I look at it this way, when the Bond Court Hotel was built in the 70s, it was a pig with no lipstick. Then it became the Crown Plaza, then, the Westin, which I would assume judging from most forumer's comments, is top notch. When I think of what the BOE could have become in the worst of times, I'm grateful that it's becoming a hotel. If the Cleveland hotel market ramps up to the point where it justifies a re-branding, it'll happen....... Let's just hope that it does.

I look at it this way, when the Bond Court Hotel was built in the 70s, it was a pig with no lipstick. Then it became the Crown Plaza, then, the Westin, which I would assume judging from most forumer's comments, is top notch. When I think of what the BOE could have become in the worst of times, I'm grateful that it's becoming a hotel. If the Cleveland hotel market ramps up to the point where it justifies a re-branding, it'll happen....... Let's just hope that it does.

 

You have that all wrong.  the Bond Court was an amazing hotel when it opened.  It was the place to stay in Cleveland.  The last decade, it was a mess.  The Crown Plaza didn't do any real renovation to the property.  Just a soft goods brand change.

 

granted I didn't have a seat at the table, but I felt like we should have left the space vacant and used it as meeting space until an appropriate buyer - with a concrete plan - stepped up to the plate. This desires to be Cleveland's top notch old school property, that compliments it's peers.  Not some cheap 2nd rate low budget brand!

 

Why not get it right, FIRST?  Why "hope" that another brand will buy this hotel and then rebrand it, that makes no sense!

The minimal design of the canopy is clearly a result of historic tax credits. Generally, you cannot create elements that could appear as though they are part of the original architecture. I doubt the design is Drury's preference.

^Probably true. Besides they said they will go back and take another look at it, I am sure it will be fine. As far as the continued Drury bashing, the facts are that there was an open auction that anyone could have bid on.  Drury stepped up and believed in the potential, while all of these other brands that other wanted didn't. Case closed. I am willing to wait for the final product. It looks like all of the original fixtures/facade will be brought back to original condition. Can't wait to see that space all lit up at night.

You have that all wrong...... that makes no sense!

Considering that they were the only bidders on that dump, how can you have such an expectation? But I suppose tearing it down was a viable option.

MTS, as a general rule I am against deliberately leaving buildings vacant until the absolute perfect tenant magically appears on our doorstep. That is the place where buildings go to die

Some of the most popular restaurants in the French Quarter are "heat and serve"  All of the dishes are premade in an industrial kitchen on the west bank.

So, you can still offer a good menu...but its not going to be the caliber of restaurants we are spoiled with in Cleveland.

 

 

MTS, as a general rule I am against deliberately leaving buildings vacant until the absolute perfect tenant magically appears on our doorstep. That is the place where buildings go to die

 

I love the saying "Perfect is the enemy of good."

 

Perfect is also the friend of obstruction and stagnation. The enemy of obstruction and stagnation is compromise. Take the wins you can get today. Fight another battle tomorrow.

 

Speak in cliches often enough and people will think you're philosophical! :-o

The minimal design of the canopy is clearly a result of historic tax credits. Generally, you cannot create elements that could appear as though they are part of the original architecture. I doubt the design is Drury's preference.

Yet they could add something that looks as though it was apart of the original building.  This is something that has been done on other buildings.

 

^Probably true. Besides they said they will go back and take another look at it, I am sure it will be fine. As far as the continued Drury bashing, the facts are that there was an open auction that anyone could have bid on.  Drury stepped up and believed in the potential, while all of these other brands that other wanted didn't. Case closed. I am willing to wait for the final product. It looks like all of the original fixtures/facade will be brought back to original condition. Can't wait to see that space all lit up at night.

I, and everyone else on this board, is well aware it was an open auction, but I personally did agree that it had to be sold then.  I don't believe that Drury will give us a property befitting the location on the mall.  In addition, due to their limited marketing power vs. Hilton/Marriott/Hyatt.  Financially I would like to see the books.  However, I suspect this will be a hard sell to compete vs. Marriott, as they have the most rooms in DT CLE proper.    All of the hotels going online in Cleveland have top end brand specs, even the Aloft.  Taking yourself out of the equation, why would one choose to stay at the Drury vs. the Westin, Marriott, Renaissance, Autograph, Hyatt or Wyndham?

