Sorry KJP, but I am going to have to spill the beans..

 

Tony George is going to build a huge crystal cathedral on the site of Fagan's and go into evangelical ministry.    :evil: :-D

 

You mean he's going to become a less reputable corporate citizen?  :bang:

Just a note: Cimperman is on the Landmarks Commission

^

The renderings that KJP posted make the project look great so far in terms of massing.  I'm curious as to what types of materials they intend to use when facing the towers and townhomes.  My first instinct seems to go with brick and glass, but then I think of The Pinnacle which used glass and steel with a very nice end result that fits with the neighborhood surprisingly well.

 

This whole project seems to be getting a fair bit of press which makes me lean towards thinking this may be the real deal.  WCPN posted a short blurb which doesn't mention much we haven't heard (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wcpn/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=901220) but its more positive ink for downtown if nothing else.

 

This should be a very interesting one to watch in the near future.  Seems as if the different factions of the city stand divided over this, with the Landmarks Commission in one court, and politicians like Cimperman siding with Wolstein.

^

Touche.

 

Hopefully the position of the Landmarks commission might sway Cimperman.  I'll take a look back at some of the posted articles, but if I remember correctly his position seemed to be one of "I've backed Wolstein thus far, and have yet to find reason to back off".  However, from what I've observed he tends to back most things that we all see as positives for downtown (new housing etc.) so I'm sure that he either has valid reasoning for his position, or is just waiting to hear more about this proposal in upcoming days.  I'm hoping for the latter personally.

Consider that Wolstein is a BIG contributer to Cimperman's coffins and since Cimperman has political ambitions beyond council, he's probably afraid to take a stand.

I know this sounds cowardly, but it happens in politics too often.  Also, Cimperman is already known for pandering to his biggest donors (Forest City, etc).

very well said,  clvlndr !!!

 

also, well said KJP about the best of both world for BOTH the Wolstein and Shaia projects to happen !!

 

also, on another note, I feel that if Wolstein tries to take Shaia's land, that it’s and obvious abuse of what eminent domain was meant to be used for in the first place ... whether the Shaia’s wish to keep a parking lot there or proceed with the Lighthouse Landing project, this land should remain with the Shaia’s since as they are the rightful owner.  It’s plain wrong to me that our local government would consider taking an eminent domain action in this case.

 

im wondering with those drawings if this development is part of the whole grand scheme that stark is planning in the warehouse district

^ Well, let me put it this way:  Stark continues to meet, greet and beat the drums for more downtown development with anyone who will listen. As you may know from reading the Cleveland "Pesht" thread, Stark and Tony "TJ" Asher are trying to hash out the gory details on developing the Powerblock in the Warehouse District. The Asher Family doesn't just develop projects (he owns the massive Tyler Village site on Superior in the East 30s). He also owns a ton of parking lots downtown.

 

So here comes Victor Shaia, who owns even more surface parking lots downtown than Asher does -- including lots in the Playhouse Square and Gateway areas. I just learned tonight that, not only are Shaia and Asher partners at playing cards in regional bridge competitions, but they are also brothers in law. And, of course, Stark and Wolstein are buddies from boyhood.

 

 

Can you see the connections emerging here? Certain city officials do, and they are trying to get all these players to not just play bridge together, but to start building them together (in a manner of speaking!).

 

These four guys (and possibly others) could become the movers and shakers for downtown for a number of years to come, assuming good health persists for them and the economy. It will be interesting to watch.

Oh Please let both of these projects get built. I agree with most of the comments. Why not have more housing in the flats as opposed to parking. I am sure he can find parking north of this site cant he?

this sounds more like 4 people playing monopoly with downtown cleveland than bridge.. :-o

wow, connections connections

 

put them all in a room together and have them talk it out.  im sure things could get resolved

 

Why not have more housing in the flats as opposed to parking. I am sure he can find parking north of this site cant he?

 

Wolstein may yet find it within Shaia's project. I think I can spill the beans now, since a letter written by Shaia is sure to have reached its various audiences by now. If they don't open the letter and read about it here first, then that's their problem... Shaia has sent a counteroffer to the port authority with copies to city officials and to Wolstein's people. Instead of asking for more money for his property, Shaia offered to provide additional public parking for the Flats East Bank project while retaining development rights to his own property. As an aside, Tom Starinsky at the HWD said if a fifth level was added to the Lighthouse Landing parking deck, that would avail a total of 250 public parking spaces. And if more parking is desired, a sixth level would increase the total to about 380 spaces. But then you start to eliminate views out the back windows of the residential units on the lower floors, so you probably don't want to go much higher than 5 or 6 parking levels. City officials I've spoken with are very hopeful about Shaia's counteroffer and want Wolstein and Shaia to cooperate. When I heard on Friday about that counteroffer, it was what ultimately convinced me that Shaia is dead serious about his Lighthouse Landings project.

