Htsguy

I really don't know one way or another...however you don't see any movement and it would make sense given all the confusion as to what will be surrounding it. Does anybody know the status?

To be perfectly honest, this current attempt at lakefront planning has me really confused. I don't quite understand who is leading the charge and who is/will be responsible for it implementation. A while back it was the Haslams, I guess in conjunction with the city and county and maybe various other agencies. I believe the city committed 5 million (and maybe other entities contributed more) for an 18 months worth of studies (engineering and the like) as a preliminary step for many purposes, including passing various regulatory agencies in the future. Many pretty conceptual pictures were presented at that time over which we all wet our pants. I imagine this work is still on going. Then we have the Rock and Roll Hall of fame expansion which seems to be some what related but on hold due to all of the above I guess. I assume Rock Hall officials are coordinating with XY and Z in government who ever they are-or maybe not. Then all of a sudden we get some sort of $500,000 study from the new administration (which is basically peanuts...what can you study for that amount of money?) which is suppose to expand the study area and incorporate it into the master plan what ever that means. Of course this means transparency and community input so that down the line, at some board approval meeting, this can all be touted. Basically it will consist of a vague presentation and happy talk and then a bunch of "regular people" with no expertise but too much time on their hands offering their visions which of course will eventually be ignored. I am still not sure how this new insipid study will be incorporated into what I will call the Haslam work. Finally who exactly is the lakefront czar. Who is leading the charge? Are a bunch of different people and bodies responsible for this development? If yes, a recipe for disaster and exploding costs (just look at the jail mess). Finally when can I see some new pretty pictures so we can haggle over them until the new lakefront plan is proposed in 5 years.

^My guess...about 1987

Really cannot answer you question but there was a second TIF request on the Planning Committee's agenda this morning that also passed. That was for the Driftwood mixed use development in Tremont. I was a bit amused during the Driftwood's presentation. NRP's presentation was slick and dare I say a bit calculated as it was clear the presenters knew the political climate and how to tug at the heart strings of council members. While completely irrelevant to the Scranton Peninsula project they had an introductory section that touted their Cleveland roots and the numerous affordable housing projects they have completed and are currently building in the city. It was almost like they were apoligizing that Scranton is a market rate project. They then touted all the pubic amenities like the towpath trial going through their property, the new street they were building and the public plaza and "grand staircase" which was going to connect their project to that other development right on the river. After that the two youngish Driftwood developers came to the table and they had those deer in the headlights looks. Nothing to offer but upscale housing. One of the councilperson did come to their rescue at one point offering that Cleveland needed all types of housing from affordable to upscale market rate.

NRP was before City Council Planning and Development Committee this morning regarding a TIF for the Scranton Peninsula project. Very nice presentation. They said the project would not go forward without the TIF. It passed in committee. Imagine it will be up for passage at the next full Council meeting.

Hopefully. Such a panel could be very informative. But in my mind Bedrock press and public events are usually not very enlightening. Lots of generalities and cheer leading with very little substance.

I have always relished your generally positive outlook @KJP when it comes to development in Cleveland but on this one I am unfortunately in agreement with @LlamaLawyer as far as seeing anything along the river behind Tower City in the "short term". It is not only interest rates but other factors unique to Bedrock. Interest rates affect all businesses, especially in terms of development, but it affects a company like Bedrock even more directly given it is a mortgage company. Its revenue and profits are going to be taking a hit in the near term and I would not be surprised if they shed some employees soon to control costs. Not really a time to be in an expansion mode. Moreover, Bedrock appears to be a cautious company (probably not a bad thing) which does not seem to move at the speed of light. Its current new construction in Detroit is a good example of that. Indeed, company officials were upfront when first announcing the project when they said the development was going to be a 25-30 year long process. I was pleasantly surprised this year when it seemed they might be speeding up the process with retention of a star planner but recent events have cooled my hopes. Top all this off with continuing supply and labor issues in the construction industry and the continuing questions regarding remote work and how this will affect the need for office space and I really think the brakes are probably going to be applied. I guess the only thing in favor of expansion is Bedrock's soon to expire lease in the Higbee Building. However, I am sure the Higbee owners would be more than happy to extend that lease, even if it is not a long term thing, as I imagine they don't have other suitors beating down their doors for the space. I would not be surprised if somebody revealed those negotiations are ongoing as I type this.