 

You have that all wrong...... that makes no sense!

Considering that they were the only bidders on that dump, how can you have such an expectation? But I suppose tearing it down was a viable option.

As a lover of old pre war building a tear down was not an option, but see above.

 

MTS, as a general rule I am against deliberately leaving buildings vacant until the absolute perfect tenant magically appears on our doorstep. That is the place where buildings go to die

I don't agree.  Just look at the development off current empty buildings.  I wonder if the auction had taken place after the 2016 RNC selection, would the result been different?

 

Some of the most popular restaurants in the French Quarter are "heat and serve"  All of the dishes are premade in an industrial kitchen on the west bank.

So, you can still offer a good menu...but its not going to be the caliber of restaurants we are spoiled with in Cleveland.

 

 

What restaurants in NoLa do this?

 

I know you're just giving examples, but just because this is acceptable elsewhere, why should it be acceptable here?

 

Personally, I feel this just "cheapens" the project as a whole.  You have a low budget property, with tacky amenities.  Thats easy to market, right?

 

 

Yet they could add something that looks as though it was apart of the original building.  This is something that has been done on other buildings.

 

What other buildings receiving the Ohio historic preservation credit have made additions meant to look like they were part of the original structure? Per Ink (who knows this stuff), this is discouraged by the state. Maybe it's possible, but if so, please cite some examples to illustrate.

 

I understand the disappointment with the brand, but this sale was not driven by the hotel project.  It was a CMSD operational decision, and CMSD is rightfully looking out for its own bottom line. If the city, county, or MyTwoCents wanted to delay the sale, it would mean paying the school district the $2+M and taking the market risk trying to find a higher bidder later or eating the loss of selling it for less to a developer who lined up a different flag. 

 

As much momentum as we've seen, the market still thinks the hotel business in Cleveland is a loser, which is why every hotel project we're seeing is heavily subsidized or being directly financed by tax dollars. As much as I'd rather see a better brand, I can't say it would be worth dumping even more tax dollars into the project to make it happen.

Yet they could add something that looks as though it was apart of the original building.  This is something that has been done on other buildings.

 

What other buildings receiving the Ohio historic preservation credit have made additions meant to look like they were part of the original structure? Per Ink (who knows this stuff), this is discouraged by the state. Maybe it's possible, but if so, please cite some examples to illustrate.

 

I understand the disappointment with the brand, but this sale was no driven by the hotel project.  It was a CMSD operational decision, and CMSD is rightfully looking out for its own bottom line. If the city, county, or MyTwoCents wanted to delay the sale, it would mean paying the school district the $2+M and taking the market risk trying to find a higher bidder late or eating the loss of selling it for less to a developer who lined up a different flag. 

 

As much momentum as we've seen, the market still thinks the hotel business in Cleveland is a loser, which is why every hotel project we're seeing is heavily subsidized or being directly financed by tax dollars. As much as I'd rather see a better brand, I can't say it would be worth dumping even more tax dollars into the project to make it happen.

 

I purposely wrote my response hoping for a response like this.

 

The point I'm trying to make is, they could not make this project work with out the credits.  I was not limiting this to just Ohio.

 

This should have been a project that could be fully funded without the need for any type of credit to ensure the finished product is top quality.  Is this still going to be a Drury PLAZA?

 

As I said before I wasn't at the table, but as a taxpayer, I don't feel the sale was right by the CMSD nor what this group "proposes" will benefit Cleveland and the local hotel industry as a whole.

 

The hotel business here had a problem primarily due to no downtown convention facility combined with a limited portfolio of brands/properties.  Convention planners couldn't sell the city with the inventory we had.  Leisure travelers, want to use the points they've earned at upper tier properties or want to book revenue rooms at "fun" or "hype" properties. Prior to 2014, we didn't have one "fun", "hip", "cool" property in the city.  Places where 20/30 expect to see in other cities and I'm not talking about NYC or LA.  But cities such as Houston, Indy, Philly, Baltimore, Charlotte, Atlanta, Portland, Minnie or Tampa.

