I'm surprised no one has posted this yet. I'll be able to post renderings later this evening when I get home from work.

_____________

 

http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/114690475147620.xml?ncounty_cuyahoga&coll=2

 

Condo plan brings criticism

Planners suspect Flats landowner trying to drive up asking price

Saturday, May 06, 2006

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Flats property owner James Kassouf's new plan for high-rise condos near the lake met with open skepticism Friday from city planning leaders, who suspect the proposal is a ploy to squeeze more money out of land-acquisition efforts for the Flats East Bank project.

 

A Kassouf-hired architect unveiled the grand plan Friday before the Cleveland Planning Commission, at a time when the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority is trying to bargain with Kassouf and a half dozen property owners on behalf of developer Scott Wolstein.

 

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

 

[email protected], 216-999-4695

But wait, there's more (though not much more at WKYC)....

 

http://wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=51834

 

The image isn't even a Kassouf rendering. It's Wolstein's!

KJP...NOBODY POSTED BECAUSE WE WANT TO HEAR "THE REAL TRUTH" WITH PICTURES FROM YOU!  :-D

Not sure if I can provide the "real truth" (as opposed to the "fake truth"?), but here's the pics anyway.

 

 

 

I wouldn't mind one or two of those, but nine of the same thing?  That's hideous.  And it doesn't do much to create a street wall along Front St.  Instead it looks like Lakewood's Gold Coast, a strip of stand alone high rises, not an urban place.

The first phase would have one building built on the east side of West 9th Street, with another built on the west side of West 9th. I posted one of these pics in the thread about Pesht, but that photo and another should be posted here too in order to show existing conditions.

 

East of West 9th...

 

 

West of West 9th...

 

I thought we were trying to build Pesht for the lakefront; not the Soviet Union.

I'm not sure I understand something. Kassouf (and possibly his business partner Khoury of Carnegie Management) own the land north of Front Street from the river to West 3rd Street.

 

So his proposed first phase would be two buildings -- one on either side of West 9th Street. How does this conflict with the Wolstein plan? See the image below.

 

Wolstein proposes a parking deck west of West 9th. So does Kassouf, though he would put a 16-story building on top of it. So if Kassouf is serious, why couldn't Wolstein make his deck taller or even build part of it over the NS tracks? How is Wolstein injured here?

 

The RED represents Kassouf's two buildings in his first phase. The GREEN represents Shaia's proposed Lighthouse Landing development.

 

Isn't Kassouf the guy who kept the Bluffs project (housing project where the FBI and WKYC are located) from happening in the 1990s? 

first off the development looks like a commie block.  id say one or two look nice.  also all these projects are on parking lots... i dont get the need for the parking if its gonna be handled by the other developers and theres two rapid stations within the development... cmon this is just ridiculous.

I don't know if I ever thumbed my nose at any new developements downtown...........untill now.

i posted on clev dot com. it looks like a monotonous wealthy ghetto.

 

nice timing here -- so well thought out and creatively designed too (ha!).

 

so where's kassouf been all this time with this great plan? why should we trust in a parking lot owner who also let his east flats properties remain undeveloped?

 

it's just a ploy to get more $$ from his property. he cannot do this proposal on his own or he already would have done something long ago.

 

if they can sit down together and work it out...a big if...maybe wolstein could pull a stark and make kassouf a partial investor in return for the property? he'd prob make more money that way (vs just selling it). it's too late, they'll either work it out or emminent domain will.

 

developer infighting aside, it sure is good to see all this interest in that area isn't it?

 

 

Isn't Kassouf the guy who kept the Bluffs project (housing project where the FBI and WKYC are located) from happening in the 1990s? 

 

Yes. He also proposed a couple of cheesy motels there when Mike White proposed having the city take Kassouf's land by eminent domain to sell to Forest City so they could develop it. Ultimately Kassouf outlasted White. He sold his land for the WKYC building and supposedly built the FBI center as a turnkey project.

I wouldn't mind one or two of those, but nine of the same thing?  That's hideous.  And it doesn't do much to create a street wall along Front St.  Instead it looks like Lakewood's Gold Coast, a strip of stand alone high rises, not an urban place.

