A little digging today turned up this site plan from the web site of Kelly & Visconsi (www.kelly-visconsi.com).  It appears that this could be the proposal for the site directly east of Wolstein's Flats East Bank project that was referenced in page 8 or so of the FEB thread (http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=1823.300).  Perhaps being done by Ferchill?

 

My best attempt to read the site plan (sorry about the resolution, but this is all I could get from their web site), finds that the 2.73-acre site will feature the following:

 

30,000 sf of retail space

400+ parking spaces in a 3-story garage

7 townhouses

200 - 300 loft units (this one was unclear) in 3 buildings, topping out at around 15 stories.

 

Sound exciting?

 

aerial:

site plan:

 

 

That would be the project that I was thinking of.  It is bigger than I figured it would be.

wow this is wonderful!  i remember parking in that parking lot for a concert at the odeon.  its literally right next to the WL station.   hmm but why wont the photos or renderings work???

Seems like alot of parking, too much parking in fact, for a spot right near a transit line.

I thought that the Ferchill project would either be the existing building that is exactly on W. 9th/Main Ave or on the lot that is between the two existing W. 9th buildings.

 

It seems odd that this would be on their website. Usually, you hear about these things in the media before they show up on a website. Let's hope its for real.

Seems like alot of parking, too much parking in fact, for a spot right near a transit line.

 

As the A-number 1 parking lot HATER....I was thinking the exacty same thing!

 

There is already going to be alot built at the Wolstein project.  There is no need for another.  the WFL is right there.  WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE UP! :whip:  :whip:  :whip:

If they do build 300 housing units, I don't think that 400 spaces is too much.  Most developments factor 1.5 spots per unit.  I know that you guys are making a different point, though.

if you go to the blow up of the graphic, they do 2 calculations: 1.5 and 2 spaces per unit, and that dictates the number of units based on a finite parking availability. 

 

i'm all for less parking generally, but i personally don't think many people will want to purchase something in higher price ranges if it doesn't include parking (even if you just park your sports car for nice drives on the weekend and ride the rail all week).

 

plus, this section isn't particularly suited for other use (maybe open space) - wouldn't the first 3 or 4 stories be looking underneath the bridge?  at the end of the day, structured parking is better than a surface lot IMO.

A parking lot is a parking lot, no matter how you "sugar coat it". 

 

if you go to the blow up of the graphic, they do 2 calculations: 1.5 and 2 spaces per unit, and that dictates the number of units based on a finite parking availability. 

 

i'm all for less parking generally, but i personally don't think many people will want to purchase something in higher price ranges if it doesn't include parking (even if you just park your sports car for nice drives on the weekend and ride the rail all week).

 

plus, this section isn't particularly suited for other use (maybe open space) - wouldn't the first 3 or 4 stories be looking underneath the bridge?  at the end of the day, structured parking is better than a surface lot IMO.

 

As a parking lot hater, I've been a hypocrite.  I didn't think about it from the owners perspective. I have a car that I barely drive that just sits in my garage, most times I forget I even have a car....which reminds me I need to find the keys and turn it on  :|

 

If they do build 300 housing units, I don't think that 400 spaces is too much.  Most developments factor 1.5 spots per unit.  I know that you guys are making a different point, though.

 

Yes I am, we've got to try to recondition people thoughts about public transportation.  The better public transportation network we REbuild, it becomes a part of your everyday life.  The better the transportation network, the more people we can put to work who will then praise the system that employs them, further strenghtening and reversing the negative image of the transportation network.

