12 hours ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

Thanks for the article.  This level of uncertainty is why some people are to cede their thinking to authoritarian figures.  

People want strong, confident leadership.

They don't want people that say - well, we're not sure what we want, please tell us what you think is best and we'll consider everything and take forever to make a decision that has considered everyone's thoughts and feelings.

 

Forget that, they want to hear someone that is willing to step forward and say "I believe in our city, I believe we are prepared for the future.  Give us a 1,000 ft courthouse and a 1,000 room convention hotel that will show the world our city is back on the rise and prepared for the future.  Whatever it costs today is less than it will cost tomorrow."  

 

Other cities that are less well positioned for the future wouldn't blink.  Believe in yourself Cleveland.  Don't let the challenges of the past be obstacles for your future.  Build a symbol or symbols of your resurgence NOW.

 

I'll get down off my soapbox now.

And some others are ok with a democratically elected government carefully considering a number of more reasonable and cost effective solutions. 

41 minutes ago, TMart said:

That someone needs to have $$$.

Where are those other cities getting the $$$ to build new courthouses?

42 minutes ago, TMart said:

That someone needs to have $$$.

Agreed - that would help.  Do we not have those - Lerner, Gilbert, Haslam

The other thing that helps for construction projects is a paying tenant.  We have that too.

I just hope we have the decision-makers involved that have a vision for the city based on its potential and its future rather than its past

15 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Courthouse proposals are on trial
By Ken Prendergast / November 3, 2023

 

In local real estate parlance, a “whale” is a development project whose total floorspace measures 1 million square feet or more. Not only are they big, they’re tough to get. But there are two Cleveland entities who were able to do what Capt. Ahab could not — catch the whale. Two whales are under construction right now — Sherwin-Williams’ new headquarters tower downtown and Cleveland Clinic’s new Neurological Institute in the Fairfax neighborhood, near University Circle. A third whale is in the early stages of the chase, a stage where things are most fluid and thus, very intriguing.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/11/03/courthouse-proposals-are-on-trial/

@KJP closing strong with a bit of biblical literary razzle dazzle ... "Hook that Leviathan."  Furthermore,  we all will need the patience of Job to see this one through. Fingers crossed.

The pit is intriguing since it would fill a difficult to develop space. The economics for typical mixed use there instead may not happen in our lifetimes. 

1 hour ago, Mendo said:

The pit is intriguing since it would fill a difficult to develop space. The economics for typical mixed use there instead may not happen in our lifetimes. 

This is a really good point, get the city to fill in the less desirable lots. But more than that--city development here could also make mixed use development in nearby lots (such as the northern end of the warehouse district, or the northeast edge of the flats) more attractive since there will be more "boots on the ground" so to speak. 

 

If we convert the shoreway to a boulevard there will likely be a few more developable parcels in this area as well, only adding to the above statement, so even more reason. 

 

Also, if we do develop this area, I really hope the city considers adding a pedestrian/biking trail from North Coast Harbor to the East Bank of the Flats. This is a critical missing link as far as I'm concerned, and as both areas continue to develop the need for a quality link will only increase. 

I will bet the farm the courthouse will be built as part of the Bedrocks riverfront plan.  They are the only ones with enough easily accessed capital to do a build lease back.  Which is the only way the courthouse gets built without a tax increase. The County and its bond rating will be financially stretched to the breaking point building the new jail.

^ That would be a good location, right next to the federal courthouse. I still think the jail should be built near the post office, not in Garfield Hrs.

 

Edited November 5, 20231 yr by LibertyBlvd

Bedrock's only submission appears to be the Landmark Building. And Bedrock doesn't spend their own money. If they did, more of their projects would get built and phase one of the riverfront development wouldn't have been split up into two sub-phases.

 

TurnDev has a lot of financial and political juice. I think TurnDev and either DMD/DBL could end up being the winners.

