Skybridges are the first thing to get chopped when it comes to "value engineering".

^Fingers crossed :)

 

Given UCI's control over the main site and the more speculative nature of the second garage, I'm not too worried about that part of the proposal at this point.

UCI cannot say they are concerned about future congestion if they continue to add more and more Free or guaranteed parking. 

 

I don't think, is unreasonalbe to expect the ration of parking per resident to drop for new developments in the area. 

One huge parking garage will take away the motive for surface parking lots once the draw of uptown hits full stride. 

 

As long as there are freeways, there will be a need for parking.

 

Except the nearest freeway to this site is three miles away. I think that can be an advantage to market a different lifestyle than the standardized one that's copied just everywhere else in Ohio. If we want to keep compete for young people, then offer a lifestyle that's attracting them to the coasts, Chicago and a few other cities. We have the opportunity to do something unique and special (for Ohio) at this location. Let's not water down the potential for something more creative, branded and unparalleled.

 

The 700-car parking garage is behind both towers and not visible from the street.  I can only see this as a positive thing.  It doesn't disrupt any of the street-lining retail and provides covered parking for residents.  So what's the big deal?  Is this what people have a problem with?

 

 

I don't have a problem with that garage. It creates a buffer against the 90 daily freight trains and 80 daily RTA trains that pass that site. But it reminds me of the line from The Blues Brothers.... Jake: "How often does the train go by?" Elwood: "So often you don't even notice."

 

It's the garage on the south side of Mayfield that bothers me, as well as the skywalk. I'm especially concerned about the garage being designed without a public interface along Mayfield (ie: retail space or two, lots of glass/doorways, doors that open on to the sidewalk -- ie no strip of grass). In other words, if this has to be built, don't build it like this....

 

 

 

This is horrible. Having the bunker exit/enter on Mayfield would be bad news for peds. And the vending machines don't make this anymore pedestrian friendly! I almost laughed at how bad this is.....

 

 

 

Instead, build it like this.....

 

 

 

Or like this.....

 

 

 

Or like this......

 

 

 

Or like this (now that's green -- minus the palm trees of course!).....

 

 

 

Put a little thought and creativity into it! University Circle demands this of you!!

Put a little thought and creativity into it! University Circle demands this of you!!

 

UCI should literally be demanding that from the developer team. Unlike some of the downtown projects we grumble out, UCI holds all the cards. As long as it doesn't break the budget, it can demand anything it [and we] thinks is beneficial for the wider UC area here.

Put a little thought and creativity into it! University Circle demands this of you!!

 

UCI should literally be demanding that from the developer team. Unlike some of the downtown projects we grumble out, UCI holds all the cards. As long as it doesn't break the budget, it can demand anything it [and we] thinks is beneficial for the wider UC area here.

 

It should be against zoning to kill off sidewalk vitality the way bad parking garages do.

 

And (to veer slightly off topic) how about some tax incentives to re-purpose older garages to house retail or provide some kind of public interface.

I'll be interning at UCI this summer. I'll try to influence positive changes on this the best I can. It's ridiculous that the proposal includes killing the pedestrian experience between Little Italy and Euclid

I'll be interning at UCI this summer. I'll try to influence positive changes on this the best I can. It's ridiculous that the proposal includes killing the pedestrian experience between Little Italy and Euclid

 

Well right now there really isn't any "pedestrian experience" between Little Italy and Euclid (that is why this project is so important as it will create the connection).  While still very much conceptual, the ideas for the east side of Mayfield do a pretty good job of making the connection, with garage in the back and street level retail.  I think most of us agree that simply a garage on the west side of the street, without more is bone headed, and does not add much to what is already there (a surface lot).  I think most of us have had problems with this second garage since it was first proposed as part of the winning proposal by Coral, and may have been surprised by it as I don't believe it was actually part of the UCI RFP.

