April 30, 20241 yr 20 minutes ago, WindyBuckeye said: My biggest annoyance and miss is the lack of rooftop access. Rooftop access for a restaurant and the residents would make a killing with the views. good news is they do have a rooftop patio! Edited April 30, 20241 yr by dwolfi01
April 30, 20241 yr 4 minutes ago, dwolfi01 said: good news is they do have a rooftop patio! Ha I’m sorry but placement is awful
April 30, 20241 yr 12 minutes ago, WindyBuckeye said: Ha I’m sorry but placement is awful trust me as someone with a balcony facing the other side of the road this is the best placement away from the incredibly loud motorcycles revving their engines all day down that straightaway bridge lol. Really wish I had a room facing the other side of hte building Edited April 30, 20241 yr by dwolfi01
April 30, 20241 yr 6 minutes ago, cadmen said: @Ethan You and l are usually in synch with our opinions but not this time. You do make a valid point in saying if not this development then when, but my point is not only is the location worth the wait for a design befitting the site but l don't think it will be all that long of a wait either. Interest rates don't have to come down all that much and by the time they do the park will become a magnet, the lower level of the bridge could be open and then we may get a developer with deeper pockets. And if we don't, well we can always build another knock-off. I say it's worth the wait and worth the gamble. I understand your perspective, but my main question is worth what wait? If I could know for sure that waiting 2 years could get us a better building at this location, I'd probably say sure, let's wait it out. If however, in my omniscient hypothetical, I could know it would be a 10 year wait I'd opt to build it. I fully understand and agree with you that there are a lot of reasons that we should be optimistic that this lot would get built on even if this developer is denied. (Which, by the way, is probably why it didn't win a TMUD). That said, there are a lot of promising developments that have fallen through, or parking lots that have remained temporary far longer than their locations would seem to justify. Given what we've seen in only the past few years (NuCleus, etc) I can't share your confidence that this lot would definitely get built on quickly. It might, maybe it's even more likely than not, but it might remain a temporary paying lot for a long time. Personally, I'd rather not take that risk. (I also just don't find the building as ugly as so many on this forum do). If, on the other hand, we build an imperfect building we add density to the area, which will supercharge this corner in a much needed way. That will only lead to more development. It's also possible that by holding off on this development now, we don't get as much outgrowth development in the surrounding area. It's hard to grow and densify without allowing sub-optimal buildings to get built.
April 30, 20241 yr It's all a gamble. At any rate, build it now will probably win out. After that let's hope we can get several mid-rises on the west side of 25th overlooking the park and downtown. Those views and proximity to the park should make for a great little neighborhood.
May 1, 20241 yr 4 hours ago, dwolfi01 said: I think if they flip this thing around it would look better. The back side is more interesting, thats the side that should face the bridge. And lose the Teal this isn't Miami.
May 2, 20241 yr On 4/30/2024 at 3:37 PM, JohnSummit said: Isn’t the group that brought us Church + State behind this? I thought they had a pretty strong design ethos, and the earlier designs were much more aspirational. Surprised they’re settling for this instead of insisting on something better. No, that was the previous development team. Geis has "in-house" design.
May 2, 20241 yr 29 minutes ago, yanni_gogolak said: No, that was the previous development team. Geis has "in-house" design. Whom they apparently pay minimum wage.😉
May 3, 20241 yr On 5/2/2024 at 10:43 AM, cadmen said: I could be wrong but l thought Geis had an "out-house" design team.
May 6, 20241 yr The zoning appeal was passed! Not one member asked why nothing has changed since this was presented to Landmark's Commissions last presentation that was panned by all. All setbacks that were discussed were ignored by Geis. The representative says they are planning on tracking ground late summer of this year. This is sad to see that it will move forward. The presentation starts around -32:00 in. It was one of the last items. Edited May 6, 20241 yr by dave2017
May 6, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, dave2017 said: The zoning appeal was passed! Not one member asked why nothing has changed since this was presented to Landmark's Commissions last presentation that was panned by all. All setbacks that were discussed were ignored by Geis. The representative says they are planning on tracking ground late summer of this year. This is sad to see that it will move forward. The presentation starts around -32:00 in. It was one of the last items. If economics was an issue for the building, why build a piece of crap instead of waiting for better opportunity (á la Sherwin Williams)? The building is downright ugly. How in the world is that monstrosity going to evoke a sense of Cleveland pride as people look northward from the new Irish Town park when complete? I wish the public had more say in this project because it's downright trash. Edited May 6, 20241 yr by jbee1982
May 6, 20241 yr I'm HOPING that part of the unappeal of the project is the relatively poor level of rendering, and that the materials chosen will look better in person and in context. But that's a BIG hope...
