February 19, 201411 yr I think it is a great proposal that will add a lot of life to a very dead stretch of land.
February 19, 201411 yr I think it is a great proposal that will add a lot of life to a very dead stretch of land. I hate the proposal. But I hate vacant buildings and surface parking lots more. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 20, 201411 yr Is this a "placeholder" land use plan that a property owner submits with a demo request only because they have to submit a land use plan? Or is there a signed tenant they will disclose? Bingo! How many times to we see this in the world of development...
February 20, 201411 yr I just don't understand what the owner is trying to accomplish. It is not only paying big time lawyer fees but now is being invoiced by Richard Bowen. Why is this out of state investor so intent on keeping this property (headache) that is bleeding money (especially now that there is no revenue from parking and would not be any under their "proposal" since the new "development" eats up the parking lot). It has got to be just a blip in their portfolio. Why not just dump it on Weston (a rare willing buyer) at a reasonable price, be done with it and enjoy the sunshine in CA. The only thing I can think of it that they are doing it for tax reasons.
February 20, 201411 yr ^If only LR and Weston could agree upon a "reasonable price".... I don't think LR has any reluctance whatsoever to sell to Weston. It probably just feels that Weston's offer is insulting.
February 20, 201411 yr ^Obviously I don't know what the status of the negotiations are but if I were the owner I would be willing to give Weston a "pain in the ass" discount (especially since they really are just, at least in Cleveland, parking lot investors and they don't have access to the parking lot).
February 20, 201411 yr ^And given the city's relatively cheap land costs, all those court/lawyer/architecture fees would quickly eat into any additional purchase price LR is trying to extract. In the oft chance this is a good faith development proposal, I hope the city sticks to its guns and nixes the video billboard. The more revenue the owner can generate from a subpar use, the less likely the lot will be redeveloped with something better down the line.
February 20, 201411 yr If this thing goes through I feel bad for the people living along that stretch of Prospect- it'll be a flashing nightmare in their apartments at all times of the night.
February 20, 201411 yr If this thing goes through I feel bad for the people living along that stretch of Prospect- it'll be a flashing nightmare in their apartments at all times of the night. Agree completely!! First thing I thought of was the Seinfeld where Kramer/Jerry lived across from "Kenny Rogers Roasters".
February 20, 201411 yr MANY MANY MANY images of the interiors of the Prospect Avenue buildings proposed to be demolished. They are spread across multiple pages if you want to see them all, here: http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2014/02212014/index.php City Planning Commission Agenda for February 21, 2014 DOWNTOWN/FLATS DESIGN REVIEW 1. DF2013-060 - Demolition of Four-Story Office Building Project Address: 310 Prospect Avenue Project Representative: Michael Swearengen, Esq. Here's some of them..... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 20, 201411 yr so a hotel is being built in front of the gateway garage and a apartment tower on top of parking and retail will be built on the open parking lot?!
February 20, 201411 yr ^It's just a master plan.... That proposed building to be demolished is quite a disaster though. https://www.instagram.com/cle_and_beyond/https://www.instagram.com/jbkaufer/
February 20, 201411 yr That's not nearly as bad/cheesy looking as I had imagined. I still don't like it.
February 20, 201411 yr How old is that master plan? It has the Columbia and Stanley buildings still in it.
February 20, 201411 yr How old is that master plan? It has the Columbia and Stanley buildings still in it. It's old. But it's interesting (to me anyway). "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 20, 201411 yr Install a rooftop patio that adjoins to the upper floors of Harry Buffalo and the Record Rendevouz buildings and you've got something interesting going. http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2014/02212014/image/310_Prospect_43.jpg Then again, how much could it cost to add a couple of floors?
February 21, 201411 yr This is a prefect location for For Sale housing. How could a 5-7 story condo building above first floor retail not be successful here??
February 21, 201411 yr Michelle J. McFee @mjarboe 11s Downtown #CLE/Flats design committee votes unanimously to oppose demolition of the Herold Bldg. Recommendation goes to Planning Commission. MORE: Michelle J. McFee @mjarboe 9m Rationale for #CLE design review veto on Herold Building demo: Site reuse unsuitable. No stakeholder involvement. No market analysis. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 21, 201411 yr Michelle J. McFee @mjarboe 11s Downtown #CLE/Flats design committee votes unanimously to oppose demolition of the Herold Bldg. Recommendation goes to Planning Commission. MORE: Michelle J. McFee @mjarboe 9m Rationale for #CLE design review veto on Herold Building demo: Site reuse unsuitable. No stakeholder involvement. No market analysis. Thank goodness.
