Htsguy

Does that mean the WXZ Development condo project on the old Primo Vino site is dead?

This is so true. That is why it drives me nuts when those fighting new projects in LI use the attack line that the developer is ruining the historical fabric of the neighborhood. That ship sailed decades ago when the usually absentee landlords chopped up the houses and enclosed porches with aluminum siding among other travesties only to make a buck.

I see that the MLK library and Library Lofts is FINALLY on the Euclid Design Review agenda for final approval this Thursday which means it will also be on the City Planning Commission agenda for final approval this Friday (agenda not up as of this posting). Hopefully this means a July groundbreaking as suggested by @KJP.

Are those "conceptual" high rises even possible given Burke?

Do you have any context. This looks inside or is it actually on the freshly painted building on the corner of West 25th and Detroit again. What's the reference to "chef's kiss"?

The past 30 years has been a retreat from the multi purpose stadiums of the 60s and 70s and for a hundred reasons I don't see them coming back. I am racking my brain and cannot recall even one multi purpose baseball/football stadium in major league sports today (maybe the Rodgers Center in Toronto). Oakland until most recently but not any longer.

I envision a huge white elephant on the wrong side of the free way bordering one of the most unattractive sections of the industrial valley. It will be surrounded by surface lots and parking garages only serving the stadium. Even if they promise companion development projects, this is Cleveland not LA. It will take years and also take away development resources from the lakefront, flats, central business district and midtown which all have tons of land which need to be developed. Not looking forward to the Goodyear blimp shots. They won't be attractive.

Mike and I have something in common. I hate the NS site.

Crain's headline (no account so cannot read it) indicates 45 Eriview could be sold to Bluelofts Inc. and a Dallas area investor and redeveloped into a live space with hundreds of residential units and coworking spaces. Curious about the details as it has been suggested in the past on the forum that a residential conversion of 45 was impossible or at least very difficult due to the size and configuration of the floor plates.

^Can somebody with a Crain's account summarize? It would be much appreciated.

This is another project that has moved incredibly quickly from initial announcement to ground breaking (just like INTRO). Clearly we need more Chicago developers in town.

Like @freefourursaid, point of sale inspection with the intent to maintain housing stock, especially in older cities. Cities usually don't have the resources to constantly inspect all homes on a regular basis so they make do with occasional inspections at point of sale. Usual a convenient time to do repairs whether it is done by the seller (usually) or the buyer assumes them. Some cities also have regular outside home inspections (maybe every 5-6 years) like Cleveland Hts. but my experience is that they don't enforce diligently after the notice unless big issues are noted (again lack of resources to follow up I imagine).

University Heights and Shaker Heights do.

Bummer...It was an attractive building with underground parking. They seemed to have put a lot of time and effort into the project and I believe received final approval from the Planning Commission. Are these guys just dreamers with some money to burn but no other resources other than their initial investment (I mean they have to pay the architect among others). They pulled the same thing on Viaduct. I would hope somebody would just purchase their plans and other work product for this site and Viaduct since a lot of the early heavy lifting is complete.

Where does Knez get the resources? They seem to be everywhere.

I am curious. Who is Realife's counsel?

^LOL

I like your optimism @KJP. You need to sprinkle this old pessimist with some of that fairy dust.

^get rid of the thin brick

I thought you cannot demo downtown unless you have some sort of concrete development plan in place. Or is it you can demo but cannot use the lot for surface parking in the short term without concrete plans.

My take for what it is worth; 1. Based on yesterday's presentation there is clearly enough parking in the neighborhood to support this building and despite the hysteria, current residents and businesses should not be inconvenienced, 2. If the developer thinks he can market this building with somewhat "inconveniet" parking (meaning not right on site or a five minute walk away) more power to him. It is his money and business model. Why the hand wringing for potential renters (expressed at previous meetings by Landmarks officials) who decide they have no problem with this type of lifestyle for what ever reason. 3. I find the design kind of "meh" so I am not personally that bummed (unlike Fulton House which I really like-and others on the forum hate so it is all subjective when it comes to design).

I guess the most interesting news from the blog post is that Viaduct is not totally dead but still on life support with a couple of hospice nurses hovering around.

I don't find this strange or out of the ordinary at all. Cleveland is still a car centric city and will be for a long time. My first three apartments were all on Van Aken and I took the rapid to work downtown every day. My car sat in a heated underground garage all day most days. However, I still needed a car for 90% of my other travels and would not have picked a building without parking even though I am the most pro transit person in my family. My objection is not so much providing parking in new developments but the unfortunate designs which put the parking front and center (with huge surface lots of course being the worst). I do understand the added cost to hide parking but at least try.

The above All Above Ohio tweet suggests a design that would incorporate a GreyHound station with Amtrak at Tower City with Greyhound being above the Amtrak station. I think it has been the desire of the city to combine Amtrak and Greyhound in a transit center no matter where it located (original proposals on the lakefront).

Are you driving and staying in a urban hotel while in Chicago? Add in very expensive overnight hotel parking as well as parking expenses most every time you move around the downtown area with the car (and don't forget to tip the valet). Of course if you take the train there will probably be some Uber and taxi expenses even if you take public transit for most of the visit. It is all relative.