May 6, 20241 yr I am hoping The Landmarks Commission denies this project since it is the same design they presented last time.
May 7, 20241 yr 2 hours ago, dave2017 said: I am hoping The Landmarks Commission denies this project since it is the same design they presented last time. Agreed.
May 7, 20241 yr Author Bridgeworks eyes late-summer groundbreaking By Ken Prendergast / May 7, 2024 A representative of a development partnership told the city’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) yesterday that the long-awaited Bridgeworks development in Cleveland’s Ohio City’s neighborhood could “hopefully” see a groundbreaking ceremony by late summer. But there are still a few more hurdles to clear before that happens, including an appearance before the city’s Landmarks Commission in the coming weeks. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2024/05/07/bridgeworks-eyes-late-summer-groundbreaking/ "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 7, 20241 yr The color choice for the building/building materials are so ugly. This isn't even about wanting a highrise vs not wanting one. If they just chose a traditional brick vs this would make this look 10x better.
May 7, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said: The color choice for the building/building materials are so ugly. This isn't even about wanting a highrise vs not wanting one. If they just chose a traditional brick vs this would make this look 10x better. Agreed. This looks like an over-sized La Quinta Inn. I imagine they will be constructing a Dennys right next to it?
May 7, 20241 yr its comically, unbelievably awful. it looks like a freakin state prison. who allows this? 🤮 i understand its been a long road and they have constraints, but this is like they just gave up and its almost purposefully, spitefully bad. again, no one would care if it wasn’t on a rare, iconically scenic site.
May 7, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, mrnyc said: its comically, unbelievably awful. it looks like a freakin state prison. who allows this? 🤮 Yeah i don't know why either. It could be the window-to-wall ratio harkens back to historic buildings built with much better materials. But this is a new building, so the smaller windows just look institutional or cheap? It kind of reminds me of a college dorm.
May 7, 20241 yr 29 minutes ago, Cleburger said: Agreed. This looks like an over-sized La Quinta Inn. I imagine they will be constructing a Dennys right next to it? Waffle House.
May 7, 20241 yr Designs people don't like are always either A. called Brutalist or B. compared to suburban hotel brands. Edited May 7, 20241 yr by Mendo
May 7, 20241 yr I heard that to save money Geis is offering this same off the shelf design to Cuyahoga County for the new prison in Garfield Hts.
May 7, 20241 yr 24 minutes ago, Mendo said: Designs people don't like are always either A. called Brutalist or B. compared to suburban hotel brands. Don't forget C. State prison or D. college dorm!
May 7, 20241 yr 10 hours ago, KJP said: Bridgeworks eyes late-summer groundbreaking By Ken Prendergast / May 7, 2024 A representative of a development partnership told the city’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) yesterday that the long-awaited Bridgeworks development in Cleveland’s Ohio City’s neighborhood could “hopefully” see a groundbreaking ceremony by late summer. But there are still a few more hurdles to clear before that happens, including an appearance before the city’s Landmarks Commission in the coming weeks. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2024/05/07/bridgeworks-eyes-late-summer-groundbreaking/ Landmark, please DO NOT let this pass.
May 7, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, surfohio said: Don't forget C. State prison or D. college dorm! Sure. The comparisons are always a real stretch. I mean this is what a La Quinta looks like.
May 7, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, JohnSummit said: That LaQuinta would be an improvement IMO. That is a rendering of a fancy new La Quinta, before the developer dumbs it down into one that is actually built. Much like Bridgeworks.