 

RTA must do a better job at becoming a true regional partner on all levels.  TOD comes in many different forms.  For instance when I click on a link to a restaurant, via its on website, digital city or citysearch, 9 times out of 10, there are driving directions but rarely are there directions to the venue via public transportation.  Just check the website of any restaurant, business, venue or condo/apartment complex in the Warehouse District or Ohio City.  Information Public transportation This should be the norm.  I'll use the West Side Market as an example.  It's one of Cleveland's crowning jewels and most visited....directly accross the street from a train station....but does it mention one word about using that train station to get to/from the WSM??  www.echogate.net/market/directions.htm.  or  www.city.cleveland.oh.us/government/departments/parksrecprop/prpcwsm/prpwsm/prpwsmind.html Imagine how many ADDITIONAL people would use the station daily and how many more of those users would visit the WSM. 

 

Using DC as an example, the city "came back" once the metrorail was operational as it made travel throughout the city limitless.

 

I could go on and on about other marketing/public relations/strategic alliances but it would go off topic.

Until you can get to everything that one might need without a car in this city, don't expect many people who can afford to have a car not have one.  Until we have a transit system like New York, Chicago, or DC (or nearly anywhere in the rest of the industrialized world) we can't expect large numbers of people to willingly lead the car free life that one finds in those places.

 

I'd love to be able to take the Rapid to get to work and shopping.  But even if I could, I would still keep my car.

I can agree on that parking goes hand in hand with new residential units being built, its an expected standard for new units. I just think it might be more appropriate for a ratio of one unit to one parking space for a development so near mass transit line.

^I think X hits it on the head about people wanting to keep their car if they can.  In the places you mention, NYC, DC, and Chicago, it's extremely inconvenient both to drive and park a car.  That's not the case in Cleveland.  I'm hoping we can provide the best of both worlds, where you don't need a car at all for your everyday life, but there's one conveniently there when you need it, for day trips and the like.  This is our advantage over transit-friendly but car-crazy cities.  We can be both transit and car-friendly, although we've got work to do in the transit department.

My understanding was that the Ferchill development was proposed for the parking lot between Front Street and the railroad tracks, west of West 9th. I think we'll have to wait and see what this is.

 

As for the parking/transit debate, don't forget that Toronto has similar car ownership rates as Cleveland, but their transit ridership is eight times higher (for a metro area twice as populous). Of course, the big differences are density and extent of transit service (chicken or egg as to which comes first). Projects like the one MGD found, as well as all the others create the density. Then let's see if we can put some bodies back on the Waterfront Line.

 

Back to this project that's the purpose of this string... What impact would this project have on extending West 10th Street north of the tracks? Seems to me it would complicate the extension, as the project is currently designed. Perhaps Stark should pay the developer a visit, whoever it is!

Hey folks.... I just went to Kelly & Visconsi's website and saw their street address. It looked awfully familiar. Sure enough, it's in the same building where Robert L. Stark Enterprises is headquartered. Stark is on the top (sixth) floor of the building. K&V are on the second floor. But Stark owns the office building. I find it very hard to believe that these two corporations aren't talking about this project.

Fascinating tidbit there, KJP!  Now isn't Ferchill also doing development on Scranton Peninsula, another arm of "Stark's Y"?

 

As for the parking/transit debate, don't forget that Toronto has similar car ownership rates as Cleveland, but their transit ridership is eight times higher (for a metro area twice as populous). Of course, the big differences are density and extent of transit service (chicken or egg as to which comes first). Projects like the one MGD found, as well as all the others create the density. Then let's see if we can put some bodies back on the Waterfront Line.

 

Exactly my point.  I think that improving our transit system and rebuilding our inner city neighborhood likely won't cause a major shift in car ownership, or therefore the need for car storage.  But it will change the amount that people drive, therefore saving on fuel usage, carbon discharge, and inactivity related obesity.

I blew up MGD's graphic to show the detail on the right-hand side....

 

Geez,

 

City Architecture does everything.  This is a pretty significant structure.  I would love to see some 10+ story buildings going up in the Flats. 

 

KJP,

 

Your little bit of info definitely adds some legitimacy to this.

Geez, City Architecture does everything.

 

Yeah, there's definitely room for another game in this town, especially given the amount of development going on right now.

