There are a lot of improvements in this design, such as in the pocket park by Nighttown.  That is really great compared to the first iteration.  Carried over from the prior design, I like the inset balconies as well.  I also like how the largest building is set back a bit at the point and has a portion that steps up to the larger mass, and the buildings step down in height progressing up Cedar.  The curve of the large building also provides sightlines down Cedar and across the intersection.

 

There's a lot not to like as well -- less variation in the materials, blandness of the buildings fronting Euclid Heights Blvd., skinny bland stair tower in the pocket park.  Why did they move the pool from the second floor protrusion on the tallest tower to the roof?  Had to be an expensive change.  I also don't like the extension-balcony change along the drive to the parking garage; or the stairs going into the building from Euclid Heights which just seems very unfriendly and the building already looks bland and institutional.  The large building should have more variation in the materials/design -- I liked the previous iteration in that regard.

 

Public meeting on Tuesday -- I expect the city to receive another earful about how awful this design is.  I think some minor tweaking could bring it to something pretty great though -- and I'd definitely take this design over no design.   Fingers crossed.

Edited June 21, 20195 yr by Foraker

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

There are a lot of improvements in this design, such as in the pocket park by Nighttown.  That is really great compared to the first iteration.  Carried over from the prior design, I like the inset balconies as well.  I also like how the largest building is set back a bit at the point and has a portion that steps up to the larger mass, and the buildings step down in height progressing up Cedar.  The curve of the large building also provides sightlines down Cedar and across the intersection.

 

There's a lot not to like as well -- less variation in the materials, blandness of the buildings fronting Euclid Heights Blvd., skinny bland stair tower in the pocket park.  Why did they move the pool from the second floor protrusion on the tallest tower to the roof?  Had to be an expensive change.  I also don't like the extension-balcony change along the drive to the parking garage; or the stairs going into the building from Euclid Heights which just seems very unfriendly and the building already looks bland and institutional.  The large building should have more variation in the materials/design -- I liked the previous iteration in that regard.

 

Public meeting on Tuesday -- I expect the city to receive another earful about how awful this design is.  I think some minor tweaking could bring it to something pretty great though -- and I'd definitely take this design over no design.   Fingers crossed.

Yeah I definitely though the previous pool location was better and I also thought the Euclid Hts side looked better before.

 

The park by Nighttown was in the previous plan.  I never thought it was a great idea.  Don't think it will be used much (I keep thinking of that plaza in Cedar-Lee which always seems vacant but I guess this will be larger).  Would have preferred more density and something blocking the parking garage at that point.

 

I think the city and design review were actually giving the developer grief about the previous materials and that is why the change.  The were supposedly working with the city behind the scenes to work on this and much depended on cost.

 

I think the fix is in on this design since the developer seemed to be working so close on the changes with city officials.  Despite the polite acceptance of views at the two upcoming meetings in order to "make a record" design review will green light so they can break ground in December.  I could be wrong. 

 

 

On 6/21/2019 at 4:46 PM, Htsguy said:

The park by Nighttown was in the previous plan.  I never thought it was a great idea.  Don't think it will be used much (I keep thinking of that plaza in Cedar-Lee which always seems vacant but I guess this will be larger).  Would have preferred more density and something blocking the parking garage at that point.

***

I think the fix is in on this design since the developer seemed to be working so close on the changes with city officials.  Despite the polite acceptance of views at the two upcoming meetings in order to "make a record" design review will green light so they can break ground in December.  I could be wrong.

 

The park was in the previous version, but hidden behind more building.  I think it's better visible from the street.  With the stair tower from the garage opening onto this park, it will see foot traffic, and also could be a performance space extension from Nighttown.  Who knows.  That stair tower is pretty skinny, and totally uninspired.  At one of the meetings the developer said that they had to keep a certain percentage of the garage open to avoid having to add mechanical ventilation ($$$), which is understandable.  Some perforated screen could be added later if it turns out to be too horrendous.  (It's a fixable problem.)