 

Exactly!!!  One, two, even three of these might be nice as infills throughout the city.  But lining nine of them up like its a parade is a tad bit ridiculous.  I too do not understand the reasoning for the gaps left inbetween each bldg.....it kills the street level!

I agree with much of the early criticism on this design.  I'm sure it's conceptual and that City Planning dealt with them accordingly from a design standpoint.  However, I'm also starting to agree with what Zaceman said as it pertains to both Shaia's and Kassouf's properties.  If more developers want to get involved, then more power to them!  The issue then is the development agreement between Wolstein, the City and the Port Authority.  Well, the way I see it, if these developers are SO serious about building in the next 12 months and if their projects don't infringe upon the key parts of the Wolstein development (as these two don't) then maybe they should be signed into the development agreement.  The contract would mandate that because of the subsidies that the entire project is receiving and because of the partnerships and interdependencies involved, that there is a bare minimum amount of work and investment that has to go in by X date.  The whole thing, as it expands into the WHD and north to the lake (a la Stark's "Y" plan) can be managed as a sort of PUD (planned unit development) that has its own design review and standards, but also generated TIFF dollars along the way that can serve as the public funds that will need to accompany the projects.

 

The worst case scenario here is that we shun developers who are thinking big (whether in earnest or not) and turn off the flow of ideas that are coming before City Planning.  We need to make sure that as much of this stuff happens as possible!

  I sent a letter to the editor (PD) yesterday about the topic....they caled me today saying they were considering publication.  I hope they don't edit it too much...but it basically deals with the city, the developers, parking, and RTA....I believe if all involved work together on the project, maybe some good will come.  I just hope it doesn't turn into a one person take all scenario. 

I may have jumped the gun on Shaia (maybe), but there is no way Kassouf's project is serious.

Kassouf's project is reminiscent of the high-rise housing projects on the South Side of Chicago.  I guess if Cleveland wants to go for the chic East Berlin look, it ain't so bad of an idea.

I'm not saying Kassouf's project is serious by what I'm about to say. But if you look at that last diagram I posted, if the parking deck next to the tracks is turned 90 degrees over the tracks and widened a bit, then Kassouf's second building fits. As for the other building on the other side of West 9th, that's fine too. But I hope he goes no further.

 

I actually like the design of the two towers, but that's as far as it should go. In other words, not nine or 10 of them!

 

The rest of his property east of there to West 3rd should go to the port authority for its envisioned stadium parking deck/truck-staging area for the ferry, with new housing/mixed use and an extended West 6th built on top of it.

 

Here's a funny tidbit... At the City Planning Commission hearing last week, one of the commission members realized that some of the condo units didn't have any windows in them! I think's that an example of a rushed design, don't you? Or maybe it was supposed to be the "affordable housing component"....

what is going to stop all these property owners from hiring architects and proposing plans as a last ditch effort to raise property values ? I think this is why several buildings look the same. is that not cheaper to copy and paste thesame building than to propose several different types of buildings?  What a joke. I think he is insincere. If we truly had some earnest people in on this, wouldn't that be great? I am all for architectural / developer diversity down there.Heck I live in stonebridge even I think Corna has hit the max with the whole big window thing. I cannot imagine Kassoufs plans would be approved for so many buildings looking the same . I agree, it would look like public housing from the 70's. Not even CMHA proses plans like that anymore! I think all of this slows the progress that was taking place.

no one in their right mind would build the development in the first picture on this page...not in Cleveland...and likely not anywhere right now.  It really does look like something out of 1950s - 1970s superblock planning.  not ok!

 

That said, I agree with KJP that a couple of these, appropriately located, could be nice. 

 

And the point that I think we're making with the Shaia and Kassouf proposals is that they can be done without infringing upon the Wolstein proposal.  Both of these projects are on property that would either sit as parking lots or be used as garages.  So, bring the current owners on board and encourage them to think big...developing the bejeezus out of their parcels and making this thing all it can be! 

 

I have to say, the way that Wolstein's original proposal sits, having all this parking over on these two properties just doesn't sound good enough anymore.  We don't want a Crocker Park down here...we want something that will connect with the existing neighborhood down Old River and up the hill in the WHD. 

Actually, that first picture reminds me of a Monopoly board once the stakes have gotten high.  Interesting, huh?

