I'm not going to try to defend the final product, but there are a lot of different stages of "having" money.

The complexities of putting together a half a billion dollar development project are not easy to grasp.

I think it looks good so far. But the whole beach volleyball things seems a bit played and generic at this point. It seems like the go to idea because all they have to do is throw up a net on some sand. We already have sand volleyball on whiskey island a hop skip and jump across the river. We need a unique difference between flats east and the malls, not just a couple of areas with grass and sand (I know there will be no sand on the malls) I fear that we will be stuck with a bunch of boring grass/sand lots downtown with no real feel to the area. If you go to grant park/millennium park in Chicago you'll see attractions like the bean, and those two walls where water spits out into a shallow wading area for kids. (sorry for being vague for those who don't know what I'm talking about)

 

Maybe a big walmart down there would look good :wink:

 

I don't have all the answers but I just hope that a group of people can come together and pull ideas together to come up with something that makes us stand out from other cities and similar projects.

 

 

I dont expect them to invest too much into the park cause its just temporary, but I would expect some sort of attractions on the Malls

This will still look better then the parking mess you see on the west bank

I am excited to see Cleveland in the year 2013.  The vibrancy of the City's core is sure to excite.  I am all for the great lawn in The Flats. 

Ranking this slightly above "better than nothing" because I think the building they're putting up will be excellent, even if the first draft of the surrounding area isn't.

"If you go to grant park/millennium park in Chicago you'll see attractions like the bean, and those two walls where water spits out into a shallow wading area for kids. (sorry for being vague for those who don't know what I'm talking about)"

 

Just putting it out there, and I'm *not* suggesting that Millennium Park isn't a great public space - it really is, but it was developed pre-recession, and even so, the construction took approximately six years to complete and the initial pricetag was $150 million - the final cost was somewhere around $475 million, much of that being funded by taxpayers. 

"If you go to grant park/millennium park in Chicago you'll see attractions like the bean, and those two walls where water spits out into a shallow wading area for kids. (sorry for being vague for those who don't know what I'm talking about)"

 

Just putting it out there, and I'm *not* suggesting that Millennium Park isn't a great public space - it really is, but it was developed pre-recession, and even so, the construction took approximately six years to complete and the initial pricetag was $150 million - the final cost was somewhere around $475 million, much of that being funded by taxpayers.

 

I'm not saying it has to be the size and magnitude of it, just in the same vein. Something that isn't just a patch of grass with a few benches. It has to be something to draw people in as a gathering place while they're in Cleveland and for locals as well. I'm sure a reflective sculpture that looks like a kidney bean doesn't take 6 years or cost a hundy mil.

 

Some parks for families with kids, space to hold free events, a couple cool sculptures to give people something to look at. I guess I'm in the wrong thread, because this stuff should be more of a mall type thing, but I just thought that some open space in the flats should have a mini version of something like this.

Hopefully a nice apartment/condo building can go up across from the hotel pretty quickly. The banks will hopefully be lending again by then. I don't like the bare lawn, but it's supposed to be temporary. Let's just hope it isn't around for too long.

Guys, this is the begining of a large project that if successful will take about 10 years to build out.  I actually see this project as a success and kind of flowing from one phase into the next similar to what we saw on E 4th, and what we are currenlty seeing on the CSU campus.  Stop getting so bent out of shape when looking at 10% of the project on paper, and small earthwork on-site.  The parking lots are not meant to be permanent, heck, same with all the green space.  Give it some time.  I'm not one for anecdotes, but don;t they always say, "Rome was not built in a day".

I'm not complaining about green space, I want green space over most other things, I was just saying that it's got to be more than just some random grass lots.

I'm not complaining about green space, I want green space over most other things, I was just saying that it's got to be more than just some random grass lots.

 

But why spend any money on that green space when if everything goes to plan in 5 years you will be tearing it up??

 

If the project gets delayed indefinitely then we can start pressuring to have something more permanent  installed. 

^^^That's true; but the East Bank was torn down in a couple weeks.

