Yes, but did you see who wrote the article? (hint: it wasn't me!)

1 hour ago, dave2017 said:

Saddened to watch The Landmarks Commission give final approval to the latest iteration today.  I am perplexed on how this commission has handled their duties throughout the years on this project.  There were plenty of better designs that had started this process.  All this back and forth lead this project to mediocrity.  I have lost faith in this commission and their purpose

Since this final massing was decided upon, I think the commission's tweaks have generally helped. I'd rather have had the original design though.

 

If anything, this whole project has demonstrated the perils of too much pushback from committees like this. It's been a mess, and probably cost the developer a ton of money, for what ended up being basically no reason. In the future the commission should be more cautious about requiring changes that send developers back to the drawing board. Stick to small things like cladding materials, etc. 

52 minutes ago, KJP said:

Check this out! We got a new freelancer at NEOtrans with his first bylined article. Congrats, @Geowizical!!

 

 

Bridgeworks gets green light from Landmarks
By Ian McDaniel / December 12, 2024

 

Typically, the third time’s a charm, but Bridgeworks needed more times than that to earn the approval of the Cleveland Landmarks Commission. Ultimately, the proposal passed unanimously today. The go-ahead allows developers to move forward with constructing all of the $84 million project, located at 2429 W. Superior St. in Cleveland’s Ohio City neighborhood.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/12/12/bridgeworks-gets-green-light-from-landmarks/

 

43 minutes ago, KJP said:

Yes, but did you see who wrote the article? (hint: it wasn't me!)

Figures - Ian gets his big writing break and it’s at the bottom of the page. Bump quote so @Geowizical gets his deserved credit!

6 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Since this final massing was decided upon, I think the commission's tweaks have generally helped. I'd rather have had the original design though.

 

If anything, this whole project has demonstrated the perils of too much pushback from committees like this. 

Actually, what this projected has demonstrated is that if you are a developer and don't have the ability to finance you project in the first place, don't throw your hat into the ring when faced with an RFP

Edited December 12, 2024Dec 12 by Htsguy

10 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

Figures - Ian gets his big writing break and it’s at the bottom of the page. Bump quote so @Geowizical gets his deserved credit!

 

Argh, I hate it when that happens.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Htsguy said:
Actually, what this projected has demonstrated is that if you are a developer and don't have the ability to finance you project in the first place, don't throw your hat into the ring when faced with an RFP

 

 

Unfortunately, many investors want to see a project be fully entitled by the city before they'll write checks.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Argh, I hate it when that happens.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, many investors want to see a project be fully entitled by the city before they'll write checks.

 

Actually, wasn’t that the case with the first iteration.

Very fortunate for the opportunity - thanks @KJP for entrusting me to cover such a fascinating saga of a project!

 

And it only felt natural to carry on the "end-of-page NeoTrans curse" 🥲👻

11 hours ago, Whipjacka said:

I really don't get what the problem with this building is.  

 

they just proposed some ugly af buildings on Euclid in midtown and nobody cares.

But this 7 storey building on a weird and awkward lot, on a hill, cut off by a bridge is so prime that it deserves a multi hundred million dollar build. 

It was an opportunity to make an example of a bad developer to show the others bad development is not acceptable. But nope, let them lose their money and recover it in increased rents. Geis having a $1MM hole in their pocket from engineering and design would have been a fantastic lesson learned.

8 hours ago, columbus17 said:

It was an opportunity to make an example of a bad developer to show the others bad development is not acceptable. But nope, let them lose their money and recover it in increased rents. Geis having a $1MM hole in their pocket from engineering and design would have been a fantastic lesson learned.

The "lesson learned" would be don't do business in Cleveland. 

9 hours ago, columbus17 said:

It was an opportunity to make an example of a bad developer to show the others bad development is not acceptable. But nope, let them lose their money and recover it in increased rents. Geis having a $1MM hole in their pocket from engineering and design would have been a fantastic lesson learned.

Bold of you to assume that the architects and engineers will get paid when projects don't move forward. 