 

In addition to the park, I see a few major improvements in this design.  The big building on the corner steps down more gradually from the point toward Nighttown.  In fact, that big building's design went from two masses to three and there are now better sight lines down Cedar toward Case. 

 

All in all, it's nice to see improvements that the community asked for.  I agree that there could be further improvements, but on balance I think the city is far better off if this gets built rather than not.  Community meeting on Tuesday (and hopefully we get more substantive comments than "it's ugly, I hate it," but I expect a lot of that).  Possible "final" approval at the ABR meeting on July 9.  See you there!

 

Also agree that the process was not confidence-inspiring and many citizens feel that the city is not giving enough weight to the feelings of the community, particularly in the immediate neighborhood.  The city really could have been a little more forthcoming earlier on and more often.  And the city CDC was not a partner with the city in this project, which is a shame since FutureHeights has a great reputation for community outreach. All of this is part of the reason for the recent push for an elected mayor. 

 

Cleveland Heights seeks proposals on land use, zoning rewrite for Severance Town Center: City Council recap

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/06/cleveland-heights-seeks-proposals-on-land-use-zoning-rewrite-for-severance-town-center-city-council-recap.html

 

44 minutes ago, KJP said:

Cleveland Heights seeks proposals on land use, zoning rewrite for Severance Town Center: City Council recap

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/06/cleveland-heights-seeks-proposals-on-land-use-zoning-rewrite-for-severance-town-center-city-council-recap.html

 

 

Quote

While the city does not own the 57-acre site with more than 600,000 square feet of former mall space, local officials are looking at future land uses for the site, zoning, design standards and a detailed market study to spur interest from developers.

 

This is just a request for an updated zoning plan.  As discussed in that article, this area has its own Board of Control, which is unique in Cleveland Heights.

 

My understanding is that the private owner of the mall owns the ring road and all of the land inside the ring road.  The out-of-town mall owner/real estate investor has no interest in redeveloping the property, so this is just wishful zoning for the future.

 

 

2 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

 

This is just a request for an updated zoning plan.  As discussed in that article, this area has its own Board of Control, which is unique in Cleveland Heights.

 

My understanding is that the private owner of the mall owns the ring road and all of the land inside the ring road.  The out-of-town mall owner/real estate investor has no interest in redeveloping the property, so this is just wishful zoning for the future.

 

 

When Severance was originally developed, the mall owner owned the ring road, but it became a public right-of-way when the mall was renovated sometime around 2000.

1 hour ago, Terdolph said:

I wish that the whole thing could be torn down, a street grid built and single family homes built there.

This is like to opposite of what should happen..  we have enough sprawl out there.  Lets be creative with this space!

The recent master plan for the city calls for the Severance area to be more walkable, mixed-use development -- the zoning is just being updated to reflect that to influence future development.

 

20 hours ago, Vincent_G said:

When Severance was originally developed, the mall owner owned the ring road, but it became a public right-of-way when the mall was renovated sometime around 2000.

 

I thought the owner of Severance was still responsible for maintaining the roadway.  I hope I'm mistaken -- can a road be a public right-of-way and still be privately owned and maintained? 

Also, here's a link to the winning Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook proposal.

 

 

https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/5131/Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook---Proposal-from-Cedar-Lee-Connection-LLC---5-17-19?bidId=

 

 

Edited June 26, 20195 yr by Foraker

 

And here is some Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook plan coverage....

 

Cleveland Heights moves ahead with ‘living street’ Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook plan

https://www.freshwatercleveland.com/breaking-ground/CedarLeeMeadowbrook062519.aspx

My late mom Edith March Mills (soon to be Prendergast) worked at Medusa's Cleveland Heights offices back in the 1950s and 60s. That's mom in the company newsletter photo below.....

