I hope this doesn't hit a brick wall trying to get approval. Is it the best building design? Nope. But is it awful? I don't think so. Seems pretty in line with what you would expect near downtown. I don't like the design but what I do like is it's not a cookie cutter replica of nearby buildings. It adds some different looks to the neighborhood while providing good density. 

44 minutes ago, dwolfi01 said:

I hope this doesn't hit a brick wall trying to get approval. Is it the best building design? Nope. But is it awful? I don't think so. Seems pretty in line with what you would expect near downtown. I don't like the design but what I do like is it's not a cookie cutter replica of nearby buildings. It adds some different looks to the neighborhood while providing good density. 

Like I said, design review comments were generally negative.  That said, it is only an advisory body.  Even if they eventually vote down the building, the final say is up to Landmarks.  Yesterday's review was for the conceptual vision.  They will be back before design review again, probably with changes, before it goes to Landmarks.  Or maybe it will go to Landmarks next week for conceptual review as well.  Even if it does, there will not be a final vote.  There are obviously more architects on the design review Board than on Landmarks so I respect their opinions more, even if they do not have final say.

Edited October 6, 20231 yr by Htsguy

Given this high-profile location, if the developer has to scale back a project to this extent because of lack of financing, perhaps it should not be built at all at this time. This location will only get more desirable with its proximity to IBP.  I was in the Short North in Columbus recently, and the quality of the new projects there is much higher than many of the projects in CLE.  There is no reason we should always settle from a design and material perspective just to get a new building built. In its current iteration, this project would definitely not be "transformative" of the area.

1 minute ago, Sapientone said:

Given this high-profile location, if the developer has to scale back a project to this extent because of lack of financing, perhaps it should not be built at all at this time. This location will only get more desirable with its proximity to IBP.  I was in the Short North in Columbus recently, and the quality of the new projects there is much higher than many of the projects in CLE.  There is no reason we should always settle from a design and material perspective just to get a new building built. In its current iteration, this project would definitely not be "transformative" of the area.

I agree with the opinion that this corner deserves something more.  That said, they have built a lot of schlock on Short North as well and it gets worst as you approach the OSU campus.

If the owner of the parcel isn’t able to build due to any down vote when all this time has gone by, at what point could the developer sue the city? It seems as though the city’s boards have been as much of a burden as inflation.

39 minutes ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

If the owner of the parcel isn’t able to build due to any down vote when all this time has gone by, at what point could the developer sue the city? It seems as though the city’s boards have been as much of a burden as inflation.

The boards have approved every design they’ve presented so far with hardly any delay. If there has been any delay, it’s been on the part of the developer in putting the designs before landmarks and the board of zoning appeals.  In fact, the city has approved the designs despite some pushback from some community groups.

How long should we wait for something bigger/better to happen there?
 

The interest rate environment isn’t going to bring us a better project on this parcel in the short term future. 
 

Here is a NY Times quote from late September (before last week’s jobs numbers - which are likely signaling another hike):

 

”Policymakers expect their benchmark short-term interest rate to stay above 5 percent next year, and to end 2025 at nearly 4 percent, the estimates showed. That would be roughly double where they were at the end of 2019.

 

Even in 2026 — when, the Fed hopes, inflation will have been fully stamped out and economic growth will have settled back into its longer-run trend — policymakers expect rates to remain well above the levels that prevailed before the pandemic.”

 

As much as I’d prefer to see a bigger or more interesting project there, if the money doesn’t work now it likely isn’t going to work until 2026 at the earliest. And that’s ignoring any other negative macroeconomic impacts that could occur between now and then. 

^It does not appear that most posters are objecting to the height reduction.  In fact, the project might be improved if they actually make it smaller.  Now that they don't have a high rise they have to fit all the necessary square footage on a less vertical footprint and that seems to be the problem.  The developers all but admitted that it does not make economic sense, even with reduced building costs arising out of the new design, if they don't keep it as large as it was, square footage-wise, when the concept was taller.  A 6 over 1 could work on this corner.  There are many examples of quality architecture arising from this more economical development concept.  They just need to go back to the drawing board and figure it out.  Reducing the monolithic nature of the current design would help significantly.

