Htsguy

There is also going to be a third building on the site of the current MLK library. In fact, I would imagine it would be built before the two planned buildings on the east side of Stokes which are still very iffy at this point, especially since office space is a component in one of them.

The new design and new demolition is on Landmarks April 14th agenda. It is for conceptual review and not final approval. It will be interesting to see if the developers have anything to say regarding a time table as part of their presentation.

I liked the previous proposal for the W. 73 lot, especially the enclosed parking they were able to offer due to a slight elevation change on the property if I recall correctly. However, with Horton and Harper designing the new project it might even be superior given that firm's portfolio.

I would really like to see a large "anchor" building somewhere on Euclid between E55th and E79th. Something in the 350,000-400,000 square foot range. I think it would really help spur additional quality development on the many empty lots. That proposed building next to the new Cleveland Foundation Building would help but I believe it is only in the 250,000 square foot range (maybe 5 stories?). Also, was expecting to hear more about that building this year. People keep hinting about it but nothing seems to be happening.

This should be interesting to watch and discuss the next few years. I guess in the short term monitoring how well they do chasing all the tax credits they maybe/are seeking, seeing how the conceptual vision turns more concrete and of course the fun and games before Landmarks. Hopefully this is a great success and helps trigger Flats East Bank Phase 3B which has been "crickets" for a long time now as well as further development on lots up the hill.

I follow city development projects closely and I am now at the point that I often cannot keep all the projects straight in my mind when discussing them with people.

Also not happy about any potential demolition of these buildings. Moreover, demoing the T building without plans for a new building on the site would leave a huge unsightly gash on Euclid. With all that is in the works with the three projects breaking ground this year or early next, I don't think the Clinic has the will or resources to focus on another large construction project at the site of the T building (or the Playhouse/Sears site if they are still dreaming about tearing those down). And if they want to tear down the White Mansion lets hope Planning Commission (or Landmarks if they have jurisdiction) step in. Let's see if the PC has the balls to go up against the Clinic like they did against a relatively minor developer that wanted to tear down those lonely and historically insignificant townhomes on Cedar last week which actually blocked a positive development.

My gut feeling is that people who take the initiative to vote in a primary election are generally more informed on the issues. I am more concerned about turnout. I couldn't be bothered to watch the above video. I get enough of the self important Fran during comment periods at council meetings. Did the issue of an eventual lawsuit come up?

@KJP I guess I am a bit confused. Is this submission to the city just part of Bedrock's slow but steady 25 year plan for the river valley? In other words just another more detailed conceptual vision of the master plan for discussion to reach an agreement with the city and then planning commission approval at some point for the whole vision? Or is the submission in connection with some project construction which could start in the relatively near future. Your multiple posts seem to be suggesting both. This is especially true since your sources are now suggesting that somebody else other than Bedrock will buy and develop the Nucleus site, But Rocket's lease in the Higbee Building is still a tick time bomb. Does these mean that Bedrock is now going to construct, in the near future, a building for Rocket on the riverfront (thus these submissions to the city) rather than Stark's site?

^What you appear to be saying is that different members of the same development team are, in the best scenario, not on the same page, or in the worst, at odds with one another. Call me crazy but that cannot be a good sign in terms of smoothly moving forward.

Bad news. I only know of him from his appearances before council committees but I was always impressed by him. He seemed incredibly capable and passionate.

@KJP I am confused by your post. Are you saying they are now going to keep the original design or that "keeping the same programming" means they are going with the new design but it will be the same mixed use as before (apartments and a hotel). And if they are going with the new design are you saying they are still not moving forward at this time (even given all the new fencing) because the numbers are still not working even with the new design and cost savings? Your March 12 blog article was much more positive than this post. Has something recently changed?

Well it cannot start that soon since it won't be able to pull permits until it passes the city approval process. The new design has to still go in front of Landmarks. We have theorized on the forum that they might be able to demo those portions of the project that Landmarks approve with the previous design-but not the new proposed demolitions-but I don't believe there was any consensus as to whether that is actually the case.

Or just build the Phase 2 tower on that "temporary" surface parking lot next door on Superior.

^LOL. I notice the forum's swear word auto correct does not allow poor Mr. Pace's first name to be fully spelled out.

