They were posted on a local design blog somewhere. They are awful. I thought it was a camera trick at first. They are massive. I can't believe people have such horrible taste.

I'm serious about wanting to puke when I saw them.  Massive BRIGHT green interstate signs which overhang the sidewalk.  (I think they'd be less obnoxious if they just overhung the road like most signs do.)  It really seems to just throw off everything that is nice around the E. 4th intersection.

Posted here: http://www.designrag.blogspot.com/

 

They are HUGE and the blogger makes good points about placement... why is this sign necessary when Ontario and E. 9th are the two real options for north/south traffic?  It's certainly not too late to take it down... let's just not force the aesthetic police to do it for them!  :wink:

^I thought that they were going to be those huge highway signs that hang over the street. These aren't that bad.

Now that I think about it, I did notice the sign while walking down Euclid a couple times last week, but it didn't stick out as much as last night when I went through there by car.  It looks even worse from the road/bus as it blocks all of the E. 4th streetscape/signage.

 

EDIT: Also, I think they may look worse at night, which would be why last night was the first time I was burning with anger when I saw them (or maybe it was because I'm already fed up with ODOT over the West Shoreway).  Anyways, check them out at night some time and see what you think, they are lit up very bright and stick out like a sore thumb.

are they even permanent?  Could these be temporary since the street is a mess.

my most hated part about this particular sign (by east 4th) isn't that it blocks your view of the corner alley when walking from public square... it's that it completely blocks your view of the soldiers and sailors monument when walking towards public square... barf.

 

and they are definitely permanent.

I think it's hilarious that they've provided directional signage when the sign below it clearly states that you have no choice about which direction to go!

Totally absurd.  Euclid Ave isn't the f'ing exit of the Crocker Park parking lot.  McCleveland, any chance you can bring this up to the Gateway Neighborhood Association to try to apply some pressure? 

I don't think there is much anyone can do as Euclid is a state or federal route or some such thing, and they are required to have such signs... and i think no matter where they put them it'd be awful.

There HAS be some way to remedy this - those f#cktards at ODOT tried to pull the same thing in my hood with the Steelyard Roundabout (a sign about 20 feet by ten feet over West 14th - I don't think so!) - they were told where they could stick that monstrosity. I refuse to believe those signs on Euclid can't be adjusted.

 

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/14/19/chatter-big-mistake

^^Gotcha, thanks.

 

^And yes, it sounds like this is another issue that needs to be approached through the Ohio Dept. of Highway-F*ers

While they're not the prettiest signs I've ever seen I personally don't HATE them. If I was an out of towner I think I would really appreciate them. I was just thanking in my head the designers of the large & clear street name signs downtown since it makes it so easy to give directions to people coming in from out of town. meh.

That sign looks HUGE is it larger than what is used on Public Square?

 

http://www.pbase.com/image/91671771.jpg (photo by step2me)

It seems bigger, and on top of that it's much brighter green and brightly lit.

 

I know it's a matter of taste, but they're REALLY ugly signs and if you disagree with me then you're wrong!!!!!!  :whip:  :wink:

Investment in Cleveland's Euclid Avenue to reach $4B

Associated Press - February 10, 2008 3:05 PM ET

 

CLEVELAND (AP) - A redevelopment of neighborhoods around Euclid Avenue, the city's main drag, will reach about $4 billion, as developers turn abandoned buildings into apartments, retail shops and offices, community leaders predict.

 

The spending, which includes federal money and private investment from museums and hospitals located along the four-mile corridor, encompasses projects already under way and those scheduled to be completed within five years.

 

It will also dwarf the money spent on development projects in the 1990s that produced the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a new baseball park for the Indians and a new football stadium for the Browns.

 

The project is seen as a bright spot in a city struggling with poverty, population loss and home foreclosures.

 

http://www.wdtn.com/Global/story.asp?S=7850332

Finally saw the highway signs on lower Euclid Avenue in person over the weekend...and they are indeed atrocious.  I'm gonna start writing some emails.

By the way... Briefly spoke to Eli Mann today (briefly because i think i used up all my "developer" time this morning and didn't want to be too inquisitive / annoying, but he expects to get work started on the John Hartness Brown buildings this year (spring/summer).  I can't wait to see this project move forward.  I meant to ask about the status of the CAC building as there's been a lot of speculation on various threads here... but completely slipped my mind.

The John Hartress Building was one of the most elegant buildings ever constructed in the city before it was cut up to make way for the Union Trust Building (now Huntington).  Pretty sure it was made of cast iron and had very expansive glazing throughout.  Similiar to French Art Nouveau of the early 20th century. An intersection at East 9th was also removed for the UT, which now serves as the service alley for the structure (off Chester or E12th), but the original facade of the John Hartress is still visible, althought the glazing has been filled in with masonry.  You can still get a good idea of what the building originally looked like though.  There is also a breakdown of the structure in the book "Cleveland Architecture: 1876 to 1976."

