lake Michigan. I guess I should not have been surprised as, when we were talking on the phone before his arrival, he asked "Where should I fly into, Cincinnati?" I said yes if he didn't then mind driving 5 hours.

That is all well and good. However, the state making a poor choice in the first instance does have consequences. If they had done a good job of reviewing the applications and awarded the TMUD to an appropriate deserving project, we might already have shovels in the ground instead of waiting for some unknown future project. You always hear that one of the factors being considered by the state is the viability of the project and whether it is shovel ready and only looking to close that last financing gap. So was this the actually case at Erieview and if it was, what then happen to torpedo the project? Or did the state just do a bad job when analyzing all the information provided by the applicant? A good example of this blunder could be Bridgework. This was a project put forward by diligent and aggressive developers with a proven track record of getting things built (in contrast to the Kassouffs). Even when they lost out on TMUDs twice they still worked hard to close the financing gap and hammered away at the details and scope of the project so the numbers would work. In my mind they were ideal applicants. If they had been awarded a TMUD either time Bridgework would probably already be under construction and there would be no need for the county to step in and make a two million dollar loan. Again, all well and good that the credit will not go to waste but I hope the state does a better job evaluating in the future.

And whatever the bad news is, this doesn't say much for the geniuses at the agency who evaluate TMUD applications.

This is hardly surprising. I hate to beat a dead horse but I can sum up the problem in one word. Kassouff.

A quick google search revealed that only 4 NFL stadiums are team owned and operated. Clearly owning your own stadium in the NFL is not a "thing"- and cities have pretty much recognized this. I doubt the Haslams, after doing the math, are much interested in owning a stadium in Cleveland Ohio unless it some how significantly increases the value of the franchisee. Given this fact they probably see little reason to completely pay for a building that they will not own. Still, the reality is that they will have to contribute something to its construction. That is what negotiations are all about.

The stadium is important to me, but lakeside development is even more and something that has frustrated me for years and years. All the starts and stops and grand plans that never come to be. I guess my biggest concern with moving the Stadium far from the lakefront is that the Haslams will obviously completely lose interest in the redevelopment and they are currently the private entity driving that bus right now. Bottom line, we have to start from scratch again and I don't know if I can handle that.

Transparency and and consensus is refreshing and important. So is leadership. I hope he is not timid when we finally reach a point that decisions have to be made because it will be a violative issue as one can tell from all the opinions already expressed on the forum.