I got your waterfront vision right here... Notice how a number of the waterfront buildings step down toward the park. One can tell a lot of thought went into the building code, or Toronto's planning commission took a lot of care in design review or nearly all of the developers are of the same mind when it comes to carefully designing some very visible buildings.

 

^ That's amazing. It almost looks like it could be lifted and placed directly on top of Burke and the bluffs to the south.

As for the silo conversion, one only needs to look at Quaker Square to see how it has been done in the past. But I wonder if only having the two would be out of place.

 

 

I think the "silo" building in May Day's photos was executed by the Dutch firm MVRDV, the same firm that was in consideration for the CIA addition to the Ford Plant.  Good stuff.

KJP Toronto looks incredible. I'm hoping to make it out there for their film festival....I'm very impressed with their plans to re-establish beaches and wetlands. Hopefully we in Cleveland will be doing that as well someday.

 

Of course Musky, the former Hilton in Akron!!!

 

MayDay, what about that huge, wooden, structure thing near Stonebridge, on the west bank of the river? They are renovating buildings like that in Baltimore.

 

 

http://www.theoceanblue.com/jpgs/cds/denmark.jpg

 

I love that song!

I loved that group back in the day.

yes, Toronto looks amazing [sigh]

That Copenhagen waterfront is so "untimate."

 

Any signs of demo?  It's the end of the month!

I drove by today.

Nothing but the wind.

 

Saw this. So maybe really, really soon.

 

Port Authority Prevails in Taxpayer Lawsuit

Posted: 2/22/2007

 

CLEVELAND - Common Pleas Judge Peter J. Corrigan ruled in favor of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, dismissing a taxpayer lawsuit to stop the acquisition of properties along the East Bank of the Flats.

 

Cynthia Roether filed a lawsuit against the Port Authority, alleging that the Port Authority abused its powers by filing eminent domain suits to acquire properties necessary for the $230 million-plus redevelopment of the east bank of the Flats.

 

More at cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com

So, this is one of the eminent domain hearings, but wasn't the demo of wolstein-owned properties supposed to start recently?  I would understand if the weather threw them off a week or so...

^no, this is separate. The case was dismissed because she failed to state a claim. She argued that the Port's actions are outside of its authority. The law obviously states that the Port does have this authority. Therefore, the case is dismissed before things really heated up in the court room. I'm not sure how this particular case went down, but it could happen like this: plaintiff opens hearings by presenting its claim. Defense responds by motioning to have case dismissed because plaintiff has no legal leg to stand on. Or, this could have happened even before court proceedings had begun.

 

I'm sure that the landowners will argue the same thing as well as the lady, but the Port may be able to have that claim removed because it has already been decided. Still, the landowners would have some other claims to make. But this probably will shorten the landowners trial a little.

East bank of the Flats may soon be flattened

Posted by Tom Breckenridge February 28, 2007 19:13PM

Categories: Metro

Much of the Flats east bank along Old River Road -- one-time party central for downtown and the region -- could be flattened soon.

 

The city has issued demolition permits for eight properties, allowing wrecking crews for developer Scott Wolstein to descend on the familiar-but-vacant properties south of Old River Road, including the former Joe's Crab Shack, Fado Irish Pub, the Beach Club and Dick's Last Resort.

 

More at http://blog.cleveland.com/earlyedition/2007/02/east_bank_of_the_flats_may_soo.html

Can we demolish these owners too?  Honestly, push them into the river! :shoot:

So what are the rest of the properties?

I count five in this article. I'm guessing most of the properties along the river except for the old Basement (whatever it is called now).

 

To protect existing businesses, the city is requiring Wolstein's demolition crews to erect an 8-foot-high fence along Old River

 

Is this going to be a world class fence?

 

Holdout property owners also fear demolition will kill businesses that remain in the area, such as Heaven & Earth night club and Larry Flynt's Hustler strip club, north of Old River.

 

This is the most unintentionally hilarious line ever.

It certainly ranks right up there. Trailing right behind it is:

 

Demolition would leave a "destitute, barren piece of land, and that has a substantial, negative impact on how the jury views the land value" of nearby properties, Phillips said.

 

Um, it already is a destitute, barren piece of land. Apparently Phillips hasn't been to the Flats East Bank in about 10 years. Ranking a close third in the "Brain's not connected to the mouth" category is this one:

 

Lawyer Gerald Phillips charged Wednesday that Wolstein wants to tear his buildings down to lower the value of holdout properties.

 

I think Wolstein wants to tear down the buildings on the land he owns because I heard a rumor that he supposedly wants to build something else where they stand. I think that's how the rumor went...

 

Is this going to be a world class fence?

