Why on earth would you choose Euclid Ave if you wanted to do a "Suburban" style building? Euclid is the main transit route through that part of town. If you expect everyone to drive to your new building, wouldn't it make more sense on Chester, or Prospect, or literally any other street in the entire city?

I can't believe some of you guys are upset by this proposal.  A tech center there would be AWESOME and if there's nothing wrong with wanting somewhere to park.  If this group can get waivers or variances (whatever the word is) from the zoning laws, then what's the problem?  I mean, better the project fold completely?

^No, better the project be compatible with the very carefully thought out master concept for this part of the City.  At a minimum, this means siting the building at the sidewalk and providing the parking in the rear.  Maybe that's the developer's intent, but "surrounded by parking" doesn't sound like it.

 

As Grumpy says, if you (the developer) complain that the cost of land on Euclid is high and you want to build a one story suburban box, I'm sure there are other locations near UC.  I applaud the developer for wanting to do this in the City, but it doesn't mean he can gut all the other planning going on here.

I can't believe some of you guys are upset by this proposal.  A tech center there would be AWESOME and if there's nothing wrong with wanting somewhere to park.  If this group can get waivers or variances (whatever the word is) from the zoning laws, then what's the problem?  I mean, better the project fold completely?

 

YES!

This is the city not the burbs.  You don't put a sea of parking on Euclid Avenue, which was just given a make over.  they can conceal parking mid block BEHIND the building. 

 

If they cannot do that, then the project should not move forward.  They developers need to adhere to the zoning laws and not try to change them.[/b]

How bout the Midtown CDC? It is their neighborhood which will be affected by this decision. Also, the councilman of the ward would need to be present and give his or her ok for any zoning change.

 

From the article:  "At this point, we're not concerned about it," said Jim Haviland, the group's executive director. "We just feel that the building is needed to support the health care-technology initiative."

 

Honestly, I don't think Midtown ever gave a damn about urban design.  The Midtown master plan should be considered an empty piece of paper.  We should throw it in the recycling bin, or better yet, use it as toilet paper.

TBideon, a tech center would be very awesome. And I don't think anyone here is opposed to that. Just the opposite. Nor do I think anyone here is opposed to this facility having convenient parking.

 

But some of us want more than just your average schlock suburban piece of crap dumped on the city's premerier urban corridor. We've put up with that for too long and have been left with a corridor that cannot compete with other premier urban corridors elsewhere in the country. Instead, I think we want the developers to care more about the building's design, its surroundings, its pedestrian accessibility, its transit accessibility, its amenities and overall attractiveness.

 

Do you really not appreciate the difference between this:

 

And this?

 

Or this?

 

Or this?

 

Some buildings promote human interaction with their surroundings more than others and therefore create more economic activity in their surroundings. Typically single-level, single-use buildings set back from the street behind a lawn or big parking lot have little or no interaction with other buildings, the sidewalk or other surroundings. Those of us who love dynamic urban settings love seeing sidewalk activity at all hours, and that happens most often when you build multi-story buildings with mixed use (ie, cafes, coffee shop, retail, newsstand, restaurant, etc.) on the ground floor with offices, hotel, residential or a combination in the upper floors. You can identify these buildings when they have numerous access points (glassy doors, sidewalk-side windows, wide sidewalks, sidewalk benches and public art, etc.). Invariably these features will encourage pedestrian activity around them. If you create a whole neighborhood, district or city of this land use pattern, it will likely be result in a very vibrant area, with lots of activity, social and economic interaction and more jobs, spending and so on.

 

There's some really good books on urban design that will open your eyes to the benefits of the last three visual examples compared to the first one.

Allowing  most developers to dictate land use planning in YOUR community is like letting loggers dictate sustainable forest management. Ask and ye shall receive....the results are cookie cutter.

Allowing  most developers to dictate land use planning in YOUR community is like letting loggers dictate sustainable forest management. Ask and ye shall receive....the results are cookie cutter.

 

100% agree!

I think some people here are overestimating the demand for this property - perhaps investment in Cleveland in general - and if someone is willing to put themselves at great financial risk for a wonderful-sounding project, then IMO it's worth certain concessions like a sprawling business complex.  There's really not much more I can say about the topic.

Considering that the public just spent $250 million to rebuild Euclid I think that a "beggars can't be choosers" mentality isn't really appropriate.

what the proposal sounds like is that they took an EXISTING plan that WAS intended for a suburban location (bought on the cheap) and transplanted the design to fit on Euclid Ave. - cityscape be damned.  There is absolutely no attempt to inegrate the design into it's surroundings because that would cost more money.

I think some people here are overestimating the demand for this property - perhaps investment in Cleveland in general - and if someone is willing to put themselves at great financial risk for a wonderful-sounding project, then IMO it's worth certain concessions like a sprawling business complex.  There's really not much more I can say about the topic.