Quick update (03/01): drove past today, still no visible site work or mobilization - spring 2025 was when the dev team said we’d start to see visible construction progress so maybe something to keep an eye on over the next month or two

Here's an update.... One week ago today, the city denied a building permit to the project per an adjudication order from the Building Department. Unfortunately, this is a pretty common thing with large projects, especially on complicated sites. The order has recommendations for the development team to fix in its plans before it will accept them and issue a permit. But even that doesn't guarantee the city will accept them, especially if it finds more things that need to be corrected. The now-under construction Shoreway Tower went through many of these, resulting in 40 back-and-forth filings with the Building Department. So far, Bridgeworks is only up to 25 such filings. So I guess the point here is, there's documented activity.

Ordinarily l would be gnashing my teeth over the usual red tape but in this case l'm conflicted because l think there is a large disconnect between this important site and the very watered down design of the building. I find myself rooting for government intransigence to keep the build from happening. 

 

I know most on this forum would rather have something there now as opposed to the current nothing but l'd rather have nothing now in the hope that someday a developer will build something closer to the original idea rather than this generic product.

A denial is a strong word but factually true. It happens on almost any project, especially one this large. It’s essentially just the building department review of code related issues which the design team inevitably corrects and away we go. Unless there are things that are major disagreements on interpreting the code, this is normally resolved quickly (relatively).

3 hours ago, KJP said:

The now-under construction Shoreway Tower went through many of these, resulting in 40 back-and-forth filings with the Building Department. So far, Bridgeworks is only up to 25 such filings. So I guess the point here is, there's documented activity.

This sounds completely ridiculous. Is this through the plan review and approval process? I can't fathom having this many back & forth iterations to get permit review comments sorted out.

It's not even just permits. Back and forth with city reviewers no matter where is completely normal in the plan design/review process before permitting even happens, but extremely annoying. Us engineers and developers just deal with it until a project is done or dead.

Edited April 18Apr 18 by Geowizical

The City is on a whole different level than most. The process is anything but streamlined and trying to be proactive does you no good when reviewers offer no response and the goal post on requirements seem to change every 5 days. 

I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about but as a lay person it's surprising to me that's it appears to be an all-or-nothing system. can't they start with fundamentals so with can start building and address the rest as they go? 

23 minutes ago, Jax said:

I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about but as a lay person it's surprising to me that's it appears to be an all-or-nothing system. can't they start with fundamentals so with can start building and address the rest as they go? 

 

No, because the city doesn't want to see a foundation or the first floor or two be built and then the building stops. When you travel the world, especially to developing nations, you will see partially completed buildings everywhere that haven't seen any further construction in months or years based on the amount of vegetation sprouting up in them. That's something you don't see in North America or Western Europe (I assume it's the same in Japan, Australia, etc but I haven't been there yet). The reason is that cities and lenders insist on having everything (except cosmetic things like signage or landscaping permits) in place before getting all of the permits necessary to start construction. Cities and lenders insist on it. The last thing that both want to babysit for years is the shell of an unfinished building.

I don't know if it's different for commercial buildings rather than housing but when l first started traveling in the the third world (and even in the poorer countries of Europe) l also noticed many structures were started but then appeared to be abdandoned. When l asked why l was told it was because of the difficulty in getting loans to build. Unlike America where you start with the financing and then the construction in much of the world the financing is less than adequate. So the land owner gathers a little money, starts construction and when the money runs out he stops, saves a little more, constructs a little more and so on. Sometimes it takes years to complete the home and sometimes it's never finished. That's what l was told anyway.

I'm pretty sure it was in the Shoreway tower thread that people were saying the tax rates for "unfinished" buildings is different in a lot of places, so there's an incentive for the building to never be fully "finished" as well.

 

Going back and forth with the plans examiner and AHJ is pretty normal, and how much you have to do depends on the reviewer and the day you catch them on sometimes. I've never found the Cleveland examiners anymore cumbersome than other cities, but most of my work is in the commercial space, not the residential, so maybe the folks who look at apartments and condos are different. I don't consider this to be a sign of trouble though, just the normal process. Some of the back and forth is likely due to the A&E team and examiner interpreting the code differently. It could be the design team submitted a response that the examiner didn't accept and it was bounced back again for a re-response.