I just wish the historic teardowns had proceeded at the same pace as the "staged" buildout.  No getting around it, that there's a screwup. 

It wouldn't work to demo in phases like you want.  They had to tear out and put in all new infrastructure for that whole area, they are reconfiguring the road system, and they probably wanted to do it all as efficiently as possible, so they could maybe, just maybe turn a profit.  Remember too that the original plan wasn't to build in phases like this, but the entire economy crashed for a good 3 years, so they have had to go with plan B. 

 

It's a shame that your strong, unshakable opinions don't come with even a minimum understanding of the development process.  No getting around it, that there's a screwup.

I just wish the historic teardowns had proceeded at the same pace as the "staged" buildout.  No getting around it, that there's a screwup. 

 

Stated the way you desire it sounds like each building would be on a month to month lease.  Not exactly ideal for someone running a restaurant/bar/club.  I don't think many/any clients would have stayed in those buildings once the plans for FEB were released.  They would have closed or moved once their lease was up.  I really don't think the outcome would have been any different.

 

Well it would have been different if the economy didn't nose dive...

It wouldn't work to demo in phases like you want.  They had to tear out and put in all new infrastructure for that whole area, they are reconfiguring the road system, and they probably wanted to do it all as efficiently as possible, so they could maybe, just maybe turn a profit.  Remember too that the original plan wasn't to build in phases like this, but the entire economy crashed for a good 3 years, so they have had to go with plan B. 

 

It's a shame that your strong, unshakable opinions don't come with even a minimum understanding of the development process.  No getting around it, that there's a screwup.

 

+1.  Like I said... complexities are involved that you don't run into in make believe land.

I agree that real estate development is a difficult process, and that even small deals (not saying this is small) have a way of tending towards entropy.  However, this project is beginning to show the marks of some of its Urban Renewal cousins.  I'm sure when half of the near east side was torn down and we got a new I.M. Pei designed tower people said, "That looks great, I can't wait to see what it looks like when the whole plan is built!"

There had been a campaign to empty everything out, so that result was a foregone conclusion.  And yes I'd prefer to have had the historic structures there as long as possible, even empty, because that still beats a vacant lot.  And if, God forbid, the lending environment were to never sufficiently recover, we could then proceed with reopening the Flats.  But now that's off the table.

 

I work in a building that was constructed, start to finish, during the same time period that the FEB project was paralyzed.  So there's a clear difference between having the money to finish what you start and not having it.  If Fairmount had had their ducks in a row, we wouldn't be going through years of vacant lots down there.  Grass or no grass, vacant is vacant, that's a civic embarassment for everyone in this region.  Can anyone supply another example of a nationally known historic district that was razed for vacant lots and blamed entirely on the lending crisis?  The lending crisis did not shut down civilization, it did not shut down construction, and IMO it does not excuse this mess.  Understanding the development process does not begin and end with "there's a lending crisis."

You think it was razed "for vacant lots"?  I guess I at least understand your confusion now.

Since we're being snarky...

 

I know it's just a rendering and the lights and color are in there for flair, but it's a little contradictory to broadcast "green design" and then frivolously shoot a bunch of light up into the air.

 

I'll say that I agree with the sentiment that this is not what we were sold on, and by we, I mean the public, the tax payer, the philanthropic supporters, etc.  Banks will hold a developer to the letter of their contracts.  The "we" in these equations tends to be much more forgiving and also just happens to get screwed when everything goes belly up.  I know, it's the riskiest "last in" money and that's why it has to come from these sources ('cause banks don't take risks, right?), but I'm just saying.  So, I know they plan to do a full build-out, but I'm going to count myself among the disappointed/disgruntled at this stage.  If the parkland wows me, I may start to change my tune.

You think it was razed "for vacant lots"?  I guess I at least understand your confusion now.

 

It was razed and the result is vacant lots.  That's what actually happened.  Anythng else at this point is... what do you always call it... fantasy land.  Dreams, hopes, aspirations.