On 11/4/2023 at 10:11 AM, LibertyBlvd said:

Where are those other cities getting the $$$ to build new courthouses?

Without doing research, I would guess that they have better tax revenue. If Cleveland is one of the poorer cities, I would think tax revenue would be a major issue.

7 minutes ago, TMart said:

Without doing research, I would guess that they have better tax revenue. If Cleveland is one of the poorer cities, I would think tax revenue would be a major issue.

This is a county building not a city building

On 11/5/2023 at 11:25 AM, KJP said:

Bedrock's only submission appears to be the Landmark Building. And Bedrock doesn't spend their own money. If they did, more of their projects would get built and phase one of the riverfront development wouldn't have been split up into two sub-phases.

 

TurnDev has a lot of financial and political juice. I think TurnDev and either DMD/DBL could end up being the winners.

 

Rooting big time for the DMD proposal. Its an amazingly innovative, classy, straightforward, European, and significant way for Cleveland to take control of its reputation and reshape itself in the image of what it once was. I basically froth at the mouth at the idea of rebuilding older classical buildings that we've lost. It would completely change the feel of downtown for the better. And I'd like to think that publicly-funded projects like this will push the architecture and development industries to innovate strategies that enable older architectural styles to be redeployed more cost-effectively in private developments locally. It would also show that, among the 3C's, Cleveland can manage to encourage some cohesion and commitment to its historic architectural style compared to, say, Cincinnati, who is easily #1 in Ohio in this regard. 

 

I'm in love with this plan:

 

 

It straight up reminds me of Brussels (probably my favorite city in the world behind Amsterdam):

 

 

Just for a moment, close your eyes and imagine walking from a plaza like this down to the Flats, through Settlers Landing, or through the underside of the Detroit Superior Bridge once it gets redeveloped, and ending at Irishtown Bend. Or along the redeveloped Tower City riverfront. There will be no urban experience like this in America. 

 

 

Edited November 7, 20231 yr by ASP1984

8 hours ago, ASP1984 said:

 

Rooting big time for the DMD proposal. Its an amazingly innovative, classy, straightforward, European, and significant way for Cleveland to take control of its reputation and reshape itself in the image of what it once was. I basically froth at the mouth at the idea of rebuilding older classical buildings that we've lost. It would completely change the feel of downtown for the better. And I'd like to think that publicly-funded projects like this will push the architecture and development industries to innovate strategies that enable older architectural styles to be redeployed more cost-effectively in private developments locally. It would also show that, among the 3C's, Cleveland can manage to encourage some cohesion and commitment to historic architectural styles significant to the area compared to, say, Cincinnati, who is easily #1 in Ohio in this regard. 

 

I'm in love with this plan:

 

 

It straight up reminds me of Brussels (probably my favorite city in the world behind Amsterdam):

 

 

Just for a moment, close your eyes and imagine walking from a plaza like this down to the Flats, through Settlers Landing, or through the underside of the Detroit Superior Bridge once it gets redeveloped, and ending at Irishtown Bend. Or along the redeveloped Tower City riverfront. There will be no urban experience like this in America. 

 

 

I can imagine it for about 3-4 years, when the lack of maintenance and apathy of our city and county civil service union workers rears it's ugly head.   A plaza full of pigeons,  fast food wrappers and cigarette butts will replace it. 

12 hours ago, ASP1984 said:

 

Rooting big time for the DMD proposal. Its an amazingly innovative, classy, straightforward, European, and significant way for Cleveland to take control of its reputation and reshape itself in the image of what it once was. I basically froth at the mouth at the idea of rebuilding older classical buildings that we've lost. It would completely change the feel of downtown for the better. And I'd like to think that publicly-funded projects like this will push the architecture and development industries to innovate strategies that enable older architectural styles to be redeployed more cost-effectively in private developments locally. It would also show that, among the 3C's, Cleveland can manage to encourage some cohesion and commitment to historic architectural styles significant to the area compared to, say, Cincinnati, who is easily #1 in Ohio in this regard. 