 

As much as I'm complaining, I'm looking at the overall big picture and I seriously hope - once this property is complete - that my heavy doubt in the project is without merit.  I want a great property, that brings out the grandeur of the building.  A property that is unique, yet fits in well with with our current hotels and future Le Meridien/Kimpton properties.  Someone up-thread mentioned if the Drury property fails,maybe another brand would convert the property, but why not get it "right" the first time?  So we don't have to worry about brand failure and the backlash of that.  Yet, I do realize that brands change frequently.  Something in my gut tells me this will be a Cluster*uck!

What's the matter with Drury again? It's an economy brand?

What's the matter with Drury again? It's an economy brand?

 

There's nothing wrong with Drury but was Drury the right brand for the building.  The answer is no.  Personally I would have rather seen this building stay vacant than turn into a Drury brand.  I've stayed at Drury on a layover or two and while adequate, it is out of place for the location and property.  To have a heat and serve type eatery is absurd.  The building screams boutique, full-service, luxury.  It ain't the Raffles in Singapore but it could be made into Cleveland's version with a high marquee brand.  As MTS points out:  Will this even be a "Plaza" property?  The exterior enhancements are incredibly cheap and pedestrian and the restaurant proposal speaks for itself.  To even present this to the City is laughable.  This seems to be a case where the mindset is development for the sake of development.  A hotel such this is proposed is fine for Crocker Park but not for this building.

 

Go to Drury's website and see for yourself.  Ask if this is the right brand/company for this building. 

When a building sits vacant it decays and the costs go up for its reuse. Both decrease its attractiveness as a developable property and reduce the likelihood it will be saved. We've seen far too many buildings get demolished because they've sat vacant for too long and could not be saved. The Fifth Church of Christ at Lake and West 117th is a primary example. The neighborhood protested at least two commercial re-use plans as unsuitable for a residential area. Yet neighbors wanted the church saved. After 20 years of sitting empty, the cost to refurbish the church for a new use grew so large that no one could justify restoring it. So it will be demolished for a park and housing development.

 

I would rather have this school administration building find new life as a reputable hotel and be used and maintained as such for however many years. If the hotel economy improves to where there is more than one suitor for this building, their investment for upgrading it further will be that much less than it if it had sat as a vacant school administration building for a long period of time.

 

Maybe someday Cleveland can afford to be more choosy. We can get there only by ratcheting up the economy one little victory at a time.

Have we really gotten that spoiled that we would rather let a building sit vacant than have a "less than ideal" brand in it? Did we forget how difficult it STILL is at times to get development done in CLE? And as far as that not being the case, look around the city. We have plenty of examples of why deliberately leaving a building vacant when u have a choice not to is a bad idea. Be practical. This isn't Megapolis or Sim City. We have real world economic conditions to be concerned about

Unbelievable that people would rather let the building sit and decay than see it get reused.  They're doing a full historic renovation, and no, the canopy is not supposed to match the actual historic parts of the building.  If you aren't staying there, why do you care what level of hotel it is, as long as it gets used?  Drury obviously thinks they have a market.  If you're not it, what's your problem?

Unbelievable that people would rather let the building sit and decay than see it get reused.  They're doing a full historic renovation, and no, the canopy is not supposed to match the actual historic parts of the building.  If you aren't staying there, why do you care what level of hotel it is, as long as it gets used?  Drury obviously thinks they have a market.  If you're not it, what's your problem?

 

?

I don't even think the canopy is that bad...

 

A long as the building remains intact, and they don't cut those pretty mature trees down, I will be happy.

^ i like the canopy. its clean, modern and unobtrusive and it does not get in the way of the looks of the building itself.

 

also, the hotel begs for a really classic olde style hotel bar and i hope it gets one.

A few commentators in this forum have offered mildly disapproving remarks on the canopy and another thinks it may be acceptably minimal to not distract from the building. It's a lot worse than that. Can we reasonably assume that these drawings are not the intended design...that what we see is just a quick test fit to start discussion?