By the way... Briefly spoke to Eli Mann today (briefly because i think i used up all my "developer" time this morning and didn't want to be too inquisitive / annoying, but he expects to get work started on the John Hartness Brown buildings this year (spring/summer).  I can't wait to see this project move forward.  I meant to ask about the status of the CAC building as there's been a lot of speculation on various threads here... but completely slipped my mind.

 

So, he's only going to work on one of the four/three buildings between the Huntington and the Statler?

By the way... Briefly spoke to Eli Mann today (briefly because i think i used up all my "developer" time this morning and didn't want to be too inquisitive / annoying, but he expects to get work started on the John Hartness Brown buildings this year (spring/summer).  I can't wait to see this project move forward.  I meant to ask about the status of the CAC building as there's been a lot of speculation on various threads here... but completely slipped my mind.

 

So, he's only going to work on one of the four/three buildings between the Huntington and the Statler?

No, all of them.  You can see an elevation of these buildings in the latest Litt blog.  I know that the one building they could not find enough documentation or photos of it's original condition... therefore they could aleter it.  This is the one that is planned on changing to like 16+ stories right next to the statler. 

No, all of them.  You can see an elevation of these buildings in the latest Litt blog. 

 

can you post a link, all I see are blog entries from 2007

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2008/02/_euclid_avenue_is_changing.html

No, all of them.  You can see an elevation of these buildings in the latest Litt blog.  I know that the one building they could not find enough documentation or photos of it's original condition... therefore they could aleter it.  This is the one that is planned on changing to like 16+ stories right next to the statler. 

 

I heard the architect report about a year ago that the developer who put the new facade on that building in the 60s/70s ripped off the entire original terra cotta facade and it couldn't be restored. You can see how the new facade is set back a little from the new facades on the other buildings; they basically lopped off all the old stuff. With 668 Euclid and the other Eli Mann buildings, the new facade was just tacked on top of the old, and the old is restorable.

I still can't figure out what people were thinking in the 60s and 70s, no matter how high they may have been.

^I once suggested that all individuals responsible for those decisions should be sentenced to death , and I believe it was X who noted the sentence should be "Death by encasement in aluminum."... very fitting.

The John Hartress Building was one of the most elegant buildings ever constructed in the city before it was cut up to make way for the Union Trust Building (now Huntington).  Pretty sure it was made of cast iron and had very expansive glazing throughout.  Similiar to French Art Nouveau of the early 20th century. An intersection at East 9th was also removed for the UT, which now serves as the service alley for the structure (off Chester or E12th), but the original facade of the John Hartress is still visible, althought the glazing has been filled in with masonry.  You can still get a good idea of what the building originally looked like though.  There is also a breakdown of the structure in the book "Cleveland Architecture: 1876 to 1976."

 

I am slightly obsessed by the original JHB Building- it really was an amazing building and I would kill to have it still intact today. I've strolled around the back alley looking for surviving facade elements but they're really isn't much left.

 

I was once messing around on the web looking for info about the original building and found this amazing tidbit from the NY Times about John Hartness Brown:

 

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=950DE1DA1E39E333A25751C1A96E9C946196D6CF

 

 

 

^That article is awesome.

 

Does anyone have any links to and/or photographs of this building(s)?  I feel like I have searched the world over and never actually seen one.

 

^You definitely need a copy of the Eric Johannesen Cleveland Architecture book- not just for a photo of this building, but because it is by far the best/most comprehensive read on Cleveland architectural history I've seen.  I never could find a photo of the building on the web.

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Cleveland-Architecture-1876-1976-Eric-Johannesen/dp/0911704213/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204057129&sr=8-1

anyone with a subscription to Crains?  They have an article on filling in lower downtown Euclid with some sort of furniture retail district...not joking.

That'll be convenient for me whenever I need to buy a couch.  Which is to say, almost never.

i'll wait to read the article before commenting... but I saw the study about 3 months ago, and I actually think it made a lot of sense.

I know, I'm just a smart-ss.

I don't like this idea.

This might finally get me to renew my Crain's subscription.

I don't like this idea.

 

Why?  Have you heard the proposal or seen plans?

Here you go

 

Study finds furniture niche for Euclid Ave.

 

Downtown groups seek comprehensive way to develop area’s storefronts

By STAN BULLARD

 

4:30 am, March 24, 2008

 

Downtown development groups are taking the first steps in trying to create a comprehensive vision for the hodgepodge of storefronts, many empty, on lower Euclid Avenue in downtown Cleveland with a just-completed study by retail broker TerreMark Partners of Atlanta.

 

 

 

http://crainscleveland.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080324/SUB1/418496461/1004&Profile=1004

I don't like this idea.

 

Why?  Have you heard the proposal or seen plans?

 

I've seen this before in other downtowns, granted not the size of Cleveland, but I don't think it does anything for foot traffic. I've always imagined Euclid a little like 34th Street near Macy's. Sure, it's a little tacky, but the number of people is cool, and it has to be good for business. I just don't think furniture stores will do that.

