Htsguy

I think the problem is all us Midwesterners are in the field tending to the corn.

I have pretty much just accepted what we are getting for the simple fact that it is a erasing those surface lots, and there is potential for more development on the remaining lots. It certainly is not cutting edge, iconic or even more than just average. Again, it is what it is and I accept it. However, I am still fuming over that little shack on the Jacobs lot

If history is any guide the Commissions (its a joint Landmarks and Planning meeting) will offer numerous suggestions and SHW will nod and say "what an interesting idea" and then completely ignore everything and then will be thanked by the city. Lets face it, we all know who has all the leverage. In the meantime an Ohio City homeowner will have to fight and claw and come back to Landmarks multiple times as it fusses over a porch rail.

I really hate the Walker building. It’s such a dead zone at ground level. My hope is that someday it is torn down to allow the idea of circle square to move further south, especially the retail aspect.

It is all over. They were only up for approval of the demolition, not the final design. They have to come back in July for that. Demolition was approved with conditions but they are actually not even planning on doing the demolition until October, if everything goes smoothly.

Things like these extensive crane discussions are why friends and family think I am so weird when I excitedly relate to them about my participation in this forum 😉

Fortunately it is up first.

Project back on this Thursdays Landmarks for certificate of appropriateness,

Isn’t this one of the developments that someone mentioned Knez is trying to sell to a single owner before they begin construction.

If he is it is a shame that we live in a state where the governor has to move "quietly". Unfortunately there is much going against passenger rail infrastructure in this state, of which we are all aware. A legislature dominated by Republicans who truly believe rail is a "Democratic thing". Rural representatives with lots of power who think it is a "city thing" (indeed an evil city thing) and have to be bribed with goodies to support it or just won't support it at all as a matter of ideology. Also an ODOT bureaucracy which little to no interest in rail an of course the $$$ thing in a state where capital spending (especially public transportation) takes a back seat to tax cuts, especially for those who need it the least. In the meantime the brightest kids keep moving out and those that make the decisions seem blind to why this is. By the way I feel bad writing such negative post but.....

The Stokes-Cedar Road (cannot recall the name of the project) apartments are back on the Planning Commission agenda this Friday. Both the demolition of the 6 townhouses and the new construction. Will be interesting to see what if any changes were made by the developer. I would imagine something had to change. I wonder if UCI did any back room lobbying with the PC staff in the meantime. I note the demolition is again on the agenda first rather than the new construction. Again this makes no sense. Some commission members may be dead set against a particular demo no matter what, but others, who may be hesitant to vote in favor of demo in a vacuum, may be convinced that the merits of the new construction outweigh the negative aspects of the demolition. This is what actually happen at Design Review the day before this was presented to Planning Commission last time. Members lamented the lost of the townhouses but they were actually able to review the new construction (unlike Planning Commission which just went off on the demo without considering or even reviewing the project), and they praised the project for the most part and felt the trade off, to get the new apartment building, was worth it, especially since the town homes were isolated and devoid of any historic context. Interestingly, I did note, at a more recent PC meeting that had a demo and new construction on the agenda, that Lillian instructed the demo and project be presented as a whole even though they were separate agenda items which had to be voted on alone, and the demo was listed first on the agenda. I was obviously happy to see that and wondered at the time if there had been some blow back after what happen with the Stokes-Cedar Road project.

Another surface parking lot bites the dust.

I think most of it will be blocked by the Justice Center in that pic. The top may just peek out.

I don't believe it is glass. Some sort of mesh or similar material which will be difficult to see through. I recall Freddie Collier asking questions about the material at planning commission and whether headlights would be visible.

If I recall correctly @KJP's original reporting on a potential Bedrock development on the Nucleus site suggested a huge garage was probably going to be part of the project but that it would serve a large scale development on the site as well as Progressive Field and Rocket Field House and that Bedrock (Gilbert) would be working with the minority owners in this regard.

But isn't Soho House an all members club? In other words the general public cannot just walk in and use the facilities. Seems strange to differentiate between groups of paying customers. I certainly don't want to be the guy at the entrance telling a hot headed customer (as we know they do exist, more so now than ever) who just spent a few hundred on dinner that he cannot go onto the deck.

The thing I find most interesting in an article filled with numerous interesting tidbits is that a well know and established Chardon law firm is moving its downtown office to Gordon Square. I would sure like to know the backstory. Normally I would find a firm moving out of downtown (even a branch office) problematic but I sort of like the idea of this.

Cole

^After years on this board, it is clear to me that financing is the culprit most of the time. Not just securing it but the lawyers and bankers finalizing the paper work so everybody feels secure and all possible negative contingencies are addressed. Really this is not a local problem but something that occurs nationwide, although on different levels. I will say that some of the capital stacks put together for Cleveland projects seem so complex (and as a result extra time consuming) that they should case studies at Harvard Business School.

^The Playhouse demolition "first reported last year by a blogger based on anonymous sources". Gee I wonder who that could be. I guess because Cleveland.com is so late to the game in its reporting (after we have been discussing most of what is contained in the article for months), giving credit to Ken by actually stating his name would have been slightly embarrassing.

Things would have also moved faster if Councilman McCormick did not keep repeating the same points (practically using the same exact words) five times or more. I've noticed watching council committee meetings that he has a habit of doing that. It was driving me nuts.

Did they really need to yak about the Ohio City Burrito window for as long as they did?

Bridgeworks on Landmarks May 12th agenda but listed under concept and not certificate of appropriateness so I guess they will have to come back again. Curious whether this is the required process for Landmarks or whether the developers made a conscious decision to submit the new design conceptually (after all the previous design was approved) to get feedback. Seems like it will slow things down if they are actually that anxious to get things moving.

I wonder if the Knez firm just has too much on its plate. They seem to be every where and continue to announce new projects. Maybe they are having problems lining up subs for this project.

Sorry, don't know. But the only way for UH to be slower than Cleveland Heights when is comes to moving forward on development projects is to completely stop LOL. No city can talk a development project to death like Cleveland Heights.