Artistic license I suppose.  Also, Terminal Tower looks shorter.

Wishful thinking probably. It'd be nice to see that corner get redeveloped, but a bunch of money was just put into rehabbing that garage.

 

Edited March 27, 20241 yr by Mendo

10 minutes ago, KJP said:

I do have a question however. What are these buildings??

 

Possibly proof of AI usage. Though I'm not sure why AI would hallucinate buildings in the background, but I've heard of it doing similar things.

Maybe they were poorly/incompletely airbrushed out of the foreground and hint of things to come. Jk./Not jk.

There's some innuendo in here that Bedrock wants Sherwin-Williams' parking out of the way of the east end of the Tower City/Riverview parking because of....

 

 

Relating to Tower City and our Terminal Tower...

 

The former Hard Rock Cafe space will reopen this month at Tower City when The Astro a sci-fi themed restaurant opens their doors.

Cleveland dot com article from the other day is linked here

 

And, speaking of the Terminal Tower & science fiction.  Many may have seen this, but not all. This poster was the cover image from the The 13th World Science Fiction Convention  in Cleveland back in September of 1955. > Pretty fun!

 

"The World Science Fiction Society administers and presents the Hugo Awards, the oldest and most noteworthy award for science fiction. Selection of the recipients is by vote of the Worldcon members. Categories include novels and short fiction, artwork, dramatic presentations, and various professional and fandom activities."

 

Artist Frank R. Paul created the image.

'Looks like a crowd scene on Public Square from this weekend.

Edited April 6, 20241 yr by ExPatClevGuy
minor grammar fixes

this was my phone screen for several years 

@ExPatClevGuy yeah but I had the scoop on it... 😉

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/06/12/astro-to-launch-from-a-hard-rock/

7 hours ago, ExPatClevGuy said:

Relating to Tower City and our Terminal Tower...

 

The former Hard Rock Cafe space will reopen this month at Tower City when The Astro a sci-fi themed restaurant opens their doors.

Cleveland dot com article from the other day is linked here

 

And, speaking of the Terminal Tower & science fiction.  Many may have seen this, but not all. This poster was the cover image from the The 13th World Science Fiction Convention  in Cleveland back in September of 1955. > Pretty fun!

 

"The World Science Fiction Society administers and presents the Hugo Awards, the oldest and most noteworthy award for science fiction. Selection of the recipients is by vote of the Worldcon members. Categories include novels and short fiction, artwork, dramatic presentations, and various professional and fandom activities."

 

Artist Frank R. Paul created the image.

'Looks like a crowd scene on Public Square from this weekend.

 

now that is a fun idea for the hard rock —

 

there was another scifi con 10yrs later :

 

Program book for the 24th World Science Fiction Convention, also known as Tricon, was held 1–5 September 1966 at the Sheraton-Cleveland.

 

 

^ this cover by the great kelly freas isnt quite as cool, dune maybe?, but this convention was much more famous. its where superfan bjo trimble got the gang together to bombard paramount with fanmail to save star trek for another season. oh whats that? you thought getting the rock hall was the first time that err, technique was used by clevelanders? 😉🎉

Cavs/Clinic GPPC officially on the design review agenda for next week, as promised from the announcement event:

The presentation for the committee can also be found here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2imocsar9s9u6fjnra3tw/APu4VsMl0-Lbxxr8SWk52UU/Downtown | Flats Design Review?dl=0&rlkey=vl5lvlb6kgd5jnspk15zfbmtb&subfolder_nav_tracking=1

 

Based on the agenda, CPC will probably be spending the majority of the time next Friday reviewing this, and for good reason - Bedrock is bringing a 100-page detailed schematic presentation, linked above. They weren't playing around when they announced this thing and proposed the timeline. Very much excited for this presentation!

 

So much detail in the presentation but here are some sequencing highlights:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 20241 yr by Geowizical

The shape reminds me of a freighter, and I think it's really cool.  

Maybe that was intentional due to the site's proximity to the river.

Am I crazy or has bedrock's project area expanded? The massing on W3rd looks new. It also looks like they've laid claim to a plot south of Columbus that has previously been shown as a future part of Canal Basin Park (though it's still shown as green space). 