How long should we wait for something bigger/better to happen there?
 
The interest rate environment isn’t going to bring us a better project on this parcel in the short term future. 
 
Here is a NY Times quote from late September (before last week’s jobs numbers - which are likely signaling another hike):
 
”Policymakers expect their benchmark short-term interest rate to stay above 5 percent next year, and to end 2025 at nearly 4 percent, the estimates showed. That would be roughly double where they were at the end of 2019.
 
Even in 2026 — when, the Fed hopes, inflation will have been fully stamped out and economic growth will have settled back into its longer-run trend — policymakers expect rates to remain well above the levels that prevailed before the pandemic.”
 
As much as I’d prefer to see a bigger or more interesting project there, if the money doesn’t work now it likely isn’t going to work until 2026 at the earliest. And that’s ignoring any other negative macroeconomic impacts that could occur between now and then. 

A building with poor design and layout is something that can't be easily replaced. Once we decide on a final design we are stuck with that for at least the next 30+ years.

I'd rather wait for a design and layout that is deserving of this street corner than get something built just to say we built something. I'm tired of settling in this city we deserve the best or damn near close.

Couple this building with Irishtown bend happening a block away and you have a project that is of even more importance to get it right if we want to create continuous momentum from this stretch of 25th.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

If all of you had to choose, would you a prefer a building with bad or mediocre design but hundreds of residents and visitors plus dozens of employees and the vibrancy they bring, which is measurable and factual? Or wait an unknown amount of time in the hopes of the arrival of some better design, which is a matter of individual opinions? 

28 minutes ago, KJP said:

If all of you had to choose, would you a prefer a building with bad or mediocre design but hundreds of residents and visitors plus dozens of employees and the vibrancy they bring, which is measurable and factual? Or wait an unknown amount of time in the hopes of the arrival of some better design, which is a matter of individual opinions? 

I will take the poorly designed building as long as it has good urban form.

29 minutes ago, KJP said:

If all of you had to choose, would you a prefer a building with bad or mediocre design but hundreds of residents and visitors plus dozens of employees and the vibrancy they bring, which is measurable and factual? Or wait an unknown amount of time in the hopes of the arrival of some better design, which is a matter of individual opinions? 

I'd rather wait. They need to go back to the drawing board because this will be a HUGE mistake if it is built. 

I read that 21% of Cleveland’s parcels are vacant, so it seems like there is plenty of opportunity left around the city for people to get really creative with design if they want to. 

It would be short-sighted to say no thanks to new housing. 

 

Edited October 8, 20231 yr by coneflower

12 hours ago, freefourur said:

I will take the poorly designed building as long as it has good urban form.

 

Well said. I've been to many cities, especially in Eastern Europe, with terrible structural design but good urban form. Those cities have lots of street life, numerous and active public spaces, and are enjoyable to visit.

 
Well said. I've been to many cities, especially in Eastern Europe, with terrible structural design but good urban form. Those cities have lots of street life, numerous and active public spaces, and are enjoyable to visit.

From what it sounds like this building didn't have either.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

The graphics are available for viewing. You don't have to rely on others' descriptions. 

 

I was playing around with the value engineered rendering and thought maybe they could adjust the top floor into a sawtooth roofline reminiscent of industrial warehouses.  I also eliminated the green patina coloring.  Just trying to break up the horizontal massing

The graphics are available for viewing. You don't have to rely on others' descriptions. 
 

I know they're available I saw them. I'm talking about the reactions that the developers received at the recent meeting.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

I think this revised concept would be fine if they improved on the facade, which should not be a major ordeal. Pretty much like dave2017 shows above. I say build it. Hopefully the Lutheran parking lot sites can provide more inspiring designs once that gets rolling at some point.

