Is it just me or are we going around in a big circle with the "tear up the malls" discussion :)?  I think everyone has made their points can we get back to discussing the actual project?

Well, the WFL should go to east along the lakeshore.  But that's neither here nor there. 

 

I like the natatorium/tennis idea.  I can't say that downtown has a lack of sports facilities... or even a lack of gyms, seems like there's tons of gyms... but this could at least bring some foot traffic to the area.

 

The sales tax was enacted for this specific purpose and I'm not sure they could use it as general revenue.  But maybe.  The fact that it didn't go to a vote might give them more leeway here.  Still, we'll have a different county govt soon, and I'd bet they'll wanna use the bond money to end the tax sooner.  But maybe not.  Good news either way.

I don't think anyone is recommending we fill in in all the malls...sheesh...I just wonder why we treat what is essentially a failed space with kid gloves. The fact that it's old and historic doesn't do it for me- I think Burnham's crap design was the original sin here.  People made bad designs 100 years ago too sometimes...

 

EDIT: to move the discussion about the Mall and Group Plan, in case folks want to carry on, I've created this: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,22153.new.html#new

 

Anyhoo, to get back with the program, I'd like to point out that building on Mall B is not hypothetical- it's exactly what we asked for when choosing this location for the new CC.  With the higher ceiling heights, it's going to be a lot harder to pretend that Mall B is an at-grade continuation of Mall A and C as the current design does (despite the big corner walls).

 

Not sure what to make of the stimulus bonds... weak reporting there.  Given the context, it would be nice to know how the money saved from lowering borrowing costs will be used: to ensure sagging property tax collections are enough to meet the county's CC obligations?  To increase the project budget?  To end the extra tax earlier?  To take MMP off the hook for overruns (can't be that)?

I can't believe I'm the first one to post this.....

 

Cuyahoga County approves option to buy downtown land for medical mart

By Laura Johnston, The Plain Dealer

February 03, 2010, 9:35PM

Updated at 12:01 a.m. Thursday

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cuyahoga County commissioners on Wednesday approved a $15.2 million option to buy a downtown Cleveland office building and parking garage, making way for a medical mart.

 

The deal leaves only Sportsman's Restaurant in the way of the mart, a 120,000-square-foot showplace for medical equipment envisioned for the northeast corner of St. Clair Avenue and Ontario Street.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2010/02/cuyahoga_county_approves_option_to_buy_downtown_land_for_medical_mart.html

I can't believe I'm the first one to post this.....

 

It's actually posted on the pervious page, but not very conspicuously.  Probably good to keep your post though so folks actually see it.

I can't believe I'm the first one to post this.....

 

There was an earlier version posted yesterday. :laugh:

I can't believe I'm the first one to post this.....

 

It's actually posted on the pervious page, but not very conspicuously. Probably good to keep your post though so folks actually see it.

 

Yep, I totally missed your post!

Wow, so they are going to build this thing?  I had my doubts.  Will they pursue eminent domain to force out the Sportsman?

There is talk about putting a park there, in my opinion, this is a leverage tool to convince the owners to sell, otherwise they will use eminent domain for that park.

 

 

There is talk about putting a park there, in my opinion, this is a leverage tool to convince the owners to sell, otherwise they will use eminent domain for that park.

I've heard about this, but I'm not really sure how they could put a park there.....

 

Hopefully the Sportsman is willing to sell at a reasonable price. I've heard that they've significantly lowered their asking price.

Just like the Mall C episode, I suspect it is a negotiating tactic.  I don't blame the owner for getting all he/she can, but what is on the table now is well above FMV from what I've heard.

The value of property is in location and demand NOT FMV.  Sportsman's has been a family business at that location for over a half a century. That the location is needed for a park is transparently disingenuous attempt to seize private property and turn it over to a private entity. It is more likely to be remodeled into Sportsman Bistro on the Mall then to be sold for chicken feed.   

The question is: Does the Constitution empower governments to seize a person's most precious property -- a home, a business -- and give it to more wealthy interests so that the government can reap, in taxes, ancillary benefits of that wealth? Connecticut's court says 'yes,' which turns the Fifth Amendment from a protection of the individual against overbearing government into a license for government to coerce individuals on behalf of society's strongest interests. Henceforth, what home or business will be safe from grasping governments pursuing their own convenience?"

