Htsguy

1. After all the meetings, hearings, design revisions and approvals the Hessler Road project went through it is crazy that it will not be going forward. The NIMBYS won after all although not due to their efforts. Hope they enjoy their gravel lot. Maybe one of them can plant some flowers on it. 2. NIMBYS will go nuts if somebody proposes a development of any height over a new parking garage. 3. Parking is indeed scarce in that area. I know it would cost a fortune but they should explore going a couple of levels underground to increase the number of spots in the new garage. 4. It will be interesting to see what solution they come up for parking during the two years it will take to rebuild the garage.

Planning Commission meets on April 1. The next Landmarks Commission meeting is April 14

And don't forget about a little company called Scranton-Averell which can't even be bothered to answer its telephone let alone negotiate a property sale.

Despite representations (possible fibs) made by Ezra Stark to Michelle Jarboe that were contained in one of her recent articles, @KJP apparently believes there is still a good chance the sale of the Stark property to Bedrock will happen. At least that is my impression since Ken again states in his most recent article that his sources are pointing in that direction.

I take it the project is not in an area over which Landmarks has jurisdiction. Demo approval might be more difficult from them than PC

I wonder if they can obtain demolition permits based on past approvals even though they are going back to Landmarks with the new design? I would imagine if they can it will only be for those buildings on the property that were to be demoed per the last design approval and not the additional demolitions that are planned with the new proposal.

I wonder who owns that parking lot in the center of the block on the east side of E105th Street between Euclid and Chester. Strange that it is not a hot development target, especially since it seems to be lightly used, as reflected in the above picture.

Apparently 2021 was the slowest year of US population growth on record-.01%. There were huge losses in New York, Chicago, San Francisco and LA. Combined about a 700,000 loss. Any growth was in the south with Atlanta being a biggy.

I recall all the talk (at least on this forum) way back when the SHW move first came to light that Landmark would most likely be a residential conversion.

My uneducated take on the studio/2 bedroom lease rate. INTRO is clearly the premiere rental building in Ohio City, even compared to other new builds that have just opened or will be opening. It has a unique design with the timber framing and floor to ceiling windows which you cannot find (timber framing) or cannot easily find (floor to ceiling windows) elsewhere in town. It is in a great location, has indoor parking, incredible amenities, good retail already committed and many super views. Bottom line, it is a slightly more upscale building compared to its competition. Given the foregoing it is probably attracting a somewhat higher clientele (perhaps, as an example, a young associate at a big law firms who is making more well over $100,000 right out of law school). This demographic does not have to economize and wants the extra space. The studios don't interest them and they can justify an extra $12,000-$15,0000 in rent given their income. I guess the question Whalen needs to answer is, is Cleveland a strong market for "high end" studios like New York. My guess is that renters seeking studios in Cleveland are trying to stretch their dollars and are happy to look at other less expensive buildings. It could be in the end that many of these studios (not all of course) will eventually rent to higher income people who live in the far suburbs or even other surrounding counties and want a small space in the city for occasional use (pied a terre),

Definitely something I would like to see but no clear evidence of that as of yet. The next five years or so will be telling. The fact that a city like Shaker Hts., after five decades of slow population decline, increased its population by 3.5% per the last census is a good sign.

Actually, in the short term, nothing exciting is going to happen. There will be demolition of the warehouse building and the construction of a "pocket park" fronting Detroit in order to provide additional surface parking for the building and the neighborhood. I believe the debate is how deep the park is to be. The developer wants something like 20 feet and the planning commission staff wants something like 40 feet. Eventually, but no firm plans, a retail building will go where the park is, probably one story.

Add to that another 3000 or so under construction/planned and will happen/proposed and may or may not happen in Ohio City, University Circle, Tremont and Detroit Shoreway which competes for the same demographic as downtown more or less. Then another 1500 or more in inner ring suburbs like Cleveland Hts, Lakewood, Shaker Hts and University Hts which also compete for that demographic, although to a lesser extent. It will be interesting to see how things shake out in the near future and whether we will be seeing fewer proposals in a couple of years. It could be that some of those projects late to the game (can you say Lakefront) could end up scraping the bottom of the barrel or poaching from other older downtown buildings which would not be good for anyone.

how about some of the inner city outlying areas? I remember taking a bus from downtown Detroit out to a friends house in Dearborn via Michigan Avenue. This would have been in 1981, before the really bad decline (Halloween fires etc) and even then it looked like civil war Beirut for miles. Like massive litter strewn fields where a dense neighborhoods use to be and the few buildings standing seemed abandon. When I arrived at my friend's house, his father learned the route of my bus ride and made a number of unsolicited comments indicating embarrassment. Of course I had/have seen similar scenes in Cleveland and other cities but the extent, again especially at that time, was shocking. That said, I also recall an opening day at Tiger Stadium that same year which was one of the best experiences of my life.