February 22, 201411 yr If they can get a committed retail tenant so that this isn't just a spec building, I'd support this. I love, love, love the Times Square style billboard. I'm inclined to support most things that are flashy and add something to the city. The tenant is important though. Go get a committed tenant, then let's talk. But I'm already inclined to support this.
February 22, 201411 yr ^ This building is just too small and looks stupid in context. If they really want to pull of that time square look, they need to go much bigger.
February 22, 201411 yr It's a really bad area for a Times Square-esque billboard. The buildings are too close together and there is no plaza for people to gather to actually look at the billboards. And it would be very annoying for any residents living nearby. Ultimately, just a terrible idea. If they have to tear down the Herold Building, fine. But It needs to be replaced with something at least just as tall, and with apartments. Also, in my opinion, they shouldn't go for such a modern design. I'd like to see a design that's more consistent with the surrounding buildings.
February 22, 201411 yr Here's the update from design review and planning. The commission tabled the demo request this morning and expects to revisit it on March 7. The digital billboard idea was not popular at either meeting. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/02/cleveland_planning_commission_1.html#incart_river_default
February 22, 201411 yr Honestly, Kudo's to them for trying, but I am so glad this is getting shut done. Think of the revenue dollars generated from such a small development that would have required very minimal up keep. I don't know what advertising at that location goes for, but I would have to guess, it's much more profitable then the one to two apartments you could have fit above the retail space. It's very apparent that the gentrification of this neighborhood is not in the back of these guys minds.
February 22, 201411 yr How can this "Times Square" thing be taken seriously? Does anyone honestly think East 4th and Prospect could or should be like Times Square? The East 4th neighborhood is a tasteful pedestrian entertainment district with a lot of housing. Do you think the people dining outside or the apartment dwellers would appreciate the epileptic glow of a giant billboard more? (sarcasm) Times Square is a flashy commercial and entertainment district with massive advertising 360 degrees around the block. In case we've forgotten, the south side of prospect has a massive surface lot and vacant buildings - where will the rest of the "Time Squaresque" advertising go? Maybe MRN will have a sudden change of heart and paper the outside of their successful apartment buildings on the north side of the street with giant flashing electronic billboards? L&R is trying to sell this stupidity by facetiously comparing it to Times Square whose only similarities to this project is that both contain electronic advertising - the connection stops there. It's a shit idea and the billboard is a cheap way to beef up revenue. There is nothing wrong with beefing up revenue except when it's a nuisance to an established residential and entertainment district that we use as an example of a tasteful urban revitalization.
February 22, 201411 yr Actually, i think they are ony pretending to sell this stupidity by facetiously comparing it to Times Square whose only similarities to this project is that both contain electronic advertising. In reality, they are going to knock down the building and build a temporary parking lot there that will exist for the next thirty years.
February 22, 201411 yr How can this "Times Square" thing be taken seriously? Does anyone honestly think East 4th and Prospect could or should be like Times Square? The East 4th neighborhood is a tasteful pedestrian entertainment district with a lot of housing. Do you think the people dining outside or the apartment dwellers would appreciate the epileptic glow of a giant billboard more? (sarcasm) Times Square is a flashy commercial and entertainment district with massive advertising 360 degrees around the block. In case we've forgotten, the south side of prospect has a massive surface lot and vacant buildings - where will the rest of the "Time Squaresque" advertising go? Maybe MRN will have a sudden change of heart and paper the outside of their successful apartment buildings on the north side of the street with giant flashing electronic billboards? L&R is trying to sell this stupidity by facetiously comparing it to Times Square whose only similarities to this project is that both contain electronic advertising - the connection stops there. It's a shit idea and the billboard is a cheap way to beef up revenue. There is nothing wrong with beefing up revenue except when it's a nuisance to an established residential and entertainment district that we use as an example of a tasteful urban revitalization. I think the "Times Square" reference comes from the casino, talking about how Phase II, the Arena, and the Casino will be " a sort of times square area" http://videos.cleveland.com/plain-dealer/2012/05/dan_gilbert_talks_about_phase.html http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/05/gilbert_asks_for_patience_with.html
February 22, 201411 yr Actually, i think they are ony pretending to sell this stupidity by facetiously comparing it to Times Square whose only similarities to this project is that both contain electronic advertising. In reality, they are going to knock down the building and build a temporary parking lot there that will exist for the next thirty years. Actually, correct me if I am wrong, but that is one thing, under city ordinances for that area, that they cannot do (tear it down for parking).
