In fact, if there never was an Intesa and this seven-story development was the only one proposed, would there be as much discontent regarding its scale?

 

Exactly. If we never new about the original proposal, everyone would be excited that something of this scale, and this urban in design, were proposed for this "hole" in UC.  Sure there still may be aesthetics discussions, but the general mood would be much more excited for this. 

Could Google not become an option because of their data center development around Columbus?

 

Google also has a significant presence in Pittsburgh -- more than 400 employees in a converted, 100-year-old former Nabisco plant in the East Liberty neighborhood. East Liberty was a mess -- not exactly East Cleveland bad, but more like South Collinwood or maybe Midtown.

 

I wonder why U.Circle wasn't able to land a big-name tenant (Google) for this location?  What more needs to happen before the area will be able to do so?  Is it a mix of both higher densities of people with advanced degrees along with growing office space, or some other factor?  I'm not too disappointed by what Intensa became since not too long ago there wasn't much development going on in U.Circle. I think it took Peter B. Lewis not giving money out in order for the institutions to work together and truly create a neighborhood instead of working apart from each other.  10 years later, U.Circle has come a long way.

 

No question about it.  Peter B. certainly got folks' attention, but I give a lot of credit to Chris Ronayne for bringing the disparate, often squabbling, parties (ie Hessler Road; CWRU) together, as the UCI director to get things done.

I find the criticism odd. Why all the fanfare for Uptown, but this gets panned?

I actually like the idea of smaller retail office space on the bottom floor. For an area like UC, this could add a new space for healthcare and Case-student start-ups right in the thick of things. Seems an idea more reminiscent of stuff I've seen in San Fran and could lead to the next Google :)

 

Edited

I like it.

 

I find the criticism odd. Why all the fanfare for Uptown, but this gets panned?

I had this thought earlier, I'm confused as well.

I find the criticism odd. Why all the fanfare for Uptown, but this gets panned?

 

Because this is cheap looking and looks like they grabbed some student housing development in anywhere, USA and plopped it down in a prime spot?

Pretty bad but great article by Michelle.  She is amazing.

Door #1 :

 

 

 

Door #2

 

 

 

I'll take what's behind door #2 please!

 

 

Yeah, it's not at all mysterious to me why some people are a little disappointed. We've had years to let the last proposal soak in, and between the architecture and building massing, it was much stronger, IMHO. I'll still be pretty excited to see something get built here, though.

Yup, Firenze98, it's not as big. But that's a false choice.

 

The real choice is between this:

 

 

 

Or this (photographed in summer 2014, more than two years after we learned a development was being planned here):

 

WP_20140612_037 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

 

BTW, the density continues to increase in this neighborhood. Here's another view from that same parking deck, looking west:

 

WP_20140612_036 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

Well obviously the alternative of something getting built rather than the lot sitting empty is much better.

I don't think door #1 is anything great, but door #2 is nothing to cry over not happening imo.  Are we that in love with the pure white of it?  We decry that on the Clinic Campus.  #2 looked like a Clinic building to me.  Door #1 at least looks residential with a little color.

There are plenty of empty and underused lots to go around. Just because it's "gross" to one person doesn't mean that it's not appreciated by others. I'm not partial to either design as I've seen what renderings can look like when they are completed (e.g. The Banks, Cincinnati, which has been a huge architectural disappointment and mess), but I'm not wanting some nitpicking designers to hold up a project. That doesn't seem to be the case here - it just seems to be about economics and making the numbers work, correct?

I'm fine with the new building. The business model changed and the numbers apparently work better for this version. The only thing I miss are the townhomes/condos on the top floor, but that still must be a tough sell for financing.  A tough sell to the banks not to the customer as I think they would sell out in that neighborhood.

Looking at the two different designs, it's pretty obvious they brought the out-of-town designer on to make, what I assume is, a lesser budget work.

^If you look at just the apartment components of Intesa and the newer Centric, the designs, and footprints, aren't that much difference.  Intesa's rendering is in light-colored material as opposed to Centric and, of course, the building next to Intesa (the parking garage?  office tower?) is no longer in the Centric rendering. I'm just thrilled that Centric is all but green-lighted and that this small patch of surface parking ugliness will be filled with a 270-unit apt/commercial structure in the midst of a thriving neighborhood (and I'll gladly settle for the 70+ more apt units Centric has over Intesa).  Also IIRC, Intesa had set aside a substantial number (80?) of very small units for students.  Wasn't that true and, if so, has it been carried over to Centric?