May 7, 20241 yr On 4/30/2024 at 3:46 PM, dwolfi01 said: good news is they do have a rooftop patio! I just thought about comparing the propoosal to Waterford Bluffs a little bit down W. 25th as I thought the overall layout was a bit similar to this. I don't think anything is wrong with the layout and placement along the Detroit-Superior bridge- in fact I think the layout for this is pretty well done in regards to how it will feel to pedestrians walking by. Of course the colors chosen aren't the best but it may not look as bad as we're making it out to be once it's finished.
May 7, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, Oldmanladyluck said: I just thought about comparing the propoosal to Waterford Bluffs a little bit down W. 25th as I thought the overall layout was a bit similar to this. I don't think anything is wrong with the layout and placement along the Detroit-Superior bridge- in fact I think the layout for this is pretty well done in regards to how it will feel to pedestrians walking by. Of course the colors chosen aren't the best but it may not look as bad as we're making it out to be once it's finished. We‘be got a building like this in Columbus. Renderings were ugly - horribly ugly. Sure enough, as it goes up, it gets uglier.
May 7, 20241 yr It looks like the same color and materials as the building just across the street from the Quarter, and I think that building has the best street presence and form of any of the new builds over there. I'm just not seeing the same issues as you guys.
May 7, 20241 yr 9 minutes ago, KFM44107 said: It looks like the same color and materials as the building just across the street from the Quarter, and I think that building has the best street presence and form of any of the new builds over there. I'm just not seeing the same issues as you guys. The color is absolutely awful. However, the biggest issue, as emphasized by landmarks when it was first presented is the bulk of the building and the architects failure to break up the massing. It just looks like a warehouse. They also failed to address those ridiculous and insipid arched windows on the top of the building which landmarks also hated.
May 7, 20241 yr Yeah, we got a problem here but not the problem you think. The problem is not just ONE bad building. It happens. The problem is with the Landmarks Commission. Any pennypinching developer can propose a lackluster design. They're not required to offer a great design with their first proposal. But the gatekepper? They're suppossed to have a modicum of awareness. They're supposed to represent the city and as such should encourage a developer to come up with something besides the lowest common denominator. The only thing our experts are expert in is not understanding they work for the community and not the developers. Is the Commission made up collectively of important peoples brothers-in-law?
May 7, 20241 yr 14 minutes ago, cadmen said: Yeah, we got a problem here but not the problem you think. The problem is not just ONE bad building. It happens. The problem is with the Landmarks Commission. Any pennypinching developer can propose a lackluster design. They're not required to offer a great design with their first proposal. But the gatekepper? They're suppossed to have a modicum of awareness. They're supposed to represent the city and as such should encourage a developer to come up with something besides the lowest common denominator. The only thing our experts are expert in is not understanding they work for the community and not the developers. Is the Commission made up collectively of important peoples brothers-in-law? Be very careful what you wish for, the previous Landmarks Commission shares a large part of the blame for how we got here.
May 7, 20241 yr I think this building must be the most controversial design I've seen on this board lol. Lots of opinions being thrown around which I think is good. Hopefully the real life design isn't as bad as the renderings. I will say I'm hopeful. I can think of plenty of other design renderings recently that I was skeptical in the renderings but seeing it in real life has turned out better. Color me cautiously optimistic
May 7, 20241 yr ^ unfortunately it is just one bad bldg in this case. the site placement is egregious. these kind of iconic sites in cities don’t grow on trees, they are rare birds and need to be held with care. this would be the second major site mistake in cle recently, the first being the vastly underwhelming sw training center on the prime jacobs site. oh well, on the bright side it will bring in residents so thats always a good.
May 7, 20241 yr As much as I'm not a huge fan of the building (mainly due to location) I think this will be the one case where the rendering will be worse than the final build.
May 7, 20241 yr ^ And that's the problem. It's not the building so much. It's the building AND the location. This design in any number of suburban office/hotel spots would be perfectly fine. It would fit right in actually and no one would care. But it simply doesn't belong sitting on a prime corner. For the record, l don't have a problem with Geis. They do perfectly good work when they are designing and building in some non-descript office/warehouse park. Nothing wrong with that. But if they want to compete in the city and in prominent locations they need a completely different mindset. But I doubt they can pivit all that much. I'm sure the people they hire don't have that kind of portfolio or understanding. So then it's the Landmarks Commission that needs to be the gatekeeper. But they're not doing that either. And l think it's because they don't know what they don't know. Do you think that kind of (non)thinking would fly in Chicago, New York, Miami or any other city where desgn matters? Of course not. We need more expertise in this town.