 

I'm in love with this plan:

 

 

It straight up reminds me of Brussels (probably my favorite city in the world behind Amsterdam):

 

 

Just for a moment, close your eyes and imagine walking from a plaza like this down to the Flats, through Settlers Landing, or through the underside of the Detroit Superior Bridge once it gets redeveloped, and ending at Irishtown Bend. Or along the redeveloped Tower City riverfront. There will be no urban experience like this in America. 

 

 

Though I pro-Tower, I will admit that the DMD proposal is stunning.  It would be a unique and welcome addition to the city.

I'm really pro-new construction vs rehab for this particular project.

4 hours ago, Cleburger said:

I can imagine it for about 3-4 years, when the lack of maintenance and apathy of our city and county civil service union workers rears it's ugly head.   A plaza full of pigeons,  fast food wrappers and cigarette butts will replace it. 

That is what I was referring to when I said that I hope that the decision-makers here think more about the future and less about the past.

Cleveland has some tremendous assets and some macro-economic trends that position it well for the future.

A challenge yes - but how we think about our city and these projects will affect how our city is viewed going forward.

Popped up in my Instafeed

 

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 20231 yr by Mov2Ohio

Popped up in my Instafeed
 
 

 
 

I’m scared to ask if anyone has pics of what was here prior.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just think, if we'd had Urban Ohio back then - we probably would've had  around 175 pages of the "New Justice Center" thread. 

The second rule of government contracting in a city and county that was run by the Mafia, "Why have one tower crane when you can have four at four times the price?"

12 hours ago, CleveFan said:

Just think, if we'd had Urban Ohio back then - we probably would've had  around 175 pages of the "New Justice Center" thread. 

 

In that last pic the building looks pristine... and I guess it would've been in Fall 1976. 

 

A good power wash would do good to make it more attractive IMO. Look at what the power wash did for the Ameritrust/9 tower and Old Stone Church, even the Terminal tower!

Edited November 15, 20231 yr by Mov2Ohio

1 hour ago, Mov2Ohio said:

 

I'm that last pic the building looks pristine... and I guess it would've been in Fall 1976. 

 

A good power wash would do good to make it more attractive IMO. Look at what the power wash did for the Ameritrust/9 tower and Old Stone Church, even the Terminal tower!

I thought the exact same thing. It's surprisingly *almost* nice looking in that last photo.

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I thought the exact same thing. It's surprisingly *almost* nice looking in that last photo

I pulled a current photo off of the internet and turned it black and white.  Honestly, I think it looks exactly the same today as it does in the 1970s photo.  

It is sort of interesting that building looks so much better in black and white. My take is that it just goes to show how much finishes (and color) matter. Imagine if the whole building was clad in white marble, the shape would still be just as ugly, but on the whole the building would probably look much better. (Now add some detail work and you could have a beautiful building). 

^ Not beautiful but certainly less ugly.

It does look better close-up than from a distance.

You can change the colors, materials, whatever.  It's still an urban design disaster- set back and dead at street level.  That won't change.  Tear it down and build something better.

1 minute ago, X said:

You can change the colors, materials, whatever.  It's still an urban design disaster- set back and dead at street level.  That won't change.  Tear it down and build something better.

 

I don't know, I'd argue that out of all the court houses downtown, it has the most street level activity with people constantly in and out on the north and east side and officers/transports in and out on the other two, given its somewhat mixed use office/jail/courthouse.

5 minutes ago, X said:

You can change the colors, materials, whatever.  It's still an urban design disaster- set back and dead at street level.  That won't change.  Tear it down and build something better.

I’d agree with tearing down the Police Headquarters- but I’d like to see the tower saved along with the atrium. 

 

I’d hope that the JC is repurposed. There’s plenty of surface parking downtown to build a new courthouse.  There’s no need to want to see a 400 footer demoed. Sure- the elevators dont work right when it rains, and the atrium leaks… but they can be fixed. The views out of that building are worth it.