 

 

Let me tell you, until the buildings actually go up, the absolute best thing that the Avenue District Project has done is be the genesis of the "World Class Signage/Fencing" bit, which honestly gets me giggling every time.

So what are the rest of the properties?

I count five in this article. I'm guessing most of the properties along the river except for the old Basement (whatever it is called now).

 

To protect existing businesses, the city is requiring Wolstein's demolition crews to erect an 8-foot-high fence along Old River

 

Is this going to be a world class fence?

 

 

 

PD had a map with the 8 properties on it.

Doesn't look like Fagan's is on the list yet. I'm surprised it hasn't been burned down yet.

 

 

It's too bad that they can't keep Amsterdam up.  That building is really nice!

So when will we be seeing steel frames rising? Late summer, fall, next spring?

Fagan's is owned by Russ Khouri and Jim Kassouf (as are the parking lots north of Front). They are among those fighting the port authority.

If and when the ED hearings come out in favor of Wolstein, I've heard that they need to do extensive sewer work ( up to a year??) before they can do any construction in the area.

Yep, including construction of a sewage pumping station to get the crap out of the valley.

"Fagan's is owned by Russ Khouri and Jim Kassouf (as are the parking lots north of Front). They are among those fighting the port authority."

 

The same people who wanted to put a Microtel on the Davenport Bluffs a few years ago?

The same!

Kassauff is certainly on the list of Clevelanders who are a barrier to progress.  Isn't he responsible for the development for the FBI building and Channel 3?  What a piece of shit.

CLEVELAND -- A wrecking crew took down Joe's Crab Shack in the flats today.

 

 

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=63817

 

Whoo Hooo!

 

^^ haha, that's hilarious

Keep knocking'em down!!

So wouldn't this be kind of a shot being fired over Kassouf's bow with Wolstein knocking down the building closest to Fagans?  I don't have any sympathy for owners that are just sitting on the properties not using them.  I realize I'm in the minority about the other owners that are running businesses down there that he shouldn't be allowed to rip down the whole East Bank until everything is settled. 

 

I think it would be cool if he'd knock down only half of the East Bank and keep the better buildings to keep some of the feel of the old flats.  I realize he wants a clean slate to deal with as I think all developers seem to.  I'll personally be a little sad when he knocks down Fado's and Dick's last resort.. good memories and decent enough buildings...

^ Wolstein's plan does in fact only demolish half of the building on the East Bank. People seem to forget about the strip of buildings on Old River Road on the other side of the Main Avenue Bridge that aren't part of his plan, and will remain in tact. And this strip of buildings is probably worth saving more than the others (in my opinion).

^If you're talking about the Arhaus/(new) Watermark block, I agree... But stuff like the vacant Odeon, the hideous old Hooters building and that club at the old Kaos could kiss the wrecking ball for all I care, it's junk occupying key lots.  I'm not in love with BW3, accept that it does draw considerable biz and is reasonably fun place -- so it can stay... Wolstein's development could meet rejuvenated building south of the MAB and supplement the handsome residential buildings (Crittendon towers; River Bend; the townhouses).

 

btw, Jane's plan called for the ugly Main Ave Bridge to be torn down in the Lakefront project, which seems to be closer to fruition west of the river -- any idea how soon that can happen?... It certainly would open up both sides of the Flats and get rid of all the shadows.

i personally like how that bridge looks from pedestrian level in the flats. 

I don't think tearing down the Main Avenue Bridge has ever been an option.  That would kind of make the new Lakefront Boulevard project by ODOT totally pointless.  Also, I hope you are being sarcastic about tearing down bridges in the Flats?  The bridges are some of the city's most interesting structures, why the hell would you want to demolish them?

^It wasn't.  In fact, it was just re-built in the past 12 or so years.  I don't know what bridge that could be in reference to. 

The bridge is really nice, I love driving from the Westside looking at downtown.  Its really cool.

Driving over the Main Ave. Bridge provides the best entrance into downtown, imho.  I was driving my wife and a suburban friend into the WHD last weekend. When we were over the Flats, the friend said "wow, our city looks really nice".

There has been some consideration of reconfiguring the east end of the bridge.  This is detailed in the Pesht thread.  Right now, the east end of the bridge doesn't mesh very well with the Warehouse district.

^True dat.  The west side of the bridge doesn't exactly mesh so well with its part of town either.

There has been talk of lowering the eastern end of the bridge so that it touches down on West 9th (instead of West 6th).

Let me be clear: I don't hate the Main Ave bridge.  In fact, when the Flats thrived in its, er, recent, prior life, one could argue the big blue, girder-ed bridge added a certain urban romance to the waterfront... but that's gone now, as is the old concept of the Flats.  I hate we let it slide, but we've got to let it go.  The new Flats to some, myself included, will be, comparatively, more sterile; more processed and more like what you see in other thriving waterfront towns... In other words, it won't be as uniquely Cleveland as it used to be, and I say that knowing that, yes, there were a bunch of chains and, often, fly-by-night operations down there...