May 7, 20241 yr 18 minutes ago, cadmen said: ^ And that's the problem. It's not the building so much. It's the building AND the location. This design in any number of suburban office/hotel spots would be perfectly fine. It would fit right in actually and no one would care. But it simply doesn't belong sitting on a prime corner. For the record, l don't have a problem with Geis. They do perfectly good work when they are designing and building in some non-descript office/warehouse park. Nothing wrong with that. But if they want to compete in the city and in prominent locations they need a completely different mindset. But I doubt they can pivit all that much. I'm sure the people they hire don't have that kind of portfolio or understanding. So then it's the Landmarks Commission that needs to be the gatekeeper. But they're not doing that either. And l think it's because they don't know what they don't know. Do you think that kind of (non)thinking would fly in Chicago, New York, Miami or any other city where desgn matters? Of course not. We need more expertise in this town. I agree with you for the most part. I feel that as presently presented, this overly simplistic design is aesthetically weak for such a prime location. However, I hesitate to lay the blame at the feet of the designers. A firm’s decision makers will often squash good design in an effort to get a project built in a less than ideal financial environment. In such a case, we could only hope a partner with strong finances would be brought in, thus allowing the design to step up to the demands of the location and the opportunity. The result could elevate the stature of both the developer and the neighborhood.
May 7, 20241 yr I thought Landmarks gave them feedback and that it’s going back for their review without the changes having been made? If that’s the case, it remains to be seen if Landmarks will allow it as-is. It seems a bit premature to write them off completely.
May 7, 20241 yr 4 minutes ago, ArtMasterCLE said: I agree with you for the most part. I feel that as presently presented, this overly simplistic design is aesthetically weak for such a prime location. However, I hesitate to lay the blame at the feet of the designers. A firm’s decision makers will often squash good design in an effort to get a project built in a less than ideal financial environment. In such a case, we could only hope a partner with strong finances would be brought in, thus allowing the design to step up to the demands of the location and the opportunity. The result could elevate the stature of both the developer and the neighborhood. I have to disagree. I good design doesn't mean it has to be expensive. It does mean hiring an architect that has a good aesthetic to detail and design. The same needs to be said about what our Landmark and City Planning Commissions aesthetics standards are. There is just no excuse from the nice design this project began as to what it has ended into. Many are to blame and honestly this project should be put on hold.
May 9, 20241 yr On 5/7/2024 at 1:52 PM, KFM44107 said: It looks like the same color and materials as the building just across the street from the Quarter, and I think that building has the best street presence and form of any of the new builds over there. I'm just not seeing the same issues as you guys. Agreed. Clearly this design isn't for everyone, but personally I like it and the colors should pair nicely with Quarter II. I'm optimistic it will turn out even better than the renderings. I fail to understand how any part of this design is objectively bad—sure, some people don't like teal, some people don't like curved windows, some people prefer we don't build in LaQuintaesque Revival. But is this really what we think prisons look like? Yes, they'll be eliminating a development ready vacant lot at a really prominent intersection—that's one down and like 999 to go... within city limits. Even in the vicinity of Irishtown Bend Park there are many more lots yearning for world-class highrises, and while I'm sad we didn't get one here we're still getting a large scale development with decent street presence. I recognize they could've improved the layout of the project and maybe several other technical things, but I'm addressing the numerous comments ranting about how this building is terribly ugly and shouldn't be built. Do we express this level of outrage over grey modernist boxes and cookie-cutter SFHs? Do we prefer architectural conformity over creativity, variety, and uniqueness? This project has gone through multiple setbacks and has still managed to deliver in an unfavorable development environment—would we really prefer to lose out on several years of new residents, liveliness, and local business patrons at Detroit & W25th so that this can remain a surface lot? Rant over. Please tag me for the grand opening of Waffle House at Flats West Bank.
May 9, 20241 yr We were all spoiled by the height and look of the 2nd rendition of the project, which would have happened if it were awarded the TMUD. I'll admit, however, that wasn't much of a fan of this particular design myself. It would've been different, that's for sure. Regardless of the design, I'm still more of a fan of the layout the current iteration of the project vs. what we would have gotten.