 

- George F. Will "Despotism in New London," THE WASHINGTON POST, September 19, 2004

Ohio's Supreme Court decided that Ohio's law on eminent domain has a more stringent standard than that announced in the Conn. case.  The County cannot take the property simply because it will reap more economic benefit with a different use.

^ But Norwood presumably allows a taking for "park" purposes, doesn't it?

I wouldn't worry about this too much.  Just in press "negotiating" leading to the usual urban ohio meltdowns :).  From what I hear they are near a deal.  And the owners will get gobs more money for this than if they would have just continued to operate.

^ But Norwood presumably allows a taking for "park" purposes, doesn't it?

 

 

I don't believe they can do it for the same reason you put "park" in quotes. It is simply not believable. Their intention has been publicly stated from the beginning. They want the property for the Medical Mart. A bench and a tree do not make a park. They must show need and there is a abundance of surrounding parks and the Mall itself already.  The building is not blighted and is a designated Landmark.  IF the county were successful, in the lower Courts, there would be litigation until the cows come home and MMPI is back in Chicago. 

 

MMPI has antagonized the City, County,Property owners, FCE AND the general public. It is my understanding that the owners have significantly lowered their asking price. This seems to be about beating the owners down as much as possible without crashing the whole project.

I bet they probably could do it, even with "park" in quotes, even if the overarching goal is clearly the MM/CC complex.  As long as they do actually put a bench and a tree on that site, it's probably fair game.  I can't say that with certainty but pretty close.  I don't think a sand volleyball court equals a "beach" either, but words are like butterflies.  Blight is not a factor in Ohio eminient domain.  Even if the site were blighted, that would not help the city's case.  The issues are public purpose and FMV. 

 

All that said... I doubt it comes to eminent domain here.  It would not be hard to pay them more than they could make operating the place.  And if that building has Landmark status (and OCPM didn't?) we may be tossing Landmark status around a bit loosely.

 

MMPI has antagonized the City, County,Property owners, FCE AND the general public. It is my understanding that the owners have significantly lowered their asking price. This seems to be about beating the owners down as much as possible without crashing the whole project.

 

Isn't this why MMPI was chosen in the first place? Because they get things done? Believe me if this MM/CC works nobody will remember a thing about the silly Mall C proposal and the threaten use of ED.

I bet they probably could do it, even with "park" in quotes, even if the overarching goal is clearly the MM/CC complex.  As long as they do actually put a bench and a tree on that site, it's probably fair game.  I can't say that with certainty but pretty close.  I don't think a sand volleyball court equals a "beach" either, but words are like butterflies.  Blight is not a factor in Ohio eminient domain.  Even if the site were blighted, that would not help the city's case.  The issues are public purpose and FMV. 

 

All that said... I doubt it comes to eminent domain here.  It would not be hard to pay them more than they could make operating the place.  And if that building has Landmark status (and OCPM didn't?) we may be tossing Landmark status around a bit loosely.

 

 

There is NO pubic purpose. MMPI is a private for profit business. It IS Landmark status (note the bronze medallion on the doorway) as it is a original downtown parcel. Blight IS a part of ORC regarding EM (read it) This IS NOT a CITY case. It IS the County negotiating on behalf of MMPI due to MMPI's FAILURE to negotiate with any of the parties, including the City of Cleveland, in good faith. I know because I have discussed this with several attorney friends. They drool at the prospect of having such a case and whipping some County butt. That is reason real estate is referred to as private property. Money is not the sole value of all things. Heritage and legacy are important too. Isn't that why people want the Mall and Public Square to remain public parks? 

I have to tell you that this whole "park" discussion as it relates to the Sportsmen has left me confused.  That piece of property is right in the center of the block between the 113 Building and the parking garage on the corner of St. Clair and on Ontario which were just bought by the county.  It is narrow and extends somewhat deep into the block.  The Sportmen is right in the middle of where the MM building is suppose to go.  How in the hell are they going to build a park?  That would be one hell of an odd shaped building.

