The 1st floor is concrete, but the upper levels are certainly wood construction.

 

I'm no construction expert, by any means, but this seems to be a consistent method of framing living spaces in multi-unit residential buildings.  Euclid 116, which recently opened their student apts around the corner, and the Van Aken Center residences going up, are using a similar method.  The outer shell of these buildings, however, are sheathed in concrete, steel and often brick.

 

The building is what is called "5 over 2", which means 5 stories of wood framing over a 2 story concrete "podium". This project went back and forth a million times (even back to when it Intesa) about whether it should be steel, concrete, or wood (or a 100 hybrids of the 3). Its more typical right now to see 4 over 1 - which is what the most recent phase at Crocker and Snavely's Ohio City project are. Some voodoo magic was able to pulled here to make 5 over 2 work, which is a big piece of what allowed this project to finally get built.

The 1st floor is concrete, but the upper levels are certainly wood construction.

Clefans photo above taken from the third floor is clearly prepped for a concrete slab on deck.  You can clearly see PT cables draped across the deck along with horizontal #4 rebar and rebar dowels.  The outer walls may be wood, but for some reason the interior slabs are clearly concrete.  Therefore, there must me concrete columns extending up through the structure to support the decks.  Can't tell from any of the photos.  But in essence, its essentially a parking garage encompassed with a wood exterior. 

So basically this is how a 5+2 building works. The height limit for wood framed construction is 5 floors. But you can get away with a taller building by using Type 1A construction as a podium for the 5 wood floors to sit on.

 

Even still, there's a height limit with this hybrid construction (I believe it's 85' off the top of my head) which essentially means that unless you're designing uncomfortably low ceilings you'll end up with a 2 story concrete podium with 5 wood framed floors above.

 

The height limit used to limit you to the equivalent of 6 stories which is why for a long time you saw a ton of 5+1 buildings going up. If you're ever in, say, Denver or Dallas take a look at all the new lowrise buildings. They're almost all 6 floors for this reason. Now they're all 7 stories because of the height limit changes within the most recent version of the International Building Code.

 

In this setup the floor of the 3rd floor would be concrete but everything above that plane is wood. If that photo is indeed taken from the 3rd floor then there's nothing out of the ordinary going on.

It is definitely 5 floors of wood over 2 floors of concrete. I did some investigating after some of the first photos of wood framing were posted. Standing on the third floor, they would be standing on the top of the concrete podium, so yes the floor of the third floor (or the ceiling of the second floor) would be concrete. They need a strong floor made out of concrete (or other projects may use steel) to build five floors of wood on top. There are no concrete decks above that floor. The "voodoo magic" that rockitect mentions was just a variance granted by the City based on a more recent version of the International Building Code (I don't recall which one).

I appreciate learning all of this stuff about construction techniques.  I was always under the impression that 4 stories was the maximum for stick construction.  I learn something new all the time.

I appreciate learning all of this stuff about construction techniques.  I was always under the impression that 4 stories was the maximum for stick construction.  I learn something new all the time.

 

yeah same here. also you start to see things lately about new experimental wood apt towers too. the modern use of wood in apt building construction is fascinating and it really seems to be a hot topic these days. check this out -- its about tall timber towers:

 

https://www.curbed.com/maps/tall-timber-construction-projects-in-the-works

 

 

The way these 5+whatever buildings work is essentially treating them like two separate buildings, one on top of the other. The concrete podium is fully fire separated from the wood building above. It's an interesting method and one that unfortunately gets a bad reputation because so many of the 5+1 and 5+2 buildings look exactly the same. It's not an inherently bad form of construction but it's super easy to create the typical yuppy box with this method so that's what it's associated with.

 

Thankfully, as mrnyc[/member]  pointed out, wood construction is becoming far more interesting these days. There's a visionary proposal out there for a supertall (300m+) wooden tower at the Barbican in London. Not going to actually happen, but a cool study in the use of heavy timber construction.

 

https://www.dezeen.com/2016/04/08/plp-architecture-cambridge-university-london-first-wooden-skyscraper-barbican/

The 1st floor is concrete, but the upper levels are certainly wood construction.

 

I'm no construction expert, by any means, but this seems to be a consistent method of framing living spaces in multi-unit residential buildings.  Euclid 116, which recently opened their student apts around the corner, and the Van Aken Center residences going up, are using a similar method.  The outer shell of these buildings, however, are sheathed in concrete, steel and often brick.

 

The building is what is called "5 over 2", which means 5 stories of wood framing over a 2 story concrete "podium". This project went back and forth a million times (even back to when it Intesa) about whether it should be steel, concrete, or wood (or a 100 hybrids of the 3). Its more typical right now to see 4 over 1 - which is what the most recent phase at Crocker and Snavely's Ohio City project are. Some voodoo magic was able to pulled here to make 5 over 2 work, which is a big piece of what allowed this project to finally get built.

