Well thats odd.  The pics on the Landmarks site looks like the siding was taken off down to the original, since many details are exposed including all the upper diamond shaped windows.   

Cold storage beginning to come down...

 

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2011/04/26/pic-of-the-day-cold-storage-building-coming-down

 

What ever happened with the Stanley block? Did council ever approve landmark status?

Here we go with the Columbia building..  From the Cleveland Landmarks Commission agenda:

 

REPORT

1. Columbia Building - 112 Prospect Avenue

Proposed demolition for Casino garage

Ward 3 - Cimperman

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2011/05122011/index.php

 

 

Who should we email

Same as for the Stanley building.  Include Cimperman.

In addition to the insanity of demolishing the Columbia Building, I cannot believe that the planning commission would even consider a pedestrian bridge diagonally across Prospect and Ontario.  Is this phase one of whoring ourselves for this casino?

Thats what its looking like.  That diagonal pedestrain bridge is a nightmare. 

If I had to pick one over the over, I would much prefer that the Columbia Building be kept given its context, orientation, and scale. The Stanley has been left in isolation and is to be surrounded by a contemporary mess that will distract significantly from its character.

 

A skywalk to the Higbee would be a discrace.

email sent. Goodness gracious is this terrible. They have saved the stanley block and managed to absolutely fail at every other aspect of the design.

Did anyone go to the Landmarks meeting?  X?

 

I was wondering what the general mood was.  I realize that construction was stopped but this is just temporary, and maybe the best time to engage everyone in what seems to be turning out as some not so very good ideas from the Casino group.  I fear if there isnt some vocal opposition early on to some of these poorly thought out ideas that the city and Landmarks commission may just give the go ahead to the casino folks, as to appear friendly to a group at least willing to invest downtown. 

 

In reality, they need to be told to look at additional options (since there are many), therefore minimizing the destruction of the existing fabric, while utilizing and even expanding on what is already there.  In most cases if there isnt any opposition they are just going to take the cheapest and easiest route, even though there may be many better ways with an end result that has a much greater benefit to the whole. 

 

The city also really needs to seek clarity on what the real plan is going to be here (why so much emphasis and destruction on something that is proposed to be a first phase and not the main structure?). 

 

That Group "The Cleveland Coalition" even came up with some good options of weaving in the needs with the  existing fabric and connecting parking from underground in space that already exists, so I was hoping they would at least be represented in these intial meetings.

 

By the way if my records are correct the Chair of the Cleveland Landmarks Commission is Jennifer Coleman, the woman that put together the City Prowl audio tours, and has said hello on the board before.     

I wasn't able to go, sorry.  I will be writing an e-mail.

In reality, they need to be told to look at additional options (since there are many   

 

Which options did they not look at?

Argh! I would have gone to that planning meeting this morning but it was already 11 am before I realized it was today!

 

Are people writing emails to Cimperman against the demos of these structures?

 

What about the Cleveland Restoration Society ... are/is there going to be a grass roots campaign preventing these atrocities?

Article in the PD today....

As I said above: "By the way if my records are correct the Chair of the Cleveland Landmarks Commission is Jennifer Coleman, the woman that put together the City Prowl audio tours, and has said hello on the board before."

 

Quoted from the article: 

"would clear the way for the rebirth of an area that one commission member referred to as a "dead zone.""

 

Commission Chairwoman Jennifer Coleman said she didn't like the idea of losing the Columbia, a designated landmark built in 1909, but she added that she understood the importance of parking.

 

"I'm torn," Coleman said.

 

The panel is expected to vote on the issue May 26.

 

Ms. Coleman should definately be contacted and sent letters as well.  I havent thus far been able to find contact information for her. 