February 22, 201411 yr ^ I'm familiar with that original discussion. Unfortunately it appears the bogus Times Square analogy has taken on a new life with this project - being both propagated by L&R... "...Bowen compared the concept to displays in New York, Las Vegas, London and Shanghai. He envisions the digital advertising as a downtown landmark, akin to the giant chandelier planned for PlayhouseSquare." - From http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/02/lr_seeks_demolition_of_herold.html#incart_river_default And from Michelle's Twitter: "Design review member Jeffrey Bogart says you can't compare East 4th and Prospect to Times Square. "That's ridiculous." Re: billboard plan." -From the design review meeting -https://twitter.com/mjarboe And even members of this site: If they can get a committed retail tenant so that this isn't just a spec building, I'd support this. I love, love, love the Times Square style billboard. I'm inclined to support most things that are flashy and add something to the city. The tenant is important though. Go get a committed tenant, then let's talk. But I'm already inclined to support this.
February 22, 201411 yr Actually, correct me if I am wrong, but that is one thing, under city ordinances for that area, that they cannot do (tear it down for parking). This is true, which is why L&R had to present a plan showing something built on the site. But I think Whipjacka's right- the total half-a$$ery of it all makes me think that once the building's down, it's going to stay a "temporary" parking lot for a long time. All that ordinance really means is that a property owner can't just outright say that a building is being torn down for parking- there has to be a plan to re-use it within a certain time frame (I think it's around 2 years.) In practice, there's little the city can do to compel the redevelopment to happen.
February 22, 201411 yr Actually, i think they are ony pretending to sell this stupidity by facetiously comparing it to Times Square whose only similarities to this project is that both contain electronic advertising. In reality, they are going to knock down the building and build a temporary parking lot there that will exist for the next thirty years. Actually, correct me if I am wrong, but that is one thing, under city ordinances for that area, that they cannot do (tear it down for parking). I wonder what the stanley block will become.
February 22, 201411 yr Actually, i think they are ony pretending to sell this stupidity by facetiously comparing it to Times Square whose only similarities to this project is that both contain electronic advertising. In reality, they are going to knock down the building and build a temporary parking lot there that will exist for the next thirty years. Actually, correct me if I am wrong, but that is one thing, under city ordinances for that area, that they cannot do (tear it down for parking). I wonder what the stanley block will become. Horseshoe initially wanted to put a 24-hour diner in the welcome center. Maybe they'll use the Stanley Block space for something like that.
February 22, 201411 yr ^ I'm familiar with that original discussion. Unfortunately it appears the bogus Times Square analogy has taken on a new life with this project - being both propagated by L&R... "...Bowen compared the concept to displays in New York, Las Vegas, London and Shanghai. He envisions the digital advertising as a downtown landmark, akin to the giant chandelier planned for PlayhouseSquare." - From http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/02/lr_seeks_demolition_of_herold.html#incart_river_default And from Michelle's Twitter: "Design review member Jeffrey Bogart says you can't compare East 4th and Prospect to Times Square. "That's ridiculous." Re: billboard plan." -From the design review meeting -https://twitter.com/mjarboe And even members of this site: If they can get a committed retail tenant so that this isn't just a spec building, I'd support this. I love, love, love the Times Square style billboard. I'm inclined to support most things that are flashy and add something to the city. The tenant is important though. Go get a committed tenant, then let's talk. But I'm already inclined to support this. Yeah I said that and I stand by that
February 23, 201411 yr Here's my 2 min rendering of a condo proposal using paint and powerpaint...not sure who took more time on their rendering/idea, myself or L&R? Sell each condo from $299K-$550K. Boom. DISCLAIMER: I would be curious to the economic feasibility/break even point of such a development (number of stories/units/price points needed). I do not believe L&R truly understands the demand for such a residential address for high-end condos in this crossroads of a location. If done right, it'd immediately become the hottest "For Sale" option Downtown.