 

this sounds more like 4 people playing monopoly with downtown cleveland than bridge.. :-o

 

That's what people with deep pockets do. The world is their canvas. Always has been. Always will be.

who hoooooo!!!!!  :clap:

Yes, so they are going to work together and it looks as if we may get both of these projects, yeah.

Thanks KJP for the update and keep us informed of any news. i cant wait until these projects break ground.

I am more of an optimist then anything, and I am very happy to hear this.

I just hope it doesn't go the way of District Park.

 

Thanks for the news KJP

Thanks as always to KJP for the inside scoop.  I am feeling more optimistic now.  Curious though that these matters would be played out so publicly by people who know each other and apparently get along with each other....why weren't these issues resolved in some smokey back room?

great news ... hopefully the City will broker a deal to allow BOTH the Wolstein and Shaia deals to happen !!!

Thinking positively, let's suggest that something is worked out and both projects come to fruition as planned.  KJP (or anyone), do you know what kind of impact this (and Wolstein's) development would have on on the rapid station (East Bank I think it's called) as far as ridership?  Are there rules of thumb regarding what percentage of total residents living within this kind of proximity to a transit station would use the the station on a daily basis?  We have 200-300 units here plus 250 in Wolstein's proposal.  Add to that the number of potential riders that might desire the station as a destination for whatever retail/entertainment ends up in the Wolstein development.  Is it significant enough to increase the frequency service on the Waterfront Line which from what I know is now pretty meager?  There's a lot of talk about how the current RTA folk have a little disdain for it, seeing it as a service for special events at best... Will this/these development(s) change their minds about it and be a boost for RTA or might they even begrudge having to expand service for this little spur?

 

(I guess this strays towards Transportation.. in theory this could go in either Flats East Bank, or this thread, or it's own on the Transportation board even.. Feel free to move it wherever you feel it fits best.)

A number I've often seen is that 20 percent of residents in a development designed around a transit station typically use that transit daily. That figure also works as a good round number to use when estimating transit's modal share of trips bound for a given destination that's similarly designed around the transit station. I believe that's about the percentage of visitors to Cavs, Indians and Browns games too, for example.

 

Steve Strinisha, consultant to Wolstein, told me he expected about 500 new residents to the Flats East Bank's 340 housing units. And, with 228 units proposed for Lighthouse Landing, you're probably looking at upwards of 300 residents there. So, figure 800 residents x .20 and you may be looking at about 160 new riders to the Flats East Bank station. As for inbound trips on the Waterfront Line to FEB station, I couldn't even begin to hazard a guess.

 

Here's two reasons why the ridership may not be that high:

 

1. I suspect many of the residents of FEB/LL probably already work downtown. The rail transit system doesn't effectively serve as a downtown distributor since only one, possibly two of stations (Tower City and North Coast/East 9th) are near major employment centers. True, West 3rd is near some employment centers, but are you going to pay to ride somewhere that you can walk to in just a few minutes more time? There needs to be more development along the Waterfront Line, and the WFL needs to be routed around the east side of downtown to create a downtown loop to provide that downtown distribution capability.

 

2. Outside of downtown, there are few stations on the rail system that have significant land uses within an easy 5-minute walk of them. Most stations are surrounded by parking lots, are in old industrial areas, next to busy freight railroad tracks, or are in such bad neighborhoods that the once-significant land uses that had surrounded them are gone.

 

This is why I keep harping on RTA and others to relocate rail lines (such as the Red Line in the Opportunity Corridor Boulevard) and to make Transit Oriented Development a much greater priority -- not just with a little project here or there, but by hiring at least one full-time staffperson dedicated to overseeing its TOD mission and by marketing the full weight of RTA's sales-tax/bonding authority to developers as a draw to get them to build vertically around stations. Without these, who's going to want to build more rail transit in this town when the examples we have are performing so poorly? They they create such skepticism and fail to inspire leaders in communities not served by rail to stand up and say "I want that too!" Instead, they say "why should I want another white elephant?"

 

Fix the rail lines we have and we will see a groundswell for more rail lines throughout the metro area. I will bet my life on it.