 

 

Casino developers want to knock down a building to make way for valet parking centerPublished: Friday, May 13, 2011, 5:30 AM    Updated: Friday, May 13, 2011, 9:55 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The developer of Cleveland's downtown casino said Thursday that it needs to demolish a century-old building to make way for a valet parking center that will welcome millions of people to the gambling center a year.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/05/casino_developers_want_to_knoc.html

It seemed like the point of the presentation and dialogue yesterday was exclusively about the new construction, as the Columbia Building itself was scarcely mentioned.  I'm not sure, but I suspect that they proposed demolition in a previous session and the Commission asked them to return with more details on what would replace the structure and why.  Then again, they could've talked more about it in the 3rd hour of the hearing...

 

From the developer: a structure attached to the south end of the Gateway North Garage would be too far from the Higbee Building (I guess wealthy valet parking types are lazy).  On the flipside, wouldn't it be that much closer to the site you initially planned to build on? 

 

Lastly, this all hinges not only on the demolition of the Columbia Building, but also on the sale of the City-owned GN Garage.  Since the City knows just how CRITICAL it is for the developer to have their parking in this precise location and since they know how much they've doled out for unimproved land south of Tower City, if they do sell, they'd better not let it go cheap. 

 

Next steps include another Landmarks Commission hearing, City Planning Commission hearings (on sale of garage and on design), and City Council (for sale of the garage).

If someone could, you should go and take some nice pictures of the Columbia building and the Stanley Block just in case.

Just in case what? 

By the way if you mean just in case they are torn down, well yeah that's likely..  for the Columbia bldg anyway without any type of campaign demonstrating why these would be negative moves. 

The decision makers (the people that are supposed to be about protecting such structures are viewing things in a rather short sighted manner, saying things like "its a dead zone" and "I'm torn".  That doesn't make me very optimistic.     

Playing devil's advocate here, but what if the facade was saved and incorporated in the garage structure as at least one facing?  Keeping the current streetview and urbanity.

 

Anyone's opinion change at all?

^ Not really, cause you are still losing a building that could serve as apartments and retail, for parking. I dont care how beautiful the garage is, it still only holds cars. Now if the garage is inevitable, I would prefer a nice looking garage at least.

Looked at the plans more, so where the columbia building now stands, they want to put a garage exit? That will be a pedestrian nightmare.

Looked at the plans more, so where the columbia building now stands, they want to put a garage exit? That will be a pedestrian nightmare.

 

And a 3 lane wide one.

 

Speaking of which, since I can't comment on the latest postings by KJP in the Horseshoe Casino thread (boo!), I'll comment here.  How in the world does a 4-lane wide valet pickup work?  Do you have to play Frogger to get to your car if the valet pulls it into the right lane?

Jim's Steakhouse (aka Club Mega aka Aqua Nightclub) is being demolished:

 

It's not pretty, but I'm actually going to miss the big blank cold-storage building in Tremont that's being demoed for the innerbelt (Mayday's got some excellent shots in his photo thread).  The thing's a big time landmark in the most literal sense of the word.

^I agree

Thanks for the reminder, I meant to post this:

 

^I will miss nothing about this building. The only reason it has lasted this long is because it served as an ugly ass dilapidated canvas for advertising. So some rich dude can collect a nice check every month while we got to enjoy the view. Why are they deconstructing. Why no implode.

^Probably because it's cheaper to deconstruct and they aren't really in a rush to get it done.

^I will miss nothing about this building. The only reason it has lasted this long is because it served as an ugly ass dilapidated canvas for advertising. So some rich dude can collect a nice check every month while we got to enjoy the view. Why are they deconstructing. Why no implode.

 

Yeah, I understand that view too.  It's kind of a cool building though, with the old railroad loading area underneath and the muscular facade.  In an alternate universe where the Cleveland real estate market was really hopping, would have been sweet to see the building get used for something other than billboard space, with the rail line converted to a trail- there would be kind of a high line thing going on between the trail and the building.  But I know that wasn't really in the cards.  Anyway, the view of Tremont from downtown is going to look really featureless now- the church spires just aren't so tall.  And the cold storage building was great for instant orientation from many points in the Flats below and on either side of the river, so it was a useful landmark too.

