I think it's absolutely true that the biggest reason for our disappointment is we're comparing this iteration with the previous ones. I was going to say that very thing first but a couple of you beat me to it. 

 

It's not a terrible building, just very ho-hum. And that is not good enough for that corner. The original design, the color, the location all speak to the need for something MUCM more prominent. So, that being the case l would much prefer that NOTHING get built there until conditions change. The park is still several years away from completion. We don't need the apartment building just yet and we certainly don't need this one. If it was up too me l'd just hold off until the business climate changes. It's somewhat of a risk but building this nothing burger ensures that that prominent corner remains a shadow of what it was supposed to be. 

 

We deserve better.

I feel like those renders are like 80% of the way to actually being a pretty nice looking building. Round off the roofline, add some of those fake balcony windows and it'd look way better.

 

 

5 minutes ago, jawn said:

I feel like those renders are like 80% of the way to actually being a pretty nice looking building. Round off the roofline, add some of those fake balcony windows and it'd look way better.

 

 

I kinda agree. If they add actual balconies, and activated the roof. I mean, you have sweeping, million dollar views to the north and south from that roof top, and you’re doing nothing with it? Is this amateur hour? 

2 hours ago, cadmen said:

It's not a terrible building, just very ho-hum. And that is not good enough for that corner.

This is, I think, my biggest gripe as well. We need to start treating out major intersections with more respect (ahem, PNC plaza). Instead of something unique and inspired(ish), we get a dumpy Geis blob. Geis is the Ryan Homes of of Cleveland.

 

For giggles I’d love to see Intro plopped on that corner. Paging @Geowizical, et al.

Sweet, a new Hampton Inn.

3 hours ago, Htsguy said:

It will be interesting to see the reactions by design review and Landmarks.  One thing right up front is that this new design, although it is shorter, actually intrudes on St.  Malachi Church more so than the taller approved version.  

 

"Intrudes"...there's a wholes street between them.  I hate this notion that we need buildings to step back, lay low, stay out of the way of some other thing that we want to see.  Very anti-urban, if you ask me.  Also, very Landmarks Commission.

7 minutes ago, X said:

 

"Intrudes"...there's a wholes street between them.  I hate this notion that we need buildings to step back, lay low, stay out of the way of some other thing that we want to see.  Very anti-urban, if you ask me.  Also, very Landmarks Commission.

I might agree with you if the building was anything other than a church. I would like to see a glimpse of it as you proceed down West 25th.

"Intrudes" - in the Geis packet, there's a historical pic of an old commercial building with a giant rooftop billboard that intruded far worse than the new design....

Just now, buckeye1 said:

"Intrudes" - in the Geis packet, there's a historical pic of an old commercial building with a giant rooftop billboard that intruded far worse than the new design....

So now is the time to fix that. Everything old isn’t necessarily everything good.

33 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

For giggles I’d love to see Intro plopped on that corner. Paging @Geowizical, et al.

Message received 🤙

Edited September 30, 20231 yr by Geowizical

Bridgeworks forming a strong corner at that intersection will be more interesting than looking at the trees in front of the church, which you will still clearly see from most points at that intersection. 

15 minutes ago, Mendo said:

Bridgeworks forming a strong corner at that intersection will be more interesting than looking at the trees in front of the church, which you will still clearly see from most points at that intersection. 

Not a "strong corner"....very weak ugly corner.

 

 

36 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

Not a "strong corner"....very weak ugly corner.

 

Designs are subjective of course, but the form isn't. Residential over retail is a classic urban form. I'll take that any day.

 

The renders sure aren't doing it any justice but I'll wait for pics with better lighting and contrast to see how it'll fit along the street. 

45 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

Designs are subjective of course, but the form isn't. Residential over retail is a classic urban form. I'll take that any day.

 

The renders sure aren't doing it any justice but I'll wait for pics with better lighting and contrast to see how it'll fit along the street. 

I think urban form wise, this is a better design. 

