Htsguy

Agree that the NIMBYS are going to come from out of their holes on this one but I was somewhat intrigued by the reaction of the rep from Little Italy Redevelopment. He indicated that they had met on two occasions so far to discuss the plans and he represented there were many positive comments including the parking solutions and how the retail was shown among other things. Style did not seem to be a concern at this point but "massing" was (as it was with some commission members) The rep indicated that they had not seen these more detailed renderings, especially the materials being used, and it may have been my imagination but it seemed like he was suggesting that the new more detailed renderings were going to be a positive with members of the community, maybe even those who have currently expressed reservations to date. Again, this was more implied than actually expressed. At this point the LIR is going to go back to the community with the new renderings and apparently there will then be a second meeting if the developer makes changes to the project based on the suggestions of Landmarks. It seemed like only the usual suspect on Landmarks, Anderson, was totally against it but a couple of members had left the meeting and did not comment.

Primo Vino retail/condo development was presented to Landmarks for conceptual feedback and boy is it sharp. Could probably use a little tweaking on the top-although what do I know, I got a C in art class-but is clearly on a higher level than we are use to seeing, especially the quality of materials. Has the potential of becoming a Little Italy landmark. Of course the commission had its claws out but it could have been worst.

They will turn it down but glad that the Port is finally moving forward with the statutory preliminaries so the ED action can finally be filed. Also looks like the boys are spending a fortune in attorneys fees in their ridiculous common pleas action as the defendants are filing multiple motions including motions to dismiss.

Have you read @KJP blog article?

Here is an even bigger reality to chew on. If passed is the city going to be forced to spend 2 million dollars (probably more) to build this park (that will basically sit empty). I sure this will be brought up time and time again during any campaign by the opponents of the initiative as it was during the comment period at the city council meeting. If the construction of the park is mandatory per the initiative will the city be forced to divert scarce recreational funding from other parks and facilities. So many unanswered questions and I can guarantee you that the proponents don't have the answers or if they do they aren't rationale answers.

Right now the city/council is implementing the necessary steps/process required by the charter and state law to move the initiative forward and placed on the ballot. There are a number of steps including readings just like any legislation, referrals to committee and possible hearings. Bottom line there is a time line to get this all done so it can appear on the May 2022 primary ballot, not a special election. The council cannot just say it is unconstitutional and refuse to move it forward so it will be on the ballot in May. The easiest outcome for the city is that the initiative just fails. If it passes it will be up to F and C to go to court asserting the unconstitutional nature of the legislation and again it would probably win. I do have a question whether the city could go to court at this point and challenge it. Don't know but that could really get messy. Just as messy...what if the administration decides it does not want to fight F and C in court and incur the legal costs. Is it required to support the initiative and fight a court challenge even if it does not believe in the proposal or whether it is indeed constitutional. I don't know but that could result another big legal fight. Do the petition supports have to retain their own counsel in connection with the lawsuit and do they have the money? What "entity" is entering into a contract for legal services to fight a F and C lawsuit. If the initiative proponents do retain counsel should they or can they be reimbursed by the city. Again a big mess. What all this does guarantee is a slowing down of the development. While I believe the city and the developer will continue to move forward with its timeline in the coming months, this whole thing can only have a chilling effect on a city that already moves at two speeds-slow and stop-when it comes to development projects.

I have been wondering for a long time what is going on with the re-development of the Primo Vino site in Little Italy given that we first heard rumblings as early as 2014 and the restaurant has been closed for quite some time. On occasion I will even post inquires in this thread and receive no response. It looks like there may finally be some movement. There is a concept presentation going forward at the next Landmarks meeting this Thursday, The agenda item suggests the proposal may be different from the one put forward before the commission in 2014. I guess now that the owner, WXZ, is finishing College Club up the hill in Cleveland Hts. it can focus on this site as its next project. It is not a big development company and I can understand how it would not want too much on its plate at one time. Hope Primo Vino is as top notch as College Club.

@KJP...clearly mum will be the word for quite some time...at least when it comes to the actual parties. So is there anything specific you will be looking for in the future in terms of a public record event-other than the recording of deeds of course which would really spill the beans-or actions on site (say soil testing) which would give you some firm confirmation of what your sources are telling you. Of course a ten page press release with a followup press conference would be really nice.

