22 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

That section of the muny lot is always empty -- except for the 10 weekends a year when tailgaters use it or when the city uses it for police training (another use likely to move to East 75th and OC).

Actually I was talking about commuters filling the OUTLET MALL's new parking lots all day instead of the customers going to the new outlet mall?

Edited November 21, 20195 yr by Larry1962

If they're not filling the muny parking lots that the outlet mall would replace, why would they fill the parking lots for the outlet mall?

 

^If the cost of parking is lower in the OUTLET MALL parking lots then the muny lots then I could see SOME PEOPLE trying to save money.

 

Of course they may just charge the same or more money unless you validate for a certain amount of spending in the outlet mall and there by receive free or low cost parking.

Edited November 21, 20195 yr by Larry1962

Good point. Sounds like validating parking is one option. Or, they could charge to park until about 10 a.m. or so, then allow free parking afterwards. After 10 is when many stores open. It's also when the RTA's free shuttle into downtown stops running.

^More good points.

Lucky for them that they can hire us (LARRY & KEN's International Parking LLC) to manage their parking lots...

LOL

 

 

Edited November 21, 20195 yr by Larry1962

55 minutes ago, KJP said:

If they're not filling the muny parking lots that the outlet mall would replace, why would they fill the parking lots for the outlet mall?

 

I think this may be part of the rationale for its location; fear that if it's in the CBD, access/regress will be challenging and paid parking will be required, both of which will discourage their target audience from shopping there.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

Good point. Sounds like validating parking is one option. Or, they could charge to park until about 10 a.m. or so, then allow free parking afterwards. After 10 is when many stores open. It's also when the RTA's free shuttle into downtown stops running.

Could also do what they do at Uptown—have paid parking, but make it free for a certain amount of time. Uptown north is free for forest 30 minutes and south is free for an hour. 
 

I assume they’d need more time than that—but if they did 1-2 hours free, commuters wouldn’t get 8 free hours of parking. 

I don’t see this workable without structured parking. It’s a 95% car oriented development. Build a garage over the tracks or something.

Edited November 21, 20195 yr by marty15

18 hours ago, marty15 said:

I don’t see this workable without structured parking. It’s a 95% car oriented development. Build a garage over the tracks or something.

With a landscaped park on top to provide access from the CBD.

4 minutes ago, jbdad2 said:

Does this belongs on Lakefront thread?  Doesn't seem attached to lake in any way. 

 

I put it in here only because past new/discussion about the prior versions of this project were posted here. And the city-owned parcel on which this project would set actually continues to the other side of the Shoreway and includes the Burke Lakefront Airport parking lot. So this parcel (or parts thereof) could not be sold by the city without a vote of the people.

So we’re all agreed they should add a parking garage and a Ferris wheel. 

AECOM & Ramsey County's "Riversedge" in Downtown Saint Paul will be built on the side of a bluff, very similar in size to Cleveland and will include a pedestrian level that would cover the rail line and a road, very similar to the our Shoreway and rail lines.
 

If St. Paul, Minnesota can do it, so can we: https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/de...p%20Packet.pdf

 

This even includes a variation of a land bridge connector to the river that would be awesome in Cleveland, and probably more affordable partnering with a private development to help soften the cost of the bridge to the county taxpayers.

 

With all that parking, couple this with a transit hub and now were taking!

So the @KJP article about the proposed Outlet Mall covered most of this but here is the press release from  The Horizon Group that was released about a week before.

Also there is a post on the architect's Facebook page announcing the project on Nov 22.

 

P R E S S R E L E A S E
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Connie Dyer 
+1 847 653 6466
SVP, Marketing | Horizon Group Properties
[email protected]
 