I remember a time when a new hotel on w25 would have been considered a game-changer lol.

 

I don't mind this approach. ground-floor retail. structured parking on floors that are blocked by the bridge. 150 apts and 100 hotel rooms. 

 

I don't like this gray brick phase that we're in, design-wise, and I think the top floor needs some work, but it interacts well with the other buildings across 25th and down the viaduct.

I think this design is growing on me. It could maybe use some small tweaks (though I don't agree with a lot of the above suggestions remove the rounded windows, and make it all gray stick out in my mind). I think this would fit in well with the Quarter. If the largest complaint is the exterior finishes, I'd say that overall it's pretty good. The form and layout look good, better than the previous design, in my opinion.

 

Personally, I kind of like the subtle, somewhat classical aesthetic. I'm not sure if the finishings will be good enough to pull it off, but even without those, I don't think this building will be an eyesore.

 

So what are we left with? A building with good urban form that's adding apartments, a hotel, retail, a coffee bar, and at least one restaurant to a high traffic corner. I say let's get shovels in the ground and start building! This project has been delayed long enough. 

I frankly couldn't care less what it looks like. As long as there is some type of density on that lot that brings in tax revenue to the city and spending money into the immediate area i'm all for it. 

I frankly couldn't care less what it looks like. As long as there is some type of density on that lot that brings in tax revenue to the city and spending money into the immediate area i'm all for it. 

At least make it not ugly

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Bottom line, Geis saved this project from being "abondon".  Developer, design, builder.  CM with the developer wouldn't have made the numbers work.  Good land use.

If our two options are to wait for interest rates to decrease -  a multi-year gamble that happens while the cost of materials and labor  increase - or to reimagine a project and make it feasible in the near term, I’m all for being pragmatic and getting shovels in the ground. 

I like this site plan much better. The previous design was terrible. However the current aesthetics of this building need improvement. Also, no balconies or rooftop spaces should be illegal for this space. Between the DT views, the river and the park across the street, I'm flabbergasted at the lack there of.

16 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

I frankly couldn't care less what it looks like. As long as there is some type of density on that lot that brings in tax revenue to the city and spending money into the immediate area i'm all for it. 

Please stop saying things like this. Design matters. It's not the only thing, but design is such an important component to the feel and attractiveness of a city. Yes, the vacant lot right there isn't pretty to look at either. But GEEZ we can have some standards for design in Cleveland. This is just not it. 

I just don't want the city to have to constantly settle just to get something built.  It does not make for a great city.

50 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

I just don't want the city to have to constantly settle just to get something built.  It does not make for a great city.

Agreed. Sure, we are not the best market for new builds very clearly. However there is room for push and pull in any new construction build. Just saying "build it" really makes for lackluster projects that don't contribute in a meaningful way to the built environment or life of the city. This building DOES look like a senior housing facility that you'd see in Westlake, with a better ground-floor presence admittedly. 

10 hours ago, Htsguy said:

I just don't want the city to have to constantly settle just to get something built.  It does not make for a great city.

Agree but also:

 

1. For a long time, the city settled for nothing. Now we’re settling for something.

2. SOME of the stuff getting built is really cool. We don’t constantly have to settle, just often.

3. Some of the meh projects of today will be demolished in 30 years to make room for something much cooler.

22 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Agree but also:

 

1. For a long time, the city settled for nothing. Now we’re settling for something.

2. SOME of the stuff getting built is really cool. We don’t constantly have to settle, just often.

3. Some of the meh projects of today will be demolished in 30 years to make room for something much cooler.

Also, some of the meh projects today still contribute to building and strengthening neighborhoods which attract the cool projects.

In all my years on this forum, I have yet to see a final product that didn't look better than the renderings.

1 hour ago, sooner said:

In all my years on this forum, I have yet to see a final product that didn't look better than the renderings.

"Thunderbird"

The new design reminds me of the Quarter 2, the Lincoln, and Tappan.  If it turns out like those, I'd be happy.  I don't think the headline rendering does the project any favors though.  The quality will all come down to the detailing.