 

Empty lots, run down properties, and poor decisions from the past are more of concern to me than new developments not being architectural masterpieces...the Cleveland market is not going to demand many of those. Even newer buildings downtown like the Beacon and Lumen are not exactly the greatest IMO.

Just think what this area would look like if the original Bridgeworks building was built, as well as the Viaduct apartment building. Of course, Viaduct was even more pie in the sky but it is nice to dream.

On 10/7/2023 at 11:35 AM, Sapientone said:

  I was in the Short North in Columbus recently, and the quality of the new projects there is much higher than many of the projects in CLE.  

 

I think Short North is further along in the gentrification/revitalization process than Ohio City or Tremont, and thus can now demand higher cost developments. There's been some nice progress, but I still see under-utilized lots, run down properties, chain-link fences, etc. when I look around Ohio City and Tremont.

1 hour ago, Rustbelter said:

 

I think Short North is further along in the gentrification/revitalization process than Ohio City or Tremont, and thus can now demand higher cost developments. There's been some nice progress, but I still see under-utilized lots, run down properties, chain-link fences, etc. when I look around Ohio City and Tremont.

I lived in the Short North for 4 years and really thought of it as more of a street than a neighborhood. The development has been impressive in that stretch but I think it has come at a cost to downtown Columbus. The location and walkability to campus and downtown is great though (but crowded on the narrow sidewalks). 
 

I’m most concerned with the build quality of Bridgeworks. I can’t see these 4 story wood framed buildings holding up well long term not even considering the sound insulation. I think Ohio City would be a fantastic site for a trendy hotel (as the Short North has become) but I’m surprised that the latest design is even workable. My personal dream would be something like a Thompson going in at Intro2 or maybe a 21c at Voss. I think options like those would book up fast even at the higher price point. 

Is housing in the City really so scarce that mediocre designed apartment projects on a prominent corner must be built?  Why then are rents in Cleveland among the lowest in the nation?  Regarding the NYT article, interest rates and economic policies can change with the upcoming presidential election so the real estate industry and the labor market could get back on track.  Regarding the design itself, it is not uncommon for a developer to go to the initial public meetings with a lesser project design or materials knowing that the public bodies will require design enhancements or changes that will increase the project cost.   Even still, I wasn't a fan of the design of the most recent hi-rise proposal which scaled back considerably from the first hi-rise proposal which was very nice.  Travel to Pittsburgh, Columbus or Indianapolis and see the quality of their new urban infill projects. Closer to home, Top of the Hill in Cleveland Heights looks great and should serve as a model of what should be done in Ohio City, University Circle, Lakewood and other markets that can support higher end apartments.  If there is public financing involved, the City can (and should) require more from this experienced developer than a mediocre project.

17 hours ago, Sapientone said:

Is housing in the City really so scarce 

 

Yes. Especially high-quality housing in walkable settings. How many new-builds are there in Ohio City? Not many. Those that are built are commanding high rents and leasing out extremely fast. Check in with Bridgeworks' developers who constructed Church+State. Their building leased out in the depths of the pandemic in just one year at $2+ square foot and continues to range from 93-98 percent full. Ask the guys at Harbor Bay on how fast Intro leased out at top-of-the-market rents. Hint: it leased out before its grand opening at an average of $3 per square foot.

 

I can't find a peer city around us with an historic, near-downtown neighborhood this hot. Most of the new-builds in Short North are leasing for under $2 per square foot with a few at or just over $2. I saw only one (a reno) going for $3. In the historic downtown-adjacent neighborhoods of Pittsburgh, nothing is coming close to Intro's lease-out success. There is a building in the Strip District, Helm on the Allegheny, leasing at Intro rates up to $3/SF but it opened last year and there are still 47 of 219 units available. In Indianapolis, Near Northside units also are falling in the same range at just over $2 per square foot. Yet, despite the similarity in rents being commanded in each of these cities, I don't recall Col-Pitt-Indy having construction costs as high as Cleveland's. Perhaps someone can find more recent information and share it.