A typical project in Ohio City must get approval (or comment) from block clubs, design review committee, Landmarks, Planning or BZA (because the zoning code usually necessitates variances), then permit approval, just to get under construction.  Then building inspectors often put their own two cents on things during construction.  It's a cumbersome process.  This isn't unique to Cleveland of course, but the process goes a lot more smoothly in other cities in my experience as an architect.  I think something that is different in Cleveland is the extent to which projects are expected to satisfy the general public via block clubs and local design review.  The public comments are often subjective, inconsistent, and unclear and developers in Cleveland must spend a lot of time trying to accommodate them in order to get necessary permits and approvals.  In other cities I've worked in, there aren't so many layers, and the commentary from the general public is taken into account, but not necessarily required the way it seems to be in Cleveland. 

 

Another area that adds to the process is the fact that Cleveland's zoning code doesn't exactly facilitate the types of projects that everyone wants to see.  For example, zoning code typically requires large amounts of off-street parking, but no one wants surface lots in Ohio City- not even the City Planners.  This means that most urban projects require a bunch of variances, which then requires design review approval, and so on.  If the code was more flexible, or updated to match the environment everyone actually wants to see, this would help streamline things a little bit.

40 minutes ago, Dino said:

A typical project in Ohio City must get approval (or comment) from block clubs, design review committee, Landmarks, Planning or BZA (because the zoning code usually necessitates variances), then permit approval, just to get under construction.  Then building inspectors often put their own two cents on things during construction.  It's a cumbersome process.  This isn't unique to Cleveland of course, but the process goes a lot more smoothly in other cities in my experience as an architect.  I think something that is different in Cleveland is the extent to which projects are expected to satisfy the general public via block clubs and local design review.  The public comments are often subjective, inconsistent, and unclear and developers in Cleveland must spend a lot of time trying to accommodate them in order to get necessary permits and approvals.  In other cities I've worked in, there aren't so many layers, and the commentary from the general public is taken into account, but not necessarily required the way it seems to be in Cleveland. 

 

Another area that adds to the process is the fact that Cleveland's zoning code doesn't exactly facilitate the types of projects that everyone wants to see.  For example, zoning code typically requires large amounts of off-street parking, but no one wants surface lots in Ohio City- not even the City Planners.  This means that most urban projects require a bunch of variances, which then requires design review approval, and so on.  If the code was more flexible, or updated to match the environment everyone actually wants to see, this would help streamline things a little bit.

I keep asking this but the same thing seems to keep happening. I thought 2025 was supposed to be the year we simplified and streamlined our zoning to avoid a lot of this. 

We have a thread for zoning code discussions, please take this conversation there.  This thread is for Ohio City development specifically.

11 hours ago, KJP said:

I assume it's the same in Japan, Australia, etc but I haven't been there yet

Yes, and yes. I recommend going to both if you have the opportunity.

Bridgeworks shows signs of life

By Ken Prendergast / May 30, 2025

While the development team for the $84 million mixed-use Bridgeworks project in Cleveland’s Ohio City neighborhood is finalizing construction permits with the city, the team decided to take a step that could accelerate the project and get it underway sooner.

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/05/30/bridgeworks-shows-signs-of-life/

2 hours ago, KJP said:

Bridgeworks shows signs of life

By Ken Prendergast / May 30, 2025

While the development team for the $84 million mixed-use Bridgeworks project in Cleveland’s Ohio City neighborhood is finalizing construction permits with the city, the team decided to take a step that could accelerate the project and get it underway sooner.

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/05/30/bridgeworks-shows-signs-of-life/

Geez these guys need to lose money and walk on this it's horrible.

46 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

Geez these guys need to lose money and walk on this it's horrible.

Sorry, but It's as if they scavenged random pieces of other unrelated buildings and glued them together. It would even look better with just consistent colors and window shapes.

I'm excited to see this finally get started. Feels like new construction starts have slowed quite a bit. Hopefully the second Circle Square tower starts next.

Thanks for the article Ken. How much of the delay do you attribute to Cleveland's infamous permitting process and how much is due to changing market conditions?