 

Good stuff, and thanks for that ... Does Centric's compromise in any way compromise the integrity of the finished building?

I appreciate learning all of this stuff about construction techniques.  I was always under the impression that 4 stories was the maximum for stick construction.  I learn something new all the time.

 

yeah same here. also you start to see things lately about new experimental wood apt towers too. the modern use of wood in apt building construction is fascinating and it really seems to be a hot topic these days. check this out -- its about tall timber towers:

 

https://www.curbed.com/maps/tall-timber-construction-projects-in-the-works

 

 

 

Well, I guess this tends to answer my Q, that it doesn't... Interesting.... And I seriously doubt the City would certify construction if it did.

From what I understand, the City's current code only allows 4 over 1, but the code is outdated as it is based on the 2012 International Building Code. The newer International Building Code allows 5 over 2, so the City will allow it with a variance and will eventually update their own code.

The 1st floor is concrete, but the upper levels are certainly wood construction.

 

 

I'm no construction expert, by any means, but this seems to be a consistent method of framing living spaces in multi-unit residential buildings.  Euclid 116, which recently opened their student apts around the corner, and the Van Aken Center residences going up, are using a similar method.  The outer shell of these buildings, however, are sheathed in concrete, steel and often brick.

 

The building is what is called "5 over 2", which means 5 stories of wood framing over a 2 story concrete "podium". This project went back and forth a million times (even back to when it Intesa) about whether it should be steel, concrete, or wood (or a 100 hybrids of the 3). Its more typical right now to see 4 over 1 - which is what the most recent phase at Crocker and Snavely's Ohio City project are. Some voodoo magic was able to pulled here to make 5 over 2 work, which is a big piece of what allowed this project to finally get built.

 

Good stuff, and thanks for that ... Does Centric's compromise in any way compromise the integrity of the finished building?

 

It is allowed per code. That said, its pretty hotly debated. For more reading:

 

http://www.structuremag.org/?p=10934

https://www.bisnow.com/washington-dc/news/multifamily/wood-frame-apartments-gaining-popularity-with-developers-despite-fire-risk-74533

https://urbanland.uli.org/economy-markets-trends/increased-use-wood-reduced-parking-may-reduce-multifamily-construction-costs/

https://atlanta.curbed.com/2016/8/24/12617218/sandy-springs-bans-wood-construction-code

https://ggwash.org/view/34118/a-hidden-height-limit-holds-back-affordable-mid-rise-construction-in-dc

http://www.denverpost.com/2015/04/03/denver-is-a-great-city-so-why-the-bad-buildings/

From what I understand, the City's current code only allows 4 over 1, but the code is outdated as it is based on the 2012 International Building Code. The newer International Building Code allows 5 over 2, so the City will allow it with a variance and will eventually update their own code.

 

You are close and I believe correct about the IBC codes. That said, there is an important distinction that is often confused. Cities/municipalities have zoning codes. But for a few exceptions (NYC, Chicago), building codes are by the states. If you are building in Cleveland, Youngstown, Lima, or Middlefield - the same Ohio Building Code applies. But the state building codes are generally administered (as in construction documents are reviewed to receive a building permit) by local municipal building departments. If a project receives an adjudication letter (meaning plans were NOT approved by the building plans reviewer), then that can be appealed. In a larger city like Cleveland, we have a local board that reviews appeals. In smaller suburban and rural communities, you go to Columbus to the statewide board to make your appeal.

 

The exceptions where a building permit is provided by the state are projects for publicly funded institutions (I.E. Kent State University) or quasi-governmental organizations (I.E. Cleveland Metroparks. Projects on their properties are reviewed by the state, not the town or city they are located within.

So rockitect, you're saying that had not Panzica-Coral-Midwest Partners group been forced to go with anything but 5-over-2 concrete + 'stick' construction, Centric would likely be affordable and not being built at this moment ... or ever... Just from skimming the quality articles you posted, the main danger from wood-burning fire comes during the construction phase, but that once sprinkler and smoke detector systems are installed, these buildings are safe.  The articles note these wood/stick configurations allow for more density -- there will be 272 apt units in Centric.. However one comment in one of the articles questioned the long-term viability of these multi-unit wood constructions in 25-30 years.  Do you have any thoughts on this or have there been studies as to how to shore up and/or stabilize these structures over time?