February 23, 201411 yr ^ Any chance you can throw a clock tower up there. That would be sweet. Of course and I'd love to, but I don't want to derail this thread by me playing SimCity. My point is that I question the integrity of their proposal... As many have stated, this looks like a half-assed attempt to claim they will build something in order to get the approval for demolition. And my proposal took me less than 10 minutes to do both images (which is how long I pictured them taking)... and mine may actually make them more money and help Downtown. If they want the building down, they should at least lie and propose something grander to get us all somewhat excited...
March 6, 201411 yr http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2014/03072014/030614DRACagenda.pdf Downtown/Flats Design Review District Agenda March 6, 2014 9:30am City Hall, Room 514, 601 Lakeside Avenue DF2013-060 - Demolition of Four-Story Office Building Project Address: 310 Prospect Avenue Project Representative: TBD PROJECT WITHDRAWN MEETING CANCELED "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 6, 201411 yr I am confused....what does this mean in terms of the courts March 15 (I believe) deadline?
March 6, 201411 yr To think, several years ago, this may have made it through design review, leaving us with a parking lot for years to come. I applaud the leaders on this one.
March 6, 201411 yr I really hope L&R cancels their crappy plans and sells to a real developer who will do a historic tax credit renovation.
March 6, 201411 yr ^Weston has made attempts but it sounds like L&R is being very stubborn I think I heard through the grapevine that they had offered $800K
March 8, 201411 yr This is barely any better than their last proposal. They "may" sell air rights? A few of you speculated the first proposal was purposely horrendous so their next, slightly-less horrible, proposal had a better chance of passing. I don't see how this project would get approved without a real plan in place. Anybody could put together a pretty rendering in 15 minutes. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/03/herold_building_owner_continue.html#incart_m-rpt-2 Herold Building owner continues demolition quest, revises sketches for downtown Cleveland site CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Cleveland City Planning Commission will get a second look this morning at a downtown property owner's plans to demolish a four-story building on Prospect Avenue near East Fourth Street. ... One conceptual rendering for the Herold Building site and the neighboring parking lot shows a six-story building. The L&R Group of Companies, which owns the property, wouldn't build more than one or two stories of retail. But David Dix, who handles government relations for the L&R family of businesses, said the company might sell air rights to another developer to enable apartment or restaurant construction. L&R is seeking a demolition permit for the Herold Building, which was built in 1906. (Richard L. Bowen + Associates)
March 8, 201411 yr The mixed-use building looks great, but L&R would build only the two-story retail portion with future air rights for the upper two floors?? If I'm the Planning Commission and I'm grading their application, I'd give it an "incomplete." If it's too hard for L&R to find a partner to build the upper floors of this site prior to making this important application, how confident should we be that they will EVER look for/find one? "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 8, 201411 yr This is barely any better than their last proposal. They "may" sell air rights? A few of you speculated the first proposal was purposely horrendous so their next, slightly-less horrible, proposal had a better chance of passing. I don't see how this project would get approved without a real plan in place. Anybody could put together a pretty rendering in 15 minutes. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/03/herold_building_owner_continue.html#incart_m-rpt-2 Herold Building owner continues demolition quest, revises sketches for downtown Cleveland site CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Cleveland City Planning Commission will get a second look this morning at a downtown property owner's plans to demolish a four-story building on Prospect Avenue near East Fourth Street. ... One conceptual rendering for the Herold Building site and the neighboring parking lot shows a six-story building. The L&R Group of Companies, which owns the property, wouldn't build more than one or two stories of retail. But David Dix, who handles government relations for the L&R family of businesses, said the company might sell air rights to another developer to enable apartment or restaurant construction. L&R is seeking a demolition permit for the Herold Building, which was built in 1906. (Richard L. Bowen + Associates) I think this looks tons better than their one story proposal.
March 8, 201411 yr Their one-story proposal wasn't real, so why would we believe that this is real? They show a bunch or pictures about what the potential of the site is, but none of them are actual plans. The largest parking-lot operator in the country isn't trying to develop their parking lot.
March 8, 201411 yr I really hope L&R cancels their crappy plans and sells to a real developer who will do a historic tax credit renovation. But per the court order, they only have 8 days to begin rehab or tear it down. L&R says it would be impossible to line up tenants for a new building that quickly while, at the same time, they haven't asked the judge for an extension. I didn't see that the order is forcing L&R to sell, and I doubt they would given how valuable this land could be for them.
Create an account or sign in to comment