Htsguy

I only recall Bunce Brothers downtown on Chester across from Chester Commons. I am trying to recall any move they made to the Galleria but I cannot. My office was in the Erieview Tower when the Galleria opened and the only men's store I remember was Boss. What floor was BB on? I bought my favorite all time overcoat at BB and could never duplicate in later years. By the way, might want to PM as this is getting off topic.

I don't think those spaces are that shallow but I believe the Lumen garage retail spaces are. 800 Superior was developed as the Central National Bank Building in the 70s and I have a memory of those space being fully occupied for years. I remember a Dodd Camera had a shop there for a very long time and I also recall a brokeage office.

You are totally correct. As such it will be interesting to see if there is any actual blow back at the Sept 14 schematic review. My best guess is that there will simply be a lot of polite indignation. My biggest issue is still the size of the pavilion and how is it is just swallowed up by its surroundings (again I know I am beating a dead horse but if I say it enough maybe I will get into heaven) so if I had to choose just one thing to alter it would be this. More than one commission member voiced the opinion that it had to be more dramatic. Unfortunately, this probably would be the biggest thing to fix and the most expensive so odds are I am just going to have to live with it.

Great, now they only need to double the square footage (Mr. Dead Horse Beater here).

I still cannot get over the small size of the pavilion on the Jacobs lot (and I am not even one of those people who oppose the concept in general or even then fact that there is no real public access or use inside). If somebody from out of town viewed it from across the square they might think it was simply a concession stand for the square and try to hunt down an ice cream cone. It does nothing to close up or define the square which I would like to see. I will be interested to hear the comments of the architects on design review or the planning commission. Not that I believe their opinions will change anything. Let's face it.

I don't recall the renovation project (into a hotel) having even been before the planning commission.

@KJP just read your paint museum reference and is now retiring from journalism.😉

1. Like the tower. 2. Skybridges could have been worst but not monumental like requested by members of the Planning Commission (if necessary). 3. Pavilion looks so meek and out of place, especially from a distance. 4. West 3rd looks better than I thought but still not my ideal.

According to the common pleas court docket a lot of interesting "stuff" going on in the David Watson lawsuit in connection with the newest project on the Woodhill Supply site. UCI has already filed a motion to dismiss (one of the grounds being Watson does not have standing which I believe is correct) and Watson has filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (the hearing on the motion is Aug 31) to stop construction on the site which apparently began last week which was a big surprise. I wonder how construction is proceeding because the briefs indicate that the closing on the sale of the property was suppose happen on July 5 but did not happen because the developer could not close on financing because of Watson's lawsuit (appeal of the BZA variances). However, shortly thereafter building permits were issued to UCI and construction has commenced (apparently just the erection of a construction fence and some minor excavation to date). I guess my question is who is actually doing this work and incurring the costs of construction? What is clear is that UCI and the developer are being more aggressive this go around with this tactic rather than waiting for the litigation to resolve. This is obviously putting more pressure on Watson. It is interesting to note that in one of the briefs it is mentioned how Watson lost time and time again in connection with the prior litigation but ultimately won because all the delays wore out the developer and caused costs to sky rocket making the project unfeasible. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

By the way if it were not for the new top of the hill garage I would never suggest getting rid of the parking on Cedar as previously finding parking in the area could be a nightmare (years ago almost got into a fist fight with a guy in the lot across the street behind the grocery store while looking for a spot).

Getting rid of the parking on the couple of blocks where it is allowed and expanding the sidewalk is a no brainer and would simply maintain the traffic status quo. Indeed the sidewalks are ridiculous narrow and should be expanded given the significant amount of pedestrian traffic. I guess the big question is whether the businesses on that stretch would rather have parking in front of their stores or bigger sidewalks. I am sure that would generate a lively debate.

If I recall correctly, early conceptual plans showed a major building here with more development reaching north, but it was all pie in the sky at the time. I think the plan was this corner, quite naturally, being a phase 2 of the development but again, there was nothing concrete at the time of announcement. I believe along with you that Kuri's "announcement" (if we can consider it something as formal as that given it is just a quote in an article about another project and site) is the first the public is hearing about this and it seems to have moved along. Fingers crossed. Very pleasantly surprised by the quote and I like the large size of the building (at least the 200,000 square foot suggestion). I wish the Cleveland Foundation Building was as large. We need more details. This seems to be a job for @KJP 😘

While I totally disagree with this plan and concept (especially the small size of the "bunker" on the Jacobs lot) I do see the "parkland" being used much more than the P&G lawn (which is attractive but truly ridiculous) simply because it will basically be an extension of Public Square and the front door of 55 Public Square will more or less spill onto the site. If done right the fountain could be quite a draw, especially for office workers at lunch time.

