@Dino l don't think it's right to insert a dose of financial reality into my little fantasy world. I prefer to think that every developer/architect will be running their design by me for my imput. I'll be taking their call just as soon as l wake up.

5 hours ago, Dino said:

"The skyscraper is a machine that makes the land pay."- Cass Gilbert (famous architect)

 

I hated this quote in architecture school- I couldn't understand how an architect could describe buildings in such a bleak way.  But I've learned this is the key to understanding design.  Like it or not, never forget that buildings (most buildings) are investments first, pieces of art second.  Developers don't build what they want or what they think a site should be.  They build what will generate a return.  This is determined with very precise financial models that take into account market conditions, lending environment, and a lot of other very non-architectural factors.

 

Case in point, Cass Gilbert said this quote about skyscrapers in the early 1900s.  His point was that skyscrapers evolved due to high demand, high land values, and new cheap materials (steel), not because people wanted taller buildings.

 

PS- not trying to be argumentative- I want a taller Bridgeworks too.  I have just come to appreciate this quote and wanted to share.

 

You're right, land is finite. And every SF has a value. That quote supports the argument for a taller, not squatter, project.

1 minute ago, Gabriel said:

You're right, land is finite. And every SF has a value. That quote supports the argument for a taller, not squatter, project.

 

Except the last proposal was a similar density as this one. The number of apartment and hotel units didn't really change. The only major distance is the building height. The latest site plan fills more of the parcel. 

15 hours ago, Mendo said:

 

Except the last proposal was a similar density as this one. The number of apartment and hotel units didn't really change. The only major distance is the building height. The latest site plan fills more of the parcel. 

 

No. The density did change. and that's the whole point and reason behind @Dino's article.

 

If the original project had 200 units over 20 stories covering 20,000 SF on the ground, the density is of units is 1 unit for every 100 SF on on the ground.

If the new project has 200 units over 10 stories covering 40,000 SF on the ground, the density of units is 1 unit for every 200 SF on the ground.

 

In other words, the opportunity is lost to due to suburban flat design to build a second 15-20-25 story tower. That land is lost to the squat building.

40 minutes ago, Gabriel said:

 

No. The density did change. and that's the whole point and reason behind @Dino's article.

 

If the original project had 200 units over 20 stories covering 20,000 SF on the ground, the density is of units is 1 unit for every 100 SF on on the ground.

If the new project has 200 units over 10 stories covering 40,000 SF on the ground, the density of units is 1 unit for every 200 SF on the ground.

 

In other words, the opportunity is lost to due to suburban flat design to build a second 15-20-25 story tower. That land is lost to the squat building.

 

I appreciate what you are saying but there was never going to be a second tower. If that 5 story garage on the eastern edge of the site was to be built to support a midrise on top, that's news to me. 

14 hours ago, Gabriel said:

 

No. The density did change. and that's the whole point and reason behind @Dino's article.

 

If the original project had 200 units over 20 stories covering 20,000 SF on the ground, the density is of units is 1 unit for every 100 SF on on the ground.

If the new project has 200 units over 10 stories covering 40,000 SF on the ground, the density of units is 1 unit for every 200 SF on the ground.

 

In other words, the opportunity is lost to due to suburban flat design to build a second 15-20-25 story tower. That land is lost to the squat building.

 

13 hours ago, Mendo said:

 

I appreciate what you are saying but there was never going to be a second tower. If that 5 story garage on the eastern edge of the site was to be built to support a midrise on top, that's news to me. 

 

I must be bad at explaining! If you take a piece of land and use ALL of that land and put a 10 story bldg on it, you will have twice as much building as you would if you built a 5-story building on it. If all units are the same size (for example) then you get 2x the number of units in the 10-story bldg as you would with the 5-story bldg on the same land.

