The water issue at the mall site isn't a new concern.

 

A similar problem surfaced in 1994, during construction of the Louis Stokes Wing at the nearby Cleveland Public Library on Superior Avenue. The project faced $1 million in unexpected expenses when construction workers encountered unstable ground while digging in the sub-basement.

 

 

Thats a quote from the May 30 article on the Convention Ctr.  OK, so it sounds like it could be for the sake of argument $5-10 million extra cost in clearing out water and maybe a 6 month delay.  I'd say its one thing to do construction and not realize you have to schedule for water concerns.  If dealing with water for 6 months is built into a schedule you shouldn't have too excessive of cost overruns for this issue.  They can work on refurbishing Public Hall during that period of time.

 

Has there been any test drilling?  I seriously think this is just something that FC has thrown in as if there won't be cost overruns at a TC site!  By throwing out some great unknowns it makes people speculate and not want to make a decision.

Are you saying, MTS, that the existing convention center wouldn't be abandoned? If it wouldn't be abandoned, that's an interesting angle to all of this.

^^I beleive the article in PD this am mentioned that there were test drillings.

Are you saying, MTS, that the existing convention center wouldn't be abandoned? If it wouldn't be abandoned, that's an interesting angle to all of this.

 

That I can't make that call.  I would say that having an outdated convention center that cannot handle the needs of today's shows is not a good thing.

 

I called, email and fax (someone on the inside and I will not reveal who this person is) to ask:

 

Has anyone looked at the option/run the numbers of using both the current center and the Higbee building.  Why?  The Merchandise Mart and the Convention center do not need to be connected.  The MM could be locate in the Higbee building (using the promises the Rats have already made) and they could complete their intially promised plan for the river side of their property

 

The new Convention Center could be rebuilt on the current site and the site vacated by the county, with an attached (800 +) room property, where meeting/conference break out space could be built to connect the center w/the hotel.

 

This way they might not need to dig as deep to accomodate the needed floorplates.

 

I would think we could get funds to rehab several historic properties, since public/music hall could also service as conference/meeting space not initially included in the plan.

 

lastly, we would be rid of the IX center.

Not sure if this was on there before but on the cleveland film comission's homepage they have a graphic of all the buildings with the Cleveland convention center being highlighted and showing it as a Free production facility, with overview statistics of the building as well.

It states the building is 375,000 square feet with 64k square feet of production office space, and 29k square feet of Open Plan Areas.

 

http://www.clevelandfilm.com/

i think that's a fair question... and i can't believe i'm saying this, but... I think the damage done by abandoning the current complex would outweigh the economic benefits of the project. i'd rather it not happen.

 

I wouldn't have been in favor of a new convention center without the medical mart. And I'm not in favor of the medical mart without the "right" convention center.

 

I can't disagree with you more... That's that type of thinking that's gotten Cleveland stuck in the morass it's in for so long.

If this does in fact go behind TC, I am almost sure the cinema's will be abandon and given up for convention space. Not that it's everything needed, but that will be one of the architectural pieces into the design.

 

I agree and that would be a big loss; esp given the great success of the Cleveland Film Festival there, one of the nation's best... FCE could care to sh!ts about the theatres, anxious even to turn them into parking... It really bugs me; Miller/Ratner really bugs me and are the selfish, self-centered louts most everyone here believes they are (feel better MTS; I actually mean this)...

 

... the good news is, though, movie theatres are apparently a major component of the new Flats East Bank -- so maybe all the film activity can move down there in a few years.  We went too long w/o downtown screens until TC opened there's.  To lose all movies downtown would be a giant step backwards...

MTS -

You've mentioned getting rid of the IX Center several times.  While I'd like to see that too, was that ever part of the goals of this project, regardless of where it's put?  It's not clear that's feasible anyway if you have to replicate the amount of space at the IX Center.  I don't have MayDay's graphics skills, but here's what the footprint of the current IX Center site looks like overlaid on the existing CC site.  Seems like there isn't room there for something of the IX Center's size. 

The IX is the 8/9 largest facility in the world.  We don't need a site that large downtown.