May 12, 20241 yr On 5/7/2024 at 11:46 AM, Oldmanladyluck said: I just thought about comparing the propoosal to Waterford Bluffs a little bit down W. 25th as I thought the overall layout was a bit similar to this. I don't think anything is wrong with the layout and placement along the Detroit-Superior bridge- in fact I think the layout for this is pretty well done in regards to how it will feel to pedestrians walking by. Of course the colors chosen aren't the best but it may not look as bad as we're making it out to be once it's finished. I really like how Waterford Bluffs turned out. Both the building and the use of the location. If this turns out half as good (and it should as it will have a “retail” component, it will be a huge win.
May 12, 20241 yr On 5/9/2024 at 8:18 AM, Oldmanladyluck said: We were all spoiled by the height and look of the 2nd rendition of the project, which would have happened if it were awarded the TMUD. I'll admit, however, that wasn't much of a fan of this particular design myself. It would've been different, that's for sure. Regardless of the design, I'm still more of a fan of the layout the current iteration of the project vs. what we would have gotten. Dude--a tall, 10, 12, 20 story building here would be much better than a low-rise sprawling building. And then in a few years another tall bldg could be built next to it. we need more housing units and people, not less. Yes, the new design has the same number of units, but I doubt its being designed to allow 5-6 stories to be built on top of it later. The new proposal is crap compared to the previous two versions.
May 13, 20241 yr I would say tall buildings aren’t “needed”, but are definitely more fun to look at vs. projects which are shorter but still add a good amount of housing units. Cleveland at its peak population didn’t have many buildings we would consider to be “tall”. And that’s my point: the colors may not be the best, but the layout is great and honestly, I wasn’t a fan of the taller version. Give me this streetscape any day, which ironically is what many of Cleveland’s major intersections looked like in the past. This is close to the Hamilton Hotel in D.C. just as an example- which now has 2x our population in the city center without the tall buildings. Instead, you will see great walkable streets hemmed in by a solid street wall all around, without the missing teeth. Edited May 13, 20241 yr by Oldmanladyluck
May 13, 20241 yr 21 minutes ago, Oldmanladyluck said: I would say tall buildings aren’t “needed”, but are definitely more fun to look at vs. projects which are shorter but still add a good amount of housing units. Cleveland at its peak population didn’t have many buildings we would consider to be “tall”. And that’s my point: the colors may not be the best, but the layout is great and honestly, I wasn’t a fan of the taller version. Give me this streetscape any day, which ironically is what many of Cleveland’s major intersections looked like in the past. This is close to the Hamilton Hotel in D.C. just as an example- which now has 2x our population in the city center without the tall buildings. Instead, you will see great walkable streets hemmed in by a solid street wall all around, without the missing teeth. Those are all 12 story buildings
May 13, 20241 yr 14 hours ago, Oldmanladyluck said: I would say tall buildings aren’t “needed”, but are definitely more fun to look at vs. projects which are shorter but still add a good amount of housing units. Cleveland at its peak population didn’t have many buildings we would consider to be “tall”. And that’s my point: the colors may not be the best, but the layout is great and honestly, I wasn’t a fan of the taller version. Give me this streetscape any day, which ironically is what many of Cleveland’s major intersections looked like in the past. This is close to the Hamilton Hotel in D.C. just as an example- which now has 2x our population in the city center without the tall buildings. Instead, you will see great walkable streets hemmed in by a solid street wall all around, without the missing teeth. DC is really a unique case though because they are esentially forced to build this way due to the rules in place causing the heigh restrictions. That being said, I love how DC is laid out and how dense it is at every turn. It really is one of my favorite cities.
May 13, 20241 yr 20 hours ago, Gabriel said: Dude--a tall, 10, 12, 20 story building here would be much better than a low-rise sprawling building. And then in a few years another tall bldg could be built next to it. we need more housing units and people, not less. Yes, the new design has the same number of units, but I doubt its being designed to allow 5-6 stories to be built on top of it later. The new proposal is crap compared to the previous two versions "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.
Create an account or sign in to comment