Hts121

I know a neurologist who says from what he has heard that she is likely brain dead with or without life support. Very sad. First Fannie Lewis, now Stephanie Tubbs-Jones.

I disagree with Punch. I at least want to see a detailed rendering of the architechtural design before signaling the retreat. Even then, I cannot imagine taking a pass on the opportunity.

Wondering the same thing. Also, what is that yellow [fill in the blank] around the top of the lower levels? What REALLY needs a good scrubbing is the exterior of the Landmark Office Towers, especially on the south side.

I would not count on that being real brick as opposed to some type of cosmetic material tacked on to give the appearance of brick.

I have dealt with Wendel in the past and she is not the sharpest tool in the shed IMO. She is at her best getting under the skin of politicians and running with conspiracy theories (when she was with the Chagrin Herald Sun), not reporting on projects like this. What I really don't get is the way she ended the article. First she tells us all about the project... then she says all that is just for starter's as the Wolstein group is planning a residential and retail project just down the hill from the WHD. :?

Although I have no official study/statistics to back it up, I believe we are seeing the same trend in Cleveland. Many of the low-income families are moving to places to the south and east, like Maple Hts, Garfield Hts, Warrensville, Bedford etc. I think this trend continues (even picks up) as the housing stock in places like inner city Cincy and C-Town either needs to be demoed or requires expensive rehab to be habitable. Most of the houses in those neighborhoods listed above were built for middle class families and are still solid, but are becoming more affordable to lower income people because of their increasing age, bland styling and below average school systems.

You are correct that the directors' first duty is to the shareholders, but benefit to the community can be taken into account as a factor in any decision without violating that fiduciary duty. Certainly not the sole factor, but a factor nonetheless. On the walkway issue, there needs to be some indoor connectivity, but mainly between the MM and the CC.... I just hope they don't over do it by adding other connections. What needs to be done is better signage leading the way to the City's attractions.

Fred Nance, the committee chairman, said access to the airport, shopping mall and proximity to other projects being developed, were the selling points to the riverfront site. Not $? Not sure I believe he is being fully honest here.

Ummm it's going to be MORE vertical than the original one. The new design calls for it running from canal road up to and above huron road.... that's HIGH. and if forest city wants to develop scranton penninsula... then... ummmm... do it. I don't think a convention center across the river has anything to do with it. Except of course if you're saying they are so embarrassed about what the view will be from this thing that they'll be forced to do it. OK.... ummmmmmmmmm...... I just..... ummmmmmmmmmm..... re-read the story from a couple weeks back and..... ummmmmmmm..... you are right. I just remembered the new design not being as vertical (rising above Huron)....... ummmmmmmmmm.... my sincere apologies Mr. Mayor. And no, I did not mean that they are going to be embarrased about the view. I guess I just presumed with the addition of thousands of visitors within spitting distance and the real possibility for a skywalk accross the river, it would make more sense now than ever before. Touchy subject I guess.

McCleveland, the latest information states that the CC behind TC will not be built as vertical as the original renderings indicate. Urban Manna, well said. I am still a proponent of the current site but was never on the extreme end of the debate as the majority of UO posters are. I agree with gotribe that the right architecht can make this work. I also believe that development spin-off would be great along the river, and hopefully will occur on Scranton Peninsula - possibly in time even spurring project similar to FEB. I have seen Mayday's past footprints for this site, but I am not sure that the exact foot print has ever been defined. While I admittedly have no engineering/architectural background, what is to stop the designers from incorporating the space dug out for the existing TC parking garage abbuting the proposed site. Why can't the CC extend from the river and flow into that space, partially buried beneath Ontario. The rapid could then have a direct entrance into the CC with some minor adjustments. There is still plenty of space left to build a new garage. Anybody with knowledge have any thoughts on that??

You can't push someone in the back and then say you are not trying to start a fight.

Eleventh District Court of Appeals found in favor of the state / unions and against the city of Warren. Appeals court tally is now 4-2 in favor of the cities. The Cincy and Youngstown cases are still pending in those repsective districts. The Akron and Lima cases are before the Supreme Court and could be joined by this latest case and the Cleveland case. C:\Documents and Settings\dapowell\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK26\Crain's_Morning_Roundup_Link (2).htm Another blow to residency law Published:Tuesday, August 5, 2008 By Tim Yovich The residency requirement will ultimately be determined by the Ohio Supreme Court, the mayor says. WARREN — The 11th District Court of Appeals has thrown another roadblock in front of the city’s residency law. The appellate court ruled Monday that the residency requirement violates the Ohio Constitution, upholding a September decision by Judge Andrew Logan of Trumbull County Common Pleas Court. (Full Story in Link)

Not to sound pessimistic, but of course the workers voted to keep the status quo for the company's jobs. The comment about still being subject to corporate approval disturbs me.

But there's no Bratenahl... No South Euclid either.

I was actually not trying to be a smart*ss at all. Your post got me thinking if there was a difference between a rowhouse and a townhouse. My family is from Philly and they use the term rowhouse. Here, we tend to say townhouse. When I looked for a definition, I found some sites that defined "townhouse" or "townhome" as attached housing, but other sites simply said it was a city dwelling. I was just curious and where better to seek clarification. ;)

Personally, I am not a fan of the design. They have colonial spacing but row house looks. Just does not float my boat. On a side note, what makes these residences "townhomes"? They are not connected in any way from what I can tell. Unless you are just defining the term "townhome" as an urban dwelling. If that is the case, I guess all the houses in OC and Tremont are "townhomes".