17 minutes ago, X said:

You can change the colors, materials, whatever.  It's still an urban design disaster- set back and dead at street level.  That won't change.  Tear it down and build something better.

 

Could that be fixed with a new 3 or 4 story surrounding buildout?

 

I think the "ugly" in the building is really the strange window to wall ratio....it just look....defensive. Anyone with mad photoshop skills wanna try replacing those solid horizontal sections between windows/floors with glass? 

I’m guessing it’ll reach a similar conclusion as Crosley Tower in Cincinnati they’ll cite repair and modernization as too challenging and limiting leaving tearing it down more beneficial 

1 hour ago, Mov2Ohio said:

 

I don't know, I'd argue that out of all the court houses downtown, it has the most street level activity with people constantly in and out on the north and east side and officers/transports in and out on the other two, given its somewhat mixed use office/jail/courthouse.

The only issue is the steel truss forms used in construction only allows solid material to hide the structure.

2 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

Could that be fixed with a new 3 or 4 story surrounding buildout?

 

I think the "ugly" in the building is really the strange window to wall ratio....it just look....defensive. Anyone with mad photoshop skills wanna try replacing those solid horizontal sections between windows/floors with glass? 

I agree and think that a reimagining of the buildings exterior with modern windows - lots of glass - would do wonders for the JC.  
I’m not in favor of tearing down skyscrapers just because we don’t like the style anymore - or ever did for that matter.  
 

Two of Baltimores tallest - including the tallest 530 ‘ Transamerica Building - remind me - at least somewhat  - of the JC. I wonder if it would be possible to “soften” the building’s look by creating  slightly  circular corners - the Baltimore example below…

19 hours ago, CleveFan said:

I agree and think that a reimagining of the buildings exterior with modern windows - lots of glass - would do wonders for the JC.  
I’m not in favor of tearing down skyscrapers just because we don’t like the style anymore - or ever did for that matter.  
 

Two of Baltimores tallest - including the tallest 530 ‘ Transamerica Building - remind me - at least somewhat  - of the JC. I wonder if it would be possible to “soften” the building’s look by creating  slightly  circular corners - the Baltimore example below…

 

 

I agree. To me the "tear it down because it's ugly" opinion is akin to the sins made to some early 20th century buildings in the 50s and 60s to modernize them. I'm thinking Schofield and JHB buildings on Euclid in particular.

I took this back in 2007 in an attempt to make make the building look pretty. I'm not sure I succeeded but the surroundings certainly are. 😉

There’s worse buildings than the JC court tower.  Not to change topics, but if anyone has seen what the original plan was for CSU- you couldn’t even dream in your worst nightmare a college campus looking that bad. The same brutalist architecture, but even more hideous.  

 

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 20231 yr by Oldmanladyluck

5 hours ago, Mov2Ohio said:

 

 

I agree. To me the "tear it down because it's ugly" opinion is akin to the sins made to some early 20th century buildings in the 50s and 60s to modernize them. I'm thinking Schofield and JHB buildings on Euclid in particular.

I don't think people are saying tear the building down because it is ugly.  I think people are saying that the current space is in some state of disrepair, is costly and inefficient.  Based on the building's current state, the question is what is the most cost effective way for the city to obtain a modernized and efficient building.  My understanding is there would be (3) options - renovate the existing, build on a new lot or tear the existing building down and rebuild on the same lot.  If the third option is the best, it would be selected because it is cost effective not because of how the building looks.

 

 

4 hours ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

I don't think people are saying tear the building down because it is ugly.  I think people are saying that the current space is in some state of disrepair, is costly and inefficient.  Based on the building's current state, the question is what is the most cost effective way for the city to obtain a modernized and efficient building.  My understanding is there would be (3) options - renovate the existing, build on a new lot or tear the existing building down and rebuild on the same lot.  If the third option is the best, it would be selected because it is cost effective not because of how the building looks.