 

... But the new, Wolstein version, esp with such things as the Lighthouse Landing towers, promises to be much more solid, lasting and 24-7, as it will have a solid, high-density base of residents LIVING THERE and not just weekend warriors from Westlake, Strongsville, Mayfield and the like.... I thought the WCPN discussion, posted here a year or so ago, stated that in the current incarnation of Flats planning (including Price/Corna and, perhaps, Jacobs planning on the West Bank), the bridge was to come down to clear land for development, with West (ex-Shoreway) "boulevard" drivers being routed elsewhere -- Detroit-Superior, I thought, but I'm certainly not the Gospel on such things.

 

If that's truly the case, I'm for moving on and getting rid of the thing for, really, it would serve no real useful purpose -- maybe, what you guys are mentioning, is a plan to keep the bridge but having it terminate into the WHD while the eastern Shoreway would end at E. 9th (as a freeway, at least) continuing a level route to W. 3rd... I'm not wedded to either proposal accept I'm all for ending the current version of the West Shoreway as the car/truck commuter route it now is... If we can, for once, turn the tables and kill at least one local freeway feeding into downtown Cleveland -- and maybe convert 1 or 2 people to transit commuting -- I am 4-square for it!!!!

...regardless, the bridge isn't and shouldn't come down.  You are thinking of the part of the bridge that goes over W6th.  That may very well come down (it would help Stark's plans for sure), but it's a different structure than the main bridge component that physically crosses the river.

Yeah, the Flats will be more sterile, and that's not a good thing.  Your idea of wanting the bridge torn down would push it even further into sterility.  You're contradicting yourself.

so how many times did you all play that video of joes crap shack getting knocked down? im up to 4 -- woo hoo!

Fado was in shambles last night, too.  I was down there around 6:00 pm and there were quite a few people around...mostly going to the naughty bar.  I hadn't been on ORR in a while and was reminded that there are a few nice 4-story brick buildings on the east side of the street.  Didn't we have a photo thread on here somewhere that took us through the buildings?  I can't find it...

^where is the video?

I note from the court docket that some of the property owner defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment and even more troublesome a motion to convert the March 26 trial  date into oral arguments on the motion for summary judgment.  As I don't believe the court would grant summary judgment in a million years (a first year law student could raise a question of fact resulting in the denial of such a motion), if the companion motion to convert is granted all this will end up doing is delay the trial even more (I believe the trial date has now been continued at least 3 times so this may be a 4th), perhaps into summer.

 

I also cannot believe all the money the property owner defendants must be spending in connection with this case.  The have filed almost 40 deposition transcripts with the court.  Even if they were just average length transcripts (and I am sure they are not with all the attorneys involved), you are probably looking at almost $40,000.00 in costs just to have the depositions transcribed.  Throw in another $20,000.00 (probably more) for the attendance of the court reporter at the depositions and for the preparation and service of subpoenas.  Now throw in attorney time.  I would guess attorney time for just ONE of the defendants (and of course each defendant will have representation at each of the depositions so multiple by the number of defendants) for depo prep and attendance at all these depositions at close to 100,000.  Also note that this is attorney fees for just one aspect of the case, taking the depositions.  They are also incurring fees for everything from taking phone calls, to conducting legal research to writing memos and briefs and court appearance among many other things.  I would guess from the docket that just one property owner defendant has incurred fees and cost to date of close to 300,000 (may be on the low side especially since they all had to hire real estate experts to testify at trial as to valuation) and they still have not had a trial (where you really start running up the fees).  They really must think they have a great case.  All  I can think is that if they lose the first part of the trial and go to valuation, they have blown any $$ they might have realized by securing a judgment in excess of the settlement offers.  Does any one know if you can recover attorney fees if you win the first part (I mean the property owners).  I would imagine there is a provision in the statute that allows for this or they would not be spending this kind of money.

Why would you think that they have a great case? I'm guessing that they are doing all this work just to try to scare Wolstein into settling at a much higher rate.

^I didn't say I thought the property owners had a great case.  In fact, without knowing all the facts as uncovered in discovery I would have absolutely no idea.  I said the property owners in "their own minds" must think they have a good case or they would not be spending so much $$ on attorney fees.  That or their attorneys are really leading them around by their noses.  Plus if they are trying to scare Wolstein to settle at a higher amount, whatever they get in settlement at this higher amount will probably go to their attorneys since they incurred so much in fees.  Even if Wolstein decides to over pay he is not going to pay an unreasonable price.

^sorry. I misread your intonation.