Saks has been at Beachwood Place since the mid 70s so we are approaching 50 years. If I had a nickel every time during past 20 years somebody told me Saks was closing I would be able to afford to actually shop there.

I thought the reason to have a forum such as this is for people to offer their opinions, whether positive or negative, in order to foster discussion. You call it complaining, others would call it design critique.

I also believe these are poor quality renderings.

Clinics Neurological Institute Building on this Friday's Planning Commission agenda for schematic review.

Is the above a Realife proposal? That's disappointing if it is. The company seems to be all talk, little do. They just seem to be all about increasing value of various investments without the necessary development risks.

If I recall correctly, it has been suggested previously that the reason it has taken so long to break ground was because Knez was looking for a single buyer to purchase the whole development before they began construction. That buyer would them market the townhomes to individual buyers or perhaps offer them as rental units. The article makes no mention of any of this. Perhaps Knez found a buyer or maybe they changed their strategy and just decided to sell them on their own. I wonder if the proposed WXZ development a few blocks away helped kick start this project?

^It is amazing how the rental market in Cleveland has trended in recent years. I recall as recently as 5 years ago extensive discussions on this forum lamenting the lack of new high rise development in Cleveland and those UO members in the the industry lecturing us that until average rentals were over $2.00 a square foot, it was not going to happen. It seems like it has been a blink of an eye and some buildings are approaching $3.00 a square foot and having no problems with leasing.

@KJP Any idea if the recent rise in interest rates has put a damper on any short terms plans (or for that matter long term plans) for additional phases? This aspect of development is starting to make me nervous. I imagine marginal projects have already been shut down and even those on more solid footing have the developers taking a second look at the numbers.

^Of course it is a "good thing". Moving to an urban setting would be a "better thing". You know...Urban Ohio.

Would Wegman's go into such a small space? I have only been in a couple of their stores but they were pretty large.

Interesting. As a railroad layperson with no clue who this reporter is, I did think the article was incredibly slanted as I was reading it and this confused me. In a long NYT piece you would usually expect counter viewpoints to balance the article. This was not the case. And again, it strangely just ended, like somebody cut off huge portions due to space constraints.

Did anybody read the, generally negative, article about California high speed rail in the Sunday New York Times? Is it me or did the article just seem to end abruptly? I kept looking for a link to an upcoming Part 2.

good bones

I would not want particularly tall buildings on those parcels either. I do hope, however, SHW lets them have windows and doors.😉

I am sure many of my personal heros populate the Brecksville and Independence Chambers of Commerce.

All this BS officials at SHW keep blurting out about the "safety and security of its employees" to justify, lets face it , an anti urban design in the actual heart of a city (since 1796) has me concerned about the development of the remaining parcels along St. Clair and West 6th. They basically surround the fortress SHW is developing. What kind of restrictions are they going to demand of possible developers on the two sites that should be pedestrian paradises given their proximity to the rest of the Warehouse District? I know I gave August Flucker a lot of flake in connection with that University Circle development where the town homes had to be demolished, but today he is my hero with his comments. And he was right to compare- and praise- the open and welcoming developments plans of the Cleveland Foundation in Midtown with the insular designs offered by SHW .

I recall reading an article a couple of months ago indicating that the major renovation work will not start until the end of the 2023 season, not now (although minor renovations may occur this year). That seems to make sense since I don't recall anything going through the city review process yet.

Julie Trott is the chair of Landmarks and constantly spouts irrational opinions regarding the height of buildings in various historic districts. She usually does not articulate a reason for this height bias but will just say it is too tall for the site, sometimes after praising the design. She did this during the various Bridgeworks presentations and voted to reject the project. She also opined that Waverly and Oak is too tall. I snarkedly (is that a word?) thought the posted pic would make her despair. Fortunately for her I doubt she trolls this forum.