 

But we do need, a site with a larger floor plate than that proposed at TC.

 

^^I beleive the article in PD this am mentioned that there were test drillings.

 

Over the past 10 years, they have payed several times to have that site drilled at various depths.  Between that site, and the parking lot that was suppossed to be Courthouse Tower on St. Clair, they have made swiss cheese out of the geology. 

The architect is going to need to be innovative. A lot of times, the best innovation comes from working within confined parameters. Working again challenges could pose an exciting challenge for the right team. Or it could be a big, expensive piece of crap.

^I know that there are some who are pushing this to be a LEED project. With a cap on costs, that might make LEED prohibitive. Still, what a great large project to get local construction firms more familiar and more comfortable with LEED. Those construction firms aren't always that eager to embrace change.

^As has been said before - "the greenest building is one that's already built".

MTS -

You've mentioned getting rid of the IX Center several times.  While I'd like to see that too, was that ever part of the goals of this project, regardless of where it's put?  It's not clear that's feasible anyway if you have to replicate the amount of space at the IX Center.  I don't have MayDay's graphics skills, but here's what the footprint of the current IX Center site looks like overlaid on the existing CC site.  Seems like there isn't room there for something of the IX Center's size. 

 

There have been a few articles in the past 6 months that have alluded to the fact that the city is in no rush to tear the IX Center down to make room for the airport any longer.  In fact, if I remember correctly, one article stated that they want to sell it back to the former owner (who currently leases it). 

 

I've tried a few times in the last few days to search for these articles.  I believe one was in Crain's and the other in the PD.  Neither website has a good search function, so I haven't turned up anything.  But I think it's an important point to make in this discussion because there have multiple comments here that just assume that eliminating the IX Center is still the plan after a new CC is built.  I'm not saying it shouldn't be, just that there have been other indications lately.

^I can't find the article now, but I did find it a while back and I'm pretty sure what was reported was an extension of the IX Center lease to the existing operator into 2014 because the new CC process was taking so long.  I don't think that's inconsistent with its eventual demo of the IX Center, or at least eventually restricting it's operation is it does not compete with a new downtown facility.

So, Tower City is officially the recommended site:

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/08/tower_city_site_the_recommenda.html

 

Additionally, here is the Crain's link:

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20080807/FREE/72737101/1022

"The expected riverfront cost is $536 million. Renovations and addition to the current convention center were expected to cost $583 million."

 

$50M is not that much of a difference.  No word on where the extra $100M or so (after MerchMart's $20M) is going to come from, eh?

...and the idiots verbally challenged folks on cleveland.com have already started their comments.

MTS -

You've mentioned getting rid of the IX Center several times.  While I'd like to see that too, was that ever part of the goals of this project, regardless of where it's put?  It's not clear that's feasible anyway if you have to replicate the amount of space at the IX Center.  I don't have MayDay's graphics skills, but here's what the footprint of the current IX Center site looks like overlaid on the existing CC site.  Seems like there isn't room there for something of the IX Center's size. 

 

There have been a few articles in the past 6 months that have alluded to the fact that the city is in no rush to tear the IX Center down to make room for the airport any longer.  In fact, if I remember correctly, one article stated that they want to sell it back to the former owner (who currently leases it). 

 

I've tried a few times in the last few days to search for these articles.  I believe one was in Crain's and the other in the PD.  Neither website has a good search function, so I haven't turned up anything.  But I think it's an important point to make in this discussion because there have multiple comments here that just assume that eliminating the IX Center is still the plan after a new CC is built.  I'm not saying it shouldn't be, just that there have been other indications lately.

 

The demolition of the I-X Center was tied to the FAA/Port's plan to expand to the airport. Only a part of that plan has been implimented over the past few years: the third NW/SE runway was built along with an extention to 10000ft. of one of those parallels. The I-X center was going to be demolished, I believe, to build a N/S runway and a second terminal or cargo facility further down the Berea Freeway. All those plans have been are off UFN. If the I-X Center gets demoed...it wont be for airport expansion now.

 

 

I've tried to post comments on there so many times, and they never show up.