 

Five Northeast Ohio projects win Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit awards

 

Medusa Portland Cement Co. Central Offices, Cleveland Heights: A planned $22 million project to convert a vacant office building on Monticello Boulevard into 13 apartments won more than $1.2 million in tax credits. The building, recently designated as a local landmark, was constructed in 1957 for the Medusa Portland Cement Co., which left the site in 1998. Mid-century design features will be retained in the original office building as part of the project, according to ODSA. Two new buildings with additional apartment units, enclosed parking and co-working space also will be built on the site. The development group is a partnership between Roger Bliss of Bliss Partners LLC, Shawn Neece of NMS Inc. accounting firm, and Chuck Borsukoff of JCI Contractors.

 

MORE:

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2019/06/five-northeast-ohio-projects-win-ohio-historic-preservation-tax-credit-awards.html

Edited June 26, 20195 yr by KJP

On 6/21/2019 at 12:02 PM, Htsguy said:

The city has posted the new Top of the Hill renderings on its website.  Just in time for all hell to break lose at the community meeting on Tuesday.  They look significantly different to me.

 

Just a brief report on the community meeting last night.  Almost uniform praise for the changes that the developers have made.  Lots of concern (and strong feelings, including some rude language) about the height at the corner, traffic, whether there was enough parking, and whether the parking could be further hidden.  A number of people were concerned about whether the developer was targeting the right demographic for the apartments.

 

A number of people still object to anything over four stories tall, apparently, as there were repeated complaints about the height at the corner.  There were also complaints that the corner wasn't unique enough for Cleveland Heights, and that the project was ugly (I feel for the developer and architect taking all this abuse, mostly without any suggestions for what would actually be an improvement; "not this" is not helpful).  There were also a number of people who praised the project and said they were looking forward to the project moving forward, who questioned the need for so much parking, and some people did offer up some concrete suggestions for improvements.

 

The developer said that they would provide answers to the questions on the city's Top of the Hill website by Monday. 

 

Some suggestions that seemed popular were to provide infrastructure for seating and public performances in the pocket park, providing space for a rotating collection of public art in the small park at the point, putting a public restaurant/pub on top of the tower at the point rather than a pool, and using lighting on the building at the point to provide more character to the building.

 

And despite this being a meeting about the high level design, there were a number of people there to object to how the project was financed....

 

Several members of city council were in the audience (none of them spoke).  The city manager and traffic engineer were not there.

 

The next step is the presentation to the Architecture Board of Review (which will be on July 9 at the Cleveland Heights Community Center to accommodate more people) and the developer said that they do not envision making very significant changes to the plans before going to the ABR.  Since the developer has already been working with the city planning department, it seems likely that the ABR will approve the project, probably with conditions. 

 

Once approved, the developer will begin working on the details, and the developer will be back before the ABR many times as those details and any changes are worked out.  So there will be many more opportunities for public input.

@Foraker thanks for the report.

On ‎6‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 1:24 PM, Foraker said:

Also, here's a link to the winning Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook proposal.

 

 

https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/5131/Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook---Proposal-from-Cedar-Lee-Connection-LLC---5-17-19?bidId=

 

 

So the large apartment building on Meadowbrook is no more.

19 hours ago, Htsguy said:

So the large apartment building on Meadowbrook is no more.

 

Who knows.  This is a very preliminary design, I wouldn't count it out just yet.

On 6/24/2019 at 12:12 PM, KJP said:

Cleveland Heights seeks proposals on land use, zoning rewrite for Severance Town Center: City Council recap

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/06/cleveland-heights-seeks-proposals-on-land-use-zoning-rewrite-for-severance-town-center-city-council-recap.html

 

 

Someone posted a reminder on Nextdoor -- Walmart's lease is up this year.  In other words, Severance's owner has been collecting lease payments on the empty Walmart for some time.  That might be why they haven't been so motivated to do any improvements at Severance.  Maybe (hopefully) that will change.  Was this the impetus for the timing of the zoning update?

 

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2015/01/severance_town_center_could_be.html

 

23 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

Someone posted a reminder on Nextdoor -- Walmart's lease is up this year.  In other words, Severance's owner has been collecting lease payments on the empty Walmart for some time.  That might be why they haven't been so motivated to do any improvements at Severance.  Maybe (hopefully) that will change.  Was this the impetus for the timing of the zoning update?

