Cleveland is in the process of create demand, give it time, and those things will happen.  Just like the early *0's when demand was created along E 9th. 

^I meant 80's

I was hoping the W was for another "WHOOTERS"...oh wait, that would be Hooters......

Developers seek fiscal assistance

Thursday, June 22, 2006

By Ken Baka

Staff Writer

 

Would-be developers of the East Side Flats project want financial backing from Cuyahoga County that rarely occurs.

 

Only once has a for-profit company received what the Wolstein Group, Beachwood and Fairmount Properties LLC, Cleveland, want from the county: a guarantee on bonds.

 

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

 

ok im confused, they want more money or is this part of the deal already??  and where are these parking garages...??  right near one, possibly two, light rail stations...??  i wish the other big projects would start up so the city can be like "umm these guys dont need a s***load of government money, you shouldnt either."  they're really trying to exploit the situation here i think

One of the reasons why K&D has been successful with Stonebridge (while not asking for subsidy handouts) is that part of their marketing strategy is to show to tenants/buyers how much money they can save by living in the city and not having to own cars (or as many cars).

 

How can Wolstein make the same case marketing-wise when his parking-intensive site plan seems to want to encourage people to continue owning cars -- and the more the merrier? I understand the whole "lenders want to see X-number of parking spaces per square foot" argument. But I suspect lenders will also be sympathetic to a marketing strategy in which potential tenants/buyers are informed about the money they can allocate to housing instead of transportation (ie: having to own cars). That's a financing and marketing strategy made all the more saleable with a rail transit line routed through the site.

 

Most people think the costs of living in Greater Cleveland are low, but not when you own a car. In fact, when you look at the sum of the two largest costs of living -- housing and transportation -- Cleveland comes out poorly compared to other areas of similar and even larger size. See Page 6-7 at:  http://www.transact.org/library/reports_pdfs/driven_to_spend/Driven_to_Spend_Report.pdf (SEE PAGE 6).

 

Not having to own a car, or fewer cars per household, provides more money to invest in your household (not a money-sucking depreciable asset like a car!). Heck, if Wolstein wanted to do something really creative, he could have featured a car-sharing business as part of his marketing mix. Perhaps he could have even subsidized that for much less money than what he's wanting for these expensive, land-gobbling parking decks.

 

At least those decks will make great places to grow hydroponic crops when gas prices hit $10 a gallon!

Agreed on the parking. Wolstein's operating just like he would if this were in Westlake. Does he even know there's a rapid line running through his property?

 

Also, the fact that Fairmount is involved in this makes me nervous (maybe I just didn't notice their name in past coverage). They helped drive Shaker Square into the ground a few years ago.

i wonder if his people read this website heh

I think KJP and others make an excellent point about the car thing. I would love to see these places have a few city wheel cars parked in the building. last night I met the guy that owns tower press and the Erie lofts (these things are sweet-go check them out). He is trying to get a city wheel car at tower press. Maybe the first year these developers can subsidize a city wheels or other car share, to give it a chance to catch on. that said, most people are still obsessed with parking and their cars. It is a huge selling point for even places in the city. If a prospective buyer looking at Stonebridge approaches me, they always ask about parking. It would be be challenging for most people to go car free in Cleveland, esp if your job requires a car (as mine does).  but it is very possible to get a couple to go from two cars to one (just did it...still working out the snags-I am a lightning phobic, don't like being on bike or walking when the stuff is around).

I am getting less and less exited about this project

Other than the fact that it is a large development in Cleveland, there nothing to really get excited about: 

 

*The design looks like it could be in any city in the US

*it doesn't engage the river all that much

*there is no cohesion between it and the Warehouse District

*Wolstein wants to keep surface parking on Shaia's land instead of 200+ living units

*makes no attempt to build off of public transit

*the whole eminent domain mess

*tearing down everything in the area

*more public funding now necessary

*may detract from the momentum at E4th/Warehouse and spread the nodes of teh city out even more.