Interesting concept. I would love to see the study. While it's a good start to see what retail is underrepresented in our regional market, that underrepresentation does not necessarily translate to consumers' willingness to visit a particular neighborhood to make that kind of purchase. Hopefully, the study also reviewed consumers' interest in visiting such a district, and their interest if the district was in this particular corridor. I don't think it's a bad idea, particularly with the growth of the downtown housing market. But to make it profitable, you would also have to convince a suburban population that has not been overly supportive of downtown retail to come downtown when making home furnishing decisions.

 

Not sure how well this would play out in a downtown environment, but Pittsburgh's Design Zone (http://www.1662designzone.com/), just to the east of its downtown, is based around furniture, home furnishings and home-oriented art, and it seems to do QUITE well ... tons of businesses, both local and national, and lots of street traffic. That being said, it's in a built environment more similar to Asiatown or downtown along St. Clair. It would be interesting to see if similar businesses could withstand the rent requirements of lower Euclid.

Whoever see's an opportunity for themselves will move in on Euclid.  Who cares about these studies.  If a shoe store see's the opportunity, go for it!  I really don't see the need for more restaurants though. 

This doesn't seem like the sort of high foot traffic use that will make Euclid Ave into the great street it should be.

Without getting too in to it, I'll say this:  I've read the entire study and it made sense to me.  It's not just that furniture is under retailed in greater cleveland, it's that it's very scattered.  Trust me, from one who recently went looking for bedroom furniture.... it took us ALL OVER Northeast Ohio. Driving from one place to another to another.  The right mix of stores has the ability (I believe anyway) to draw people in, if only because it will be the only cluster of them in the entire area. Key of course being right stores.  As much as people don't want to admit this, clothing retail downtown is going to be a challenge until the residential pop topples 20k.  Not enough suburban shoppers are going to bypass CP and Legacy/Beachwood just to come down to shop at the same stores they could by their house.  Oh, and retailers are afraid of downtown... That's not speculation, I know people trying to get this stuff together... They are very very tenative... However some of the furniture retailers think it might work, and are at least considering it.  I don't know if they will pull it off, but I do think it is an interesting concept worth a lot of attention.

 

And Goldberg should stick to Amtrust... they haven't done so well with development, and seriously at some point store fronts have to be more than restaraunts and pubs, that comment showed about as much vision as a typical North Olmsteadite

“It’s a piece of paper,” Mr. Goldberg said. “They can throw it away.”

 

I agree completely.  over the years, how many millions of dollars have been wasted on these studies by out of town consultants on how to reinvent downtown?  Until there is a mass of residents living downtown there will be no demand for retail, furniture or otherwise.  And does anyone really think that someone from Beechwood or Westlake would drive into downtown, past crocker park and legacy village, to purchase their new love seat?

^ nope.  plus has anyone considered the logistics issues that come with moving large pieces of furniture in and out along a busy thoroughfare? (once ECTP is complete)

 

it does seem that such a project would be better suited somewhere in Midtown on a secondary street off of Euclid!  i'd rather see this eventual prime real estate reserved for something a bit more high-profile!

^ nope.  plus has anyone considered the logistics issues that come with moving large pieces of furniture in and out along a busy thoroughfare? (once ECTP is complete)

 

That's a good point that I hadn't thought of.

"And does anyone really think that someone from Beechwood or Westlake would drive into downtown, past crocker park and legacy village, to purchase their new love seat?"

 

Or on the east side, would they skip Design Within Reach or Cottonwood? There used to be a higher-end store called Sweet Modern near the Halle Building (where Flourish is now located), they moved to Woodmere and I'm guessing they're no longer in business. I really think this study over-estimates the market demand of the region. Let's face it, there are only so many people willing to shell out $9K for a Eames chaise.

^They aren't talking about just high end furniture.  Also home accessorie type stores, etc.  Again, if everyone buys in to the concept you create an actual "district" completely unique to the entire region, and it can become almost a one stop shop.

"Again, if everyone buys in to the concept"

 

Hey, if they can successfully "herd cats", they'll get my congratulations :-D

it does seem that such a project would be better suited somewhere in Midtown on a secondary street off of Euclid!  i'd rather see this eventual prime real estate reserved for something a bit more high-profile!

 

My thoughts exactly.  I think the furniture district is a good idea- but perhaps in Midtown or along Superior in the East 20's, not along Euclid.

they've been talking to the various property owners, developers, and potential tennants for quite a while. Most think it's worth investigating.... Obviously some like Goldberg (whom recently when selling 668 noted that they decided they were better investors than developers) think it's worth the value of a burning bag of poo, and just want to see restaurants and pubs in every storefront downtown.

 

I'll say this, whatever gets done better be cohesive.  If every developer decides to go back to the way they've done things for the last 35-40 years (AKA every man for himself, put whatever you can find in the storefront)... it will fail.  Also, listen to Eli Mann.  People may not know much about him right now, but he is going to be a major factor in the refacing of downtown.  The guy is smart, and has big backing from his investors in New York.  He's not messing around, he's been planning stuff for quite some time on Euclid and when he starts, it's going to get a lot of balls rolling.