Cleveland isn't Chicago, but parts of Cleveland have as much transit and amenities as Chicago does. And this area is one of them. This site has more than just a transit stop out front. It's in the crotch of two high-density transit routes, plus lesser density transit, plus pedestrian accessibility to all basic services, plus access to bike-friendly routes in several directions. Yet I fear we in Cleveland build like we've always built because we're too timid to compete with the likes of Chicago. Building and maintaining all those parking spaces will cause higher cost burdens on developers, lenders and ultimately, tenants. Are we sure that there is a significant portion of the market that would love to reduce their cost of housing by not having to pay for parking? Or to provide shared parking -- using a parking space at night for residential that may be used by an office user during the day?

 

This site would be a great opportunity to support the use of location-efficient mortgages, but it requires a public sector sponsor like RTA, the city, UCI or a combination. Maybe Coral isn't willing to be the guinea pig, not with this project. But if a LEM-supported project could be done anywhere, this location is clearly one of the best between Chicago and the East Coast.

 

Agree totally with the Chicago comment; Little Italy, already, is one of Cleveland's densest populated neighborhoods, and UC Uptown is rapid densify-ing (new word) with all the multi-unit projects going in, along with the 23-year-old Triangle apts.  The addition of the relocated Red Line stop + Intesa, if it (hopefully) is built, would make this immediate area comparable to several Chicago high-density transit areas, like Belmont or Clyborn on the North Side, ... not to mention several non-Manhattan NYC areas, esp in Brooklyn...

 

As for the parking garage on the west side of Mayfield: I'm not wild about it, but can live with it so long as the rest of the stuff on the east side gets built.  As much of a transit guy as I am, I realize that all those cars coming to the area have to go somewhere -- and I'm sure we all would prefer a garage as opposed to all the surface lots we have all around town... Hopefully they will press for a 515 Euclid-style building with street level spaces for retail, even if empty at first -- and we're seeing, of course, 515 finally getting some tenants like that "green" company (not sure of the name) and the recently announced Potbelly's sandwich shop.

 

Btw, I like the LEM idea.  Is this comparable the the tax increment financing idea that's been floated elsewhere?  Do you have precedent where a transit agency used this to foster TOD?  Sounds like a great idea but RTA would 1st have to own the land, right?

Agree with clvlndr, you can't not have parking.  That isn't a solution.  But there are good and bad ways to have parking and I do hope that UCI makes sure there's no pedestrian dead zone here.  Shouldn't be too difficult.

Agree with clvlndr, you can't not have parking.  That isn't a solution.  But there are good and bad ways to have parking and I do hope that UCI makes sure there's no pedestrian dead zone here.  Shouldn't be too difficult.

 

Exactly. Again I have to ask, why do we allow streetlife killing version of parking garages? Look at how dead the side streets are off of E. 9th. It's terrible. It's 2012 and we all know how damaging these are. Yet we are still in complete reliance upon developers to do the correct thing?

Btw, I like the LEM idea.  Is this comparable the the tax increment financing idea that's been floated elsewhere?  Do you have precedent where a transit agency used this to foster TOD?  Sounds like a great idea but RTA would 1st have to own the land, right?

 

KJP, are you familiar with any commercial LEM models?  The traditional LEM product is purely residential and I don't think translates to this kind of development, but I'm curious if you've come across something else.

 

 

Yet we are still in complete reliance upon developers to do the correct thing?

 

Only if we choose to be.

the thing about parking especially a garage is that even if there is little demand  for it naturally, it increases the overall supply of parking, lower parking prices for everyone, inducing more people to drive.

 

Transit cannot compete with free or near free parking.

 

 

Transit cannot compete with free or near free parking.

 

It may coexist with it, I believe. Especially in University Circle. like if free parking were strategically sectored off in a few large, strategically located garages.  Public transit can then shuffle commuters off to museums, college, etc.

Count me among the group that thinks the overhead walkway is absurd.  If people are too fragile to suffer our difficult weather elements in order to cross narrow Mayfield Rd. (where, no doubt, a new traffic/crossing light will be installed at the rerouted Circle Drive corner), then too damn bad... Such a walkway also will take that many people from ground level where they may frequent the ground level retail.