 

The whole thing looks to be going to hell, and it's all Wolstein's fault.  I say it's less than 50-50 that it even happens.

seriously...what's the count on proposed parking spaces for this project now?  Wolstein et al need to seriously re-think what they're doing down here.  This is not a mall in Beachwood where ALL of your customers will be driving in and looking for parking.  This is a Downtown neighborhood that should be able to pull workers, residents and outsiders to the site.  Driving should be an option, yes, but there will be more opportunities to ride, walk, and bike to this site than most other destinations in Northeast Ohio.  And let's consider that if the developers are demanding guarantees from the County to pay the bills if the revenues don't add up, then it's obvious that they're not so confident in the ability of these garages to pay for themselves! 

 

Let's not create another Gateway garage situation here.  Taxpayers should not be saddled with the cost of these unnecessary garages and the developers need to look elsewhere to figure out how these numbers can be crunched.  Does anyone remember a potential partner offering to build the garages...and add more residential units...just up the hill???

From newsnet5 -

 

Deals Made To Take Over Two Bars In Flats

 

POSTED: 8:40 am EDT June 30, 2006

UPDATED: 9:10 am EDT June 30, 2006

 

CLEVELAND -- The Port Authority has reached an agreement with the owner of The Beach Club and Boom Cabaret on the East Bank of the Flats.

 

The terms of the deal aren't being released.

 

Recently, developer Scott Wolstein proposed to completely overhaul the east bank.

 

Legal proceedings with six remaining landowners are still going on in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.

Nice!  I've been accused of being too negative about this project lately.  Maybe I just needed some news of progress!  Well, that, and maybe some indications that the development isn't going to be an island unto itself.  Anyway, great news on the agreement!

^ What is this "negative" you speak of ?

 

Signed,

Everyone in Cleveland

Boom cabaret?

I spoke with several developers today for an unrelated article I'm working on who said they have been friends with Scott Wolstein for years. Yet they think he's off base with the Flats East Bank project and its eminent domain, parking needs and subsidies. One even said he thinks the project will fail. Interestingly, in the port authority's press release today about it reaching a deal with another Flats property owner, I noticed something I hadn't seen before in one of their press releases. It referred to the possibility of the project failing if agreements aren't reached soon because costs would rise with delays. That's either a threat or a statement of "we're preparing you for the possibility."

^This has never been my favorite megaproject in the city, for all those reasons. It's like Wolstein doesn't believe in it himself on some level. When development projects require this much maneuvering and public assistance, I think it's reasonable to ask if they're truly advisable in the first place.

 

Plans for Pesht and the West Bank make much more sense to me, because they 1) treat their existing urban surroundings with greater deference; and 2) don't have their begging cups out. At least not yet.

So far "Pesht" is completely conceptual and basically consists of some interesting newspaper articles.  "West Bank" has not even reached that point.  Newspaper articles promised in September.  What makes you think that these proposed developments will not require eminent domain and subsidies and will not feature bad site planning and uninspiring architecture (I mean look at Eton Collection and Crocker Park (especially Crocker Park, a nightmare of parking garages).  I cetainly hope both projects get off the ground and are done well, but it is hard to get excited, like many on this board, with two projects which really have not been "revealed".  It is also hard to pan these projects at this point.  I am sure everyone here will do a good job of that once more information is offered.

Flats property owner agrees to sell for development

Saturday, July 01, 2006

Michael Sangiacomo

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority reached an agreement to purchase a parcel of land on the Flats east bank as part of the redevelopment of the area.

 

The port authority declined to reveal how much Isabella Basile would be paid for her riverfront property at 1064 and 1078 Old River Road, where she operated the Boom Club and the Boom Cabaret. The port had offered $1.1 million for the property in the past. Basile could not be reached for comment.