Looking at the two different designs, it's pretty obvious they brought the out-of-town designer on to make, what I assume is, a lesser budget work.

 

Right. I've got no crystal ball and wrong all the time, but I'm predicting this style of architecture (which I now refer to as "Campus Gateway-ish" because of UO) will come to represent an era of cheapness or blandness in the future.

Hence many of our concerns. I don't like, but understand the need for a scale change. And yes, sure, it's better than the parking lot there now. But that doesn't mean it's a good development that will add a lot to University Circle longterm. It looks exceptionally cheap and cheap doesn't last long. It's the same concern I have with the stuff Cleveland State threw up. They add to density, activate as street, and replace parking lots so they're a positive in that regard, but I'm not so sure we'll be looking back fondly in 20 years when they've started falling apart and either need extensive work or replacement because they were built so incredibly poorly/cheaply. It's a very legitimate concern many of us have for this type of building and not one that should be brushed away with a, "well it's better than nothing" mentality.

I'm just thrilled that Centric is all but green-lighted...

 

Nothing in Michelle's piece makes an imminent groundbreaking sound definite, so I wouldn't count this chicken just yet. In fact, the developer was explicit that there's still "stuff to do" before they can build.  I assume it's much harder stuff than city approvals.

 

Also IIRC, Intesa had set aside a substantial number (80?) of very small units for students.  Wasn't that true and, if so, has it been carried over to Centric?

 

Also per Michelle's article, the new scheme ditches both the micro unit concept and the high end roof townhouse concept.

I agree that the original rendering was better, and that we shouldn't accept bad designs, but I don't think this new rendering all that bad.  It suffers (a lot) when compared to the earlier design, but it's a step above most of the recent CSU stuff, half of which doesn't even belong in an urban environment.

 

The most troubling aspect, to me, is all the tacked-on sheet material and what appears to be faux corrugated aluminum.  I just cannot understand how that became Cleveland's go-to exterior style.   

I guess I'm the only one that likes the new version more than the previous.  The original design looks like an office building to me, not comfortable to live in.  As someone earlier said it looks sterile like a Cleveland Clinic building.  The latest design looks more residential...definitely to me looks like a more inviting place to live.  With less emphasis on office and more housing units, this design switch makes sense to me.

I'm just thrilled that Centric is all but green-lighted...

 

Nothing in Michelle's piece makes an imminent groundbreaking sound definite, so I wouldn't count this chicken just yet. In fact, the developer was explicit that there's still "stuff to do" before they can build.  I assume it's much harder stuff than city approvals.

 

Also IIRC, Intesa had set aside a substantial number (80?) of very small units for students.  Wasn't that true and, if so, has it been carried over to Centric?

 

Also per Michelle's article, the new scheme ditches both the micro unit concept and the high end roof townhouse concept.

 

I said "all but green-lighted" which didn't imply "imminent."  The article stated there "was still stuff to do," such as receiving infrastructure financing, but that a spring groundbreaking could happen.  I'd skimmed the article and missed the micro-unit concept; sorry... It's actually better that these are gone since, without students, it will be easier to attract a more professional, stable clientele. 

I said "all but green-lighted" which didn't imply "imminent."  The article stated there "was still stuff to do," such as receiving infrastructure financing, but that a spring groundbreaking could happen.  I'd skimmed the article and missed the micro-unit concept; sorry... It's actually better that these are gone since, without students, it will be easier to attract a more professional, stable clientele. 

 

These are going to be marketed to students.

Even being marketed toward students, micro-apartments don't make sense in Cleveland. The foreign students are used to it, but that doesn't mean they prefer it. When a student can get a 2,200 sq. ft. apartment for $400 a month up the road on Euclid Heights Blvd., there's no reason and no market for a 400 sq. ft. apartment for $2,200 (hyperbole, but you get the gist).

Micro apartments make sense if the market can support them.

Hence many of our concerns. I don't like, but understand the need for a scale change. And yes, sure, it's better than the parking lot there now. But that doesn't mean it's a good development that will add a lot to University Circle longterm. It looks exceptionally cheap and cheap doesn't last long. It's the same concern I have with the stuff Cleveland State threw up. They add to density, activate as street, and replace parking lots so they're a positive in that regard, but I'm not so sure we'll be looking back fondly in 20 years when they've started falling apart and either need extensive work or replacement because they were built so incredibly poorly/cheaply. It's a very legitimate concern many of us have for this type of building and not one that should be brushed away with a, "well it's better than nothing" mentality.