Didn't @KJP report in a recent blog discussing the Brideworks project that almost all of the ground floor retail space at Church and State is leased?

Bridgeworks not on the March 24 LC agenda. It is a pretty crowded docket so maybe it does not appear for that reason. Let's see if it appears on the 1st April agenda.

Above post leads me to ask...what is going on with the proposed expansion/addition? Is it on hold pending the current (endless) lakefront study/planning?

I agree. The additional demos are what prompted my post up thread about granting Landmarks a second bite at the apple. I can guarantee you the sessions will be a long one as they can spend a half hour arguing mindlessly about a window sash.

It makes me nervous to give Landmarks another bite at the apple even though they approved it previously.

Although irrelevant to the point you are making, I believe the issue with the federal government was not they were going to balk at contributing money to the square re design/reconstruction if the square was completely closed, but that the city would have had to return a huge sum of money received from the Department of Transportation for the Euclid Avenue BRT project which had been completed a number of years earlier.per certain restrictions related to that grant of money.

Your desire (and mine) for height on the fringes of Ohio City may run into an obstacle, that being the chairperson of the Landmarks Commission. I recall her commenting (although I am failing to remember how she eventually voted) that Bridgeworks was too tall and it is more or less downtown. Of course she regularly expresses opinions that something is too tall all over town (another example of many, Waverly and Oaks). She of course is only one person and one vote, but the whole Commission is generally clueless. By the way, I would like to see multi family of 20 stories or more on those W25th hospital lots.

You are correct. The Port's motion to consolidate and appoint is made citing Rule of Superintendence 3.01(B) allowing the administration judge of the Common Please court to temporarily appoint the judge from one "division" (in this case probate) to another division of the CP court (in this case the general division). The first action filed by George in October is case no. CV-21-954893 The complaint for TRO and other injunctive relief filed last week is case no. CV-22-960323. Apparently the reason George filed for the injunctive relief in a separate action with a companion motion to consolidate rather than move the court in the first action for leave to amend the complaint is because that process would have taken too long, which is probably true because the court in the first action has failed to rule on a whole host of motions which are just sitting there. The ED action in Probate court is 2022 AVD 267918. Again, right now four judges are involved if you include the administrative judge considering the motion to temporarily appoint the Probate Judge to the General Division. By the way, I commonly indicate George is the plaintiff so lay people understand the context. The actually plaintiff is Mortgage Investment Group LLC.

I have a new litigation update. I will try to keep it simple as this matter is really starting to get convoluted, even for those with a legal background. What everybody on the forum can appreciate is that this whole sh*t show has to be costing a fortunate in attorneys fees and it is only in its early stages. It is clear George does not care and now has a vendetta. What I find fascinating is that there are currently THREE separate legal proceedings pending at this time, all basically dealing with the same bottom line issue. Moreover, the litigation involves FOUR separate judges, and to date FIVE since October it you include Judge Matia who was the original judge in the first CP action filed by George. In a nutshell, the Port has now filed a motion to consolidate. But it is not seeking to consolidate of the two CP actions as requested by George. It wants the Administrative Judge of the Common Pleas court (thus the fourth judge) to appoint the Probate Court judge, pursuant to a court rule, as a temporary Common Pleas judge so she can take up George's injunctive relief and seeks to consolidate the new CP court action seeking injunctive relief with the Probate Court action. Again I will not bore everybody with the law and arguments regarding all this but is it a clever and interesting move on the part of the Port and, as they argue will get things done in a more timely matter. It will be interesting to see if George opposes this. I would love to be a fly on the wall at the offices of George's attorneys.

Yeah, my head hurt for three years straight during law school. 😉

I am just hoping the owner has not valued engineered this thing to death as rumored. I imagine most of that would be interior elements.