 

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2015/01/severance_town_center_could_be.html

 

 

Namdar isnt in the development business. They are only a landlord and a lousy one at that. Just check their history around the country. Namdar/Mason (an affiliated company) and Kohan Realty have bought tons of distressed malls across the country and do not improve them what so ever. In some cases, they even fail to pay taxes on them. The only time a Namdar/Mason or a Kohan property improves is if someone owns another piece of it. Richmond Town Square is an example of this as DealPoint Merrill bought up the Sears and Macy's and is converting it to a Cubesmart and apartments. Dealpoint tried to takeover the vacant Walmart and CH officials rejected them. I don't know if DealPoint would've proposed something similar in the Heights but that rejection doesn't look like a great idea at the moment.  Namdar is trying to sell the Home Depot site at severance as HD has a lease that runs for another 15 years. 

Design on latest Top of the Hill plan draws less criticism than overall process

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/06/design-on-latest-top-of-the-hill-plan-draws-less-criticism-than-overall-process.html

I've never seen a project get so much community input, and have people still express that their voices aren't being heard.

On 6/29/2019 at 9:37 AM, Mendo said:

I've never seen a project get so much community input, and have people still express that their voices aren't being heard.

 

I think it's something like this:  "I complained at the LAST meeting that five stories was too tall, and the developer still has a ten-story building in the plans!  Why won't anyone listen to me?!?" 

 

[Apparently, the developer reducing the height of the building closest to Nighttown, adding an additional and lower step to the building at the point, and pulling back the top floor to reduce it's apparent height and smoothing the increase in height from the existing business district just didn't go far enough.]

Edited July 1, 20195 yr by Foraker

On 6/28/2019 at 11:57 AM, Mwd711 said:

 

Namdar isnt in the development business. They are only a landlord and a lousy one at that. Just check their history around the country. Namdar/Mason (an affiliated company) and Kohan Realty have bought tons of distressed malls across the country and do not improve them what so ever. In some cases, they even fail to pay taxes on them. The only time a Namdar/Mason or a Kohan property improves is if someone owns another piece of it. Richmond Town Square is an example of this as DealPoint Merrill bought up the Sears and Macy's and is converting it to a Cubesmart and apartments. Dealpoint tried to takeover the vacant Walmart and CH officials rejected them. I don't know if DealPoint would've proposed something similar in the Heights but that rejection doesn't look like a great idea at the moment.  Namdar is trying to sell the Home Depot site at severance as HD has a lease that runs for another 15 years. 

 

So what do you think Namdar is going to do here?  The Walmart lease runs out and they lose revenue. If they sell the HD lease, they're left with even less revenue.  Assuming you're right that they have no interest in development, when do you think they will be looking to move the property out of their portfolio?

27 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

I think it's something like this:  "I complained at the LAST meeting that five stories was too tall, and the developer still has a ten-story building in the plans!  Why won't anyone listen to me?!?" 

 

[Apparently, the developer reducing the height of the building closest to Nighttown, adding an additional and lower step to the building at the point, and pulling back the top floor to reduce it's apparent height and smoothing the increase in height from the existing business district just didn't go far enough.]

What I found frustrating at the various meetings were that the majority of the comments were inarticulate, nonsensical and disjointed ramblings without basis in fact (and the same stuff over and over...cannot believe they were still complaining about parking at the last meeting after all the study and compromise that went into that issue)  Sure design and development are subjective, but at least make sense.  Sometimes I just wanted to climb under the council chamber carpet and hide.  I can only imagine what the out of town developers with significant  expertise were thinking (I am sure they were mentally rolling their eyes).  Expected a lot more from residents of Cleveland Heights.