Horizon Group Properties aligns with CBRE as exclusive listing agents for 
the Entertainment and Food & Beverage leasing for The Outlet Shoppes at 
Cleveland 
Cleveland, OH – November 14, 2019 – Horizon Group Properties is pleased to announce 
that Joseph Khouri, Stephen Taylor and Vince Mingo at CBRE’s Cleveland office, have 
accepted a strategic assignment with Horizon Group Properties. CBRE will handle the exclusive 
entertainment and restaurant leasing for Horizon Group Properties’ future downtown Cleveland 
project The Outlet Shoppes at Cleveland. 
Located at I-90 & Route 2, The Outlet Shoppes at Cleveland will offer over 320,000 square 
feet of shops and restaurants, and boast over 60 national outlet retailers, restaurants and 
entertainment throughout the two-level structure. Nearly 90,000 square feet is targeted as 
restaurants and entertainment, creating an area that will be attractive to local residents and 
tourists. The project is designed to provide an exciting and attractive destination for shoppers
that blends elements of the surrounding attractions with modern retail design. The dynamic 
views of Lake Erie and downtown Cleveland from the two-level structure, rooftop bar and 
recreation area will entice area residents and visitors to make frequent visits to the shops,
restaurants and entertainment venues.
The highly anticipated plans for The Outlet Shoppes at Cleveland will be revealed soon, and 
will feature architectural design from Adams and Associates Architecture. 
Joseph Khouri will lead the Entertainment Leasing efforts along with Vince Mingo, while industry 
veteran Stephen Taylor will lead the Food and Beverage Leasing efforts.
"We are thrilled to partner with such an experienced team on this unique and best-in-class 
project that will change the dynamics of Downtown Cleveland” said Mr. Khouri, Mr. Taylor & 
Mr. Mingo. 
“The greater Cleveland market is dynamic with over 3.8 million people in a 60 mile radius, 
and downtown Cleveland is growing both in terms of residents and tourists, which are allHorizon Group Properties Press Release
critical elements for a successful outlet shopping center” said Gary Skoien, President and CEO 
of Horizon Group Properties. “Combining HGP’s leasing team, which has vast experience 
working with quality national outlet tenants, and CBRE’s expertise in entertainment, food and 
beverage will result in highly appealing stores, restaurants, bars and family gaming venues in 
a unique setting, along with great neighbors like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, First Energy 
Stadium and the Great Lakes Science Center.”
About Horizon Group Properties, Inc.
Based in Rosemont, IL, Horizon Group Properties, Inc. (OTC:HGPI.PK) is an owner and developer 
of outlet shopping centers in seven states and is the developer of a master planned community 
in suburban Chicago. Additional information can be found at www.horizongroup.com.

 

As someone who loves to shop, I don't know or understand why this project could not or cannot be incorporated into existing buildings.  All "outlet" store do not need to be combined/clustered to be successful or draw a crowd.

 

This is set up to fail.

Because they want it possible for people to drive in-and-out of this thing very quickly as they would any other suburban shopping location. For that reason alone is why the Muny lot site makes sense.

I’d be cool with this if it incorporated tying into the CBD street grid and essentially expanding downtown and making it another neighborhood that can grow southward. But that’s probably not gonna happen.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

Because they want it possible for people to drive in-and-out of this thing very quickly as they would any other suburban shopping location. For that reason alone is why the Muny lot site makes sense.

It’s really just that simple. This isn’t complicated. That location allows you to build a freakin outlet mall in downtown Cleveland. I really think people don’t appreciate what this is going to do. People who live in Cleveland will use it and it’s going to be a draw for suburban shoppers, really the only way in today’s market that you can draw suburbanites into downtown shopping. This thing is going to work. I personally think it’s brilliant

I'm curious as to how traffic flow is going to work. Malls typically have multiple access ways. This property - at least the way they plan to develop - is more akin to a highway rest stop. Here's hoping they do the right thing incorporate RTA into the equation. 

The key to who is being targeted for this development is clearly stated in the press release:

 

"The greater Cleveland market is dynamic with over 3.8 million people in a 60 mile radius, 
and downtown Cleveland is growing both in terms of residents and tourists, which are all Horizon Group Properties Press Release
critical elements for a successful outlet shopping center” said Gary Skoien, President and CEO 
of Horizon Group Properties."

 

I think everyone on UO would like to see more urban retail, but as stated above, availability of free parking, ease of access/regress and the size of the urban population are all problematic. This is intended to draw from the regional population; meaning easy access/regress, with an abundance of free parking for urbanites, and more importantly, suburbanites.

 

It would appear that more people living and working in the CBD is required before we can fill some of those vacant retail venues. 