 

Now back to the Lighthouse Landing discussion.....

"  ... Shaia has sent a counteroffer to the port authority with copies to city officials and to Wolstein's people. Instead of asking for more money for his property, Shaia offered to provide additional public parking for the Flats East Bank project while retaining development rights to his own property ... "

 

Sounds like Shaia wants to cooperate.  What happens if Wolstein does NOT want to cooperate?  Can he still do a eminent domain and keep the property as a surface parking lot?      :?

theres a crains article about RTA trying to boost revenue with real estate, but its a premium service one.  im wondering if this is talking about TOD stuff.

theres a crains article about RTA trying to boost revenue with real estate, but its a premium service one.  im wondering if this is talking about TOD stuff.

 

I just put it here.  http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=4859.60 

Sounds like Shaia wants to cooperate.  What happens if Wolstein does NOT want to cooperate?  Can he still do a eminent domain and keep the property as a surface parking lot?      :?

 

The Port Authority can try eminent domain, but is it really in the public's interest to take the property if there's another conceptual development plan in place for it -- especially one that has been approved by the development corporation overseeing that contested property? I question if a jury in the first part of an eminent domain proceeding (to determine need) and a judge in the second part (to determine fair price) will agree.

 

I've reported on eminent domain actions in Fairview Park for a multi-property redevelopment zone in which some properties were declared blighted while others were not. But the city was able to argue successfully that inclusion of the non-blighted properties was essential to make the redevelopment zone large enough and therefore attractive enough to potential end users. Yet, in that situation, none of the property owners had a development plan that was officially recognized by the city approvals process.

 

I guess the question ultimately may come down to how good your lawyer is. And I sure hope it doesn't come to that!

Excellent article!

 

By the way, I think it's funny that Nancy Lesic is complaining that a public subsidy may be needed.  How many millions of public dollars will Wolstein's project use?  I think Wolstein will get around $80 million of public funding ... and yet she bitches that Shaia may need some infrastructure dollars to provide extra parking.  haha

Yes, that is funny.  Funny, strange.  Good article, though.  Personally, I hope both get built.  It's rather interesting that Shaia's talking about building w/in the year - for 2 large-scale towers - while Wolstein's pegged his earliest start date for low rise residential work at 2009.  Perhaps it's because of the extensive street config and brownfield work, needed.  But I wonder.  Maybe Shaia's puffing.  It'll be interesting to see how all this shakes out.

Wolstein probably wants Shaia's land for a 2nd phase, in the long term, because he can get a higher per-unit price from a second phase once the market has been primed.  But if Shaia builds his units first, then isn't he essentially priming the market for Wolstein's project?  Shouldn't Wolstein be able to inch his prices up at least a little, without increasing his costs, because people will be buying into a neighborhood that is more highly developed to start?  Sure the projects aren't exactly equivalent, because Shaia's project doesn't have the retail and riverfront improvements of Wolstein's.

 

I would think there would be an advantage to not being first, because you are putting some of your risk onto someone else and then building off of what they have done.

Wolstein probably wants Shaia's land for a 2nd phase,

 

He could always have phase 2 across the tracks to the north, or make District Park phase 2, no?

Continued great work KJP! 

Thanks. Here's the official statement from the Shaia Family about their counteroffer:

_____________

 

Statement

April 18, 2005

 

Last week the developers of Lighthouse Landing made a counter offer to the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority’s offer to purchase our property.  The counter offer, attached, is that the developers of Lighthouse Landing would retain ownership and development rights and would provide parking to the Wolstein Group at mutually acceptable terms.

 

The proposed Lighthouse Landing development has a substantial degree of flexibility for the public parking it can offer to the Wolstein Group for the neighboring Flats East Bank development.  Lighthouse Landing is offering a variety of scenarios, including:

 

Adding one or two additional parking levels to our garage, providing up to 360 available public spaces.

 

Modifying the number and locations of the W. 10th St. townhouses to allow for expansion of the garage and additional access from W. 10th.

 

Providing a temporary staging area for the Wolstein Group’s construction management and equipment.

 

Coordinating the phasing of Lighthouse Landing with the construction needs of the Flats East Bank project as appropriate.

 

The principals of Lighthouse Landing have offered to enter into a written agreement suitable for the Wolstein Group’s parking goals for its neighboring Flats project.  The principals of Lighthouse Landing would like the terms of such an agreement incorporated into a development agreement that would include Lighthouse Landing, the Wolstein Group and appropriate public bodies.