 

Thanks for the find, MGD!

Well done KJP!  Too bad this didn't get more press coverage.  Apparently the PD is too busy ripping the neighborhoods and reporting on more "doom & gloom" in the Flats to find room for news like this!

 

In my opinion, it's because their reporting places greater emphasis on taking "meeting minutes" of what's happening in the metro area, rather than looking deeper into causative issues and probing longer into the future on how to address them.

All these developements recently announced are unbelievable.  Sometimes I feal as though these developers are waiting for the other one to build it first.  Kind of like the guini pig (however you spell it).  I don't know.  Just something I have been thinking about. 

I wouldn't say "announced" just yet for the Front Street Lofts. Nothing is for sure until it's built.

i feel that way about a lot of these projects.  That's what my "save the cranes" post was all about.  I need to see cranes in the air before I know a project is a go.  And then we have phases upon phases. 

 

How many will actually come to pass?  Only time will tell.  But it may be fair to say that this is a very positive period of big plans for Downtown Cleveland and many of its neighborhoods and that even if only a fraction of them come to pass, we'll still have a much more vibrant city with many more options for living, shopping, working, and recreat-ing!

I am a big proponent for the way that Stonebridge developed.  It was never all over the news or in the media, rather, it just started coming out of the ground.  As the site became bigger and bigger, so did it's client base and recognition.  We did not hear about all the hurdles that had to be jumped in order to receive financing and infrastrucure improvements. Also, a much smaller developer pushed forward with this project compared to the Starks, Wolstiens and Zarembas.  I think these developers need to look at what K&D did to get their project out of the ground in order to push forward with their developements. 

Shaias’ Flats plan may put crimp in Wolstein’s

 

By STAN BULLARD

 

6:00 am, February 20, 2006

 

 

A duel between developers looms over a parking lot that adjoins Scott Wolstein's proposed Flats East Bank Neighborhood on the north end of Old River Road.

 

The Shaia family, owners and operators of parking lots in downtown Cleveland, has joined with Walnut Grove Development Corp. of Richmond, Va., to draft an $80 million plan to develop a three-acre parking lot on West 10th Street that is owned by a family-led partnership. The plan includes more than 250 condominiums, some retail space and a parking garage on the surface lot between Main and Front avenues.

 

The Shaias' parking lot is on a list of properties that Mr. Wolstein's development company, Wolstein Group, has asked the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority to help it acquire, said Steve Strnisha, a Wolstein Group consultant. Tagged on Wolstein Group's Flats East Bank plans as a second phase, Mr. Strnisha said the parking lot was envisioned for near-term use as parking.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20060220/SUB/602200305

 

Great.  Well lets fight about it and not get anything done.  I wish K and D would by both properties and build Stonebridge East over there. 

If Wolstein can't buy the Shaia site, how are K&D supposed to do it?

 

I don't think this is a huge deal. Wolstein and the city are supposed to start site work for the development's first phase this spring/summer. It's moving forward.

Wolstein needs a surface parking lot for a high-density development? And one next to a station on a rail transit line? I don't understand that. While Shaia's proposed development may weaken the price points for Wolstein's residential component, it will strengthen the retail/restaurant component.

 

Furthermore, Shaia's property east of West 10th Street remaining as a surface parking lot is not consistent with the Warehouse District's masterplan. Instead, what Shaia is proposing is almost exactly like what's in the WHD's masterplan for that site.

 

Competition's a bitch.

The empty parking lot east of W9th has been viewed as a possible park space by the Warehouse District Development entity.

Welcome to the board, W28th!

The empty parking lot east of W9th has been viewed as a possible park space by the Warehouse District Development entity.

 

Ditto on the welcome.

 

I think you're looking at a different parking lot. The one I'm referring to is east of West 10th.