Edited December 8, 20195 yr by Frmr CLEder

Put the outlet mall in Tower City, or perhaps as part of casino Phase II on the riverfront!    Casinos and outlet shoppers go hand-in-hand!  

 

https://www.foxwoods.com/tanger/

 

https://mohegansun.com/poi/venues/the-shops-at-mohegan-sun.html

 

https://viejas.com/san-diegos-premier-outlets-mall/

 

https://www.outletsatwindcreekbethlehem.com

 

 

20 hours ago, KJP said:

Because they want it possible for people to drive in-and-out of this thing very quickly as they would any other suburban shopping location. For that reason alone is why the Muny lot site makes sense.

So maybe it should be in the suburbs or at least outside of downtown.

1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

Put the outlet mall in Tower City, or perhaps as part of casino Phase II on the riverfront!    Casinos and outlet shoppers go hand-in-hand!  

 

https://www.foxwoods.com/tanger/

 

https://mohegansun.com/poi/venues/the-shops-at-mohegan-sun.html

 

https://viejas.com/san-diegos-premier-outlets-mall/

 

https://www.outletsatwindcreekbethlehem.com

 

 

Tower City is gonna be the blockland thing. Your other idea is interesting but I don’t know if there’s enough land over there to build what they want. And the entry/access points would be tough too. If it was workable, that’d be an interesting idea

55 minutes ago, skiwest said:

So maybe it should be in the suburbs or at least outside of downtown.

The whole point is for it to NOT be in the suburbs. I don’t understand this line of thinking. We want retail, but not THAT retail. We want downtown retail but only the way we want it to be built. I don’t get it. I thought the objective was to get people TO shop in the city. 

22 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

The whole point is for it to NOT be in the suburbs. I don’t understand this line of thinking. We want retail, but not THAT retail. We want downtown retail but only the way we want it to be built. I don’t get it. I thought the objective was to get people TO shop in the city. 

Yes. Exactly. We want retail downtown, but only the way we want it to be built. Because I don’t want a cold, monolithic shopping center wedged in a gulley Downtown. I want retail on city streets. I don’t want a mall only easily accessible by drivers in their cars. I want retail I can walk or take the bus to. It is ALL about its design and where it is located. 

Why can't we have both types of retail downtown? The customers for this are not the same customers for the shops that have been popping up on Euclid. Mr and Mrs Soccer Parent from Mentor probably won't come into the city of Cleveland to spend their money (and generate sales tax) by paying to park and walk down Euclid to shop. Those stores are geared towards people living, working, and staying in downtown already. But, the Mentorites might drive down to spend their money at an outlet mall that is a much shorter drive that it is to Aurora. And after their shopping, maybe they'll head up into downtown proper and have dinner at a restaurant unlike any they'll find in Lake County.

27 minutes ago, CbusTransit said:

Yes. Exactly. We want retail downtown, but only the way we want it to be built. Because I don’t want a cold, monolithic shopping center wedged in a gulley Downtown. I want retail on city streets. I don’t want a mall only easily accessible by drivers in their cars. I want retail I can walk or take the bus to. It is ALL about its design and where it is located. 

I respect your honesty, but that’s ridiculous and not tailored to reality. You’d rather have nothing and push people to keep shopping in the suburbs than to get a development that would actually work in bringing people to shop in CLEVELAND. That’s absurd. That’ll never make sense to me, but to each their own I guess

4 minutes ago, PoshSteve said:

Why can't we have both types of retail downtown? The customers for this are not the same customers for the shops that have been popping up on Euclid. Mr and Mrs Soccer Parent from Mentor probably won't come into the city of Cleveland to spend their money (and generate sales tax) by paying to park and walk down Euclid to shop. Those stores are geared towards people living, working, and staying in downtown already. But, the Mentorites might drive down to spend their money at an outlet mall that is a much shorter drive that it is to Aurora. And after their shopping, maybe they'll head up into downtown proper and have dinner at a restaurant unlike any they'll find in Lake County.

They don’t want both because it doesn’t fit “THEIR” vision. Smh. And for the record, you’re absolutely right, but it’s all or nothing in some corners around here

7 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

I respect your honesty, but that’s ridiculous and not tailored to reality. You’d rather have nothing and push people to keep shopping in the suburbs than to get a development that would actually work in bringing people to shop in CLEVELAND. That’s absurd. That’ll never make sense to me, but to each their own I guess

Clearly we are in disagreement.

