Htsguy

Great article Ken. Lots to digest but since so much is still up in the air just wanted to comment on two items. I am pretty sure design review is going to push back on the bridges, at least the one over West 3rd (which I have always assume was going to be part of the design from day one so no big surprise), especially if Freddi Collier is truly against it. The $64,000.00 question is whether the city is going to risk upsetting the apple cart and will push hard on this point. History shows it will not. Second. In my mind, and I am sure legally, Frankfort is a city street not an alley. I don't care how SHW and its architects feel. If code requires something other than dead space along the garage they better have a plan, although this may be another issue where the city might not want to push hard, especially if they do a nice job with the West 3rd street presence. I do understand to some point using Frankfort as a service street since these functions have to go somewhere. However a good architect should be able to incorporate service areas into the building and still not create a dead zone.

Yeah, strange. You would think given the nature of the building and the duel use that would have been step one in the planning process.

I have been regularly streaming City Planning Commission meetings the past year since they went online due to the pandemic and cannot recall any presentation for final approval of the MLK library. I can recall a couple of other branch plans moving forward at PC so I am wondering if the delay may be due to the architect rather than the library system. Who knows? If what Ken states is true and the library has to go first I wonder if a March groundbreaking is still in the cards. The library is not on the March 5 PC agenda and even if it received approval at the next meeting, I can't believe things could move fast enough thereafter for anything to happen in March. Lots of silence here.

^That is correct (it is in GS Historic District) but as I understand it a parcel in a district can be severed and lose its protection with a vote of council Again rare but I think that is what happened around the Variety Theater because the council person wanted the development to happen.

If height is the actual issue that kills this development (the club issue is resolved but the developer determines that it does not make economic sense shorter, with less units) we should all freak out. I might be wrong about this but I think city council can remove a parcel's Landmark designation. This apparently is rarely done but I would have no problem with that here (it is also becoming more and more evident that Landmarks, as currently comprised, has too much power and focuses too much on certain design issues which are better handled by design review). While a possibility I don't think removal would happen. The council person, while maybe in favor of the project, clearly does not favor it to the extent that she would put up a big fight and take such a drastic action and alienate even a few voters. She is too new and reading her statement, very cautious. Moreover she would have to convince her fellow council members and while they don't have a direct interest, there is probably a reluctance to set such a precedent, even though it has happen a couple of times. After all Landmark designation throughout the city is there for a reason and a very good one.

What is really infuriating to me is that Landmarks could potentially be really screwing over the Le family (who have invested in this neighborhood for years and taken risks when it was not hot) because they think the building is too tall (I think the parties can resolve the club issues and are working on it) which it is not. Staff at planning really have to start lobbying these idiots.

This was another conceptual presentation for developer feedback so it was not "denied" (no vote) but the feed back was indeed negative.

Would they have to seek a variance for the height? If yes how far are they over with the current design?

Does anyone know if the council person has expressed an opinion on the development as it stands now? If he is against it in its current form it is clearly dead. Landmark rarely if ever goes against the wishes of the council person. That said, support does not necessary mean an eventual affirmative vote.

I confused by the "tabling". Wasn't this just a conceptual presentation with no vote planned at this time. In other words, didn't they have to come back to Landmark anyway for a vote?

Knez seems to be just about everywhere.

I think I recall reading something recently (perhaps a prior article by Ken) that per code the garage has to have first floor retail but I was confused by that since the Lumen garage was not going to have retail until PHS was pressed on that issue.

Please please tell me that "South American Feminist Studies" is just a class and not a major at Case.😳

According old news postings the first phase of the Superior Midway bike path (from PS to 55th) was 50% funded as of late 2017 (NOACA grant) but not much news since then. I am sure COVID-19 has not helped the project ( both funding and people devoting time to it).

Hasn't a major redesign of this section of Superior been in the works for some time or am I confusing it with something else?

^me too. Barefoot. Uphill. Both ways.😛

Ugh. I was afraid of that with the lack of any noise since last fall. And like stated above, it was one of my favorite projects. I guess inexperience, lack of deep pockets and financing were always an issue. With all the work they have done so far maybe they can sell their "work product" to a developer who could get it done, although I know something like that rarely happens. @KJP do you know if the same developers apartment building near Battery Park is also in trouble? I believe that was a nice project as well.

Did the NIMBYS complain when they made it taller?😜

I was having such a nice day and now my head is starting to hurt.😏

I don't have a problem with the set back because from day one I did not like how the design overwhelmed the church and this is no longer the case even though it is now taller. Also as noted above, this is a rather good compromise since the proposed restaurant space does hit the sidewalk.

I thought the same exact thing when I saw the increase in height (which I like...this corner should have height). The question then becomes does it not get built if they are not awarded a credit (or delay the project over and over as they continue to apply)?

I like this much much better.

Does Cleveland code still allow front yard chain link fences (like shown above in this new construction)? I thought all of this ugly front yard chain link you find in Ohio City is because it is grandfathered in but at some point the city came to its senses and banned it.

Given everything going on in Ohio City development wise and the rising property values you would think a significant development on the Lutheran lots would be a no brainer, especially since they are in the heart of things and would afford incredible skyline views. However, I then remember the Jacobs lot and other surface lots in the Warehouse District that strangely lingered for years (decades). Self interest always seems to be a major impediment. Whether it is holding out for an unrealistic price or in this case coming up with an affordable parking formula to meet the needs of the hospital, what "should be the case" seems to take forever to come to fruition. By the way, really cool google earth view.

I am pretty sure the narrowing of W. 25th is envisioned as part of the project. I doubt, however they are contemplating a narrowing similar to market district.