 

I did look up thread to see where this whole park idea originated and apparently it started in a PD article (stellar reporting of course) quoting attorney Jeff Applebaum (as a side note a great attorney) and quoting him as saying that other property on the block could be taken over and used as a park.  The article then apparently goes on to say that no particular property was mentioned but that the Sportsmen sits between the 113 building and the garage.  So it appears this all started from an unarticulated thought, and speculation on the part of the PD.

 

I am still very confused by this.

Blight IS a part of ORC regarding EM (read it)

 

You mean this ORC? 

 

163.021 (D) No agency shall appropriate property based on a finding that the parcel is a blighted parcel or that the area is a blighted area or slum by making that finding in, or in conjunction with, an emergency ordinance or resolution.

did I type in invisible ink?

McCleveland I think you were right in the first place... but the only reason the negotiating tactic works is because the eminent domain threat is legit.  That seems to be a separate controversy.

it probably is a legit threat, however preposterous, or they wouldn't throw it around... but like I said...  I hear they are pretty close..

Not as preposterous as the Mall C fiasco ;)

 

I don't think a sand volleyball court equals a "beach" either, but words are like butterflies.

 

Ugh, please don't bring that discussion here.  :)

Progress is being made! :clap:

 

 

LMN Architects of Seattle chosen by Cuyahoga County and MMPI Inc. to design medical mart and convention center in Cleveland

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

February 25, 2010, 10:30AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Patience has paid off for LMN Architects. Today, the Seattle-based architecture firm will be named conceptual designer of what Cleveland hopes will be the nation's first medical mart, plus a rebuilt Cleveland convention center. The firm has sought on and off for 11 years to design a new convention center in Cleveland.

 

Jeffrey Appelbaum, an attorney hired by Cuyahoga County to assist the project, said he will announce at a meeting of the Cuyahoga County Commissioners that the county and MMPI Inc. of Chicago made the choice to go with LMN over two other finalists for the project....

 

Read more at:

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/02/lmn_architects_of_seattle_chos.html

 

Nice! I am very happy with this selection. I was a big fan of the original work they did.

Anyone know if the design that uses the "catenary cables" to support the roof is still in play?  I know the latest renderings showed columns but I'm not sure if that was just a general design idea before the architect was chosen.  Not sure if the fact that they're reusing the "bath tub" has anything to do with preventing the cable system idea.  It'd be sweet if they could make it work to have the completely open floor space.

Anyone know if the design that uses the "catenary cables" to support the roof is still in play? I know the latest renderings showed columns but I'm not sure if that was just a general design idea before the architect was chosen. Not sure if the fact that they're reusing the "bath tub" has anything to do with preventing the cable system idea. It'd be sweet if they could make it work to have the completely open floor space.

 

Or if it would keep the height of the ceiling down and preserve the sight lines to lake Erie.

@urbanomics

 

 

they say in the article that the design they had was the cable one. i imagine they are now going to keep trying that idea and see if they can make it work. i dont think its "in" or "out" yet exactly. (i sure hope they do!)

 

@tedolph... if the cables work, which i expect them to really push the idea hard, then yea they will do the right job. i think this is the idea that made them the architects of choice.

 

lesson in catenary cables. a catenary curve is what happens when a string is held at two points and the string is allowed to slump in the middle. this curve is what changed the arch forever b/c it supports itself throughout. (antoni gaudi).. so anyways these cables will be hung from two points and should be used probably to support a truss system which will hold the roof. i thought it was a fantastic idea, as it will put most of the structure above ground, in the cable-stays on the side of the site, which will really enhance the sightlines.

 

 

Great news! I was pretty happy with what Valerio Dewalt Train had to offer in previous renderings of the MM/CC but I think LMN could do a better job. 

Anyone know if the design that uses the "catenary cables" to support the roof is still in play? I know the latest renderings showed columns but I'm not sure if that was just a general design idea before the architect was chosen. Not sure if the fact that they're reusing the "bath tub" has anything to do with preventing the cable system idea. It'd be sweet if they could make it work to have the completely open floor space.

 

Or if it would keep the height of the ceiling down and preserve the sight lines to lake Erie.