 

But we CAN have both. I said I disliked the design and location. I would be happy to have outlet shopping downtown if that was designed well and in an appropriate location. That means having a connected grid pattern of streets and a design that is pedestrian friendly. That CAN be accomplished and it is completely within the purview of the city to require it with well crafted zoning and design guidelines.

 

Importantly, we have seen the problems of enclosed malls, especially in downtowns but across the county. They have closed, been torn down, and replaced. See Columbus City Center, Euclid Square Mall, and Northfield. We can and should want retail. But we can and should require and expect more for our downtown land. We can and should dream bigger than this.

54 minutes ago, CbusTransit said:

Clearly we are in disagreement.

 

But we CAN have both. I said I disliked the design and location. I would be happy to have outlet shopping downtown if that was designed well and in an appropriate location. That means having a connected grid pattern of streets and a design that is pedestrian friendly. That CAN be accomplished and it is completely within the purview of the city to require it with well crafted zoning and design guidelines.

 

Importantly, we have seen the problems of enclosed malls, especially in downtowns but across the county. They have closed, been torn down, and replaced. See Columbus City Center, Euclid Square Mall, and Northfield. We can and should want retail. But we can and should require and expect more for our downtown land. We can and should dream bigger than this.

Why do we keep acting like this is the same as a regular mall? Not only myself but several others on this forum have brought up the FACT that outlet malls are RISING (and in many cases thriving) across the country, and people keep ignoring that and acting like this is a proposal to build a regular mall

4 hours ago, skiwest said:

So maybe it should be in the suburbs or at least outside of downtown.

 

It is outside of downtown...just barely outside of downtown where it is still accessible by rail transit and even by free trolleys from downtown during the rush hours (or bike or quick Uber/Lyft trip). It is the only site so close to downtown where the drive-in/drive-out outlet mall model works. And it perhaps it can attract another major retailer that is unique to Cleveland to locate alongside it. If so, it might even attract housing to the Muni lots (or the Bluffs) as well.

On 12/7/2019 at 3:52 PM, MyTwoSense said:

As someone who loves to shop, I don't know or understand why this project could not or cannot be incorporated into existing buildings.  All "outlet" store do not need to be combined/clustered to be successful or draw a crowd.

 

This is set up to fail.

How true...that was my initial thought as well.  Wouldn't it be marvelous if these stores could be integrated on say Euclid Ave or another street?  As you say, they dont have to be connected or in the same building. Imagine the foot traffic!

22 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

It’s really just that simple. This isn’t complicated. That location allows you to build a freakin outlet mall in downtown Cleveland. I really think people don’t appreciate what this is going to do. People who live in Cleveland will use it and it’s going to be a draw for suburban shoppers, really the only way in today’s market that you can draw suburbanites into downtown shopping. This thing is going to work. I personally think it’s brilliant

Ok, but they will drive to a big box full of stores and never once set foot on downtown streets. This will be a sterile shopping area with no interaction .  Its kind of like a sold out browns game with 80,000 people in a stadium downtown but nobody on the street

Edited December 8, 20195 yr by B767PILOT

Not necessarily. The Fashion Outlets of Chicago (in Rosemont) is a massive draw unto itself, but there are still multiple hotels, a nearby attractive lifestyle center, a convention center, and tons of pedestrian traffic. 

 

The Outlet Collection in NOLA also seems to work well in the area, and I don't think it's taking too many people off the streets. Just another piece to the puzzle overall.

 

And finally, at least downtown Cleveland will finally have shopping for its residents, workforce, tourists, and suburbanites. It's too bad those shops can't fill up Tower City and the Galleria, but hey, at least Beachwood Place and Crocker Park will finally have competition. Keep that revenue local as opposed to Aurora. 

Edited December 9, 20195 yr by TBideon
Missed a few words there.