So rockitect, you're saying that had not Panzica-Coral-Midwest Partners group been forced to go with anything but 5-over-2 concrete + 'stick' construction, Centric would likely be affordable and not being built at this moment ... or ever... Just from skimming the quality articles you posted, the main danger from wood-burning fire comes during the construction phase, but that once sprinkler and smoke detector systems are installed, these buildings are safe.  The articles note these wood/stick configurations allow for more density -- there will be 272 apt units in Centric.. However one comment in one of the articles questioned the long-term viability of these multi-unit wood constructions in 25-30 years.  Do you have any thoughts on this or have there been studies as to how to shore up and/or stabilize these structures over time?

 

I do not know enough to say "never" if it wouldn't have gone this route, but it was a big factor.

 

I think you pretty much have the idea regarding fire safety. Only time will tell regarding how "durable" this buildings end up being. There are plenty of wood framing wood houses 100s of years old... there are also a lot of wood houses only a few years old that are falling apart. Not familiar with any studies. This is a newer construction technique. The challenge with knowledge is that a lot of the loosing of codes allowing this construction technique is driven by well-funded advocacy by the wood construction industry - and studies touting it as safe are funded by the industry. On the same token, studies citing concern about stick over podium wood construction... have turned out to have been funded by steel/concrete industry interests.

 

One additional thing worth adding is that the construction type of Centric and other projects is a lot different from developments in using heavy timber as the main structural framing for high-rise construction. A friend of mine in Portland was involved in the first timber high-rise in the US: https://www.bdcnetwork.com/TimberHiRisePortland & https://archpaper.com/2017/06/framework-portland-timber-tower/#gallery-0-slide-0

Didn't realize just how big this project is - two pics from this week.

Yep, it's big. The parking deck goes in the building's "crotch" visible in the second photo.

Just rode by on the #9, I think the part along Mayfield is topped out, one or two stories higher than the most recent photos posted. Looks great!

Holy moly. That's huge.

Gosh this is so amazing. 

A blurb about Centric:

 

https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/features/real_estate/centric-apartments-target-younger-renters/article_5b1b3c16-076e-11e8-a91b-5304de36b9ac.html#tncms-source=article-nav-next

 

Centric Apartments target younger renters

 

Centric Apartments, the apartment complex being built in the University Circle area of Cleveland at 11601 Mayfield Road, will have 272 units for rent and is on track to be ready for occupancy Aug. 1, said Steve Rubin, a partner at Midwest Development Partners in Cleveland.

 

“We have about 60 percent (of the 272 units) as one-bedroom apartments, about 20 percent are two-bedroom units and the rest are studio apartments,” Rubin said. “There’s some variance in size, these aren’t stamped out cookie-cutter units.”

 

Rubin said Midwest Development Partners will open a pre-leasing office on the premises March 1, with a studio and one-bedroom unit open for viewing at that time for prospective renters. Rubin said all 272 units are rentals and not available for purchase, with rent scheduled to open at about $2.25 per square foot. Studio apartments will be in the 500 to 550 square-foot range, one bedroom units in the range of 850 to 900 square feet and two bedroom units will be in the 1,000 to 1,050 square-foot range. Rent for a 500-square foot studio apartment would be about $1,125 per month.

...

The neighborhood is on fire!  This will add many more humans to the streets!

For what it's worth, the developers have the "skin" up on the northern side of the building (the side facing Albington Arms).  I drove by yesterday, but it was too dusky for pics.  In any case, it gives you an idea of what the building will look like once it's finished.

 

My expertise in exterior finishing is non-existent so I can't say exactly what kind of materials they're using.  In terms of appearance, it's nothing special.  But it's also not terrible, either (at least in my opinion).

The neighborhood is on fire!  This will add many more humans to the streets!

 

Hopefully also to the trains. If they don't mention their proximity to the rapid often in their promotional and marketing materials, I'll be disappointed.

Hopefully the parking lot directly across from Centric will be developed next. That would add some great density around the red line station.

 

Hopefully also to the trains. If they don't mention their proximity to the rapid often in their promotional and marketing materials, I'll be disappointed.

 

They don't mention in the text on the website, but it is apparent in several of the images they show.

Not sure how long this has been up.

 

http://www.livingcentric.com

so this is an NRP development now?  Not Coral/Rubin?  Sheesh.  I remember when Peter Rubin pitched this deal back in 2010, he won the project back when it was "Lot 45"...

^ good catch.  I thought this was still Rubin's project.  He is one to always oversell what he is doing.  But I guess that all developers do that to a degree.

NRP is managing the property.  Was not part of development or construction.

Didn't Panzica take over the lead with Coral/Rubin still some how involved?  Also Midwest Development Partners.

Yes back in 2010, Panzica was a partner in the deal with Rubin.  Not sure if they stayed in all the way till now though or not

A quote from PoshSteve last summer:

 

Midwest Development Partners is leading this project now - no longer Coral. They took over from Coral when Centric replaced Intesa. Coral still has an ownership stake though, along with Panzica

Not the best representation, but here is an image of a Mayfield street view from last week. Picture doesn't do it justice, but you definitely get that "cozy" feeling now coming down into LI.