 

It's pathetic that Drury is presenting work that has not been given any worthwhile design attention. The plan and image don't seem to be by an architect. How is Drury intending to develop this project?

 

Curiously, sadly, regrettably...this is not the only significant public building by Walker & Weeks that Drury will likely ruin. The have also purchased the magnificent, but little known Art Deco Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland's former PITTSBURGH BRANCH building on Grant Street. It is entirely different in style from the Board of Education bldg was built at the virtually the same time and complete in 1931.

(The Cincinnati Branch, ALSO BY WALKER & WEEKS...a lovely building that once had sumptuous interiors, now chopped up into mediocre apartments...much like the firm's own office building on Carnegie was chopped up. (At least it avoided demolition!))

CANOPY: This generic, off the shelf budget priced port-cochere purchased might be fine for a motel along the freeway but is totally inadequate for this building in this place.

#1. Applying a color and stonework rustication to spindly steel supports is something an architect would not do.  Matching the building stone will not work. It needs to be of contrasting metal work and glass.

#2. Obstructs one of the unique features of the building...namely the huge elaborate like fixtures.

 

DRIVEWAY: it's not just the canopy structure that is ill-conceived. The driveway configuration makes no sense.

#1. Discreet parking will be needed.

#2. Buses will pull up at the door. How do they make the sharp 180 under the canopy with cabs and other vehicles in the same area?

#3. Why would the entrance and exit driveways be right next to each other? They will conflict.

 

 

The Pittsburgh Fed Building (below) also by Walker & Weeks and also in the unsteady hands of Drury Inns.

 

Standard Building, Drury Plaza, other Northeast Ohio projects win state tax credits for preservation

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/12/standard_building_drury_plaza.html#incart_river

Win some and lose a big one: Cleveland-area preservation projects receive funding, Cincinnati takes main prize

By STAN BULLARD

Originally Published: December 18, 2014 2:06 PM  Modified: December 18, 2014 3:23 PM

 

Conversions of the old Cleveland Board of Education Building to a Drury Plaza Hotel, and of the Standard Building near Public Square to a mixed-use project with apartments, both received maximum $5 million state Historic Preservation Tax Credit awards from the Ohio Department of Development Services.

 

Renovation of the former Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. headquarters building in Akron to residential, office and institutional use, also received a $5 million allocation, the state said in an announcement today, Thursday, Dec. 18.

 

Industrial Realty Group, the developer of the Goodyear project, had applied for both a $5 million allocation and for a $25 million in the state’s new, larger program for project with catalytic economic impact.

 

MORE:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20141218/FREE/141219830/win-some-and-lose-a-big-one-cleveland-area-preservation-projects

Scaffolding going up and power washing beginning

 

 

 

 

Nice! Anyone know, is the scaffolding there to facilitate interior renovation? Or just windows? The exterior looks pretty good to my untrained eye.

:clap:Let the renovation begin!!! 

Nice! Anyone know, is the scaffolding there to facilitate interior renovation? Or just windows? The exterior looks pretty good to my untrained eye.

 

Looks like a buck hoist (Construction elevator) similar to what was on the outside of The 9 Tower, what is currently on the exterior of the Hilton and basically any high rise construction.

They better not tear down any of those nice trees.

Nice! Anyone know, is the scaffolding there to facilitate interior renovation? Or just windows? The exterior looks pretty good to my untrained eye.

 

Looks like a buck hoist (Construction elevator) similar to what was on the outside of The 9 Tower, what is currently on the exterior of the Hilton and basically any high rise construction.

 

Cool.Thanks!!

I am so out of the loop. I truly had no idea about this project until coming to this thread. I love this site!

I for selfish reasons hopes the property fails as a Drury and it converts to another flag.  IMO, the location is far to grand for a sub par brand.  Yes...yes...yes...I know if another developer/brand wanted it they would have bought it, but a man can wish!

I for selfish reasons hopes the property fails as a Drury and it converts to another flag.  IMO, the location is far to grand for a sub par brand.  Yes...yes...yes...I know if another developer/brand wanted it they would have bought it, but a man can wish!