On 9/30/2023 at 5:23 PM, Ethan said:

I think this design is growing on me. It could maybe use some small tweaks (though I don't agree with a lot of the above suggestions remove the rounded windows, and make it all gray stick out in my mind). I think this would fit in well with the Quarter. If the largest complaint is the exterior finishes, I'd say that overall it's pretty good. The form and layout look good, better than the previous design, in my opinion.

 

Personally, I kind of like the subtle, somewhat classical aesthetic. I'm not sure if the finishings will be good enough to pull it off, but even without those, I don't think this building will be an eyesore.

 

So what are we left with? A building with good urban form that's adding apartments, a hotel, retail, a coffee bar, and at least one restaurant to a high traffic corner. I say let's get shovels in the ground and start building! This project has been delayed long enough. 

 

They really do need to add balconies and an active rooftop. Its almost offensive for them to offer something so otherwise unbelievably bland and suburban office parky for this specific corner. I know the development team must be traumatized after failing on their last three iterations, but this design, while positive in many respects, is an overcorrection in my view.

 

Something like the Lincoln Social Rooftop on High Street in Columbus would be perfectly attainable here. 

 

 

Edited October 2, 20231 yr by ASP1984

8 minutes ago, ASP1984 said:

 

They really do need to add balconies and an active rooftop. Its almost offensive for them to offer something that is otherwise so unbelievably bland and suburban office parky for this specific corner. I know the development team must be traumatized after failing on their last three iterations, but this is an overcorrection in my view. 

 

I hate to tell you, but these guys are in business to make money, not to create skyline art. Beyond my interviews Friday and Saturday, I ran into another member of the development team yesterday. Sure, they like to leave their mark on the landscape.  But they consider each of these designs as an evolution caused by internal and external influences. They are overjoyed that their returns will dramatically improve with this latest design. They get to provide almost exactly the same programming but for far less investment and operating cost.

1 minute ago, KJP said:

 

I hate to tell you, but these guys are in business to make money, not to create skyline art.

What’s wrong with these people?!?

I think they just need to reverse the rooftop deck per the renderings so it faces downtown.

14 minutes ago, ASP1984 said:

 

They really do need to add balconies and an active rooftop. Its almost offensive for them to offer something so otherwise unbelievably bland and suburban office parky for this specific corner. I know the development team must be traumatized after failing on their last three iterations, but this design, while positive in many respects, is an overcorrection in my view.

 

Something like the Lincoln Social Rooftop on High Street in Columbus would be perfectly attainable here. 

 

 

As @WindyBuckeyepoints out there is a rooftop deck. Though I absolutely agree their choice on the direction it's facing is interesting to say the least, and seems like a bit of a mistake to me. 

 

 

 

 

I like the 7th-floor restaurant.

3 hours ago, KJP said:

 
I hate to tell you, but these guys are in business to make money, not to create skyline art. Beyond my interviews Friday and Saturday, I ran into another member of the development team yesterday. Sure, they like to leave their mark on the landscape.  But they consider each of these designs as an evolution caused by internal and external influences. They are overjoyed that their returns will dramatically improve with this latest design. They get to provide almost exactly the same programming but for far less investment and operating cost.

 
I fail to see how creating a more liveable, attractive environment via balconies is akin to skyline art. Its great that you're in touch with the development team but being overjoyed about maximizing returns over minimal investment just isn't good enough for this corner. 
 
Do they think that the apartment market won’t support balconies? Or do they just not give a
sh-t? Perhaps this is what happens when you let a contractor value engineer the project.

 

Edited October 2, 20231 yr by ASP1984

25 minutes ago, Ethan said:

As @WindyBuckeyepoints out there is a rooftop deck. Though I absolutely agree their choice on the direction it's facing is interesting to say the least, and seems like a bit of a mistake to me. 