 

So we're suppose to take it up the butt with no lube, I don't think so!

   

Your summation is part of the general public and Cleveland problem.

 

Settling for less

What was the purpose of redoing Euclid Avenue, creating and enforcing zoning laws, if now the city will cave to every developer? 

 

I'd rather not have a project with no tentants, if it's going to be half assed and we'll suffer the consequences later.  We're trying to develop a more transit friend pedestrian environment and this wont help. 

 

In addition, it will be a slap in the face to the other business owners who stayed in the area before ECP and after as well as those who moved to Euclid as a direct result of the ECP.

 

Euclid's revival is bigger than one developer or development.  If a developer cannot build according to the laws of the City then go elsewhere or build you project within the guidelines laid before you.

^My response would be- Mr. Developer, if you want to make money on a deal that you put together which will create jobs and tax revenue for the city, that's fine.  In fact, it's great that this project will eventually bring more tax revenue into the city.  However, this is, THE CITY, not Solon, Brunswick, etc., and there's certain design guidelines the city has developments adhere by.  If you want to build here- you have to meet our design standards.

 

Problem is- this city's design standards are always skipped over when it comes to developments in city wards with few, if any, developments.  Midtown- sorry to say, is currently one of these wards.  I won't be surprised if this actually gets built as described, with mixed use zoning in place currently or not.  I hate to be a debbie downer, but with what's been proposed in this district up till this point, I feel like we can kiss design standards goodbye.  I hope I'm wrong.

^My response would be- Mr. Developer, if you want to make money on a deal that you put together which will create jobs and tax revenue for the city, that's fine.  In fact, it's great that this project will eventually bring more tax revenue into the city.  However, this is, THE CITY, not Solon, Brunswick, etc., and there's certain design guidelines the city has developments adhere by.  If you want to build here- you have to meet our design standards.

 

Problem is- this city's design standards are always skipped over when it comes to developments in city wards with few, if any, developments.  Midtown- sorry to say, is currently one of these wards.  I won't be surprised if this actually gets built as described, with mixed use zoning in place currently or not.  I hate to be a debbie downer, but with what's been proposed in this district up till this point, I feel like we can kiss design standards goodbye.  I hope I'm wrong.

 

Agreed.

This is the type of development intended for the Opportunity Corridor, so its not like the city does not want this type of development, it simply wants to use zoning appropriately.

I just don't understand why they can not build something up to the street with parking attached to the back or something so it's hidden? Are we sure they aren't thinking of this? I can't imagine it has to look exactly like some suburban office with a grassy front lawn with tons of parking in between? I mean what would be the point of that and who cares where the parking is located?

^Yeah, that's a good point.  It's one thing to claim rents can't support construction costs required to built multi-story buildings, which would be really sad, and which may itself be a deal breaker for this site.  But to claim the building has to be "suburban-like" with a lawn, parking in front, etc. is just another level of depressing BS.  Responsible corridor-friendly siting need not increase costs.  The article certainly inferred both parts were true, but who knows.

How about someone point these developers the way of Tyler Village for reference if they really believe that their Tech Center has to be "suburban" to be successful.

Or the Idea Center....

 

In fact, after doing a Google search on Cleveland technology centers or technology incubators, all of them except one are in the city of Cleveland. The only one that isn't is the Independence Technology Center.

I just don't understand why they can not build something up to the street with parking attached to the back or something so it's hidden? Are we sure they aren't thinking of this? I can't imagine it has to look exactly like some suburban office with a grassy front lawn with tons of parking in between? I mean what would be the point of that and who cares where the parking is located?

 

 

I have been asking the same thing!  Put the parking in the REAR...keep the setbacks small. The rear can be made to look welcoming and safe for drivers, while at the same time, we preserve some of the pedestrian appeal. This archaic "huge setback and parking lot" mindset is stuck in the 50's! Then they'll use lawn chemicals on the lawn, while several other places have banned the uses of such products for mere cosmetic reasons. I mention this because there must be some deluded idea in their minds of what 'going green' really is supposed to mean. You can't say you're green and continue to do either of these things. Is this what happens when you allow suburban development minded people plan the community? I'd rather put Dracula in charge of a blood bank!

 

Anyway, I wrote to the planning department today.

So we're suppose to take it up the butt with no lube, I don't think so!

   

Your summation is part of the general public and Cleveland problem.

 

Settling for less

 

 

 

I second this motion 110%! Aspiring to be average is the case!

 

And what really cracks me up is that some of these guys are still using this same old outdated tune of "jobs and taxes" thinking everyone will just jump on the bandwagon. A lot of things can create jobs and taxes... But is it worth it? At what cost? And besides this..what other socially redeeming qualities/aspects does the project have for the city? Repeating mistakes of the past again.