 

We have two other threads going where everyone's up in arms about tearing down a couple buildings that few locals are even familiar with, with a concrete and immedate plan to replace them.  Here we have a famous landmark district that just went poof and will continue as poof indefnitely.  I guess I find the outrage levels a bit imbalanced.  It's an opinion, man, and not entrely uninformed.  But then again maybe I'm just crazy/stupid/uneducated/etc.

Sure... that is what your 20/20 hindsight allows you to conclude.  What you fail to understand is the level of infrastructure work that was required to transform this area formerly occupied by warehouse clubs and waterfront restaraunts, into a mixed use neighborhood on the scale Fairmount planned.  I just ask that you take the time to go back and read up on the timeline and quit trying to paint these developers as the devil.  When you have successfully transformed an area as desolate as the Flats into a vibrant mixed use neighborhood, feel free to puff your chest out.  Until then, maybe perhaps just consider the lengthy efforts Fairmount went through to first OBTAIN all of the land (which I realize is much easier to do on your computer when the whole city is yours for the taking).  Think about the eminent domain cases... the holdout property owners... the efforts to attract tenants to secure financing.  Then think how you would feel if, after all that, and you were just starting to move dirt around, beginning on the MASSIVE infrastructure undertaking of replacing 100 year old pipes, sewers, etc and then....... BOOM.... the economy tanks and all lending dries up.

 

I am certain that you can find some fault, somewhere along the line, and when/if you do get involved in a project of this scale, you may realize that should not be unexpected.

 

I also don't see how you are describing a riverfront boardwalk and a park as 'vacant lots'.... because that is essentially what we are getting (at least for the time being) in place of the structures which were demolished.

I agree that real estate development is a difficult process, and that even small deals (not saying this is small) have a way of tending towards entropy.  However, this project is beginning to show the marks of some of its Urban Renewal cousins.  I'm sure when half of the near east side was torn down and we got a new I.M. Pei designed tower people said, "That looks great, I can't wait to see what it looks like when the whole plan is built!"

 

Yeah, I think I'm with you.  Completely demolishing a multi-parcel neighborhood under the implied threat of eminent domain and with zillions of public subsidy is not the only viable development model out there.  It's what Wolstein proposed and it's what the public coffers rallied around, but it's disingenuous to suggest that this is inherently "the development process." 

 

And regret over these demos is a lot more than hind sight- there was PLENTY of trepidation about this approach expressed in this thread before the economy sank.  Here's a highlight:

 

I'm worried that, as always seems to happen in this town, we will get as far as demolishing the really nice historic buildings and then the project will stall and we'll be left with nothing.  I've been feeling really pessimistic lately, I guess.

 

There's a lot more of it too.

I'm not trying to paint these developers as the devil, Hts121.  It pains me to criticize people who have given so much to my alma mater.  But I am questioning how we got from where we were to where we are, and suggesting that it could have been handled better.  I'm not ignorant of the the need for broad based infrastructure improvements considering the plan originally proposed.  But that isn't being built right now, and there is at least a chance it never gets built.  Other sections of downtown Cleveland can attest to that possibility, as others have alluded to above. 

 

We have a habit around here of clearing acres and acres of our history and then building only a fraction of what was used to justify the extent of the teardowns.  Rationales vary but results have remained remarkably consistent.  It doesn't make sense to hold no one accountable for the current situation.  As a communty we should at least be able to learn from it.  Again, projects great and small have in fact been built during said lending crisis, and I'm not aware of any other world famous historic districts converted to empty space (with a boardwalk, yes) indefinitely for that reason and that reason alone.

The structures came down before the lending crisis hit and before the project was phased down.  So the 'historic district' was not converted to 'empty space' indefinitely for that reason and that reasons alone.  If the lending crisis never hit, this is fair criticism.  But since developers are facing unprecedented and unforeseen challenges, I am mindful to give them some benefit of doubt.

^I like the fact that you put 'historic district' in quotes.