^nice big windows.

It looks awesome from the other side of the RTA tracks as well, you can see it from Mayfield Road if you are hanging out in Little Italy, it looks great and really adds to the dense feel of the area. This is probably my favorite development in Cleveland the past couple of years. I remember reading this thread when I first starting reading UO regularly 3-4 years ago and being excited about this one, and I think it is living up to expectations. Hopefully they get some great tenants.

Can't find a link at the moment, but About 10 years ago NOAC funded a streetscape redesign for Mayfield Road between Euclid and Little Italy, with neckdowns at intersections and fully paved sidewalks.  Definitely time to revisit that. For such a major pedestrian corridor, the current pedestrian landscape on this stretch is pretty pathetic. Really wish UCI took non-auto transportation seriously.

 

EDIT: found a link. It was a NOACA-funded plan and also included the stretch of Mayfield in Little Italy: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cjdvh9hbp3r45ry/FY2008_MayfieldRoadFinalReport_UCI_LittleItaly_reduced.pdf?dl=0

 

EDIT II: one of the most interesting bits of info in this plan is that the public right of way along much of Mayfield b/w Euclid and LI is much wider than the current roadway+sidewalks. The plan actually recommended widening the roadway in this stretch to include parking lanes in both directions, while also substantially widening the sidewalks.  This wide right of way really opens a lot of interesting options, including a bike track.

^Found the Little Italy Masterplan from 2005.  Funny how throwback the photos look now.

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/maps/pdf/LittleItaly.pdf

Can't find a link at the moment, but About 10 years ago NOAC funded a streetscape redesign for Mayfield Road between Euclid and Little Italy, with neckdowns at intersections and fully paved sidewalks.  Definitely time to revisit that. For such a major pedestrian corridor, the current pedestrian landscape on this stretch is pretty pathetic. Really wish UCI took non-auto transportation seriously.

 

EDIT: found a link. It was a NOACA-funded plan and also included the stretch of Mayfield in Little Italy: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cjdvh9hbp3r45ry/FY2008_MayfieldRoadFinalReport_UCI_LittleItaly_reduced.pdf?dl=0

 

EDIT II: one of the most interesting bits of info in this plan is that the public right of way along much of Mayfield b/w Euclid and LI is much wider than the current roadway+sidewalks. The plan actually recommended widening the roadway in this stretch to include parking lanes in both directions, while also substantially widening the sidewalks.  This wide right of way really opens a lot of interesting options, including a bike track.

 

I tweeted it out that link including a screenshot from the report via All Aboard Ohio's account (with [/member]'s to NOACA, Little Italy CDC, UCI and Chris Ronayne) and it was retweeted by GCRTA, Frank Sinito of Millennia Co., etc. I hope it spurs some new discussion/action.

Centric viewed from Uptown, Triangle Apartments and Mayfield Rd.

What are the orange and dark brown finishes?

What are the orange and dark brown finishes?

This was all I could find.

 

I genuinely enjoy how HUGE this project feels when you both look at it as well as when you walk past it.

Centric viewed from Uptown, Triangle Apartments and Mayfield Rd.

 

Man, I love this project.. but the picture of the orange and brown facade feels like a Crocker park hotel to me.  I don’t know, maybe I’ll come around on that when I see it in person.

Photo taken on snowy April 4th:

 

This is just a big damn building. And it looks great snuggled up against the new Little Italy rail station. BTW, I love the structural complexities of the third photo -- a post-construction scene that will never look so clean again!

 

 

 

 

This is just a big damn building. And it looks great snuggled up against the new Little Italy rail station. BTW, I love the structural complexities of the third photo -- a post-construction scene that will never look so clean again!

 

Quick, lets get 400 tons of road salt on there at once.

 

-ODOT probably

Man, this is awesome. I went to OSU from 2010 to 2014 and absolutely loved it, but I gotta say I'm a little jealous of the kids who will be spending their college days at University Circle in the coming years.

From today. I didn't know they were going to have a mid-building, first-floor-only pedestrian breezeway. I couldn't get a photo of it, but it's a great idea to puncture the long side of the building facing Mayfield...

 

Last evening we were walking down the middle of Mayfield Road, what with construction and so little traffic. It turned Little Italy into even more of a pedestrian paradise. The first picture would be nearly impossible to get at any other time/circumstance...

 

 

 

Here's that mid-building breezeway I mentioned in my prior post....

 

 

Not tall, but big nonetheless....

 

 

 

KJP. how does that gray vertical siding on the second level look in person?  From the photo it looks sort of cheap.  I imagine it is the same siding as that above it but it looks worse on the second level to my eye.