I know I'm a little late to the party here, but the issue for many developers is "what does my customer want." Believe me, nothing would please me more than to see a building built on Euclid that integrates itself perfectly with the fabric of the community and speak to the street. That said, Geis and Coyne tend to react to their customers. Geis sits down with a client, asks what they need to operate and builds to their specifications. Terry Coyne uses his market knowledge and vast network to get clients infront of companies like Geis so taht the client can run their business effectively.

 

I know that there is one company in particular that was fed up with looking for space in the city to meet it's needs and had all but convinced themselves to move operations outside the area when Fred Geis told them to re-consider, and thus giving this project some actual legs.

 

Design should always be considered, but let's not have the tail wag the dog.

I don't know, I thought that we were supposed to be recreating Euclid as a premier mixed use area of our city.  Holding development to some standard of design in order to protect that vision doesn't seem like a tail to me.  It seems like an integral part of what we're trying to make the "dog" out to be.  If all we're going to do is allow anyone to place any office park style development along Euclid, what is going to make it any more special than any other strip of street?  What's the value of that land then?

I know I'm a little late to the party here, but the issue for many developers is "what does my customer want." Believe me, nothing would please me more than to see a building built on Euclid that integrates itself perfectly with the fabric of the community and speak to the street. That said, Geis and Coyne tend to react to their customers. Geis sits down with a client, asks what they need to operate and builds to their specifications. Terry Coyne uses his market knowledge and vast network to get clients infront of companies like Geis so taht the client can run their business effectively.

 

I know that there is one company in particular that was fed up with looking for space in the city to meet it's needs and had all but convinced themselves to move operations outside the area when Fred Geis told them to re-consider, and thus giving this project some actual legs.

 

Design should always be considered, but let's not have the tail wag the dog.

 

I think the point everyone is trying to make is that there's no reason Geis can't deliver a product that meets the needs of potential clients (remember, no tenants are even lined up for this yet) while adhering to the zoning that is in place to maintain the look and built environment of Midtown.  A multistory building with secured parking in the rear makes sense for this location- it's not like they're assembling cars and need a massive, one-floor layout!  Furthermore, Geis wants to attract mid-size companies that are just out-growing their startup locations.  If they really need more space than an entire floor of a three- or four-story building can give them, they're probably large enough to be looking for independent space elsewhere.

 

Design should always be considered, but let's not have the tail wag the dog.

 

I think it's completely the opposite.  Designing this building as if it's in its own void with no regard for its surroundings and how it fits into and affects the environment it is in?  To me THAT sounds like the tail wagging the dog.

I'd say a multi-story building could pose a major problem for the companies they are going after. Maybe a building that's face acts like 4 stories on Euclid would work, but I know that one company that is in the market has a pretty strong shipping and receiving component. Many mid-level medical device manufactures won't look at upper floor space.

 

I think my main point is that Geis and Coyne are reacting to what a market has asked them for. While the project may not have listed companies involved yet, it is coming out of direct discussions with potential clients. Ultimately the customer will drive the development. You want to protect against bad decisions, true, but you also want to make sure the customer gets what they want/need, since those are the ones who will ultimately foot the bill.

I'd say a multi-story building could pose a major problem for the companies they are going after. Maybe a building that's face acts like 4 stories on Euclid would work, but I know that one company that is in the market has a pretty strong shipping and receiving component. Many mid-level medical device manufactures won't look at upper floor space.

 

I think my main point is that Geis and Coyne are reacting to what a market has asked them for. While the project may not have listed companies involved yet, it is coming out of direct discussions with potential clients. Ultimately the customer will drive the development. You want to protect against bad decisions, true, but you also want to make sure the customer gets what they want/need, since those are the ones who will ultimately foot the bill.

 

If so, why not put this particular development on another street?  There's no need to undermine the very concept of zoning, and frustrate the purpose of a billion-dollar makeover for Euclid Avenue, just because one potential tenant prefers a suburban setup.  This potential tenant isn't compatible with Euclid Avenue.  However, Cleveland has many developable parcels that could easily meet their needs.  Progressive zoning laws are already in place for the parcel in question.  "Rule of Law" means we don't toss those aside on a whim.  This situation doesn't merit a controversy, it merits a new site search.  Problem solved. 

 

This seems like an open attempt to discredit urbanism, given the wording employed thus far, and given the existence of so many other sites that don't have zoning issues.  Can anyone answer why this MUST go on Euclid if it MUST contradict all stated plans for that street?  There are so many round holes in which to put this round peg... that "jobs vs. urban zoning on Euclid" is clearly a false choice.

With these type of uses in mind, I don't think that Midtown would have much potential for mixed-uses.  When I think of 1 story buildings mixed in with multi-story mixed use structures, East 185th comes to mind.  The street is walkable, and offers a mix of uses which are mostly built up to the public right-of-way.  The difference is that most, if not all of the uses are retail, and not manufacturing.  Having large manufacturing facilities either built up to the public right-of-way or setback with a parking lot in front will not foster the type of walkable neighborhood some (including myself) would like to see, and would actually create pedestrian "dead zones" as the large buildings would not cater to residents (think of the Clinic, for example).