 

I don't see it as a concern so to speak, but it does seem like there is still a mentality of "better than nothing".

Except when it effects the "skyline".

 

Micro apartments make sense if the market can support them.

 

So do mansions.... :-)

Like Smart cars vs. Ferrari's, I'm pretty sure there's a larger market for micro-apartments than there is for mansions.

Building project gets new name, new direction

http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/cleveland/building-project-gets-new-name-new-direction/32616902

Like Smart cars vs. Ferrari's, I'm pretty sure there's a larger market for micro-apartments than there is for mansions.

I'm sure there are, but you just went from one extreme to the other with that comparison.  Plain and simple, Cleveland is a very cheap market, and the average person can afford to live on a fairly spacious 1 to 2 bedroom apartment.  I love Cleveland, but it's not like people are knocking down the door to live here and will occupy the first closet that comes available.

 

Like Smart cars vs. Ferrari's, I'm pretty sure there's a larger market for micro-apartments than there is for mansions.

I'm sure there are, but you just went from one extreme to the other with that comparison.  Plain and simple, Cleveland is a very cheap market, and the average person can afford to live on a fairly spacious 1 to 2 bedroom apartment.  I love Cleveland, but it's not like people are knocking down the door to live here and will occupy the first closet that comes available.

I will start by saying, I do agree with your statement. I'm here playing a little devils advocate though. You're right in saying people aren't knocking down doors to live in closest closet in Cleveland, but for university circle in general I don't believe that statement holds up. University Circle's population is around that of Downtown Cleveland with much less land to work with. The real estate in the area is prime real estate with little room which is why the buildings are getting taller. Little room for real estate + high demand area = interest for whatever space people can get. Maybe micro-apartments do make sense for University Circle specifically.

I'm sure there are, but you just went from one extreme to the other with that comparison.  Plain and simple, Cleveland is a very cheap market, and the average person can afford to live on a fairly spacious 1 to 2 bedroom apartment.  I love Cleveland, but it's not like people are knocking down the door to live here and will occupy the first closet that comes available.

 

Except I'm frequently amazed at how financially poor the potential customers are, and I think we often price them out of the market -- even at Cleveland's already low rates. I'm Facebook friends with some young people in small-town Ohio who would love to get out and move to urban, walkable, transit-friendly parts of Cleveland but can't afford to. They can't afford apartments above $500 per month. Some can't afford upwards of $300, like the person from Akron who just posted a relocation question in the discussion section. Their only option to enter the Cleveland housing market is to rent a room in a house, but they're not crazy about sharing space with others. Micro apartments would tap this market which I think is being under-appreciated.

I agree with everyone who has expressed concern about the wave of cheap-looking development that seems to characterize this era--a lot of busyness with multiple materials that don't seem to hold up that well. This criticism applies to all the new stuff that has gone up around Cleveland State.

^ i agree, but at the same time its not all that bad and also its impressive to see consistent modern construction trends as it shows off the dynamism of the area. don't forget there were so many years in the past where something would get torn down here and there, but nothing new got built. better construction projects will come along when there are more people around to demand it.

I agree with everyone who has expressed concern about the wave of cheap-looking development that seems to characterize this era--a lot of busyness with multiple materials that don't seem to hold up that well. This criticism applies to all the new stuff that has gone up around Cleveland State.

 

Student housing in downtown Akron as well. It really stands out. 

Student housing in downtown Akron as well. It really stands out. 

Yes, the student housing along Main Street in Akron is another example.

 

One reason I like Uptown is that it has avoided the busy look and false ornateness of this other stuff--no white vinyl windows or simulated muntins. At Uptown, the facade is broken up subtly without any strained attempt at making what is obviously one building look like a row of buildings.

I'm sure there are, but you just went from one extreme to the other with that comparison.  Plain and simple, Cleveland is a very cheap market, and the average person can afford to live on a fairly spacious 1 to 2 bedroom apartment.  I love Cleveland, but it's not like people are knocking down the door to live here and will occupy the first closet that comes available.

 

Except I'm frequently amazed at how financially poor the potential customers are, and I think we often price them out of the market -- even at Cleveland's already low rates. I'm Facebook friends with some young people in small-town Ohio who would love to get out and move to urban, walkable, transit-friendly parts of Cleveland but can't afford to. They can't afford apartments above $500 per month. Some can't afford upwards of $300, like the person from Akron who just posted a relocation question in the discussion section. Their only option to enter the Cleveland housing market is to rent a room in a house, but they're not crazy about sharing space with others. Micro apartments would tap this market which I think is being under-appreciated.