44 minutes ago, cadmen said:

Thanks for the article Ken. How much of the delay do you attribute to Cleveland's infamous permitting process and how much is due to changing market conditions?

I couldn't guess because I don't know the behind-the-scenes activity regarding their efforts to secure financing and dealing with other market headwinds. This current proposal, sans hotel, dates to early 2024 and possibly earlier. When did they nail down the bulk of their financing for this version of Bridgeworks? I have no idea. Should we count prior versions of Bridgeworks going back to 2019? When I saw the county make this surplus property available in 2018, I thought -- "What an amazing site! Look at its terrific location!" If someone would have told me seven years later the same buildings would still be sitting there rotting away, I would have highly doubted it. We have to do better in the private and public sectors to deliver projects in a much more timely manner.

^Step one. When issuing an RFP do a better job (that is the county or whatever public entity) of selecting the appropriate developer.

11 hours ago, KJP said:

I couldn't guess because I don't know the behind-the-scenes activity regarding their efforts to secure financing and dealing with other market headwinds. This current proposal, sans hotel, dates to early 2024 and possibly earlier. When did they nail down the bulk of their financing for this version of Bridgeworks? I have no idea. Should we count prior versions of Bridgeworks going back to 2019? When I saw the county make this surplus property available in 2018, I thought -- "What an amazing site! Look at its terrific location!" If someone would have told me seven years later the same buildings would still be sitting there rotting away, I would have highly doubted it. We have to do better in the private and public sectors to deliver projects in a much more timely manner.

Yes, it is an amazing site. I think a site like that deserves an amazing development as well. Like the original plan, or even the second downsized version. What we have now ( if we even get it) is a terribly underwhelming structure. It's so underehelming l prefer the location is mothballed until a developer comes along who has the ability to construct a building worthy of the location. And yes, l realize that may not happen in my lifetime.

I think development in the urban core in NEO is entering a new phase now. Yes, we have Bedrock's plan for the riverfront but that will take decades if it even happens. Maybe, maybe we get something substantial on the lakefront. We will probably get Jimmy's dome but that's not downtown. But that appears to be it for quite awhile. I hope we'll see a few scattered mid-rises for residential use but with all the uncertainty in the economy l think we're entering a wait-and-see mode that could last a decade or more.

14 hours ago, KJP said:

I couldn't guess because I don't know the behind-the-scenes activity regarding their efforts to secure financing and dealing with other market headwinds. This current proposal, sans hotel, dates to early 2024 and possibly earlier. When did they nail down the bulk of their financing for this version of Bridgeworks? I have no idea. Should we count prior versions of Bridgeworks going back to 2019? When I saw the county make this surplus property available in 2018, I thought -- "What an amazing site! Look at its terrific location!" If someone would have told me seven years later the same buildings would still be sitting there rotting away, I would have highly doubted it. We have to do better in the private and public sectors to deliver projects in a much more timely manner.

This conversation seems to never change. I feel like i could go back to discussions 15 years ago and itd be the same. Heres to hoping the Bibbs administration new building permits process will alleviate a lot of these sluggish adminsrative phases and also the requirements will be clearer because going back and forth 15 different times is just ludicrous.

Too bad Bridgeworks doesn't look more like this.

^ At this point, they should just change the name from Bridgeworks to Staybridge (Suites) and call it a day...

Its just crazy they dont have balconies or a rooftop common area on this. So many great views from the top. This location is such a slam dunk to build on, I dont get how theyre messing it up this bad. But the only other option is wait another 5+ years

1 hour ago, daybreaker said:

Its just crazy they dont have balconies or a rooftop common area on this. So many great views from the top. This location is such a slam dunk to build on, I dont get how theyre messing it up this bad. But the only other option is wait another 5+ years

Exactly. This design deserves to sit off a truck stop in the suburbs. Not on one of the most prominent corners in Northeast Ohio. Junior Varsity running the show here.

On 12/9/2024 at 1:17 PM, Mendo said:

Bridgeworks is going in front of Landmarks this week with another set of revisions. The facade is simplified even more since the September version. Arguably more cohesive. Looks decent from the Detroit/Superior bridge side.