I hate to tell you this but rambling, ignorant, inarticulate, conspiracy-driven nutjobs are everywhere. The developers unfortunately experience this wherever they go. Friends in Columbus say that NIMBYs have taken over. In Westlake, a "pro-development" community I used to cover for the newspaper, residents would yell and scream at developers and council people claiming they weren't being listened to. Uh, yes, they were listening to you NIMBYs. And they came to the conclusion that you're totally frickin nuts.

11 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

So what do you think Namdar is going to do here?  The Walmart lease runs out and they lose revenue. If they sell the HD lease, they're left with even less revenue.  Assuming you're right that they have no interest in development, when do you think they will be looking to move the property out of their portfolio?

I get your point about the leases but Namdar got the place for nearly nothing. Anything they make is pure profit and they don’t care about the long term. When Home Depot renewed, that gave them an attractive asset, one they could sell for more than what they spent for the entire

complex. Whether anyone buys it is another story, especially since the rest of the center isn’t up for sale. 

 

Anyhow, revenue doesn’t seem to be much of a concern for Namdar. Its controlled by a group of shady families that play a bunch of accounting games. Namdar likes to hold onto properties until the bitter end, watching them decay and by then you are left with a rotting shell. Some flat out close. I suppose Namdar could change strategies or the area becomes such a hotspot they get a big offer but that seems really optimistic.  

Architectural Board of Review unanimously approved the “overall concept” for the Top of the Hill project.  Construction expected to begin late in the 4th quarter, 2019

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/07/cleveland-heights-architectural-board-oks-concept-for-top-of-the-hill-project.html

 

City working on a temporary parking plan during construction.

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/07/temporary-parking-plans-almost-in-place-for-top-of-the-hill-construction.html

Admittedly, I too have always wanted to live in

1 hour ago, Terdolph said:

an urban friendly manor.

 

Thankfully, Cleveland Heights has lots of those!  ?

 

 

Quote

For 50 years when driving up to the Cedar Hill-Euclid Heights intersection, the first thing visitors coming into Cleveland Heights would see is a vacant lot. For 100 years, the Cleveland Heights government has remained virtually unchanged and to date is one of only two large cities in the county run by a city manager rather than an elected mayor and an at-large council.

This year, both of those things are poised to change.

https://www.crainscleveland.com/government/will-cleveland-heights-new-development-lead-new-government

Quote

It remains to be seen how Cleveland Heights, a place that residents at community meetings repeatedly call "special" and "unique," will deal with the possible changes on the horizon. The Top of the Hill development is slated to break ground before the end of the year.

 

Top of the Hill final design plans set for Oct. 10 architectural review

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/10/top-of-the-hill-projects-final-design-plans-set-for-oct-10-architectural-review.html

31 minutes ago, KJP said:

Top of the Hill final design plans set for Oct. 10 architectural review

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/10/top-of-the-hill-projects-final-design-plans-set-for-oct-10-architectural-review.html

 

Glad to hear this is moving forward. It looks like the September 30 designs added material and architectural detail but didn't change the overall look of the project. The design has always been a little uninspiring, but there's really nothing wrong with it and it will do a lot to extend an already vibrant intersection. 

3 hours ago, KJP said:

Top of the Hill final design plans set for Oct. 10 architectural review

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/10/top-of-the-hill-projects-final-design-plans-set-for-oct-10-architectural-review.html

 

Drawings can be found here:

https://www.clevelandheights.com/1184/ABR-Case2018-514

 

and here:

https://www.clevelandheights.com/988/Top-of-the-Hill

Edited October 8, 20195 yr by Foraker
Added second link

Was anyone at the ABR meeting yesterday who can report on what happened?

5 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Was anyone at the ABR meeting yesterday who can report on what happened?

I was not there but I am sure there was somebody from the Buckingham incorrectly moaning that the project violates Cleveland Heights' zoning ordinances.

I wasn't at the meeting either, but, thankfully, it looks like it was approved.

 

Top of the Hill detailed design clears Architectural Board of Review

 

CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, Ohio -- The city’s Architectural Board of Review on Thursday (Oct. 10) approved final design drawings for the Top of the Hill project, effectively clearing the way for construction to begin in early 2020.