 

We will have to sacrifice one to get the other; at this point, it seems that the potential for more tertiary jobs could win out.

When did large manufacturing facilities become the plan for Euclid Ave?

Cleveland has many developable parcels that could easily meet their needs. This situation doesn't merit a controversy, it merits a new site search. Problem solved.

 

That says it all.  If you are going to be a single story manufacturing building set back from the street behind a surface lot, why do you even care about being on Euclid?  Why would you pay a premium to be there instead of on Chester or Carnegie?

^That is a good question.  Are there tax credits specifically for new jobs or construction on Euclid Ave that is not available on neighboring streets?

Cleveland has many developable parcels that could easily meet their needs. This situation doesn't merit a controversy, it merits a new site search. Problem solved.

 

That says it all. If you are going to be a single story manufacturing building set back from the street behind a surface lot, why do you even care about being on Euclid? Why would you pay a premium to be there instead of on Chester or Carnegie?

 

Probably because you already control the parcel in question either outright or through some sort of purchase option. And there is obviously some perceived value of being on the health line as well. Not to mention the proximity to UH and the clinic being important to the potential clients. Or maybe because you just like Gallucci's.

 

What would worry me, if I were "Cleveland," is that in order to build new in the city you will have priced yourself out of the region's market. You have tenants looking for $12 to $15 PSF space with particular amenities and the only place you can seemingly get is outside Cleveland proper. $20 to $21 PSF are downtown office prices. Why is it so much easier and cheaper to build outside of the city?

 

If the zoning is that important, I would try to work with Geis to at least get the building to act as a street-wall, moving the parking onto Chester. I'd also want ODot to re-think taking away the Chester Ave ramp (since that will be where much of the traffic will be flowing from).

^I believe the proposed building is on the south side of Euclid between Euclid and Carnegie.

If the zoning is that important, I would try to work with Geis to at least get the building to act as a street-wall, moving the parking onto Chester. I'd also want ODot to re-think taking away the Chester Ave ramp (since that will be where much of the traffic will be flowing from).

 

Really I think that minor things like that could make this acceptable.  It doesn't cost more to build a building up to the sidewalk, for example.

^The recent 2009 3Q downtown market analysis from CBRE shows that currently downtown office prices are around $17.00 per sqft, which is actually LOWER than some suburban locations.  I agree tough that the reason why we are seeing these proposals along this stretch and not Cedar is because of deals made with current property owners. 

 

I'm going to try and find Midtown's masterplan online... I think it's recently been updated.

should have qualified downtown prices being for marquee spots (class A?). Obviously there are cheaper offices depending on buildings, sub-leases available etc, as well as more expensive suburban spaces in some cases.

There are some signs of life at the Cleveland Athletic Club building...a few workers from Coon Restoration have been there the last of couple of days. Right now they aren't doing any work to the building, it looked like they were just taking a close look at the upper floors. Hopefully this is a sign that the purchase by former members is moving along. 

Another storefront has been leased on lower Euclid.  Nothing earth shattering but the space inbetween Theresa's and WT Grant will house another restaurant that fits in with what's going on there (catering mainly to daytime lunch crowd).  Seeing as this storefront currently looks like something out of Kabul, Afghanistan it should make a big impact, even if it isn't the most exciting tennant.  I'm always hesitant to release tennant names if it hasn't already been done, but I'm sure if you check the CPC website in the coming weeks you'll see it.  It was approved at design review today.

^Thanks for the update.  Is it is well-known name?

Chain based out of state that is pretty new to the area....

Chain based out of state that is pretty new to the area....

 

Dear gods of the "Chain based out of state that is pretty new to the area",

A Five Guys that's open on nights and weekends would be clutch.  Hopefully that is the chain the Mayor speaks of.

 

Sincerely,

DocBroc

My hopes would be for a Roly Poly or Atlanta Bread Company (is that chain still even in existence). 

No, No, and No,  :)

Chi-Chi's?  ;)

Chain based out of state that is pretty new to the area....

 

Very exciting news! Just keep connecting the dots until all the storefronts are full!

Is it Heidi's deli?

 

I'm pretty sure it's "Zoup". YUM!

Which I think would be a great addition.

 

I'm pretty sure it's "Zoup". YUM!

Which I think would be a great addition.

 

Great addition if they're open nights/weekends.....  Otherwise they're dead to me like Au Bon Pain.

Too bad they didn't get a Souper Market in there.

^As a resident of the area and a huge fan of Souper Market, that would have been awesome.  But Zoup would be pretty good too. 

Zoup = the only reason for me to go to Solon.