 

I don't subscribe to the theory that forcing people past retail helps retail.  Maybe it does, but not enough to justify the coercive annoyance.  If people want to shop, they'll shop if viable options are made available.  But if they don't want to shop, if they just want to cross the street, why not provide the best possible way for them to do that?  I bet they'll appreciate the respect and consideration.  Copious walkways don't seem to have harmed the downtowns of Minneapolis or Cincinnati, so I don't think they'll cause much damage here. 

I don't subscribe to the theory that forcing people past retail helps retail.  Maybe it does, but not enough to justify the coercive annoyance.  If people want to shop, they'll shop if viable options are made available.  But if they don't want to shop, if they just want to cross the street, why not provide the best possible way for them to do that?  I bet they'll appreciate the respect and consideration.  Copious walkways don't seem to have harmed the downtowns of Minneapolis or Cincinnati, so I don't think they'll cause much damage here. 

 

But I don't think you can compare whole downtown areas to a neighborhood  where the Intesa Tower and the parking lot across the street are the only real large structures in the immediate area.  In Minnie and Cincy, people circulate in the walkways to avoid cold & traffic to get from place to place, often to the retail and restaurants (esp in Minneapolis, which has a more vibrant downtown than Cincy).  ... the Intesa project only has a large apt/office building to a parking garage across the street... a little bit different.

It certainly is nowhere near as objectionable as the plan to drill a hole through the Higbee facade and obstruct the view down Ontario.  Here, the walkway would abut a much larger crossing which already obstructs the view on Mayfield and the buildings it would connect have no historical value.  I am not in favor of expansive walkway 'systems', but simply including a walkway between a development and the garage built for that development is not worth getting all huffy and puffy about.  What's next?  Will we start complaining that there is an indoor connection between the One Cleveland Center and its garage?..... between 55 Public Square and its garage?...... how about the tunnel that connects the Huntington garage with the Justice Center?

Can't I just object to the walkway because it's butt ugly, and creates more shadow and drippy roof line over sidewalk?  I don't begrudge people at all if they have a weather controlled walkway from parking spot of apartment, I just don't want it uglifying my city.  I think they're ugly in Cinci, the Twin Cities and Toronto too.  I understand the need to pick one's battles and not go crazy about everything, but this sky bridge is so tangential to the project as a whole, that I'd bet UCI is going to kill it anyway. It' isn't about connecting Intessa to its primary parking; it very much is in the nature of a skywalk system that makes secondary connections.

So this project warrants 1,300 new parking spaces? 200 public square only offers 757 spaces and is a much larger space.

 

So for that reason, I do not believe a skywalk is needed. The garage might be useful for Little Italy, Uptown, and MOCA though. It will be a disgrace, if this garage is built like your average parking garage bunker. Make it have great interaction with the street, with retail spaces along Mayfield. The best scenario would be to knock it down to a 400 car garage and fill the mayfield frontage with 1 floor of retail and 6 floors of apartments. Also make the entrance and exit to the garage on Circle Drive. Im scared that they will make the entrance on Mayfield based on the renderings.

^Yeah, clearly not all the spaces are intended to serve just Intessa. Unclear if the plan was to provide some to UH for its needs specifcally (the article mentions approaching UH) or just to have general commercial parking.

 

Anyway, here is the second garage site:

http://g.co/maps/qwsgp

 

To build a little more on ClevelandOhio and everyone else's thought, a truly awesome and perhaps feasible project would be simply to extend the existing UH garage northward without providing any new entryways on Mayfield, and to reserve the northernmost bay (or at least the bottom two floors) for office or retail or anything that has windows and light....but also to have that part extend further east (to the left in that view) to fill the useless patch of grass behind between the power station and Mayfield.  It would take some excavation, and who knows what kind of utilities are buries behind that retaining wall, but filling the entire block between the rail overpass and Circle Drive with some decent street edge would do wonders for the pedestrian experience.  FFS, UH still has facilities in a glorified mobile home at Cornell and East 115th, they could probably fill some new small spaces.  Note that this isn't fantasizing about a 50 story residential highrise or a world with no parking; just a modest add-on to the garage scheme in an area that probably has some pent up demand for office or lab space.