Hey....at worst, this has kicked all of those land owners in the behind to do something in the Flats!  At best, Wolstein's project will be a huge success after he acquires all of that land.

Ha ha...from the moment I first saw the plan for those buildings last week I've been waiting for the "south side of Chicago" reference!!!

 

Give me a crayon and a napkin and in 10 seconds even I could come up with something better looking.

 

Seriously though, the whole car storage thing is a pretty cool idea.

Ha ha...from the moment I first saw the plan for those buildings last week I've been waiting for the "south side of Chicago" reference!!!

 

Give me a crayon and a napkin and in 10 seconds even I could come up with something better looking.

 

Seriously though, the whole car storage thing is a pretty cool idea.

 

As a HATER of parking, why do we need that much when we have the WFL runnig right thru.  if all of these people are moving there, there is not the need to have that much parking as you have built in foot traffic.  I can see enough parking for each resident (however, we know that not each resident will own a car) so spaces not included in a lease can be used for pay parking.

 

It makes no sense...we complain about the WFL but help kill it...................arghhhhhh  :shoot:

It's highly unlikely that people who can afford new luxury condos will go car free, even if they live along a rail line.  I just don't see a lot of cars being removed from the equation.  Vehicle miles, yes.  Cars per person, no.

It's highly unlikely that people who can afford new luxury condos will go car free, even if they live along a rail line.  I just don't see a lot of cars being removed from the equation.  Vehicle miles, yes.  Cars per person, no.

 

 

I partially agree, its just that we seem to be building an abundance of parking, which isn't helping the situation.  A common garage for the area would be smart.  think about it, today we're complaining about the sea of parking lots...tomorrow we'll be complaining about the over abundance of parking garages that aren't making money.. ala gateway!

Until people can get everywhere they need to go in this town without a car (walking, transit, whatever), those with the means are still going to want to have their cars and they're going to demand that they are able to park them in the same structure as their home.  I don't like it, but it's still a fact here and there's no lack of space to accommodate them.

 

That said, there's no reason why the option can't be pricey.  I know the Avenue District is doing all sorts of customer surveys (most good developers do) to determine what households want from their units.  So, if half the people demand 2 spaces, and the homes come with one parking space, but the second is $100/month, would some people consider forgoing the second car?  What if they can walk to the grocery/movies/book store?  Probably!  And what about if the development featured one or two CityWheels cars that could be utilized by residents of the building?  Sounds like a smart idea to me!  Then, as things really start to beef up, people who brought two cars can decide that they only really need one.  And new developments can build less parking as the whole neighborhood/city gets to be more dense, pedestriant/transit friendly, and inconvenient for single-occupant vehicles.  Ahhh...utopia.

I think the city wheels option is a good idea. I have heard through the grapevine, they would like to have a car at Stonebridge, where a lot of people walk or ride the bus to work already (even though they own a car) . Has City wheels actually started yet? I know the first cars were going to be in Ohio City and Cleveland Heights (Coventry I think). With the spouse getting out of the field, we are going down to one car (anyone want to buy a 98 Honda civic?) . With parking $50 a month for faculty to park at csu it does not make sense to drive to work. I still think most people are a long way from going completely carless. A lot of the the new urban pioneers have moved in from the burbs and need  some weaning-say one car for two people instead of one for each.  I say this new place should stick to one space per unit.  I will say, getting two working people to share one car (out of choice as opposed to necessity) is a big step forward and a lot of people living downtown are doing it already.

From the City Wheels site.

http://www.citywheelscleveland.com/

 

Where can I find a CityWheels car?

 

CityWheels has four vehicles in operation.

 

In Oberlin:

Car #1: Toyota Prius "ECO-OBIE" http://www.citywheelscleveland.com/wheelsLocations.php#1

Car #2: Scion xB "OBIE xB" http://www.citywheelscleveland.com/wheelsLocations.php#2

In the Cleveland area:

Car #3: Ohio City Prius http://www.citywheelscleveland.com/wheelsLocations.php#3

Car #4: Coventry Scion http://www.citywheelscleveland.com/wheelsLocations.php#4

^I see the Scion in Coventry parked all the time at the Marathon station at the NW corner of Mayfield and Coventry.  (Easy to spot since it says "City Wheels" right on the side...)