So I was going to downtown Akron this morning and noticed this - http://www.northsidelofts.com/main.php. Looks to be the Avenue District's twin to the south. Same architecht perhaps?

I still don't get the new "art" on Mall B. I am usually a big fan of the public displays, statues, etc. downtown.... well, maybe not the firefighter memorial. Great shots Andrew.

I assume sarcasm was intended with the CP comment. I wonder how much success NYC would have had without Central Park. It offers that relief from the stone and concrete heaven that is NYC and probably prevented any slum-effect on tens of thousands of adjacent addresses. I LOVE The City... it truly is THE City. San Fran and Chicago are on my second tier as far as USA cities go. However, I could never live in NYC year round. But IF I had boat loads of cash, I would definitely buy an apartment in Manhatten and spend a couple months of the year there.

A couple hundred of the 1500 ft for the proposed tower is just the spire. The roof of the Sears Tower is higher and the peak of its spire is more than 1500 ft. Check the stats out at http://skyscraperpage.com/. BTW, I hate the design.

I believe that your husband is not correct on this point. The building being "proposed" right now would be slightly shorter than the Sears Tower and a good bit short of both the Chicago Spire (which will hold that title) and the Freedom Tower. The Philly proposal actually looks like one of the proposals for the Freedom Tower that was not accepted. Philly is an interesting town because for a long time there was a law on the books that prohibited any building from exceeding the eyes of William Penn (nice shot MTS). That restriction was not repealed until the mid-late 1980's. It actually led to density far BEFORE the skyscrapers started going up - a strategy I am all for here in CLE. I would def. have not been opposed to any Cleveland law that had capped height at the Terminal Tower. Not that I don't love the Key Center, I just think that it swallows the Terminal Tower.... 200 PS also is guilty of doing the same on inbound east shoreway. I remember when all those skyscrapers were shooting up in the 1990's, my grandmother (who is a lifetime Philly resident) was always complaining how they looked like giant salt shakers.

I suppose this is the right thread. Just a random thought I wanted to run by the board. The thought was spurred by the talk over in the FEB thread about the WFL but I did not want to catch the rath of throwing that thread too far OT. Let's suppose that the CC is put behind TC and the existing site is not being used. Would it be totally infeasible / cost prohibitive to create an underground rapid line that breaks off from the WFL and runs under the mall (right through the existing CC site which is already excavated of course).... perhaps using a portion of the public auditorium as a terminal. Not sure how beneficial such a line would be however considering that it would simply put a rapid stop between TC and CBS. Now if the City could find a way to connect that link to Euclid/E9.... or even the PHS area, that would be beneficial IMHO.

I was born here 30 years ago and have been following urban development for about 20 years. The current era reminds me of the buzz when TC was built. The vision around that time was much grander for downtown, but very unrealistic in hindsight. Somewhere on here there are photos of a model that was displayed at TC which showed a skyline rivaling any city in the USA, save NYC, Chicago and San Fran. It was on the level with what Philly did to Center City in the early 90's. That vision mainly related to the CBD, not UC and other areas of town where we are seeing so much investiment now. I think the plan this time around is more sound and realistic. I predict that most of the major projects, if not all, being discussed now will actually get built. I can't say I am more optimistic than 20 years ago, but that is not saying much since I was a 10 year old kid who had no knowledge of the financial aspects.... I just had a fascination with skyscrapers and assumed they would get built as depicted. Looking back, it seems that the proposal being touted around by Mayor White had as much of a "green light" as Campbell's lakefront development plan. In the end, the early 90's at least brought us Key Center (and Marriot), 5/3 Building, US Bank Building, TC Complex, Gateway, NorthPoint, and RRHOF.... not too bad IMO, but not nearly the grand scale that was contemplated. The only complaint I have now is why wait so long. Some of these projects would not be scaled down if they could have come to fruitiion prior to the monumental rise in construction costs. This is especially true of the new CC.

Oh, I'm sure that's coming! As for which architects are doing what... I can't recall precisely, but they went through that at one of the Planning Commission presentations. Some architects are doing entire buildings, while others are doing parts of buildings. For example, there are townhomes fronting a parking garage on Front Street. There's a small local firm doing those, while they work as a team on some of the larger buildings. It should yield some interesting variety and should push each to do something special with their piece. Of course, I'm looking forward to the green building innovations that we haven't seen on this scale to date in Cleveland. Think of all the experience that these local designers and contractors are getting that they'll take with them to the next job... very cool! That is the first I have heard of any townhomes in the FEB.

I would be much more upset if they decided to demo a portion of the CBD to build this type of concept. But with where it is going and what I predict it will do (that being bring downtown the crowd that strolls around and spends their money in Crocker Park and Legacy Village), I really think the new design is better than the old one. What is best for Cleveland is to draw those high end residents and shoppers who otherwise would not buy (real estate and goods) in the downtown area. Urban enthusiasts will have their pick of apartment in denser areas with all the development going on. All that being said, I think it is hard to tell from the rendering what the density will feel like at street level. Who cares what the FEB looks like from a blimp a couple hundred feet over Ohio City.