I think it would be cool if they could make the top of the garage green space, and elongate it over the tracks to be a "High Line"esque gateway between UC and Little Italy

Btw, I like the LEM idea.  Is this comparable the the tax increment financing idea that's been floated elsewhere?  Do you have precedent where a transit agency used this to foster TOD?  Sounds like a great idea but RTA would 1st have to own the land, right?

 

No, I don't believe so. There's more here:

http://www.riderta.com/pdf/transit2025/Transit_2025_Appendix_F.pdf

 

Btw, I like the LEM idea.  Is this comparable the the tax increment financing idea that's been floated elsewhere?  Do you have precedent where a transit agency used this to foster TOD?  Sounds like a great idea but RTA would 1st have to own the land, right?

 

KJP, are you familiar with any commercial LEM models?  The traditional LEM product is purely residential and I don't think translates to this kind of development, but I'm curious if you've come across something else.

 

 

 

Not specifically. I'm sure I could find some examples via Google if I had a little extra time right now. But it seems to me that, like any financing tool, it could be used to fund the relevant use in a mixed-use project.

 

One huge parking garage will take away the motive for surface parking lots once the draw of uptown hits full stride. 

 

As long as there are freeways, there will be a need for parking.

 

Except the nearest freeway to this site is three miles away. I think that can be an advantage to market a different lifestyle than the standardized one that's copied just everywhere else in Ohio. If we want to keep compete for young people, then offer a lifestyle that's attracting them to the coasts, Chicago and a few other cities. We have the opportunity to do something unique and special (for Ohio) at this location. Let's not water down the potential for something more creative, branded and unparalleled.

 

The 700-car parking garage is behind both towers and not visible from the street.  I can only see this as a positive thing.  It doesn't disrupt any of the street-lining retail and provides covered parking for residents.  So what's the big deal?  Is this what people have a problem with?

 

 

I don't have a problem with that garage. It creates a buffer against the 90 daily freight trains and 80 daily RTA trains that pass that site. But it reminds me of the line from The Blues Brothers.... Jake: "How often does the train go by?" Elwood: "So often you don't even notice."

 

It's the garage on the south side of Mayfield that bothers me, as well as the skywalk. I'm especially concerned about the garage being designed without a public interface along Mayfield (ie: retail space or two, lots of glass/doorways, doors that open on to the sidewalk -- ie no strip of grass). In other words, if this has to be built, don't build it like this....

 

 

 

This is horrible. Having the bunker exit/enter on Mayfield would be bad news for peds. And the vending machines don't make this anymore pedestrian friendly! I almost laughed at how bad this is.....

 

 

 

Instead, build it like this.....

 

 

Put a little thought and creativity into it! University Circle demands this of you!!

You're not going to win any parking garage debates on this board, ha.

 

You're not going to win any parking garage debates on this board, ha.

 

I'm not sure I understand your comment. Are you saying that people here do or don't like parking garages? If you say they do like parking garages, then I don't think you understand this board. If you're saying that I like parking garages, then I don't think you understand me.

KJP loves his cars, his highways, and his parking garages/lots. He hates when those damn trains get in his way.

 

You're not going to win any parking garage debates on this board, ha.

 

I'm not sure I understand your comment. Are you saying that people here do or don't like parking garages? If you say they do like parking garages, then I don't think you understand this board. If you're saying that I like parking garages, then I don't think you understand me.

 

Well..... I'm just one forumer, but I certainly don't hold anywhere near (not by a mile) the level of disdain for parking garages which others do.  Sure, I want them designed to interact with the street, just like I would any structure, whether it be office, residential, parking, or other.  But I have no big issue with garages in general.  Surface lots, on the other hand...... they have no place, under any circumstances or design, in an urban setting.