 

If you build a bldg on a piece of land it is difficult to build on it with something else unless you destroy the original building. As @Dino was saying, land is precious.  If there is a short, five-story structure on the eastern half of the land and that structure connects with all of the western half the land, its not easy for someone to come in a build a 10-15-story bldg on the eastern half of the land. Its not relevant that the current owner never said he wanted to build two towers on that site, as in a few years anyone could have come along and proposed such and who is say the current owner today will be the same owner in 5-10 years. Look at the apts that were built on Mayfield and Euclid with a big parking lot in front and McDonalds in the late 80s/early 90s. That was supposed to be a parking lot for the bldg. Now look at it---that parking lots is part of the Uptown project. So things change and land was deemed more valuable. But its easy to bulid on a former parking lot. If there is a five-story residential bldg there, its more difficult, and likely blocks decent, better development from happening. As a result, the prime land will give us less density, less people, less street activity, less retail than the original plans would have allowed.

10 hours ago, Gabriel said:

As @Dino was saying, land is precious.

That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that developers usually like good design and often have big egos so they usually WANT to build something cool and flashy.  But ultimately developers are limited to the financing that a building project can support.  I'm saying that in many ways, a lot of the big design decisions (like use, size, massing, maybe aesthetics to a lesser degree) are largely the product of complex business models that developers use to determine if a project is viable, and consequently if they are going to build it.  There are at least a dozen different variables that factor into these equations, land value is one of them, but likely not a factor at all in the case of Bridgeworks.  My guess with Bridgeworks is that when the interest rates were low, they could afford to be bolder with the design.  But now that interest rates are higher, financing the project costs more money.  So they likely determined that the only way to make it happen is to build the same number of apartments but less expensively, which in this case means a shorter, longer building.  I think it's also likely that the developer is more disappointed than anyone that they aren't getting their tower.

On 5/13/2024 at 11:04 AM, Dino said:

"The skyscraper is a machine that makes the land pay."- Cass Gilbert (famous architect)

 

I hated this quote in architecture school- I couldn't understand how an architect could describe buildings in such a bleak way.  But I've learned this is the key to understanding design.  Like it or not, never forget that buildings (most buildings) are investments first, pieces of art second.  Developers don't build what they want or what they think a site should be.  They build what will generate a return.  This is determined with very precise financial models that take into account market conditions, lending environment, and a lot of other very non-architectural factors.

 

Case in point, Cass Gilbert said this quote about skyscrapers in the early 1900s.  His point was that skyscrapers evolved due to high demand, high land values, and new cheap materials (steel), not because people wanted taller buildings.

 

PS- not trying to be argumentative- I want a taller Bridgeworks too.  I have just come to appreciate this quote and wanted to share.

Yes, function over form.

Does anyone know if or when this project is supposed to go before Landmarks Commission for final approval or does it not need to go before them again?

It has to go to Landmarks. Hopefully soon!

 

Got boarded up very recently.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/07/heres-why-reopening-the-lower-level-of-clevelands-detroit-superior-bridge-could-make-great-sensecommentary.html

 

New design for Bridgeworks?

I like the idea of breaking up the horizontal bulk of this landscraper, but man, these guys just always make the ugliest choices possible.

22 minutes ago, brownsfan1226 said:

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/07/heres-why-reopening-the-lower-level-of-clevelands-detroit-superior-bridge-could-make-great-sensecommentary.html

 

New design for Bridgeworks?

SIGH

I give up.  The developers have totally defeated me (not that I actually had/have any say so in real life but you get my point).  Just build something no matter how ugly.  And yes this is pretty horrible.

A return of the one building trying to look like multiple building facade. I hoped we were past this type of design with a bunch of mixed colors and materials.

 

I actually liked Geis's last design and just thought it needed tweaking.

 

 

Edited July 5, 2024Jul 5 by Mendo

39 minutes ago, brownsfan1226 said:

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/07/heres-why-reopening-the-lower-level-of-clevelands-detroit-superior-bridge-could-make-great-sensecommentary.html

 

New design for Bridgeworks?

I'm in the minority but I prefer this over the other GEIS design.

1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I'm in the minority but I prefer this over the other GEIS design.

 

Agree 100%. This isn't stunning, but I think it's better than any of the previous iterations. 

2 hours ago, brownsfan1226 said:

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/07/heres-why-reopening-the-lower-level-of-clevelands-detroit-superior-bridge-could-make-great-sensecommentary.html

 

New design for Bridgeworks?