 

 

 

 

As someone who has windows facing the detroit bridge nextdoor I can tell you it is 100% smarter to put outside space facing away from a busy street. Plenty of loud bikes and cars love using that straightaway on the bridge to make some noise. Kind of annoying that I can't relax on my balcony but I 100% new that would be a problem before I bought so I am not complaining. I think having outdoor areas on the "quiet" side is a much better experience albeit not the best view.

25 minutes ago, dwolfi01 said:

As someone who has windows facing the detroit bridge nextdoor I can tell you it is 100% smarter to put outside space facing away from a busy street. Plenty of loud bikes and cars love using that straightaway on the bridge to make some noise. Kind of annoying that I can't relax on my balcony but I 100% new that would be a problem before I bought so I am not complaining. I think having outdoor areas on the "quiet" side is a much better experience albeit not the best view.

Good point! Consider my mind changed! 

25 minutes ago, ASP1984 said:

I fail to see how creating a more liveable and attractive environment via balconies is akin to skyline art.

When I was in architecture school I remember reading a quote from Cass Gilbert (architect famous for pioneering early skyscrapers).  He said, "The skyscraper (or building) is a machine that makes the land pay".  As an aspiring architect I hated that quote, but as a practicing architect I keep that quote in mind often.  I think the point is that economics drives design more than anything else. 

58 minutes ago, ASP1984 said:

Do they think that the apartment market won’t support balconies? Or do they just not give a
sh-t? Perhaps this is what happens when you let a contractor value engineer the project

I'm sure the developer did a cost benefit analysis.  They calculated the cost to add balconies and weighed it against the increase in potential rent it would bring.  Seems like they didn't think it was worth it.  This is how a large number of design decisions ultimately get made.  The contractor may have had some input, but I'm sure this was ultimately the developer's call.

28 minutes ago, Dino said:

I'm sure the developer did a cost benefit analysis.  They calculated the cost to add balconies and weighed it against the increase in potential rent it would bring.  Seems like they didn't think it was worth it.  This is how a large number of design decisions ultimately get made.  The contractor may have had some input, but I'm sure this was ultimately the developer's call.

Balconies tend to increase the insurance costs too. 

TBH, when  I first saw this newest iteration of Bridgeworks, I thoughts for a moment - is this an Urban Ohio joke?  - but it wasn’t April 1 so….

 

 It’s an aspirational and strategic  corner  -in a dynamic area-with a recent pedigree of exciting projects like Intro and Church & State  - not just another  in-fill project  

  I get it- they don’t have the $ and $ drives design but - at least, give us something with some style and character - this thing really looks dated and “institutional”  -

 ( like a senior living center in Westlake, as someone said.). I know design is subjective - but some things are pretty universally stylish and some are, at best, generic. At first glance, this is far from aspirational- and, for me, I find that disappointing. 
 

It’s going to be very visible for decades due to its location .   Expectations were created by previous presentations for this parcel - its hard   “to shrink” from a unique, aspirational and transformational project to a “it’s better than nothing” rationale. 
 

I, for one, hope that a modern aesthetic for this corner influences some helpful push- back suggestions from the design  commission.  
 

 

Edited October 2, 20231 yr by CleveFan

16 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Balconies tend to increase the insurance costs too. 

 

Not implying that they're free or that the developer didn't do a cost-benefit. Just pointing out that "maximizing returns with minimal investment" is a hugely subjective take depending on the development shop and individuals involved.

 

To not have one balcony on the entire building is amateur, JV-level work. Happy to learn that the parties involved are making money though (*eye roll*)

 

I hope design commission pushes hard on this one, especially since public subsidies are involved. 

 

Edited October 2, 20231 yr by ASP1984

I don't really see how this design is worse than the new builds on detroit that are directly across the street.

 

people are upset that this went from a tower to 'just' 7 stories. but it never was a tower. it was a drawing of a tower that couldn't get its financing together after years of trying. 

 

I'd also like to see some use-studies on balconies. feels like they're one of those things that you'd think people would use, but they never actually do. 