55 minutes ago, B767PILOT said:

Ok, but they will drive to a big box full of stores and never once set foot on downtown streets. This will be a sterile shopping area with no interaction .  Its kind of like a sold out browns game with 80,000 people in a stadium downtown but nobody on the street

I reject your premise but just for the sake of argument, let’s use what you said. Would you rather not have those 80,000 people downtown at all? Would you rather those 80,000 people be in Richfield or something? And if we’re going to pretend that none of those 80,000 people ever go to downtown streets for anything (and if we also ignore the fact that most of the time those 80,000 people are in that stadium it’s cold and if they’re going to go to a downtown venue, they’re probably going to drive anyway BECAUSE ITS COLD so you wouldn’t see them on the street anyway), those people do still buy stuff and contribute to admissions taxes and sales taxes and support the people who work in the stadium itself (many of whom live IN the city of Cleveland). 
 

And let me pose a question: is it MORE likely or less likely that at least some of those 80,000 people would stop at those stores (and restaurants, don’t forget that, which is really smart on the developer’s part) if this massive development is ACROSS THE STREET? Better yet, would visitors to the Rock Hall do the same? Common sense says probably. So yes I’d rather have those 80,000 than not have them, and I’d rather have this in the city than not

I'm kinda on the fence but still leaning towards this project being negative overall. For every national retailer open at the outlets, that's one less business that could have been in the actual urban fabric of our city. 

 

We're starting to get a bit repetitive/off-topic now though so maybe we should cool it soon.

16 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

I reject your premise but just for the sake of argument, let’s use what you said. Would you rather not have those 80,000 people downtown at all? Would you rather those 80,000 people be in Richfield or something? And if we’re going to pretend that none of those 80,000 people ever go to downtown streets for anything (and if we also ignore the fact that most of the time those 80,000 people are in that stadium it’s cold and if they’re going to go to a downtown venue, they’re probably going to drive anyway BECAUSE ITS COLD so you wouldn’t see them on the street anyway), those people do still buy stuff and contribute to admissions taxes and sales taxes and support the people who work in the stadium itself (many of whom live IN the city of Cleveland). 
 

And let me pose a question: is it MORE likely or less likely that at least some of those 80,000 people would stop at those stores (and restaurants, don’t forget that, which is really smart on the developer’s part) if this massive development is ACROSS THE STREET? Better yet, would visitors to the Rock Hall do the same? Common sense says probably. So yes I’d rather have those 80,000 than not have them, and I’d rather have this in the city than not

But thats just it. They wont be downtown. Itll be on the fringe in a sterile compound full of stores and restaurants. The visitors of which will have scant incentive to get out and walk downtown

41 minutes ago, B767PILOT said:

But thats just it. They wont be downtown. Itll be on the fringe in a sterile compound full of stores and restaurants. The visitors of which will have scant incentive to get out and walk downtown

You missed like everything I said lol. And I don’t want to bog down the forum so I’ll leave it alone

2 hours ago, B767PILOT said:

But thats just it. They wont be downtown. Itll be on the fringe in a sterile compound full of stores and restaurants. The visitors of which will have scant incentive to get out and walk downtown

 

Those coming from the suburbs won't anyway.

There are a lot of downtown residents, daytime workforce, and especially tourists clamoring for retail. There are probably developers or potential developers awaiting true retail before making plans and commitments. And there are many suburbanites looking for new and different shopping opportunities and experiences.

 

Overall, I see this as a massive gain for the city despite some frustration of its location and set up. But still a net gain by far. Cleveland may have real shopping again! Frankly I can't believe how underwhelmed some of you are and how much you are understating its impact.

My issue with this project is not in bemoaning the possible lost retail and foot traffic to the downtown storefronts - that’s an apples/oranges argument - this kind of “outlet” mall shopping is “what it is” - it wouldn’t somehow fit into store fronts in any downtown. (Tower City is a moot point in this conversation so no point in mentioning that. )

My disappointment is in knowing that if this project had been “connected”  to the Rock Hall via Burke lakefront land availability , it could have been that tourist draw that transformed  foot traffic around the museums and any future development near the current stadium, benefitting everyone involved exponentially  Instead, I see it as a disconnected destination, albeit tantalizingly close to the CBD. At the end of the day, will it be a positive for the city? It’s hard to say anything but “yes” to such a large scale, revenue-and-jobs producing entity. But it’s also a case of “so near, yet so far”.....