I was able to read the article. It tracks the above discussion but a few additional points. The day before Design Review praised and approved the project with only one dissenting vote. The loss of the townhomes apparently only came up briefly and d*ck Pace did lament the demolition but the committee felt the row houses were isolated and devoid of any historic context. Pace stated the tradeoff, to get the new apartment building was worth the loss. Clearly the Design review committee was professional enough to review and understand the project unlike PC. Michelle contacted the UCI rep and he of course was very diplomatic saying they would work with developer to address the PC concerns. Hopefully that will be possible and it can move forward. By the way, another great article by Michelle. Jam packed with information and quotes and coherently reported for those not in the know. Can't get enough of her reporting.

I noticed they changed the headline and story to reflect it was an Ohio state court. Wonder if somebody at the website caught it or they received a mocking e mail from a lawyer.

The developer was already touting this plan as a public transportation oriented development given its location and the fact that there was so little parking given the number of units. Less than one parking space per unit is almost unheard of in Cleveland and this is way less. But let's face it. Its Cleveland. You can only limited the parking so much in order to be marketable. In order to keep the townhouse given the current siting (or really any siting that does not include an indoor pedestal garage) you would probably lose as many as 20 spots to make way for a new entry way and room to manuever. So 80 sports for a building with well over 200 units. I know I sound like a broken record but the numbers probably do not work. Maybe UCI is in a position to subsidize, but I don't believe that is in their mission statement.

It was explained that keeping the row houses would cut into already very limited parking (now 100 spaces for more than 200 units). So they would have to cut units which would probably hurt margins and make the project a no go. Also don't ignore the extremely high cost to renovate when you are already watching pennies.

At some point this entire triangle of land was covered with similar townhomes that slowly fell into disrepair and were demoed and nobody said a thing. It is ironic that the one lonely, vacant and decayed row of six houses will now stymie a positive move forward. @KJP is right. Ten years from now they will have to be torn down due to further neglect (believe me nobody is coming to their rescue) and all we will have is a weed strewn lot that commuters will rush by on their way to the Heiights.

I believe somebody from the development team mentioned off the cuff that the town homes were not in a historic district and were not Landmarked and that went over like a lead balloon with the two African-American members of the PC.

Agree with that 100%. However, Fluker jumped down the developers throat even before he understood what was being proposed. Again the presentation would have answered a number of his shoot from the hip questions. Why wasn't the development presentation on the agenda before the demo presentation. That is how they usually do it. I am not in love with the siting of this project, especially the surface lot fronting Cedar. However, I think I understand what they are trying to accomplish given cost considerations which are always a boogie man. If they have to keep the townhomes (cutting into the already limited parking) and also have to renovate them, I don't see the project going forward. They might have to slash the number of units as suggested which will cut into margins and could be a deal breaker. Or they could try to do a small pedestal to make up for the lost surface parking. However that additional cost plus the cost to renovate the townhomes again would probable kill the project. UCI has been looking for somebody to develop this lot for ages. It may be a waste land for many years to come

I was blown away by the reaction. Why wasn't the plan presented before the demo request as usually happens? It would have answered some of the questions that Fluker was rudely (in my opinion) screaming out. Also they were barely listening to the UCI rep. What I find most concerning was how ignorant the Planning Commission was regarding the total project at this point in time. We on this forum are much more knowledgeable in terms of the details including the fact that it is more of a pedestrian oriented development than we usually see. The Commission was advocating for this earlier in the meeting in regards to road surfacing. I know they are busy people but they just didn't seem to have a clue. Isn't it their job to be some what on top of things development wise in Cleveland. Also, I was not happy with the reaction of the new director. Instead of explaining the overall project and answering some of the questions she seemed to be intimidated by the reaction of the two black members of the commission and became very timid. Again she could have provided answers to their questions. I hope she did this just because it is her plan to work behind the scenes in the near future to get this thing approved. In my opinion they should have went ahead with the project presentation instead of tabling it. I hope this does not kill this project.

The reporting on Cleveland.com continues its downward spiral. I noticed a BOLD headline this morning asserting that a FEDERAL appeals court had upheld the trial courts decision in the Gibson Bakery lawsuit against Oberlin College. I was immediately confused and wondered how this state court action had made its way to federal court. Then I read the article ( presumably written by the sites reporter who handles legal and court reporting) and it stated that the 9th District Court of Appeals upheld the decision. The 9th District Court of Appeals is the appellate district for Lorain County and is a state court which of course then made sense. Really embarrassing.

i realize the consensus on the forum is that something needs to be done to that dreaded blank wall but I am really nervous that the outcome of the mural could overshadow Old Stone Church if not done well.