B Bill Hanna, the law director, explained to council last night that even if the initiative passes, the developer can and most likely would win in court. Neither council on its own nor citizens through petition can ex post facto negate a valid contract in which the city has entered into. The development agreement with F and C was entered into on Dec 7 2021. What this probably does is given F and C incredible leverage which it did not have before. If the initiative passes they simply challenge the result as unconstitutional and win (which I am sure city officials are rooting for as well). However, if for any reason they want to get out of the contract, (say because they determine costs are rising too fast which could happen in our current environment), they may be able to simple point to the initiative-if passed- and have a good argument in court if the city challenges for breach. I doubt there is much case law surrounding this set of facts. Hanna also explained that city officials did not press the unconstitutional aspect of the initiative while proponents were gathering signatures as they did not want to give the appearance they were interfering with the signature gathering process.

Is that the new rendering? It doesn't look like they added that much new retail space despite the the demands of the neighborhood. I know it didn't go forward on Jan. 7-I think it was because they are still engaging the community. And yes it is still ugly and classic cheap Geis. All the neighborhood engagement in the world is not going to change this pile of crap. They need to start from scratch with a real architect.

I could never understand, given the density, why there is not a subway line running north/south across Long Island from Queens to Brooklyn. Say from LaGuardia through Long Island City to downtown Brooklyn and points south to say JFK. I have a friend who has a daughter who lives in Brooklyn and she says it is easier and quicker for her to fly into Newark rather than LaGuardia when visiting her.

Others would have more insight but I don't believe work has gone forward on the Jeddah Tower in over four years after reaching about the one third point.

A minor point-or maybe not-I assume the red brick curb skirting will be installed in front of the building replacing the newly poured concrete sidewalk when the weather gets better, similar to the process in front of the Euclid Grand.

It is actually pretty significant as it is going to be around 250,000 square feet which would make it the largest office building in the immediate vicinity as well as a catalysis for further development. Isn't this a go for 2022? It is one of those projects that people say is right about to take off when talking about Midtown but you never hear details.

Surprised that the Van Aken District apartment towers need a TMUD to happen.

I just wish they would finally finish Canal Basin Park. It seems to be taking forever. I am guessing the slow pace is due to $$.

I may be wrong but I think he was referring to the Geis condo project on the New York Spag House lot, not the new apartment project currently winding its way through the city approval process.

What the circumstances are surrounding this vague, flowery and hyperbolic "news release" (I mean I guess that is what it is meant to be) are unclear. But whoever this group is, they are fooling themselves if they believe they have any real leverage with the city. Throughout this entire process all SHW had to say to the city was jump and city officials would just ask how high. The review process was just one public example of this. If SHW is actually digging their heels in on some sort of issue (and who knows if that is the case)...believe me...they win.

^^After going through all those photos "that" is the "most interesting thing about these pictures" you could see. Like @KJP said good job Scene. As cynical as I have become in my old age it makes me feel good to be a Clevelander in this new year.

I hate to sound negative about this project, but it really doesn't sound that unique or what we should be striving for in 2022. Minus the retail-on a parcel that already had a significant retail history-it doesn't seem much different than say a large garden style apartment complex built in the 1970s on some green field off of a highway inter-change. Especially with all the surface parking.

I think we can be both excited for the new headquarters tower and speculate and discussion other aspects of the project or this thread will get dull pretty quickly. There is only so much you can say about a hole in the ground for the next few months.

If that is true it is going to have to be somebody with deep pockets. Stark paid a pretty penny for it.

I am very uneducated about such things but what type of "foundation work" could they possibly be doing for a second tower? Wouldn't anything significant have to be pursuant to detailed design plans (not just preliminary) and wouldn't those plans have to be approved? Can you just install caissons for a skyscraper without having a final product in the can (I mean how do you know how many caissons will be necessary and where they should be placed given the final design of the building including square footage and height is unknown). Again is this some type of minor foundation work that doesn't need approval at this point? I am clueless and curious.

This thing seems to be going up like lightening, just like Intro. More Chicago developers please.

Thanks @MayDay Fascinating. I was not familiar with 308 Euclid. What a huge lose. On par with losing the Williamson and Cuyahoga Buildings across the street. I would love to see a modern day Euclid Avenue sporting a renovated 308 to give some height to that side of the street. Also...all that parking around CSU. We have been fighting the surface parking lot battle for years.