Read the report: http://www.gcpartnership.com/medicalmart.aspx

 

EDIT: Estimated Sources of Funding

 

Construction Period Rent

$63,500,000

Construction Period Interest Income

$12,500,000

Net County Bond Proceeds

$415,000,000

MMPI Contribution

$19,000,000

Subtotal

$510,000,000

Estimated Need

$536,000,000

Residual

($26,000,000)

 

Any combination of the funding alternatives would not only completely cover the incremental $26 million, but would also create additional flexibility to address unforeseen project contingencies.

Current Hotel Tax Redistribution (Net Bond Proceeds):$25 million

Other Governmental Sources:$15 million

Additional Tax on Hotel Guests (Net Bond Proceeds):$50 million

a production studio is not much different than vacant.  the building would be "in use" but the effect to the surrounding area would be the same.

 

not sure but if you were referring to my thought, but that is not what i meant.

 

i meant renovate the current cc, but also make it more movie maker friendly.

 

ie., keep it a cc primarily, but one that could also be used as a studio.

 

kind of a fallback, least expensive & least controversial route.

 

 

I've tried to post comments on there so many times, and they never show up.

 

I saw your comments.

i hate to be stupid    but from whom do they collect construction period rent of 63,500,000

I've tried to post comments on there so many times, and they never show up.

 

I saw your comments.

 

Yeah, it just took a while.

i hate to be stupid but from whom do they collect construction period rent of 63,500,000

 

Yeah..what is that?

Fred Nance, the committee chairman, said access to the airport, shopping mall and proximity to other projects being developed, were the selling points to the riverfront site.

 

Not $?  Not sure I believe he is being fully honest here.

There are a couple small buildings on the west end of the TC site that i believe were used by Sherwin Williams for research in the past. Can anyone tell me about there current use, ownership, and likelyhood of be incorporated into this project (razed)? Sorry if this has been discussed before.

Those are active. Those are not part of the cc footprint.

Those are active. Those are not part of the cc footprint.

 

I bet SW will be excited to be looking at a behemoth facade right at their doorstep.  :roll:

for the record --- nothing would be allowed to hang over the narrow river in any way, shape or form, am i correct? no variance for that?

After it gets to a certain height it can hang over.  I don't think that will be neccessary though with the elimination of the delivery docks ramping up 500'.

^^Thanks 3231 - I just read that on the GCP report. To bad, I think if that additional land was available there would be a great deal more flexibility in the design and a much greater possibility of some success with this mess.

Sherwin Williams was there before the terminal tower was built.  They ain't going anywhere.

Ok, so we finally have a site recommended.  I really hope that this leads Forest City to finally developing the Scranton Peninsula.  In my opinion, conventioners will have a not-so-good impression of the center of our city when they look across the river at a barren patch of land that should have been developed long ago.  We've thrown Forest City enough bones over the years, and it's time that they develop that site.

 

On the other hand, I look forward to the creative reuse of the current convention site.  I am sure that with the right push on the county and mayor, the city will come up with a great plan for the current site.

Ok, so we finally have a site recommended.  I really hope that this leads Forest City to finally developing the Scranton Peninsula.  In my opinion, conventioners will have a not-so-good impression of the center of our city when they look across the river at a barren patch of land that should have been developed long ago.  We've thrown Forest City enough bones over the years, and it's time that they develop that site.

 

On the other hand, I look forward to the creative reuse of the current convention site.  I am sure that with the right push on the county and mayor, the city will come up with a great plan for the current site.

 

This "view of the Scranton Peninsula" issue is enough to solve, just don't put any windows on the west side of the building.  :-o

A decision has not been made yet - only a recommendation. Our friends, the commissioners, can still vote to place it wherever they wish. I invision they will each vote for a separate location, thus putting off the final site selection for a number of years as a more detailed study of each site will have to be done. And given the current financial situation of the county, plus upcoming elections and the inevitable solar eclipse, it will be at least another ten to fifeteen years.