That's part of the former Sherwin-Williams property.

I understand Bedrock owns it, but I'm pretty sure they owned it when they made their last iteration of graphics, but opted not to show it. It probably doesn't mean anything, but I assume it was an intentional decision both times, so it's at least a little interesting. 

 

I didn't realize they controlled the plot on the other side of West third. It looks like it transferred to Starling Stone LLC in July of last year. I'm guessing that's one of their shell companies? 

 

Edit: I also wonder if they meant to imply that that parcel is part of phase 1a, as the one graphic sort of suggests... Probably not, but could make for some fun speculation.

This will immediately be the most interesting building downtown.  The river is a cool spot for it but part of my wishes it was in a more prominent spot.  Or perhaps - if things take shape - it will be the anchor of a new prominent spot.  At this point however I'd feel better about clustering our assets but I know it's not that simple.

  

Needs more CVSR. 

4 hours ago, Geowizical said:

The presentation for the committee can also be found here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2imocsar9s9u6fjnra3tw/APu4VsMl0-Lbxxr8SWk52UU/Downtown | Flats Design Review?dl=0&rlkey=vl5lvlb6kgd5jnspk15zfbmtb&subfolder_nav_tracking=1

 

Based on the agenda, CPC will probably be spending the majority of the time next Friday reviewing this, and for good reason - Bedrock is bringing a 100-page detailed schematic presentation, linked above. They weren't playing around when they announced this thing and proposed the timeline. Very much excited for this presentation!

 

So much detail in the presentation but here are some sequencing highlights:

 

Not a fan of this site plan.  It's very "Tower in a park"- random buildings floating in a sea of landscaping, and not trying to create definable urban spaces.  It would go well somewhere out in Beachwood.  Not Downtown.

What's the problem with landscaping on a riverfront? COSI and the Vet Museum on the river in Cbus look just fine to me. I would argue this is more "agregious" than the cavs facility by that standard...

 

Didn't say there was anything wrong with landscaping on a riverfront.  I said that I don't like the "Tower in the Park" mentality behind that site plan- individual buildings plopped into a sea of landscape instead of working cohesively to define interesting urban spaces.

59 minutes ago, X said:

Didn't say there was anything wrong with landscaping on a riverfront.  I said that I don't like the "Tower in the Park" mentality behind that site plan- individual buildings plopped into a sea of landscape instead of working cohesively to define interesting urban spaces.

Agree. Consolidate the buildings and green space into two separate areas. 

I see they are leaving the kayak launch to “others”. If I was in City Council, I would not let them pass this on for others to develop, I would require them to build it and if they then want others to buy or run it, that would be their call.

5 minutes ago, ragarcia said:

I see they are leaving the kayak launch to “others”. If I was in City Council, I would not let them pass this on for others to develop, I would require them to build it and if they then want others to buy or run it, that would be their call.

I understand the thinking, but I'm not sure if I would want a public Kayak launch built or operated by Bedrock. Instead I'd rather see them transfer (gift) that plot to the public agency that will be responsible for managing it, and since I'd like it to be nice, I'd like that agency to be the Metroparks.

^ Just don't want it to fall by the wayside. I want as much traffic up river as possible and l was pleasently suprised to see a kayak launch as part of the plan. Worry about who is going to manage it later, just make sure there is a cutout when the project gets built upfront otherwise it may not get added later.

On 4/16/2024 at 6:10 PM, cadmen said:

^ Just don't want it to fall by the wayside. I want as much traffic up river as possible and l was pleasently suprised to see a kayak launch as part of the plan. Worry about who is going to manage it later, just make sure there is a cutout when the project gets built upfront otherwise it may not get added later.

 

Agree. If they don’t build it now, I highly doubt anybody is later going to take that expensive and complicated project on.

On 4/11/2024 at 8:33 PM, X said:

Didn't say there was anything wrong with landscaping on a riverfront.  I said that I don't like the "Tower in the Park" mentality behind that site plan- individual buildings plopped into a sea of landscape instead of working cohesively to define interesting urban spaces.

Since they are only presenting on "1A" at this time, I suspect that that is just "we want to have some buildings in this area" rather than definitive building sites.  Let's wait and see what they actually propose building.  It will probably be several years off.