 

i always envisioned this property to be lie a Raffles Hotel or something of that level.

I for selfish reasons hopes the property fails as a Drury and it converts to another flag.  IMO, the location is far to grand for a sub par brand.  Yes...yes...yes...I know if another developer/brand wanted it they would have bought it, but a man can wish!

 

i always envisioned this property to be lie a Raffles Hotel or something of that level.

I see Four Seasons, St. Regis, W=A, Peninsula or Rosewood written all over this property!

I for selfish reasons hopes the property fails as a Drury and it converts to another flag.  IMO, the location is far to grand for a sub par brand.  Yes...yes...yes...I know if another developer/brand wanted it they would have bought it, but a man can wish!

 

That's fine, as long as Drury does a nice job renovating the structure. The costs for a successor hotel to bring it up to 5-star status will be less.

I for selfish reasons hopes the property fails as a Drury and it converts to another flag.  IMO, the location is far to grand for a sub par brand.  Yes...yes...yes...I know if another developer/brand wanted it they would have bought it, but a man can wish!

 

That's fine, as long as Drury does a nice job renovating the structure. The costs for a successor hotel to bring it up to 5-star status will be less.

 

True...possibly.  Rebranding is expensive.

From The Landmarks Commission May 28th agenda.

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2015/05282015/index.php

 

Still not a fan of their designs for the proposed canopy and signage

 

 

The monument grave/sign is so horrid, it's making me not hate the turnpike rest stop canopy as much.

That sign is a nightmare.

That sign is a nightmare.

 

I can only guess that the "D" in DERU Landscape Architecture stands for "Discount."

I think the only way I would like a canopy on this building would be if it were made with copper (which I'm sure would be much more expensive) to match with those gorgeous lanterns. Don't even get me started on the sign...

I can forgive the canopy... I honestly wasn't expecting any better. But that sign... wtf, did they even try?

 

Good news is that apparently they plan to protect all the existing London Plane trees, which are mature and look stunning. I was worried that they would tear them down, since that seems to be the popular thing to do in this city...

^ E for effort!! Though saying you would simply "destroy the sign" would've been acceptable.

 

Seriously, are they building that granite thing new, or just hauling a pre-existing one out of the ground and relocating it to Cleveland? That kind of thing belongs along a freeway access road, not in a downtown.

The canopy and sign look fine to me. Better than a huge blade sign bolted to the building. Something small and unobtrusive like this at the entrance is perfect. It'll be made of granite so at least it won't be some aluminum and plastic toy.

Ugh. I'm no design expert but that stuff is just HORRID.

Is this project supposed to be completed in time for the republican convention?

I'm already referring to it as the Dreary Plaza Hotel in my head.

I'm ok with the canopy...but not with the granite sign. Sigh.

I can see the issues with the sign but generally I don't think it's that bad. Tend to agree that it's not necessarily appropriate for a downtown setting but also would note that most hotels in urban settings do not have the amount of real estate in front to be able to accommodate such a sign.

 

As for the canopy, am I completely missing something? For an old building like this you can't exactly strap a modern canopy to the front with sharp edges. Not asking for a rendering but a basic description of an appropriate alternative would be helpful.

I don't know from design, but something matching the historic nature of the building would seem to work better. Like this: http://www.miamiawning.com/uploads/pictures/20081230_143940_02KI6KDEOP5MJS685YYB.JPG

I don't know from design, but something matching the historic nature of the building would seem to work better. Like this: http://www.miamiawning.com/uploads/pictures/20081230_143940_02KI6KDEOP5MJS685YYB.JPG

 

There was some discussion about this on the previous page, but I believe that with the historic preservation tax credits, you're not allowed to add anything to the building that looks like it's original but really isn't.  In other words, any addition would have to be obviously modern. 

 

I don't think it's impossible to come up with an attractive, modern-looking canopy that meshes well with the building, but I'm not super impressed with the latest rendering.  It's ok, but not a slam dunk.

Is anyone really surprised by this?  The Drury chain screems mediocrity. They have taken what could have been an iconic property and transformed it into the Bates motel