I agree that while it wasn't particularly beautiful, this structure was a fantastic landmark.  These old cold-storage buildings are/were such a great physical link to a time gone by, and wonderful symbols of the former economic might of our crumbling cities.  I was just as sad to see the one here in Cincy come down as well about a decade ago.  Such huge, strong structures that have no equivalent today, and cannot be found in the newer cities of the south and west.

 

I received an email from the chair of the Landmarks Commission that at least seemed to offer a little hope as regards the Columbia:

 

"Thank you for your email regarding the request to demolish the Landmarked Columbia Building that the Landmarks Commission is hearing this week. We have received overwhelming feedback on the issue and personally speaking, I am excited to see so many citizens passionate about the future of downtown Cleveland. The Commission is very seriously considering all the factors involved in making our decision, including the owner's wishes, the recommendations of the Planning Commission department, the Landmarks Commission staff and the local design review board, the public's concerns and most importantly, the Landmarks Commission Ordinance that we must abide by. This issue is a complex one involving a viable landmark and a new project that has strong economic potential for the city, but I assure you all of the commission members are deeply committed to making informed decisions on all items brought in front of us that enhance and benefit Cleveland's landmarks and the city as a whole.

 

Again, thank you for your input.

 

 

Jennifer Coleman, Clair

Cleveland Landmarks Commission"

 

She also pasted a link to the Landmark Ordinance-http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/ordinance08.html

Bumsquare I got the same email back this morning. At least we know they heard our opinions!

Oh, I thought they were giving everybody super-special individualized responses.  I guess I'm not as special as I thought.

Same here. Hopefully we can somehow get them to save the Columbia Building. It is unlikely though.

I agree that while it wasn't particularly beautiful, this structure was a fantastic landmark.  These old cold-storage buildings are/were such a great physical link to a time gone by, and wonderful symbols of the former economic might of our crumbling cities.  I was just as sad to see the one here in Cincy come down as well about a decade ago.  Such huge, strong structures that have no equivalent today, and cannot be found in the newer cities of the south and west.

Believe it or not, Toledo's is still occupied. I guess the Great Lakes Terminal Warehouse is the surviving queen of this era. If anything ever happens to it, I'll be heartbroken. It's one of my favorite buildings in Ohio. At seven stories with a massive footprint, it has always been a landmark in Toledo.

 

I received an email from the chair of the Landmarks Commission that at least seemed to offer a little hope as regards the Columbia:

 

"Thank you for your email regarding the request to demolish the Landmarked Columbia Building that the Landmarks Commission is hearing this week. We have received overwhelming feedback on the issue and personally speaking, I am excited to see so many citizens passionate about the future of downtown Cleveland. The Commission is very seriously considering all the factors involved in making our decision, including the owner's wishes, the recommendations of the Planning Commission department, the Landmarks Commission staff and the local design review board, the public's concerns and most importantly, the Landmarks Commission Ordinance that we must abide by. This issue is a complex one involving a viable landmark and a new project that has strong economic potential for the city, but I assure you all of the commission members are deeply committed to making informed decisions on all items brought in front of us that enhance and benefit Cleveland's landmarks and the city as a whole.

 

Again, thank you for your input.

 

 

Jennifer Coleman, Clair

Cleveland Landmarks Commission"

 

She also pasted a link to the Landmark Ordinance-http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/ordinance08.html

 

Dear Jennifer:  Save your breath.  We all know 'the fix' is in and this is all lip service.  Don't josh us by claiming an intent to 'weigh factors' (sarcasm intended)

 

BTW, the Stanley Block appears to be in violation of most every subsection of C.O. 161.09(b)(2)

Are you mad because she actually reached back out?