 

It was developer Flaherty & Collins Properties’ fourth appearance before the ABR. The last one was held on July 10, when the three-member city panel signed off on the overall conceptual design, including the 10-story apartment building at the point of Cedar Road and Euclid Heights Boulevard.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/10/top-of-the-hill-detailed-design-clears-architectural-board-of-review.html

26 minutes ago, Potamus said:

I wasn't at the meeting either, but, thankfully, it looks like it was approved.

 

Top of the Hill detailed design clears Architectural Board of Review

 

CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, Ohio -- The city’s Architectural Board of Review on Thursday (Oct. 10) approved final design drawings for the Top of the Hill project, effectively clearing the way for construction to begin in early 2020.

 

It was developer Flaherty & Collins Properties’ fourth appearance before the ABR. The last one was held on July 10, when the three-member city panel signed off on the overall conceptual design, including the 10-story apartment building at the point of Cedar Road and Euclid Heights Boulevard.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/10/top-of-the-hill-detailed-design-clears-architectural-board-of-review.html

Thanks for posting.

 

Now on to Cedar Lee.

On 10/11/2019 at 5:20 PM, Htsguy said:

I was not there but I am sure there was somebody from the Buckingham incorrectly moaning that the project violates Cleveland Heights' zoning ordinances.

I was there. Some of the more ridiculous comments include the concern of dog poop that will be around since pets are allowed, not being a fan of pastel colors, how loud the transformers/utility boxes will be and since there are a few studios the average income tax gained will go down. I'm thankful its finally approved and that the developer has stayed on through this year of design review 

The amount of nonsense that's accompanied this one building has been ridiculous.  

Cleveland Heights introduces preliminary Severance redevelopment proposal

Link: https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/10/cleveland-heights-introduces-preliminary-severance-redevelopment-proposal.html

 

"City Council introduced legislation Monday (Oct. 21) to consider a $223,000 preliminary redevelopment proposal for Severance Town Center. The city received 18 responses to its request for proposals (RFPs) over the summer, with the best and most responsive offer coming from AE7 Pittsburgh LLC."

5 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

Cleveland Heights introduces preliminary Severance redevelopment proposal

Link: https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/10/cleveland-heights-introduces-preliminary-severance-redevelopment-proposal.html

 

"City Council introduced legislation Monday (Oct. 21) to consider a $223,000 preliminary redevelopment proposal for Severance Town Center. The city received 18 responses to its request for proposals (RFPs) over the summer, with the best and most responsive offer coming from AE7 Pittsburgh LLC."

 

That was a strangely written article.

Rising Star to Relocate East Side Coffee Shop from Little Italy to Cleveland Heights

It'll be going in the former Katz Club Diner on Lee Rd, which should be a super cool spot for a coffee shop. I'm sure they'll do great business there in the Heights!

https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2019/10/22/rising-star-to-relocate-east-side-coffee-shop-from-little-italy-to-cleveland-heights

3 hours ago, KJP said:

 

That was a strangely written article.

Presumably what happens when anyone from PD other than Steve Litt or MJM enters into this space. 

1 hour ago, Clevecane said:

Presumably what happens when anyone from PD other than Steve Litt or MJM enters into this space. 

That article’s actually a “Special to Cleveland.com...”, which usually indicates it’s pulled from Sun Newspapers (whatever’s left of that) not a C.com or Plain Dealer reporter.
 

Your comment still holds, however, and I’ll do you even better and say that it’s what happens when ANYONE at Sun after @KJP enters into this space...

Edited October 24, 20195 yr by brtshrcegr

 

5 hours ago, NorthShore647 said:

Cleveland Heights introduces preliminary Severance redevelopment proposal

Link: https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/10/cleveland-heights-introduces-preliminary-severance-redevelopment-proposal.html

 

"City Council introduced legislation Monday (Oct. 21) to consider a $223,000 preliminary redevelopment proposal for Severance Town Center. The city received 18 responses to its request for proposals (RFPs) over the summer, with the best and most responsive offer coming from AE7 Pittsburgh LLC."

