Htsguy

No second item in my post. The rooftop look out or restaurant which the warehouse district representative was really pushing. Like I said everybody wanted the pavilion to be taller as well and I was just curious if in a couple of weeks your sources could determine whether the architects were working on that.

@KJPno pressure (Lol) but I wonder if you can squeeze your sources in a couple of weeks to see if SHW does actually take to heart the comments of the committee’s and do something to make the pavilion taller and do the suggested roof top activation. My gut feeling is that the second item will never happen in 1 million years.

Look pretty similar to the asking rents at LaCollina on Mayfield Road. How well has that project rented (it looks like they were offering deals so maybe not that great).

I am pretty sure the gerbil tubes are a done deal. The only thing to hope for is that they put some effort into them so they don't turn out looking like the generic sky bridges we have downtown. The reason I feel this way, and as I believe has been pointed out by either other forum members or in a news article, is that the Planning Commission has lost the moral high ground on the issue since it approved both bridges for the casino. If SHW brings this up in response to any Commission push back, I guess all they can say is we were wrong but I am pretty sure they are not going to want to piss the company off on this point. As such I hope, other than suggestions for the actual design of at least the West 3rd bridge, that not a lot of time is spent on this so that other problematic design issues can be hashed out at length.

You know it is not like we don't have other acres and acres of land that need to be developed in the central business district. I think we can afford to let CSU have a few green spaces next to its campus.

I am not at all pleased that a number of these new four story rectangle apartment buildings that are popping up have so much surface parking, even if it is in the back of the building. Especially problematic in an area like University Circle where we should be developing a strong street presence that does not exist now. The end result is that the back of the building becomes the main entrance. I guess expensive structure parking as a solution would not add to street life but at least there would be fewer ugly surface lots.

I hope I am wrong but I really wonder whether they have any real interest "to put the time and money into making this work and work right". My impression is that they just don't know what to do even though they have owned the property for a very long time and really don't want to taking any huge risks (in other words invest a lot of money). So basically they decided that have this "mall infrastructure"...it won't cost much to market it with a "new concept" so let's see what happens. Many of the vague answers regarding a grander vision also leads me to this conclusion. I hope we don't have a Forest City situation where they just get worn out owning the mall.

I understand this joint meeting is going to be an in person session at city hall. Does anybody know if it will still be live streamed liked PC and Landmarks meetings have been during the pandemic?

If TMUD applications are going to exceed money available I hope the genius at the state level reviewing the application and making awards are bright enough to ascertain which projects are "shovel ready" and give them extra credit as part of the process. Don't want to see projects getting awards where the TMUD is step one in the capital stack and that whole process then drags on for three years.

Well here we go again. On July 2, 2021 David Watson filed an appeal in the Common Pleas Court due to the Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals granting certain variances for the second Woodhill Supply site project in Little Italy. This of course is not a surprise as he and his attorney objected to the variances at the Board level (only person as far as I can recall). Also recall he did the same thing in connection with the first proposal way back when and even though he lost at every level the developer gave up as the case continued to drag out so he basically won even though he lost. It did not help that the case went back and forth from the Court of Appeals to the CP court because the first lower court order, while in favor of the city, was procedurally flawed dragging things out. Without getting technical, I doubt that Watson even has standing to bring this appeal. This was an issue in the first case (among other things) but the Court of Appeals never ruled on this issue because the case was dropped. Unfortunately this looks like a 2 year delay at a minimum because I am sure Watson will appeal all the way to the Supreme Court (similar to Dunham Tavern). I hope the developer hangs in there this time.

Also a couple of these projects are just in our imagination at this time (specifically Magellan and Lutheran Hospital). If they do make an application won't they actually have to have detail plans which they will have to reveal to US.

So Viaduct is still alive (even if on life support). When you state " partner with the capacity to deliver" do you mean expertise or $$.

Didn't @KJP have this on his radar about a year ago? I think he suggested it was still in the iffy stage. I do recall some elaborate conceptuals floating around at some point (which were probably just pretty pictures for marketing purposes). Cannot read Michelle's article. Wonder if these possible developers are that same as before.

I think @w28th suggested this a few days ago as well. In general I don't I have a problem with this but I guess a concern would be that it would eliminate a second north south route (after Ontario) downtown and both streets are right next to each other. Traffic on w6th and 9th could become a nightmare

The horse appears to be dead so I am going to stop beating it. But one last time....I guess my fears regarding West 3rd are being realized. I certainly hope the Pickard team had a greater vision and it was the SHW suits that struck it down due to cost because I think even I could have designed the suggested parking garage.

Love how the Post "decorates" the factual aspects of the story. Sounds like the old white guy I had to listen to for 20 minutes while waiting for a chicken order yesterday.

My sticking point continues to be the treatment of West 3rd. I am very anxious to see how they activate it. Don't want to see another blank wall bowling alley. We will already have that on the east side of 3rd with the rear of SHW's two story what ever it is and the 55PS garage. I am also still in a knot over all the surface parking no matter how they sugar coat it at this time. My feeling is that if the PC approves it they should condition it with a 3 year limit from the completion of construction (at least those portion that are not designated future SHW expansion). That give them more than 5 years to find developers. I would hope that would be plenty of time even given the glacier pace at which this grand old company moves. Even then, given the way the city enforces these surface lot restrictions (I am think specifically of the New York Spag House lot) SHW probably would not have much to worry about with such a condition.

Let's be real. That "plan" was not much more than a bunch of pretty pictures.

@KJP do you know if any actual renderings will be submitted to the Planning Commission for the July 20 meeting. If not, I assume the majority of the discussion will revolve around the site plan. I am thinking if they getting any major push back from these massings (which I doubt) it gives them time to tweak the actual design for the September public meeting (so I am guessing no renderings now).

I have posted before that I prefer it on the Weston lot after viewing the skyline mock ups a couple of weeks ago on the forum. I believe at the proposed height it would not interact well with the Terminal Tower from various perspectives if built on the Jacobs lot and it looked much more dramatic on the skyline offset from the TT.

I like this speculation, but like other posters I am concerned that that surface parking lot designated future development is going to be around for a long time. Hopefully not 30 years like the Jacobs lot. As I have expressed on other occasions, I am not a fan of "phases" in Cleveland as the second phase always seems to take forever to happen for one reason or another (the big one usually being $$). Also does any of these bare bone conceptuals answer the question put forth by @gottaplana couple times the past month that he heard the tower was going to contain extra space for lease to outside firms (thus adding support to his arguments that Nucleus would then surely never happen)? In my mind 36 stories with plans for future SHW offices next door suggest the answer is no.

Unfortunately I have to agree. I hope there is at least some minor push back by the Planning Commission (although I don't expect it...let's be real) in regards to surface parking and the awful interaction of the tower and the parking garage on West 3rd. However, they have already been dealing with the PC staff according to reports and this is still the result.

My guess is that the only people they are alienating are the Cleveland members of Urban Ohio. I doubt if even 10% of the "region" are even aware they are building a new headquarters and most of them could care less what it looks like.

The problem with the 3rd district station is the city shows no interest or does not have the capability to maintain landscaping incorporated into its public buildings. Given this reality, new public building should be designed with as little landscaping as possible.

Well it seems pretty clear that it is in the works to vacate Frankfort between w3rd and w6th (and obviously request by SHW given its design) so the parking garage does not have to be activated by fronting the garage on that side as @Dino points out would have been necessary per Code.