 

###

not much more you can ask for!

I am very intrigued at what the Wolstein response will be.

I have no gut feeling on how this will play out.

This line worries me a little:

 

"Modifying the number and locations of the W. 10th St. townhouses to allow for expansion of the garage and additional access from W. 10th."

 

I hope that the W. 10th St. elevation doesn't get consumed by parking garage access.

 

I'm guessing that Shaia designed the plans with townhomes on West 10th St because he wants them there. 

So I bet that the reason Shaia offered to modify the townhomes because he's bending over backwards trying to figure out a way to keep Wolstein happy in order to keep moving forward with Lighthouse Landing. 

Why else would he say such a thing?

Shaia (actually Paul Volpe) proposed the townhouses to shield the parking deck from the public's view from West 10th and Front streets.

Here's a couple of pics I took of the site yesterday morning, as seen from the intersection of Front Street and West 9th.

 

 

 

BTW, Mr. Good Day, allow me to suggest renaming your original post as "Lighthouse Landing - Cleveland" or something like that so it will show up that way in the thread listing.

So, is this land to be taken as a part of Wolstein's project or not?  I was starting to get the impression that it would be.

Unknown. As of Friday, Shaia hadn't heard a response to his counteroffer from the Port Authority.

Geez, it's been a couple weeks now, hasn't it?

 

I really like that shot down Front Street.  Did you wait for the rapid to pass over or was that just luck?  (I would've waited, since I'm a big dork)

^no response. How do you interpret that? Does it mean that they are mulling it over or that they are just ignoring it?

 

Explain some things to me: would city council have to amend its past legislation in order to allow Shaia to build Lighthouse? Can the port unilaterally decide not to use ED against Shaia? 

 

Shaia's project makes a lot of sense while Kassouf's doesn't.  Kassouf's project would place hundreds of condos just a few feet away from a busy freight train line.  I would rather line each side of the tracks with mixed-use parking garages that muffle the sound.  In the end there will be a lot of demand for parking structures in the area if Pesht is built out, why not place this parking in a location that enhances the neighborhood by partially eliminating the noise pollution?

I'm sure that parking structures are a big part of that project and that a developer who was actually serious about building would definitely take into account the presence of busy freight lines.  But if they find that they can sell condos on top, then why stop at the garage level?  And why not encourage another developer to add on to the base plan that Wolstein has put forward?  Especially if they already own the land!

^I'll respond over on the Kassouf thread.

Geez, it's been a couple weeks now, hasn't it?

 

April 13th is when Shaia's letter went out (see article above).

 

I really like that shot down Front Street.  Did you wait for the rapid to pass over or was that just luck?  (I would've waited, since I'm a big dork)

 

Thanks. I was snapping pics, and heard the Waterfront train a-coming. So I repositioned myself to take that shot. It was the last shot on the roll. Too bad, because another Waterfront train was coming from the other direction. It crossed over the NS track just as an NS freight train went under it. So as much as the shot I did get was nice timing, I sacrificed an even better shot for it. If only I'd known the other two trains were coming. Such is life...

^ well, considering that, now I have a distinct distaste for the shot I said I liked.  Thanks for that!

BTW MGD, TY 4 the new SL (did that make any sense whatsoever?!?!)

until I got to SL...was it about the thread title? cause I changed that just for you!

SL = Subject Line. Thanks!

Shaia has received a written response from John Loftus of the port authority regarding his counter-offer:

 

"I appreciate your willingness to provide space to the Flats East Bank Neighborhood development. Unfortunately, the port authority is not authorized to discuss non-monetary offers regarding this development. Accordingly, I must reject the offer as presented."

 

So there you have it....

wow...stone cold. 

 

I asked Tony Coyne about amending the development agreement to accommodate new plans and additional developers and I didn't really get a straight answer.  He basically said that he thinks these proposals are ploys to get more money and that they're part of the "type A" personality that all developers share...they just want to get a buck.  He implied that he doesn't fault them for this, but didn't sound too optimistic about any compromises.  There was probably a lot more to be said on the subject...

The Port's response is bullshit.  The government should give 1st preference to the actual property owner.  (plus the Lighthouse Plans look great).

 

Also, per Tony Coyne ... how is Shaia trying to get more money when his counteroffer states that he merely wants to provide the parking while keeping his own property?  Wake up, Tony Coyne, and smell the corruption!!

So if non-monetary offers must be automatically rejected, can Shaia offer $1 plus parking for Wolstein as long as Shaia retains development rights?