 

We are now in a unique, rapidly changing lending market. The demand is very strong for multi-family in Cleveland and especially Ohio City. The sooner a building can be built and bring inventory to market at the lowest construction cost that is amenable to the shrinking supply of lenders, the sooner a developer can reap the rewards from it. I get it that everyone has a different opinion of what is good design. But good urban form is basic science and the market rules over all.

If housing is in such demand (and it is) that new construction rents out quickly l wonder when we will begin to see more knock downs of older homes in terrible condition being replaced with new builds? 

 

It may be one thing to acquire a large enough site for an apartment building but replacing single homes should be doable.

2 hours ago, cadmen said:

If housing is in such demand (and it is) that new construction rents out quickly l wonder when we will begin to see more knock downs of older homes in terrible condition being replaced with new builds? 

 

It may be one thing to acquire a large enough site for an apartment building but replacing single homes should be doable.

 

Demolitions, even of some crappy homes, is tough to do in historic districts. And almost all of Cleveland's hottest neighborhoods are historic districts. I toured a century house on Clinton in an historic district that was at risk of collapsing into its own basement. We had to walk next to the load-bearing walls otherwise we might fall through the floors. But the house could not be torn down. At least one owner already tried but was told don't even waste your time applying. The cost of shoring up and repairing the house to safe conditions was estimated at $200,000, with another $200,000 likely for renovations. And that, reasoned the design-review and landmarks boards, put the cost of that house on par with new-construction homes going up on vacant lots nearby. As far as I know, the house still hasn't been renovated.

New Bridgeworks design is before Landmarks for conceptual review this Thursday.

That'll be must watch TV. 

25 minutes ago, Mendo said:

That'll be must watch TV. 

Two bags of 🍿🍿 recommended.

29 minutes ago, DO_Summers said:

Two bags of 🍿🍿 recommended.

One for each floor they remove.

1 hour ago, DO_Summers said:

Two bags of 🍿🍿 recommended.

More like two glasses of 🍺🍺

Thanks Ken. I did not realize how difficult it is to demo a home in a historic district. 

11 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Yes. Especially high-quality housing in walkable settings. How many new-builds are there in Ohio City? Not many. Those that are built are commanding high rents and leasing out extremely fast. Check in with Bridgeworks' developers who constructed Church+State. Their building leased out in the depths of the pandemic in just one year at $2+ square foot and continues to range from 93-98 percent full. Ask the guys at Harbor Bay on how fast Intro leased out at top-of-the-market rents. Hint: it leased out before its grand opening at an average of $3 per square foot.

 

I can't find a peer city around us with an historic, near-downtown neighborhood this hot. Most of the new-builds in Short North are leasing for under $2 per square foot with a few at or just over $2. I saw only one (a reno) going for $3. In the historic downtown-adjacent neighborhoods of Pittsburgh, nothing is coming close to Intro's lease-out success. There is a building in the Strip District, Helm on the Allegheny, leasing at Intro rates up to $3/SF but it opened last year and there are still 47 of 219 units available. In Indianapolis, Near Northside units also are falling in the same range at just over $2 per square foot. Yet, despite the similarity in rents being commanded in each of these cities, I don't recall Col-Pitt-Indy having construction costs as high as Cleveland's. Perhaps someone can find more recent information and share it.

 

We are now in a unique, rapidly changing lending market. The demand is very strong for multi-family in Cleveland and especially Ohio City. The sooner a building can be built and bring inventory to market at the lowest construction cost that is amenable to the shrinking supply of lenders, the sooner a developer can reap the rewards from it. I get it that everyone has a different opinion of what is good design. But good urban form is basic science and the market rules over all.

 

I’m tired of this project now 🤦🏽‍♂️🤦🏽‍♂️🤦🏽‍♂️

Looks like there are currently dozens of vacancies in many of the newly constructed apartments in Tremont and other walkable neighborhoods of Cleveland. Church + State is a wonderful building and should be the design standard that Bridgeworks should strive to meet.  