I really hope that this leads Forest City to finally developing the Scranton Peninsula. In my opinion, conventioners will have a not-so-good impression of the center of our city when they look across the river at a barren patch of land that should have been developed long ago. We've thrown Forest City enough bones over the years, and it's time that they develop that site.

 

That is not going to happen any time soon.  Within the past year I heard one of the Ratners speaking at CSU.  He raised the issue that Tower City struggles and the fact that it's a drag on the bottom line.  He volunteered this scenario: presented with the same situation today as they were 20 years ago, FCE would not build a large scale project in Cleveland for portfolio diversification issues more so than strictly looking at the bottom line. 

 

Population growth is one of the largest demand generators of real estate development.  FCE (Albert Ratner) is really into statistics, so they aren't going to do anything in a slow growth place like Ohio where they already own a lot of real estate.

 

 

^ I guess that might explain why they have a $2,000,000,000 proposal to develop a project in Irving Texas on the site of the soon to be former Cowboys stadium, and won't do anything in Cleveland.

yeah, not to mention new york city has hovered around 8,000,000 people since 1940. is bruce ratner aware of that?

 

also, using that logic how does fcr account for the upcoming jacobs office tower & all the rehabs going on all around them downtown in cleveland along with the new residential stuff like the avenue, stonebridge & the under construction flats east bank? fcr should be in the lead here, not sitting back. ok, at least in the game modestly in some way by now.

 

for gawd sakes tc was 25 years ago, & now they are getting a freakin convention center, so how long are they going to ride that "it's a drag" horse? so i call bs on that. they need to do something with scranton as a part of this.

 

 

^Exactly.

I don't want to venture off topic about Scranton Peninsula but perhaps one could build a new 'IX center' space to consolidate NEOs convention activities.  Yeah...  Not that Hopkins-or any airport for that matter could/should plan for a $5 billion expansion but it'd be nice to have that building out of the way.

 

I really hope the powers that be encourage an international competition for the design of this complex.  It's as much a gateway to the city as Gateway and it must be more/do more for physical/psychological image of Cleveland than hold some conventions.  With a handful of buildings designed by high-profile architects in University Circle, we're forming a nice collection that can tap into another tourism demographic.

 

The late 2009 groundbreaking??? is pushing it, no?

I hope the new complex will have rooftop forests and photovoltaic cells.

I hope the new complex will have rooftop forests and photovoltaic cells.

 

Forest City does own the property, after all ;).

Just some brilliant excerpts from the comments on cleveland.com:

 

"Does this mean they will tear down The Ritz-Carlton (also owned by FCE) as well? Anyone know if they will replace it if it does come down?"

 

Nah, they'll probably have to take down the Terminal Tower as well. :roll:

 

"As for loading docks, they can be placed along the access road that runs behind the Willard Park Garage. That road presently only serves City of Cleveland employees who have private access to the road. It feeds right into the back of the Convention Center."

 

Um, no. That road serves a public parking garage which is open to anyone willing to pay the fee. City of Cleveland employees having private access? What a hoot! That space is also too narrow to use as a marshalling yard. NEXT!

 

"The site is incredibly bad, with inconvenient parking, especially for old timers."

 

And we all know how that's the core focus of a good convention center. :roll:

 

 

Good Ones!  I heard they are tearing down the Q so the trucks can make that hard left. 

A person flies from X to Cleveland, takes the rapid straight to Tower City in 15-20 minutes, goes straight to the Convention Center to check out the Med Mart, then walks outside to the Health Line which takes him directly to the University Circle hospitals.

 

Call me crazy but that sounds pretty good to me.  It...fits

Actually, the TC site appears to be larger than some other successful centers, so with the right design, this could be a pretty good investment.

A person flies from X to Cleveland, takes the rapid straight to Tower City in 15-20 minutes, goes straight to the Convention Center to check out the Med Mart, then walks outside to the Health Line which takes him directly to the University Circle hospitals.

 

Call me crazy but that sounds pretty good to me.  It...fits

 

You forgot to check in at the hotel then go to the convention center but other than that it fits.

 

While TC is efficient, it would be nice if the center served the interests of citizens of the city as well.  Read the text that wraps the existing CC...