I never got to see the flats in its heyday, so I don't have the emotional attachment that many here do. Nevertheless, count me in the camp of 327 in at least lamenting its loss to begin with. I was never entirely in love with the original Wolstein dream of the flats, because I felt like we had something there that worked (admittedly, it was in a down period when they pulled the plug, but I think that if sufficient love was given to the area, it could have been brought back to life), was available for the general public, and created for the most part a nice dense walkable neighborhood.

 

That said, the milk has been spilled. I guess I can't get too hung up over how the original Wolstein plan didn't come to fruition. I only hope we can use this as a future lesson.

^It is my impression that Wolstein still intends (and is actively promoting) that some version of his original plan will come to "fruition" and will be built.  Now whether this will actually happen is of course debatable, but it certainly is not completely dead in the water as your post suggests.

^It is my impression that Wolstein still intends (and is actively promoting) that some version of his original plan will come to "fruition" and will be built.  Now whether this will actually happen is of course debatable, but it certainly is not completely dead in the water as your post suggests.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it will never pan out. Just that it didn't get built all at once as was originally intended.

 

Truthfully, if I'm being perfectly honest, the overall project might be more successful in phases, rather than all at once. That was a lot of capacity, residential, office and retail, to plop into downtown in one fell swoop.

^I like the fact that you put 'historic district' in quotes.

 

Sarcastic?  I know the WHD is a 'historic district' and other places in and around downtown, but the Flats, at least the part that Fairmount leveled, was not a historic 'district', right?  I certainly could be wrong.  The parcel where the Ernst&Young building is going could probably be considered part of the WHD.  But did they even demolish any structures on that parcel?

^ Nope, it was just a parking lot. And for the most part, those buildings were nothing special, some actually pretty hideous. So there is really no comparison in demolishing them and demolishing the columbia building and stanley block.

^^My personal opinion is that not much of it was historic (at least the buildings...it is indeed the oldest part of Cleveland).  There were  a few old establishments (I think the Kinders Building if I am getting it right) that were torn down but much of it was already parking lots and recent buildings (especially many of those fronting the river...for example I think the place that had a Long Horns Steakhouse was completely new, built some time in the late 80's or early 90's and nothing to write home about)

Looking at phase one closer, I really dont think it will add that much life to the flats. And as Hts121 mentioned, phase one is actually closer to the warehouse district. This office building and hotel will actually be pretty isolated. The shoreway to the south, rta tracks to the west, rail road tracks and the port to the north, and nothing really to the east. Future phases are what could really have an impact though, especially with adding residents down there, and this phase will be laying the groundwork for this to happen.

Somewhere in the website it says they are planning festivals and such on that land, so it may bring people down

Somewhere in the website it says they are planning festivals and such on that land, so it may bring people down

 

Farmers markets, art fairs, outdoor concerts...should be a good way to get people down there.

 

Once this is built, will the rapid line start running consistently again? Has this been determined yet?

^The RTA WFL will be interesting to watch.  I am highly skeptical that this first phase will generate nearly enough ridership for RTA to restore regular service on the WFL, but I'd imagine there'll be some pressure for it it do so.

 

^^My personal opinion is that not much of it was historic (at least the buildings...it is indeed the oldest part of Cleveland).  There were  a few old establishments (I think the Kinders Building if I am getting it right) that were torn down but much of it was already parking lots and recent buildings (especially many of those fronting the river...for example I think the place that had a Long Horns Steakhouse was completely new, built some time in the late 80's or early 90's and nothing to write home about)

 

There are some photo posts earlier in the thread that show what was demoed, including on page 11.  Just about everything right on the river was new garbage, but the buildings across Old River Road were, as a group, a pretty big loss, IMO.  I'd actually consider them a bigger loss than the Columbia Building, because they made up a major chunk of our really distinctive, old, industrial maritime district of which there is very little left.  [Obviously, demo of the Columbia building is particularly galling given what's likely to replace it, but that's a separate point.]

Well... if you ever get nostalgic, you can still take a drive on google's streetview and see those buildings.  From an aesthetic/architechtural standpoint, I would have been more concerned about ripping up the buildings on the other side of the underpass.