On 9/29/2023 at 7:02 PM, Mov2Ohio said:

M Panzica is the developer for this project. Geis is the design-builder. 

 

i see there were three developers originally, what happened to Graham Veysey and Marika Shioiri-Clark?

They aren't developers. Veysey is a financier and Clark is an architect. But they are principals with Mike Panzica in Bridgeworks LLC.

6 hours ago, mrnyc said:

 

i see there were three developers originally, what happened to Graham Veysey and Marika Shioiri-Clark?

Graham was one of the presenters for the developers at the recent Ohio City design review meeting (last week).

Marika's not an architect.  To be accurate she says she's an architectural designer.

Edited October 10, 20231 yr by pglowack

Will the money that was given towards this project from the city and the port authority carry over to this redesign or will they have it kicked back?

13 minutes ago, dave2017 said:

Will the money that was given towards this project from the city and the port authority carry over to this redesign or will they have it kicked back?

I was wondering the same thing. Especially, concerning the $2 million loan from the county.

Public financing - as well as bank financing - is usually tied to the financials of the project, not necessarily the design. . If the pro forma is the same or similar, the loans would likely carry over to the new project. 

On 10/8/2023 at 3:19 PM, dave2017 said:

I was playing around with the value engineered rendering and thought maybe they could adjust the top floor into a sawtooth roofline reminiscent of industrial warehouses.  I also eliminated the green patina coloring.  Just trying to break up the horizontal massing

This is actually awesome, maybe they should hire you.

10 hours ago, KJP said:

They aren't developers. Veysey is a financier and Clark is an architect. But they are principals with Mike Panzica in Bridgeworks LLC.

 

according to litt all three are partners, that’s where i saw it:

 

 

By Steven Litt, cleveland.com

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio — The Cleveland Landmarks Commission on Thursday voted 4-2 to grant a certificate of appropriateness to the proposed Bridgeworks apartment/hotel project on the city’s West Side, even though members of the commission had qualms about its height.

 

In response to criticisms in an earlier review, developers Graham Vesey, Marika Shiori-Clark and Michael Panzica trimmed the building from 17 to 16 stories and from 200 to 186 feet.

Here is another version I was playing around with.  I found the initial BridgeWorks conceptual designs to be quite elegant and respectful to the neighborhood. I went back into Geis's value engineered plan and broke up the bulk of the building with those initial brick and stone panels. The top of the building I added a uniform arched window that mimics the arches found on The Detroit Superior Bridge.  Part of the apartment facade can be clad in stone that mimics the Art Deco Garage that is to be demolished. Maybe some of those panels can be incorporated into the paneling 

Here is another version I was playing around with.  I found the initial BridgeWorks conceptual designs to be quite elegant and respectful to the neighborhood. I went back into Geis's value engineered plan and broke up the bulk of the building with those initial brick and stone panels. The top of the building I added a uniform arched window that mimics the arches found on The Detroit Superior Bridge.  Part of the apartment facade can be clad in stone that mimics the Art Deco Garage that is to be demolished. Maybe some of those panels can be incorporated into the paneling 

See this design is great! I'd be fine with this.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Now this looks great!

I noticed that the building on the SW corner of Detroit Ave. and W. 25th has the arched windows on the top floor, as well. 

 

@dave2017, your design is an improvement.  Should there be a UO Architecture and Design firm?

Edited October 12, 20231 yr by urb-a-saurus

At Ohio City design review, the presenter- really as an afterthought when responding to a question instead of addressing it upfront in his presentation- indicated the very poor designed top was meant to mimic the Detroit-Superior (excuse me Veterans Memorial) Bridge with the arches.  When he stated this it was the first time it occurred to me that is what they were trying to accomplish with the top floor windows.  @dave2017 attempt is so much better, especially the spacing of the windows and the increased number.

@dave2017they should hire you.  This is a vast improvement!