Bedrock's presentation is starting now (10:25 AM) for anyone interested

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0tQ-fDruRg

Edited April 19, 20241 yr by Geowizical

^ Everytime I’ve clicked the link to check in for a few mins, they’re rebooting the presentation!

Yeah they were having lots of technical difficulties, but they've made it through the presentation.

Good presentation (despite technical difficulties) and comments from the commission.

 

Design review's conditions of approval were read out to the commission before the presentation and (in my opinion, rightfully) received some pushback. The biggest concern from design review was the west 3rd/eagle ave intersection, saying it would be "too congested and problematic" (paraphrasing...). The consensus amongst the commission seemed to be "what the heck, should we really be complaining about "congested" intersections in a place where we want "controlled chaos like NYC" (direct words)". I was glad the commission pushed back because having an activated and busy intersection in a historically unbusy part of the flats should not be a big concern for a project of this magnitude. Safety of course is important and was stressed (kayak traffic mixing with pedestrians), but still.

 

Important note: since it's been brought up as a concern here by forumers, the commission asked about the riverwalk and kayak launch. Presenters said both the shown portion of the riverwalk AND the kayak launch ARE a part of this project.

 

Overall though, high praise. They got into some minutiae about materials and retail but nothing major that final review wouldn't fix. At least that was my read of the room.

 

Motion for schematic approved unanimously with a few considerations for final.

 

Quote of the day from a comish member (paraphrasing): "Ontario is big enough for a North Korean military parade; it's too wide!" 😆

Edited April 19, 20241 yr by Geowizical

One of my primary concerns with this development early on was how they would handle bicycle infrastructure. The whole Riverfront site is so central to downtown (and cross river connections) that meaningful bicycle infrastructure is necessary. The inclusion of a cycle track throughout the site (and its emphasis in this first phase) is great to see. 

 

Dedicated bicycle infrastructure on the new Eagle Ave. bridge/ramp and West 3rd (and eventually the rerouted Canal and Huron) will all be extremely useful from a cyclists perspective. 

 

A west 3rd cycle track (continuing south to the Towpath at Literary in Tremont) could be pretty easily implemented. Connecting Tremont directly with downtown as the 4th cross river connection will really help connect the two. In the meeting, a representative indicated that there had been discussions with ODOT/city officials about the connections beyond the Bedrock site. 

 

As with a lot of urban bicycle infrastructure, there is a lot of room for error in final execution though. Cleveland doesn't really have a two way separated cycle track in the city yet, so the final product will be interesting to see. 

I could be wrong but it does seem to me that there is enough room for a walking/bicycle path along the river and connecting to the Towpath Trail. We want more life down there. Creating a ribbon that encourages that is a no-brainer.

2 minutes ago, cadmen said:

I could be wrong but it does seem to me that there is enough room for a walking/bicycle path along the river and connecting to the Towpath Trail. We want more life down there. Creating a ribbon that encourages that is a no-brainer.

Oh yeah, that was another point: the team said they were actively talking with the city about potentially extending the proposed bike lane shown in the plans on West 3rd street down across the river along west 3rd to the trails in Tremont.

On 4/11/2024 at 2:26 PM, Geowizical said:

The presentation for the committee can also be found here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2imocsar9s9u6fjnra3tw/APu4VsMl0-Lbxxr8SWk52UU/Downtown | Flats Design Review?dl=0&rlkey=vl5lvlb6kgd5jnspk15zfbmtb&subfolder_nav_tracking=1

 

Based on the agenda, CPC will probably be spending the majority of the time next Friday reviewing this, and for good reason - Bedrock is bringing a 100-page detailed schematic presentation, linked above. They weren't playing around when they announced this thing and proposed the timeline. Very much excited for this presentation!

 

So much detail in the presentation but here are some sequencing highlights:

 

 

 

 

 

 

October construction start.

Land Studio looking for artists for the Stones Levee Bridge
 

https://ugc.production.linktr.ee/0d6c3fc2-5753-47f6-9920-ea42f69b84c5_StonesLeveeBridge-RFQ-240509.pdf

10 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Land Studio looking for artists for the Stones Levee Bridge
 

https://ugc.production.linktr.ee/0d6c3fc2-5753-47f6-9920-ea42f69b84c5_StonesLeveeBridge-RFQ-240509.pdf

 

Shouldn't this be considered a conflict of interest since Nora Romanoff, whom had worked at LAND-Studio now works for Bedrock? Surely there are other public art organizations other than LAND-Studio

Edited May 10, 20241 yr by dave2017

From today.