 

https://planning.clevelandohio.gov/landmark/agenda/2024/PDF/CLC-12-12-2024-AGENDA.pdf

 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/fthrdkrqeqofv59iwzec9/AKVu_0LVILyTUFN5o40RvTg/BRIDGEWORKS_DESIGN REVIEW PACKAGE_12-06-2024.pdf?rlkey=47h0nv0h8cr37t5o3ekuq9n2r&e=1&st=083kmjno&bmus=1&dl=0

 

 

 

 

 

It's been a minute so reposting this as a reminder of the final design.

This will be great - adds another bunch of residents and some retail. Design is going to blend into the neighborhood and will look totally normal sitting between the stonebridge and the quarter.

Keep building! Plenty more large prominent sites, the continued growth and success of the neighborhood will only increase the chances of affording high-design for the next one.

1 hour ago, Mendo said:

It's been a minute so reposting this as a reminder of the final design.

Thanks for posting - the current iteration is 1000% better than the green and grey that we almost got. Its years at this point, but I wonder if the tailwinds were ever great enough to build the original design before Landmarks got in the way with their required setbacks.

I'm way out of my depth here but that's never stopped me before. My rudimentary understanding is that there's been a wave of these "5-over-1" buildings because they're more cost effective. Does that also mean that their life expectancy is shorter?

50 minutes ago, Jax said:

I'm way out of my depth here but that's never stopped me before. My rudimentary understanding is that there's been a wave of these "5-over-1" buildings because they're more cost effective. Does that also mean that their life expectancy is shorter?

Absolutely. They are maximizing the height code allows for wood construction, which is much cheaper than steel or concrete, and the labor is more readily available. Not sure what the lifespan of these buildings are. 30 years, maybe 50, just a guess. A concrete building will be here 100 years from now.

27 minutes ago, pglowack said:

Absolutely. They are maximizing the height code allows for wood construction, which is much cheaper than steel or concrete, and the labor is more readily available. Not sure what the lifespan of these buildings are. 30 years, maybe 50, just a guess. A concrete building will be here 100 years from now.

That's going to depend heavily on how well they are maintained and how well the weatherproofing was executed. There are plenty of examples of 100+ year old wood framed dwellings in this city.

On 6/5/2025 at 9:06 AM, sizzlinbeef said:

That's going to depend heavily on how well they are maintained and how well the weatherproofing was executed. There are plenty of examples of 100+ year old wood framed dwellings in this city.

Agreed to a certain point, but those were built with old growth wood, true 2x dimensional lumber, different building construction standards all throughout. It's comparing apples to.... well rotten apples i guess. These new buildings are built cheap, and are not built to last. They are built, to stabilize financially, be sold, and be tore down and new ones built.

On 6/6/2025 at 11:07 AM, pglowack said:

Agreed to a certain point, but those were built with old growth wood, true 2x dimensional lumber, different building construction standards all throughout. It's comparing apples to.... well rotten apples i guess. These new buildings are built cheap, and are not built to last. They are built, to stabilize financially, be sold, and be tore down and new ones built.

Yes

20 hours ago, columbus17 said:

  On 6/6/2025 at 11:07 AM, pglowack said:

Agreed to a certain point, but those were built with old growth wood, true 2x dimensional lumber, different building construction standards all throughout. It's comparing apples to.... well rotten apples i guess. These new buildings are built cheap, and are not built to last. They are built, to stabilize financially, be sold, and be tore down and new ones built.

Yes

Developers build what will be the most profitable. I don't necessarily fault them for that. Makes you wonder why that model is the most profitable though, doesn't it?

Port OK’s $92M for Cleveland, Brecksville projects

By Ken Prendergast / June 12, 2025

A trio of projects — two in Cleveland and one in Brecksville — got a total of $92 million in financing approved by the Port of Cleveland to help get them closer to construction. Two are mixed-use housing developments in Cleveland totaling 355 residential units. The third is a new, 136-room AC Marriott hotel at Valor Acres, the former Veterans Administration (VA) Hospital site in Brecksville.

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/06/12/port-oks-92m-for-cleveland-brecksville-projects/