Alas, they seem to be converting the bridge bike lanes back into car lanes.
Kidding aside I'll take as much brick as we can get tbh

I think the Geis plan needs tweaking right to the waste basket. That's my defination of tweaking.

Please hire a new architect for this project.  This new iteration just proves that they don't know what to do with the massing.  The old ticket booth now looks like an afterthought

I'm not totally mad at it, however I think if the center white buiiding rose up higher a couple floors for amenity/rooftop it would help to have an elevation change/add interest

This new design simply seems confused. There are four distinct colors and multiple window styles visible on the facade, causing visual discontinuity. 

Or maybe we can move the old viaduct tower over to that corner.?

 

 

Don't make me sad. 🥲

The sad thing is - if Viaduct Tower was built I bet it would be totally leased within months of opening. 

23 hours ago, brownsfan1226 said:

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/07/heres-why-reopening-the-lower-level-of-clevelands-detroit-superior-bridge-could-make-great-sensecommentary.html

 

New design for Bridgeworks?

Looks like if you had a dentist appointment at Eaton

Looks like they're trying to make it look like a series of buildings but it's not cohesive. Better than the previous iteration IMO and I think this could look fairly decent with some refinement. 

The bottom level would be a great spot for a Time Out market.  If the population could support. Maybe too far from the WSM.

The other point about this project is that every design they have presented is so different than the previous iteration that it makes it difficult to for an approval. I don't think the developer knows what he wants anymore.   Which iteration does everyone most like? I am most fond of the very first design concept that was first developed for this site.  This last design tries to emulate some of those aspects but missteps on proportions and scale.

^ When it eventually gets built maybe they’ll call it The Proteus. 

12 hours ago, dave2017 said:

every design they have presented is so different than the previous iteration that it makes it difficult to for an approval

This is a good point.  Each design is totally new instead of a refinement of a previous design.  I think each design has been ok, and just needed some more detail or refinement, but instead they throw the whole thing out and start from scratch.

Maybe they should just let us design it.  😀

29 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Maybe they should just let us design it.  😀

There is a somewhat regular poster on the forum who I would love to have design it.

33 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

There is a somewhat regular poster on the forum who I would love to have design it.

You called?! 😆

On 7/5/2024 at 12:28 PM, brownsfan1226 said:

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/07/heres-why-reopening-the-lower-level-of-clevelands-detroit-superior-bridge-could-make-great-sensecommentary.html

 

New design for Bridgeworks?

Windows look like crap. The concrete panels need to go. Stop value engineering this. It's a mockery of classical architecture. Spend the bucks, make it brick and limestone, and put some actual meaningful ornamentation on it.

oh good grief. so they went to the trouble again and this eyesore is what they came up with? it reeks of cheapskate copy and paste courtyard by marriott next to the 1980s mall style architecture -- the cladding is atrocious. and why is the rooftop flat and still unused? they even messed up the open corner -- its not really useable for a little farmers market or makers market or anything like that.

 

i mean, its not that hard, for example, this is what they are doing to make nice edenwald in the bronx -- and its THE PROJECTS ... ok, i'll stop 🤖

 

Hey, this design is a bummer, but even so the Bronx projects probably have a bit more money than this project. The Bronx likely spends more on public housing than Cleveland’s entire annual budget. 

6 hours ago, columbus17 said:

Windows look like crap. The concrete panels need to go. Stop value engineering this. It's a mockery of classical architecture. Spend the bucks, make it brick and limestone, and put some actual meaningful ornamentation on it.

 

It won't get built then. The fact that any project has a construction timeline in this high-cost, low-rent market is remarkable. I hope they can pull it off. 

7 hours ago, KJP said:

 

It won't get built then. The fact that any project has a construction timeline in this high-cost, low-rent market is remarkable. I hope they can pull it off. 

I know nobody likes to hear it, but this is the truth. As an architect it sucks that so many projects end up generic, but I'd much rather have the density, the foot traffic, the business support, etc. that these will bring and just hope it's inoffensive enough in person to fade into the background.