I received an email from the chair of the Landmarks Commission that at least seemed to offer a little hope as regards the Columbia:

 

"Thank you for your email regarding the request to demolish the Landmarked Columbia Building that the Landmarks Commission is hearing this week. We have received overwhelming feedback on the issue and personally speaking, I am excited to see so many citizens passionate about the future of downtown Cleveland. The Commission is very seriously considering all the factors involved in making our decision, including the owner's wishes, the recommendations of the Planning Commission department, the Landmarks Commission staff and the local design review board, the public's concerns and most importantly, the Landmarks Commission Ordinance that we must abide by. This issue is a complex one involving a viable landmark and a new project that has strong economic potential for the city, but I assure you all of the commission members are deeply committed to making informed decisions on all items brought in front of us that enhance and benefit Cleveland's landmarks and the city as a whole.

 

Again, thank you for your input.

 

 

Jennifer Coleman, Clair

Cleveland Landmarks Commission"

 

She also pasted a link to the Landmark Ordinance-http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/ordinance08.html

 

Got the same one. Sometimes I wish that they actually gave a personal response so that I knew they actually read my message and what I had to say. Someone should title an email Columbia building and then talk about something completely different and see if you get the same generic response or if they actually notice the difference.

^^Mad?  Not sure where you got that.  I'm not mad at all.  I'm largely indifferent.

 

By "sarcasm intended".... I actually BELIEVE that she and the other members will appropriately weigh the factors and carry out their duties without bias or prejudice.  I don't believe that the "fix" is in.

After speaking with her, it seemed that she recieved hundreds of e-mail, hopefully more.

Just consider that e-mail as a reciept that it was recieved.

Just a reminder for In the morning for anybody that would likie to attend.  Should be a nice crowd.  Also, posting "Save Lower Prospect Ave" Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_211966452169552

 

Landmarks Commission Meeting on Columbia Building Demolition

Location: ‎5th Floor Conference Center, Room 514 City Hall

Time: ‎9:00AM Thursday, May 26th..

Any updates?

They are into their 4th hour of discussions at the Landmarks Commission meeting.  Apparently it has been a good discussion and there has been a lot people showing support for the Columbia.

 

Im hoping at the very least that the Landmarks Commission will delay the Certificate of Appropriateness until better alternatives can be developed, if not moving to deny it outright.

Apparently the Landmarks Commission tabled the discussion of the demolition of the Columbia building until June 9th...  Im not sure what this will mean in the grant scheme, but I guess it is at least a semi victory to anybody that wants to see more thought and dialogue put into this decision. 

I would hope it also sends a message to the casino folks that maybe there will be some standards required after all. 

 

Just a guess, but maybe the Commission might be leveraging for some desired design changes.  Perhaps the elimination of the pedestrian bridge or a better design to calm traffic coming out of the valet lanes.

Just a guess, but maybe the Commission might be leveraging for some desired design changes.  Perhaps the elimination of the pedestrian bridge or a better design to calm traffic coming out of the valet lanes.

 

I would expect at the very least...  I havent heard details as to if it is merely the discussion being tabled or if it is more so delaying approval based on better alternatives or some pressed changes... 

Either way Im hoping it gives Rock Gaming an indication that they may need to come up with some other scenarios. 

If you are against the demo of the Columbia, let Rock Gaming know

Hts121, although I don't know very much about the processes that are at work here because this is my first real look at the system, but I assumed that the Landmarks commission was more concerned with the actual decision of whether parking is an appropriate replacement for the columbia building, and that they left all design critique to the city planning commission (which ok'd the project except for the bridge design). Am I incorrect in this assumption? I thought any design critique at this point is irrelevant.

 

Also I am very pleased to hear that they tabled the discussion, its not as good as saving the columbia, but its a million times better than hearing that they condemned it.

 

It shows that they are not taking this issue lightly, which was my biggest worry considering the planning commision approves it, including Brown who is on landmarks, and the mayor approves it  who just wants that garage sold.

I still wonder if the facade and streetscape can be saved by being incorporated into the garage design if the building must go.  I've senn that in Europe for many garages/buildings.

^MH, I wouldn't be a fan of that.  The Columbia is screaming for a residential conversion.