 

The parking lot just east of West 9th and south of the tracks at the bottom of the hill is where the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority is envisioning a massive parking structure and permanent staging area for cars and trucks to clear customs and then be loaded aboard the cross-lake ferry. The port authority's goal is to build the parking/stage structure in such a way that mixed-use buildings can be erected atop it -- and possibly extend West 6th Street on it then over the tracks to one of the docks.

 

I'll scan the WHD's land use plan for that area and post it later this evening. But the WHD plan doesn't account for the Port Authority's vision.

wow, that's a significant vision by the PA!  any time frame or is this just a "vision."

I can't remember. It was part of the "Pesht" articles and discussion thread.

Which parking lot East of W. 9th?

^The fact that one has to specify *which* parking lot says a lot, doesn't it? :-(

Below is the Warehouse District's most recent plan for the northwest corner of the district. The plan for Front Street Lofts is almost identical to what the WHD had in mind for that site -- an L-shaped alignment of mid-rise residential buildings with retail on the ground floor and a parking deck in the crotch of the L. The parking area I was referring to east of West 9th to west of West 3rd, just below and to the right of the word "Conrail" (now Norfolk Southern). The WHD's plan has tall (20-story) residential towers on them with parking decks at their base.

 

In some respects, the port authority's vision for the same site may not be too much different. They propose a major parking/staging structure that would be built upon as if the parking structures were merely an extension of the bluff along and north of the Shoreway.

 

OK, now I'm worried that Shaia's project was all just a negotiating ploy to get more money out of Wolstein.... Shaia's Front Street Lofts' retail component is no longer listed on the Kelley & Visconsi retail brokerage web site. Wonder what that means?

^ I wouldn't be surprised. Shaia is in the business of building surface parking lots, not mixed-use developments. I just hope he sells to Wolstein at a reasonable price.

I thought that Wolstein wanted to keep Shaia's property as surface lots.  I'd rather have Shaia's project go forward.

New renderings are available on the City Planning Commission website:

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/photo/041306/041306.htm

X,

 

You hit the jackpot tonight.  Front St., Jay Hotel and Clinton Courts! 

And just so we don't lose perspective on this one... 18 stories in phase I and 22 in phase II!!!

I realize anyone can view the images at the landmarks commission site, but I thought it would be helpful to have them shown here in this thread. See below....

 

 

 

 

scroll right ----->

 

I think the renderings look pretty good. Does this mean the project is certain or still pending?

It's pending before the Landmarks Commission. When you see construction crews on-site, that's when it's a done deal.

Red phase 1, brown phase 2? I dont like the on street parking, its unessiary with both a parking garage there and waterfront line stop. I would rather see 1 story structure that goes from edge of street to current sidwalk position. Elevations look like it would line up so that you walk on the roof of the structures.

It's been mentioned a bunch of times on this and other threads, but I would be shocked if this project were anything more than posturing to get the purchase price upped.

^ I thought that too until I saw it submitted to the Landmarks Commission. But I don't think the developer would take it this far unless he's truly interested in building something. And the plan is very close to what the Warehouse District masterplan recommends. Why care if your plan meshes with the CDC's masterplan if you're just going through the motions? They're putting a lot of attention and care in this plan merely for a head fake.

It's been mentioned a bunch of times on this and other threads, but I would be shocked if this project were anything more than posturing to get the purchase price upped.

 

I hope that you are wrong.  I have a feeling that this is more than just an attempt at getting more cash.  This lot is intended to be used as surface parking by Wolstein.  I don't see it as essential to his project.  In the Warehouse district plan, the land is envisioned as Shaia has proposed. As far as we know, no one else has gone to this length to "pump up" his land value. 

Also, I would think that throwing out a concept like this would create too high an asking price for Wolstein to pay for a surface lot, if one wants to come across as being serious about it.  You can't put out a plan that would be worth $5 million (hypothetically speaking) in profit and then only ask for an extra few hundred thousand with a straight face.  But no one is going to pay an extra $5 million for a surface lot.