3 minutes ago, ASP1984 said:

 

Not implying that they're free or that the developer didn't do a cost-benefit. Just pointing out that "maximizing returns with minimal investment" is a hugely subjective take depending on the development shop and individuals involved.

 

To not have one balcony on the entire building is amateur, JV-style development. Happy to learn that the parties involved are making money though (*eye roll*)

 

I hope design commission pushes hard on this one, especially since public subsidies are involved. 

 

Developments don't happen if there is no profit. As stated earlier, economics drives design. 

2 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Developments don't happen if there is no profit. As stated earlier, economics drives design. 

 

I work in development - that is not news to me.

 

Public input, regulations, developer values, and permitting leverage do too. 

I will be curious to hear the thoughts of the actual architects on the design review board and Landmarks Commission.  I will be less interested in some of the lay person opinions, especially one M.A. on Landmarks.  One thing is for sure, Julie Trott should be pleased by the height reduction.

I'm a lay person. But l think l have a  better understanding of what looks good and where to put it than a lot of local developers. What separates me from the developer is he has to make the finances work. I get that. But we see projects actually getting built all over the country and many of them look pretty f***ing good. And because l frequent this forum l have been made aware of the difficulty in getting a required return after expenses (finances, labor, materials) in Cleveland. All that being said, l still think we get shortchanged on design in this town. When we DO get a great design it frequently gets watered-down. Does that happen as much elsewhere? I don't think so. So then it can be done here as well. 

 

And l'm not saying you need a great design everywhere. You don't. But what you do need is a great design on certain prominent locations. Detroit and 25th is one of them. It's right across from what will be a gem of a park. It's a gateway to downtown too.

 

In this case the problem is as much to do with the developer as anything. Geis is known for building off the shelf suburban office buildings. Nothing wrong with that in Solon of Mayfield. But not on this site. Mundane won't do, or it shouldn't. 

 

Those of you just happy to get something built need to raise your standards a little. This isn't the old Cleveland. We've come along way. Let's act like it. If the present business conditions won't allow something great on a great site let's wait a bit. We haven't built anything there in decades. We can wait a little because if we build this thing we blow the opportunity to create something worthwhile in the future. The site deserves it and we need to stop settling.

2 hours ago, Htsguy said:

I will be curious to hear the thoughts of the actual architects on the design review board and Landmarks Commission.  I will be less interested in some of the lay person opinions, especially one M.A. on Landmarks.  One thing is for sure, Julie Trott should be pleased by the height reduction.

 

I thought the tower design had a large setback off w25th because some church people complained it hid the church too much. Seems that setback is gone now? Might lead to some pushback although I think it should be unwarranted pushback.

The new design went before Ohio City design review yesterday.  It was a conceptual review, so no vote was taken.  Probably lucky for the developer.

 

5 individuals spoke on the record after the presentation.  All seemed to understand the necessity of the new design given economics.  That said, there was very little in the way of ringing endorsements at this point.  Range of opinions were one guy who clearly absolutely hated everything about the building to a gentlemen who was more understanding but still had many issues.  In fact the more positive guy felt the top was completely unsuccessful.

 

The biggest "negative" was the massing.  All five seemed to agree it was a monolith with elevations that needed to be broken up in some manner.  They felt the brick work was interesting but the mass was not articulated very well.   And as noted previously, the top story did not go over well for a whole host of reasons.  One guy says it looked like it was just stuck on the building

 

Many many other comments...just to throw a few out.  Plaza not done well compare to previous plaza, especially how sunken it is.  Pedestrian flow compared to the other building is awful.  Panels around the windows unnecessary.  Garage is too intrusive at this point especially, where it interacts with the plaza.  At this point the developers don't seem to be incorporating elements from the soon to be demoed building, and one panel member stated that was the only reason he approved of the demo for the previous design, and would vote against demo here it this aspect in not corrected.

 

Developers indicated they would take comments to heart but not much they could do with the size or siting of the building.