Cleveland Foundation

Again all of what you say about creating a better pedestrian experience is wonderful and I would certainly like to see it happen but I have to double down and say that Cedar at that point is too important and busy a route into UC and downtown that it would take a miracle (especially in talk and study every thing to death Cleveland Hts., a city that seems to move at two speeds, slow and stop) for lane reduction to happen. You say that we should rely on alternate route down the hill when traffic backs up, but the problem is that those alternate routes back up just as bad if not worst. I can recall countless times driving down Euclid Hts Blvd when one of these traffic events occurs and reaching a point where for some reason, well back from the hill, traffic just stops for no apparent reason. I, along with many others, then begin turning around and foolishly hunting for other routes down the hill but only find roads like Cedar and Edgehill are just as backed up if not worst. A couple of times I even drove back to Lee Rd and took it down to East Cleveland to Euclid just to avoid the mess. Good traffic planning may be a solution but there is probably only so much they can do with timing lights and redesigning streets. With no freeways in the area (thank God) it is a unrefutable reality that Cedar is a highway for not only large portions of the Heights but also farther away Hillcrest. And I hate to say it again but even if there is a "way" to calm traffic at this point and create a better pedestrian experience I don't know if there is a "will", especially with all the other problems Cleveland Heights faces.

I cannot disagree with you but it really took a lot of balls to simply blatantly ignore the PC's suggests on a number of significant points (or maybe not since they have all the leverage). I guess what irks me the most is that they are trying to give the impression they have compromised and took the criticism to heart (at least my take from Ken's article) when all they really have done in response is to add some plants.

Based on Ken's article it appears to me that SHW pretty much ignored all of the PC's requests. Seems like all their solutions to street level criticisms was simply to add more landscaping whether it was at the site of the parking lots, on Frankfort or on Public Square. The treatment of the Jacobs lot is especially remarkable. Instead of making the building larger on that site as requested by many member of the Commission (I can almost understand their concerns about security in rejecting the public rooftop garden and will give them a break on that point although they could have probably figure out a way to do it if they even gave it a little thought which they apparently had little interest in), they actually are deceasing the square footage of the building. Basically it looks like the Jacobs lot will be a landscaped extension of Public Square with a small bunker on it. My take is that they basically told the city to go jump in a lake since they know they can get away with given what this project means to the city.

Interesting-although predictable-that there is very little discussion of the SHW research center on the board even though it is a major development in Cuyahoga County.

OK I'll ask. Is this just a small branch office to service all downtown projects (since they are headquartered in Mentor) or is this a site office for a specific project (aren't they the CM for Nucleus)?

I don't know about that (although I have no idea how May is leasing). A deal like this just doesn't pop out of thin air. I am sure it took a while to negotiate, especially if it involves two properties. Are all three floors contiguous or scattered around making up three floors. That might be another sign of a long negotiation. They might have had plans for the hotel even before leasing began.

Funny how the seller of the property is keen to let the buyers know the great things they can build on it (via neat pictures). I guess my response would be "if it is such a great opportunity why don't you build the pretty building?".

I cannot read the article since I am not a subscriber so I don't know exactly what Litt had to say. However the headlines in Cleveland.com seem to indicate that Litt had a glowing review for the Banks project in Cincinnati which I guess surprised me (again don't know if this is actually the case, just basing it on headlines and article blurbs). I don't like critiquing projects in other cities since I am generally not in the know about the nuts and bolts. Moreover, I don't like commenting on something I have not seen in person, and although I know Cincinnati pretty well since I went to college near there and have many friends who live/have lived there and have been many times, I have never been to the Banks. So all of my impressions of the Banks are basically from this forum and comments from Cincy forum members over the years. With that as background I certainly hope we do not use the Banks as a model as apparently suggested by Litt. My impressions of the Banks, whether fair or not given the above: !. A wonderful opportunity (a whole new neighborhood on the river between two stadiums just minutes form the historical central business district) has been a wasted opportunity to do something truly wonderful. 2. It has taken forever to build out and still is not close to being done. 3. The architecture and the quality of construction is mediocre at best. 4. The retail seems to be primarily restaurants which turn over time and time again. When it is not game day or there is not some sort of special event the place apparently can seem dead and the restaurants have trouble surviving. Not a true neighborhood for the various apartments because convenience retail seems to be lacking. 5. There doesn't seem to be a master plan. They always seem to be changing what could/should go in based on the fact that it is taking so long to develop and there are so many available lots. 6. Despite the fact it is so close to the central business district and the new street car serves it to an extent (does not actually run through it) does not seem connected to the rest of the city. I get the impression that the freeway contributes to this to a great extent and years of discussion regarding capping the freeway have apparently gone no where. 7. Too much deference is given to the Bengals in terms of planning and development, especially parking and tailgating opportunities. 8. The park along the river seems fantastic. Again, I don't know if we should be touting the Banks as a model for Cleveland

That is north of the Maltz but that would generally be included in such a project. When @KJP mentioned West Quad that was the name given to a proposal years ago that has not happen yet and the west reference means west of the main Case campus. It is basically the site of the old Mt. Sinai hospital.

Pretty sure that would never happen. Cedar at that point is a major commuting route into UC and downtown. I am sure over the years you have experienced major backups going down the hill (especially with an accident or even a minor weather event) even at its current width.

I cannot imagine those are permanent but just being used as a safety device during the construction of top of the hill a few yards down. The entire landscaping of Cedar Farimount the past few years was well done and pretty well maintained.