 

Development margins are not great these days. It doesn't take much to completely blow up your pro forma. I worked on piles of projects which went so far over budget that they had to pivot (often unsuccessfully) to a higher end portion of the market to justify things like major increases in structure, infrastructure, etc.

I worked on a project in Manhattan that was about 450 units and it ended up costing $150/square foot more than originally budgeted as a result of rising construction costs. Their profit margins were essentially nothing and that relied on becoming the most expensive building to rent in in the neighborhood (which was not their original plan) and it needed to be stabilized at about 98% occupancy for years, something that just doesn't happen even in a hot market. It's a mess out there still.

2 hours ago, jmicha said:

I know nobody likes to hear it, but this is the truth. As an architect it sucks that so many projects end up generic, but I'd much rather have the density, the foot traffic, the business support, etc. that these will bring and just hope it's inoffensive enough in person to fade into the background.

 

Development margins are not great these days. It doesn't take much to completely blow up your pro forma. I worked on piles of projects which went so far over budget that they had to pivot (often unsuccessfully) to a higher end portion of the market to justify things like major increases in structure, infrastructure, etc.

I worked on a project in Manhattan that was about 450 units and it ended up costing $150/square foot more than originally budgeted as a result of rising construction costs. Their profit margins were essentially nothing and that relied on becoming the most expensive building to rent in in the neighborhood (which was not their original plan) and it needed to be stabilized at about 98% occupancy for years, something that just doesn't happen even in a hot market. It's a mess out there still.

I understand your points and pretty much agree.  The problem I have with this project is that even "generic" can be done so much better than this.  We have evidence of this all over town.  I just don't know that this design is "inoffensive enough in person to fade into the background".  Of course, who knows at this point since it is just a rendering and remains unbuilt.  The bigger issue in my mind is that this is one of the most prominent intersections in the city of Cleveland, so it is not a great spot for a building we would want to fade into the background.  And again, if we have to accept "generic" at this location, can't we at least get "better generic".  I am sure their are some talented architects out there that can figure it out.

 

It will be interested to see what Landmarks has to say.

Edited July 9, 2024Jul 9 by Htsguy

1 hour ago, Htsguy said:

I understand your points and pretty much agree.  The problem I have with this project is that even "generic" can be done so much better than this.  We have evidence of this all over town.  I just don't know that this design is "inoffensive enough in person to fade into the background".  Of course, who knows at this point since it is just a rendering and remains unbuilt.  The bigger issue in my mind is that this is one of the most prominent intersections in the city of Cleveland, so it is not a great spot for a building we would want to fade into the background.  And again, if we have to accept "generic" at this location, can't we at least get "better generic".  I am sure their are some talented architects out there that can figure it out.

 

It will be interested to see what Landmarks has to say.

This is definitely true. Generic can still look better than this. Honestly they should just go with a very simply detailed box that retains materiality, composition, etc. across its entire facade and just accept that it's a big blocky building. It can be done well and still look decent enough.

I guess I’ll just come out and say it… this building looks fine to me. It seems like a decent enough match to the new buildings across the street. 
 

Did the design change because of complaints or to save money? Is this actually being built or is someone getting their kicks making people on this message board go nuts? “Let’s see what they say about this one, Frank!”

22 hours ago, mrnyc said:

for example, this is what they are doing to make nice edenwald in the bronx -- and its THE PROJECTS ... ok, i'll stop 🤖

 

 

Lol why don't we just politely ask them to send over the designs for this one 😉 

Bridgeworks spotted on next week's landmarks commission meeting:

 

Is the Hilton Motto still part of this project or is it just apartments now?

Edited July 23, 2024Jul 23 by TDi

2 hours ago, TDi said:

Is the Hilton Curio still part of this project or is it just apartments now?

 

Last I heard it was still part of it.

It's just apartments now, no more hotel

If this project keeps shrinking by the time it's built it will consist of an 800 square foot studio apartment. 

 

But man...with a great location like that l would expect it to rent out fairly quickly.

A hotel there is such a slam dunk. So far, this project has cut off its nose, eyelids, lips, and brows to spite its face. 😢