 

Best we could hope for is it diminishes the thickness of the ceiling, but it couldn't be drastic enough to meaningfully preserve any sightlines.  The original cable design was done when everyone was working under the assumption that digging out the "tub" would not be cost-prohibitive.  As it is, with the original tub being used, there is nothing about not using the cables that is causing the ceiling to have to be raised.  The raising of the ceilings is being done to create ceiling height within the exhibit halls at or > 30 ft, which the current structure does not have.

Thanks for the info, Scav and Hts.  I think the other great thing about the cables, if I understand it correctly, is that it would provide for column-free floor space, which has to be a pretty big plus for a convention center.  Obviously all speculative now, but still could be a great concept if done without compromising the mall too much.

Thanks for the info, Scav and Hts. I think the other great thing about the cables, if I understand it correctly, is that it would provide for column-free floor space, which has to be a pretty big plus for a convention center. Obviously all speculative now, but still could be a great concept if done without compromising the mall too much.

 

So long as they can bear the weight of the shows that want to book the space.  If there are severe weight restrictions columns might be a better option.

I think another concern with the cables is whether they would place a weight restriction on Mall B and Mall C.  We have had some events there in the past where the malls are jam-packed with people, shoulder to shoulder.

 

But I have to think that such concerns would be more than accounted for in the design.

wow i am very glad LMN gets the job. their cc proposal is just fantastic. it will be interesting to see who they handle the bathtub/height issues, but at this point and given their badazz plans for redeveloping this, lets have a little faith.

 

i never saw this interior render before, looks good:

 

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/02/lmn_architects_of_seattle_chos.html

 

 

Questions:  Did LMN's original design envision the creation of a Mall D?  Also, I see what looks like glass in the roof... would they really create something that would render the Malls above useless for recreational purposes? 

^No.  If you look at the overheads of their previous proposal you'll see what basically amounts to glass pyramid like skylights lining the outside of the malls to allow for natural light.  This is very similar to what the team MMPI used for their study suggested.

Thanks.  That makes sense.  I like the idea of incorporating natural light into the underground facility.

The lake views from that concept would be amazing!

 

I just hope that the structure will be designed to make lakefront access easier either now or in the future.

 

wow i am very glad LMN gets the job. their cc proposal is just fantastic. it will be interesting to see who they handle the bathtub/height issues, but at this point and given their badazz plans for redeveloping this, lets have a little faith.

 

i never saw this interior render before, looks good:

 

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/02/lmn_architects_of_seattle_chos.html

 

 

Is this rendering supposed to be the show floor????

 

Natural light is not always desirable in a convention setting--especially one where the booth renters spend large sums of money on lighting and video.

Is this rendering supposed to be the show floor????

 

Natural light is not always desirable in a convention setting--especially one where the booth renters spend large sums of money on lighting and video.

 

They have this new thing called shades which mutes natural light.

Is this rendering supposed to be the show floor????

 

Natural light is not always desirable in a convention setting--especially one where the booth renters spend large sums of money on lighting and video.

 

They have this new thing called shades which mutes natural light.

 

I appreciate your sarcasm GreenerPastures.  Care to place bets as to whether the rendering architect drew in the "shades" to the design or budget? ;)

Sorry, no bets. I just do not think we need to get bogged down in fine details. That should be done at the exhibitor management level as required. It is like mulling over the color of paint. I don't see it as very significant in the overall scheme.

It looks like the lobby, with exhibit halls on either side of the yellow walls.  Its a lot like McCormic place in Chicago.

Is this rendering supposed to be the show floor????

 

Natural light is not always desirable in a convention setting--especially one where the booth renters spend large sums of money on lighting and video.

 

They have this new thing called shades which mutes natural light.

 

It's only sunny here a few days a year, right?

I disagree.  With that much window space you don't want the shades as an afterthought.  Paint is easy to change.  Installing integral shades is an expensive proposition after-the-fact, and anything temporary would be unsightly plus cost a fortune to have union labor put in and take out constantly.

 

We are designing a SHOW space.  Considerations should be made for the aesthetics, but ultimately the end users are the clients renting the space to put in their insanely expensive booths during a show.

Just an FYI.  That rendering is somewhere between 5 and 10 years old.  We really don't know what LMN is going to come up with this time around, so i wouldn't get too worked up about anything right now.