I would have been more concerned about ripping up the buildings on the other [south] side of the underpass.

 

My feelings exactly.

Well... if you ever get nostalgic, you can still take a drive on google's streetview and see those buildings.  From an aesthetic/architechtural standpoint, I would have been more concerned about ripping up the buildings on the other side of the underpass.

 

Gee thanks.  I'd also be more concerned about bulldozing East 4th than the Columbia building, but not sure how much better that makes me feel. 

 

I don't miss these demoed buildings as museum pieces, but I thought that stretch had the potential for a more organic and incremental redevelopment process that would leave us something a little more interesting than Crocker Park on the River; a hybrid of East 4th and Battery Park (not architecturally), that could be built out in pieces small enough for more conventional subsidies and financing and a pace that the market can absorb.  Maybe pie in the sky given the split ownership interests, but no more fantastical than Wolstein's and Stark's insta-cities it would seem.  Yeah that stretch had sat fallow for a while so there was no reason to think an alternative development strategy was imminent, but you could say the exact same thing about East 4th pre-MRN, when it too had splintered ownership and rotted.

 

I'm not losing sleep over this, but like others have said, it would be nuts not try to draw some conclusions and rethink approaches.

Yeah that stretch had sat fallow for a while so there was no reason to think an alternative development strategy was imminent, but you could say the exact same thing about East 4th pre-MRN, when it too had splintered ownership and rotted.

 

I don't think you can compare the built environment of E. 4th St. to what was north of the Main Avenue Bridge on Old River Road.

^ Especially on the riverside.

I'm not trying to compare the architectural qualities of the two streets, just pointing out that an apparent lack of action for several years on Old River Road doesn't conclusively prove that an alternative development model was impossible.  And there is certainly nothing inherently more develop-able about East 4th than Old River Road.  Had you polled folks in the 1980 or 1990s about which stretch was most likely to be improved with new restaurants and residences, I'd bet the Flats would have won hands down.

I'm not trying to compare the architectural qualities of the two streets, just pointing out that an apparent lack of action for several years on Old River Road doesn't conclusively prove that an alternative development model was impossible.  And there is certainly nothing inherently more develop-able about East 4th than Old River Road.  Had you polled folks in the 1980 or 1990s about which stretch was most likely to be improved with new restaurants and residences, I'd bet the Flats would have won hands down.

 

Im sorry but I have to disagree with that point. The buildings on East 4th have way more character. Many of the buildings on Old River Road were one story, windowless pieces of crap, especially when compared to the building stock throughout the rest of downtown.

And there is certainly nothing inherently more develop-able about East 4th than Old River Road.

 

What?  E. 4th is in the heart of downtown, has nicer buildings than that stretch of Old River Rd. had, and is WAYYYYYY more dense.

Sorry guys, I regret bringing up East 4th.  It's more of a distraction than anything.  I like keeping it in mind because it's such a different model than the big new build projects and it was so underused for so long, but I don't mean to press the point.

 

Carry on!

From the images on  http://www.flatseast.com/image-gallery/

 

I would think that the there would be a decent demand for RTA WFL service early in the morning and then again around quitting time with the approximately 1400 new employees from Ernst & Young and Tucker Ellis & West that will occupy the building.  The building also still shows that it has 7 "available" floors, so there will eventually be additional companies and people in the building with some of them needing/wanting to use the RTA.  Also, people that fly in from out of town could use the RTA from the airport directly to the Aloft Hotel.  The WFL might not need to run every 30 mins, but I would think that its service would definitely be increased.

if you look at this link it shows what the plan is if phase 2 happens

http://www.flatseast.com/documents/retail-leasing-plan.pdf

if you look at this link it shows what the plan is if phase 2 happens

http://www.flatseast.com/documents/retail-leasing-plan.pdf

 

That's got to be really old, the hotel isn't even next to the office tower, the office tower now is 18 stories while it's listed as 22 stories there. That was probably a very early rough draft of a lay out.