 

Maybe I am missing something but is the AE7 proposal publicly available somewhere?

4 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 

 

Maybe I am missing something but is the AE7 proposal publicly available somewhere?

Click on the link where the article says "Pretty pictures"

11 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 

 

Maybe I am missing something but is the AE7 proposal publicly available somewhere?

The article mentions Paul Volpe's objectiions to AE7's possible retention in response to the RFP but I don't think it provides the full flavor of the melt down he had over this possibility.  He was very passionate and feels they are quite unqualified given their past development experience and panned their preliminary vision.  Councilman Ungar (head of the council planning committee and apparently a neighbor of Volpe's) indicated that this was not a done deal.  However I get the impression the planning staff is promoting them.  I heard a report this morning on WCPN which, while not very in depth, seemed to reflect this was a done deal which I imagine they got from the above article and perhaps a quick call to the planning staff (or not).

 

1 hour ago, Htsguy said:

The article mentions Paul Volpe's objectiions to AE7's possible retention in response to the RFP but I don't think it provides the full flavor of the melt down he had over this possibility.  He was very passionate and feels they are quite unqualified given their past development experience and panned their preliminary vision.  Councilman Ungar (head of the council planning committee and apparently a neighbor of Volpe's) indicated that this was not a done deal.  However I get the impression the planning staff is promoting them.  I heard a report this morning on WCPN which, while not very in depth, seemed to reflect this was a done deal which I imagine they got from the above article and perhaps a quick call to the planning staff (or not).

 

So it sounds like Paul’s arguments were they’re inexperienced and their proposal was too mundane to be worth the risk. Did the City provide reasons for their selection?

 

Could they simply be the best of bad submissions?

3 hours ago, Clevecane said:

So it sounds like Paul’s arguments were they’re inexperienced and their proposal was too mundane to be worth the risk. Did the City provide reasons for their selection?

 

Could they simply be the best of bad submissions?

 

Quite possibly -- hopefully someone can shed more light on that.

 

It looks to me like the city is feeling pressure from residents to "do something" about Severance and this is an attempt to take some action.  But Severance is privately owned, the owner does not care, and the city has few levers. Even if someone highly qualified comes in and develops a plan, this whole project looks like a waste of time and money until Severance has an owner who is interested in redevelopment.  That is likely years down the road, at which time arguments will be made that the study is outdated and Severance needs a new plan anyway. 

 

 

I think the city needs to start smaller with the redevelopment. There are four decent sized vacant parcels on the north side along Mayfield - one old parking lot owned by the city, two wooded lots owned by the Severance owner, and a vacant former bank building owned by another private company. Those lots are doing nothing for the private owners but cost thousands and thousands of dollars in taxes - the old bank has been vacant for years now, and the wooded lots have never been developed. I could see the owners more willing to sell those parcels to the city or another developer, than the Severance owner parting with the entire property right now. Assemble those lots together and you have a nice site for a mixed use development (approx 4.5 acres) that could then be used to jump start development on other parts of the site.

I'm still new to the area, but I live just a few blocks away from Severance Circle. From what I've heard from my neighbors, the current owners may finally be willing to do something with the city to redevelop the area. Apparently, Walmart was still leasing it's old property in an effort to block other retailers from moving in, but they have recently or will soon terminate the lease, leaving the owners without any revenue for the property. 

 

As for the overall development, creating a master plan and vision for what should be there needs to happen before any development happens. If not, the developments, even small ones, will dictate what the entire area will morph into which could lead to something that's not well planned out. 

 

I do think this is a big opportunity for the city to create an area that can act like a mini downtown with shops, restaurants, public spaces with quite a bit of residential units. This needs to be a place where people live, work and play, not just another shopping center that people will need to drive to. 

They've been saying this since the OLD severance.  They could have built out an entire neighborhood in the confines of the space it self.  more residential for sale housing should have been built over the last 40 years.