 

We can really get this topic off of subject, but if you can't afford $300 in rent then you need to get another job, as in have 2 jobs. I had two jobs during summers while in school a full time until I was 34. Some young people don't seem to understand how to get ahead.

A successful business designs their products to fit customers' lifestyles. They don't design customer lifestyles to fit their business.

I'm sure there are, but you just went from one extreme to the other with that comparison.  Plain and simple, Cleveland is a very cheap market, and the average person can afford to live on a fairly spacious 1 to 2 bedroom apartment.  I love Cleveland, but it's not like people are knocking down the door to live here and will occupy the first closet that comes available.

 

Except I'm frequently amazed at how financially poor the potential customers are, and I think we often price them out of the market -- even at Cleveland's already low rates. I'm Facebook friends with some young people in small-town Ohio who would love to get out and move to urban, walkable, transit-friendly parts of Cleveland but can't afford to. They can't afford apartments above $500 per month. Some can't afford upwards of $300, like the person from Akron who just posted a relocation question in the discussion section. Their only option to enter the Cleveland housing market is to rent a room in a house, but they're not crazy about sharing space with others. Micro apartments would tap this market which I think is being under-appreciated.

 

If that's the case, I completely agree with it. I (mistakenly) assumed these micro-apartments would've come at comparable costs to the apartments up the hill (i.e., $800 for 250sq. ft. at Intesa vs. $800 for 900 sq. ft. up the hill). If that were the case, I wouldn't understand micro-apartments. Either way, I'm a fan of Centric :)

A successful business designs their products to fit customers' lifestyles. They don't design customer lifestyles to fit their business.

 

Building to a price point does not equate to substandard design. That's just lazy logic.

From Michelle Jarboe, Intesa project in University Circle reconfigured as Centric apartment building:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/02/intesa_project_in_university_c_1.html

 

 

It's been said this could be the most valuable piece of real estate in the city.

 

Does anyone here think that this new project reflects that idea in any way?

 

Absolutely not.  What it reflects is the Coral Company's involvement in the project, which means it will be a cheap pile of garbage that is nothing like any of their original promises.  See Cedar Center North for a perfect example.

OMG.....  the man said there was no market for intesa....  if you have an anchor company to put in it, then step up...!!!

Building to a price point does not equate to substandard design. That's just lazy logic.

 

I agree.

even though its more generic looking now, its still urban oriented build and it also has more apts. that seems to be an ok trade off for the change of design and focus:

 

With 270 apartments, Centric is a larger residential investment than Intesa, which comprised just shy of 200 units at last count.

9:30

Calendar No. 16-056:

11601 Mayfield Rd.

Ward 6

Mamie J. Mitchell

6 Notices

University Circle Development Foundation, owner, proposes to erect a 280,256 square foot mixed use retail and 269 dwelling unit residential building, a 126,400 square foot, 360, space parking garage building in a G4 Multi-Family Residential District. The owner appeals for relief from the following sections of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances:

1. Section 337.08 which states that retail use is not permitted in a Multi-Family Residential District.

2. Section 355.04(b) which states that in a ‘G’ Area District the maximum gross floor area of buildings cannot exceed three times the lot area. The permitted maximum gross floor area is 295,338 square feet; 406,656 square feet gross floor area of all buildings is proposed.

3. Section 357.01(a) which states that the front, rear, and side yards are required for all main buildings in residence districts.

4. Section 357.04(a) which states that a front yard equal to 15% of the depth of the lot, not to exceed 30 feet, is required where zero feet are proposed, with the building overhang extending 5 feet into the right of way.

5. Section 357.08(a) which states that a rear yard equal to half the height of the main building is required. The building heights range from 85 to 88 feet therefore a 44 foot rear yard is required and zero are proposed.

6. Section 357.09(b)(2)© which states that an interior side yard equal to one-fourth the height of the building(s) or in this case 22 feet are required and 10.14’ to 11.12’ are proposed. (Filed March 30, 2016)

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/cpc.html

"Centric" is up for final approval at design review/City Planning Commission this week.

 

 

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2016/05202016/index.php

 

This was the original image.

 

Is this all in one phase?

how many stories is the new proposal?