34 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

My issue with this project is not in bemoaning the possible lost retail and foot traffic to the downtown storefronts - that’s an apples/oranges argument - this kind of “outlet” mall shopping is “what it is” - it wouldn’t somehow fit into store fronts in any downtown. (Tower City is a moot point in this conversation so no point in mentioning that. )

My disappointment is in knowing that if this project had been “connected”  to the Rock Hall via Burke lakefront land availability , it could have been that tourist draw that transformed  foot traffic around the museums and any future development near the current stadium, benefitting everyone involved exponentially  Instead, I see it as a disconnected destination, albeit tantalizingly close to the CBD. At the end of the day, will it be a positive for the city? It’s hard to say anything but “yes” to such a large scale, revenue-and-jobs producing entity. But it’s also a case of “so near, yet so far”.....

This is probably the most reasonable oppositional take on this that I’ve seen on this forum lol. I disagree with the meat of what you’re saying but bravo for sound reasoning 

Edited December 9, 20195 yr by inlovewithCLE

39 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

My issue with this project is not in bemoaning the possible lost retail and foot traffic to the downtown storefronts - that’s an apples/oranges argument - this kind of “outlet” mall shopping is “what it is” - it wouldn’t somehow fit into store fronts in any downtown. (Tower City is a moot point in this conversation so no point in mentioning that. )

My disappointment is in knowing that if this project had been “connected”  to the Rock Hall via Burke lakefront land availability , it could have been that tourist draw that transformed  foot traffic around the museums and any future development near the current stadium, benefitting everyone involved exponentially  Instead, I see it as a disconnected destination, albeit tantalizingly close to the CBD. At the end of the day, will it be a positive for the city? It’s hard to say anything but “yes” to such a large scale, revenue-and-jobs producing entity. But it’s also a case of “so near, yet so far”.....

 

I agree with this take.   It seems to be a Cleveland thing that the path of least resistance ends up being the route 99% of the time.   IMO they are missing an opportunity by not at least talking to Dan Gilbert about this project.   

18 hours ago, B767PILOT said:

Ok, but they will drive to a big box full of stores and never once set foot on downtown streets. This will be a sterile shopping area with no interaction .  Its kind of like a sold out browns game with 80,000 people in a stadium downtown but nobody on the street

 

I'm not sure some understand that there's a cultural megatrend away from extraneous (let alone forced) interaction.  It's not a consideration that will carry any weight with developers, because it does not with their customers.

I'm having a beast of a time getting my bearings. Would S. Marginal road take you directly to the proposed site? Would East 18th (if E.18 were to connect to that area)  and S. Marginal be the approximate west end?

 

Google maps isn't terribly effective in that oasis. I'm not quite conceptualizing the location.

1 hour ago, inlovewithCLE said:

This is probably the most reasonable oppositional take on this that I’ve seen on this forum lol. I disagree with the meat of what you’re saying but bravo for sound reasoning 

Perhaps we here on UO can prove that Republicans and Democrats can disagree and still get along! ?

2 hours ago, TBideon said:

I'm having a beast of a time getting my bearings. Would S. Marginal road take you directly to the proposed site? Would East 18th (if E.18 were to connect to that area)  and S. Marginal be the approximate west end?

 

Google maps isn't terribly effective in that oasis. I'm not quite conceptualizing the location.

 

Perhaps it's because their site plans seems to be suggesting shifting South Marginal road slightly to the south? Here is the site plan vs. GoogleEarth:

 

 

And the view courtesy of GoogleEarth (with East 18th Street extension added)

 

Do we know if this would impact an extension of the Waterfront Line to the east or ODOT's plan to eventually fix Deadman's Curve?

3 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Perhaps it's because their site plans seems to be suggesting shifting South Marginal road slightly to the south? Here is the site plan vs. GoogleEarth:

 

 

And the view courtesy of GoogleEarth (with East 18th Street extension added)

 

I never realized how far east this was... it actually kinda works as a tester/phase I for a more intimate, more connected, more well rounded mixed-use destination further west, connected to the intermodal hub. 

^Whats that almost vertical line over the shoreway?  Is it a pedestrian bridge? I would be great to have a bridge there with 3 access points---the Downtown area on the bluff at E 17 or 18, a connection to the shops, and at the north end BKL----it would connect three important things that are otherwise not connected at all.