Please tell me that building with the smokestack will be demolished.  

@newyorker   Will  you explain why this is your desire?

I'd rather not deny who we are by demolishing all remnants of our earlier selves. IMO, this type of building reeks of fun, even stylish authenticity. It has tons of charm for me, even though there's only one stack left where there used to be three.

 

The very cool Cleveland Thermal Energy (CTE) building has been here since 1924, so it is 100 years old this year.

The steam it generated to heat buildings underground downtown was recently converted from coal to gas, and it sits vacant.

If there are no hazards and it's still generally salvageable, I'd prefer to see it repurposed to a contemporary use. It's far too cool to me.

 

Sigh... A little spit and polish will so often deliver a derelict building to favorability, but this often gets missed when the public fails to see the potential of a place. I'm looking at you Sugar Warehouse, Powerhouse in the Flats, and rusty-cool (should be lit up again) lift-bridges.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 12, 20241 yr by ExPatClevGuy
text cleanup

It would be cool to see it remodeled, but with the environmental cleanup and other costs associated it’s more likely that it sits there empty for an unforeseeable amount of years while the riverfront is built up around it. Demolition might be a better option for using that space. 

3 hours ago, newyorker said:

Please tell me that building with the smokestack will be demolished.  

One of the stranger sentiments on UO. 

3 hours ago, newyorker said:

Please tell me that building with the smokestack will be demolished.  

 

25 minutes ago, jeremyck01 said:

One of the stranger sentiments on UO. 

 

Its not. I get where he's coming from. If you want a modern Downtown you don't want an industrial relic in the photos. I'd recommend keeping the old building if its not in the way of some taller tower, but either way, remove the vertical smokestack.

Edited June 12, 20241 yr by Gabriel

3 hours ago, newyorker said:

Please tell me that building with the smokestack will be demolished.  

 

^ Agreed. I actually like the building too but not the smokestack. Nothing against them, just think a smokestack that prominent a couple blocks from PS sends the wrong message. 

I know it is apples and oranges given the size and scope and money poured into the project, but as part of the massive and beautiful restoration of the Battersea Power plant in London (which includes tons of development around it including the US Embassy), not only were the smokestacks retained but I believe they were actually rebuilt.  Again it is hard to compare but I guess the point is retaining smoke stacks as part of a redevelopment is not an outlier.

There are plenty of smokestacks in Cleveland.  Losing one will not be a big deal, especially one so close to downtown.

 

Edited June 12, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

Cleveland Thermal was the target of an acquisition but not to a real estate developer. This Canal Road plant and Cleveland Thermal's Hamilton Avenue plant sold in February to Corix, a national energy provider to downtowns and college campuses. The Canal Road plant sold for just over $2 million while the Hamilton Avenue plant sold for $7.7 million. I missed this sale as did everyone else in local media. But I'd heard a sale was coming last August. I'm going to follow up with them and see what plans they have for the Canal Road plant....

 

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/08/11/cleveland-thermal-target-of-acquisition/

43 minutes ago, Gabriel said:

 

 

Its not. I get where he's coming from. If you want a modern Downtown you don't want an industrial relic in the photos. I'd recommend keeping the old building if its not in the way of some taller tower, but either way, remove the vertical smokestack.

I guess you guys have never been to NYC, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, etc. - most major cities have a mix of their industrial past with the modern skyline. Many cities have learned how to renovate the industrial remnants and they are now some of the hottest properties in those towns for shopping, living and dining. 

Some folks on here apparently would have demolished the stacks at the Powerhouse and Battery Park given the chance.  All out of fear about what "message" it sends about where our city stands.  It would have beeen small and sad to lose those smokestacks for that reason.  I think saving those stacks sends the message that we are a city with a grand history, the pride to celebrate it, and the creative vision to repurpose it for the future.

Yeah don’t know why we’d want to take down our history just to make space for generic things that make us look like every other city