 

 

 

Some people are saying what you state above. Some are literally saying tear it down because it's ugly.

 

This building needs repairs and renovations, yes, but is not in disrepair. It is NOT by any means the most attractive building and has not been kept up well and I understand those things are working against it currently.

 

If renovated maybe it's possible to put a completely different facade on the building? The developer of Church & State did an adaptive reuse of a building in Chicago that was even uglier than the justice Center tower and you would never know.

https://www.cedarst.com/portfolio/the-draper-phase-i/

 

Here is the before: https://maps.app.goo.gl/oY9RYqZAYnYLj1Fj9

5 minutes ago, Rustbelter said:

If renovated maybe it's possible to put a completely different facade on the building? The developer of Church & State did an adaptive reuse of a building in Chicago that was even uglier than the justice Center tower and you would never know.

https://www.cedarst.com/portfolio/the-draper-phase-i/

 

Here is the before: https://maps.app.goo.gl/oY9RYqZAYnYLj1Fj9

 

Yes. If you look at those construction photos the facade is attached to the steel and can be removed. But this adds unnecessary expense to any renovation project. The exterior may be unattractive to some, but is functional and may need to be patched in some places, but not completely replaced.

The exterior doesn’t bother me that much but it seems like it’d be hard to repurpose the interior for anything that would be super desirable. There is plenty of office space available downtown and elsewhere that is already better suited for that use case, and it’d likely be pretty hard to make it housing or a hotel. What would a developer do with it?

he’s a new jail to see — its just released renders of what will be the new brooklyn jail — 17 floors — they are tearing down their much, much more hideous old jail tower and rebuilding it on the same site — hok designed it —

 

 

the 339-foot-tall structure will span 712,150 square feet with a capacity of 1,040 inmates, as well as 30,000 square feet of community facility space, two cellar levels, two loading berths, 100 enclosed parking spaces, and an underground tunnel connecting to the adjacent courthouse.

 

 

more:

https://newyorkyimby.com/2023/11/demolition-underway-for-new-15-story-jail-complex-at-275-atlantic-avenue-in-boerum-hill-brooklyn.html

 

 

 

 

 

he’s a new jail to see — its just released renders of what will be the new brooklyn jail — 17 floors — they are tearing down their much, much more hideous old jail tower and rebuilding it on the same site — hok designed it —
 
 
the 339-foot-tall structure will span 712,150 square feet with a capacity of 1,040 inmates, as well as 30,000 square feet of community facility space, two cellar levels, two loading berths, 100 enclosed parking spaces, and an underground tunnel connecting to the adjacent courthouse.
 
 
more:
https://newyorkyimby.com/2023/11/demolition-underway-for-new-15-story-jail-complex-at-275-atlantic-avenue-in-boerum-hill-brooklyn.html
 

 

 
 

 

This is the sexiest jail I've ever seen.

Edit: $3 BILLION DOLLARS???? It's so expensive to build in NYC.

Someone should do a rendering of this on the Garfield Hts. site.

1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said:

This is the sexiest jail I've ever seen.

Edit: $3 BILLION DOLLARS???? It's so expensive to build in NYC.
 

 

hang on its nyc so of course it gets worse —

 

6yrs ago they spent $20M rehabbing it!

1 hour ago, JohnSummit said:

Someone should do a rendering of this on the Garfield Hts. site.

Why? They don't want to build a high rise jail here. 

Why? They don't want to build a high rise jail here. 

I actually would love to see a rendering of this downtown just for giggles. And a skyline shot if it would be impactful.

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

I'd be OK with a jail like that downtown.

44 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Why? They don't want to build a high rise jail here. 

 

I know.  Just for the fun of it.

I'd like to see a rendering of a hi rise residential building on the Garfield site. The views from there would be quite nice.