KJP loves his cars, his highways, and his parking garages/lots. He hates when those damn trains get in his way.

 

Actually, I'm not as much of a hater of parking garages as one might expect from me. I just think this location is unique, and the emphasis on parking here ignores the location's special attributes.

 

But I'm also not one to lay down in front of bulldozers to stop the construction of parking garages. I think there is a way to design them to contribute as much as possible to an urbanscape, although I still don't think they can contribute as much as the intersection of two high-density transit routes, as is the case here.

Bridge to the RTA station!

I'd like to see a bridge from the parking garage extended directly over the sidewalk to Little Italy so one could walk to the doorstep of each establishment without having to deal with Cleveland's harsh elements

 

Not good enough. I want my food delivered to the bridge.

I'd like to see a bridge from the parking garage extended directly over the sidewalk to Little Italy so one could walk to the doorstep of each establishment without having to deal with Cleveland's harsh elements

 

 

Really?

Oy!

 

Can the bridge hang a right at Circle Drive and head up Cornell, then Edgehill to my doorstep.  I really don't want to burdened by ever having to walk outside and be exposed to the elements.  Ever.

Can the bridge hang a right at Circle Drive and head up Cornell, then Edgehill to my doorstep.  I really don't want to burdened by ever having to walk outside and be exposed to the elements.  Ever.

 

And from there it can split and take you to either Coventry or Cedar Fairmount, without ever having to walk outside!

 

Possibly even install a moving walkway so you dont actually have to do the walking. :-P

Can the bridge hang a right at Circle Drive and head up Cornell, then Edgehill to my doorstep.  I really don't want to burdened by ever having to walk outside and be exposed to the elements.  Ever.

 

And from there it can split and take you to either Coventry or Cedar Fairmount, without ever having to walk outside!

 

Possibly even install a moving walkway so you dont actually have to do the walking. :-P

 

Yeah...Lets make this Detroit or Miami with ugly ass people movers!

OK, enough.  Back on topic.

This is of the OLD and shorter, less dense Intesa development when it was just called Lot 45. Here are just two of many images from http://www.dimitarchitects.com/:

 

 

This is of the OLD and shorter, less dense Intesa development when it was just called Lot 45. Here are just two of many images from http://www.dimitarchitects.com/:

 

 

So this isn't getting built?

Not in that style

You forgot the pool ;)

 

Nothing is getting built until we find out what the developer can actually get financing for.  The whole project could easily go back to square 1 if Coral/Panzica/Bialowski fails to get their financing by the 1 yr deadline.

I spoke to a banker that's working w/ Coral, and he told me that only about $35MM is going to be bank debt, with the rest coming from other financing sources.

^that's not good news.  Estimate for this development was $100 million.  The "other financing sources" will all be higher interest than bank debt and will undoubtedly reduce the scope of this project dramatically

^does that mean other investors with an equity interest?

I don't think this is necessarily bad news.  Conventional bank financing was always going to be a relatively piece of the puzzle for something like this.  There's probably going to be a fair amount of direct subsidy (local grants, New Market Tax credits), low interest loans from city/county/state government, and some creative equity investment, in addition to the equity investment from the developers themselves. Maybe even some kind of TIF.  Plus the project might be phased-I can't recall if the $100M included the second garage and the student housing.

Im hoping that second garage isnt included so that they can axe it and build something else, like apartments! Right next to University Circle/Uptown, Little Italy, and a new rapid station that takes you downtown! Who needs a car!

^^ what strap said. I don't know exactly what the mix will be, but I don't think it's going to drive the financing cost up to a level that jeopardizes the project.

I'm hopeful the enormity and importance of this project, coupled with the obvious momentum next door at Uptown, will get the developers, UCI and public officials to come up with creative financing, like TIF, for this project. I get the sense that all parties involved really want this project to happen... a very good first step that often doesn't exist in other important development in this town.