 

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

Htsguy, a big reason (if not the biggest reason) why people seem less critical of the Pesht and Flats West Bank projects is because there are no detailed site plans as yet to be critiqued. Like you say, it's easy to support a broad-brush idea.

 

But I also think that some are opposed to the demolitions of some historic structures Wolstein will need to do. And, at least for me, I find it very puzzling why Wolstein needs Shaia's parking lot so he can keep it a parking lot. It's especially curious when Shaia's offer appeared very accommodating to Wolstein's plans -- including offering his land as a construction staging area and to provide enough public parking for FEB. And asking a cash-starved Cuyahoga County to underwrite the bonds for even more parking, I would hope the public stops to ask why.

 

People often don't agree on a project's design and other subjective features of a development. But when a developer seeks things that contradict common sense, then questions and even criticism will naturally follow.

So far "Pesht" is completely conceptual and basically consists of some interesting newspaper articles.  "West Bank" has not even reached that point.  Newspaper articles promised in September.  What makes you think that these proposed developments will not require eminent domain and subsidies and will not feature bad site planning and uninspiring architecture (I mean look at Eton Collection and Crocker Park (especially Crocker Park, a nightmare of parking garages).  I cetainly hope both projects get off the ground and are done well, but it is hard to get excited, like many on this board, with two projects which really have not been "revealed".  It is also hard to pan these projects at this point.  I am sure everyone here will do a good job of that once more information is offered.

 

I actually like Eton Collection. I went to Crocker Park today. I don't like that it was built in the middle of nowhere. As I was there, I tried to imagine it in downtown Cleveland. I think if Pescht is going to mesh with the WD, Stark and his people are going to need to be ballsy about their designs but also accommodating to the historical buildings around. New buildings CAN be merged with the old, and the best example I have ever seen is in Lexington, Michigan. http://www.smackwaterdevelopment.com/ There a developer purchased a city block in the small town's miniscule downtown and basically created a new downtown. And it actually works, complementing the existing downtown and it really helped create a community.

 

The same can be done in Cleveland as long as we don't go too cookie cutter, although I think it will have that characteristic to some degree just because it will be new. Either way, Crocker Park's parking decks don't bother me. It's a much better idea than surrounding the thing in blacktop lots. What I think would be nice is if in Pescht, parking was also free like in Westlake. But I suppose this won't likely happen.

 

edit: Also, I'm skeptical of Wolstein because he wants to put a soccer stadium in Summit County right on the edge of my (and many others') treasured Cuyahoga Valley National Park. That area of NEO doesn't need more development, and it makes me distrust his motives. He just has $$ in his eyes.

jamiec i am cool on eton and crocker, but the lexington, mich development looks very nice.  i have not seen it in person yet, but isn't that similar to what they did right in ne ohio with the first and main development downtown in hudson?

 

http://www.firstandmainhudson.com/

 

New buildings CAN be merged with the old, and the best example I have ever seen is in Lexington, Michigan. http://www.smackwaterdevelopment.com/ There a developer purchased a city block in the small town's miniscule downtown and basically created a new downtown. And it actually works, complementing the existing downtown and it really helped create a community.

 

Another is First & Main in Hudson ... http://www.firstandmainhudson.com/  Unfortunately the website doesn't have too many pictures of the development. There is a map of the development which gives some indication as to its integration with the historic business district on along Route 91. Too bad the traffic in Hudson is awful -- a proposed commuter rail service would use the tracks that form the southern edge of First & Main where the old depot still stands. Oh well.

New buildings CAN be merged with the old, and the best example I have ever seen is in Lexington, Michigan. http://www.smackwaterdevelopment.com/ There a developer purchased a city block in the small town's miniscule downtown and basically created a new downtown. And it actually works, complementing the existing downtown and it really helped create a community.

 

Another is First & Main in Hudson ... http://www.firstandmainhudson.com/  Unfortunately the website doesn't have too many pictures of the development. There is a map of the development which gives some indication as to its integration with the historic business district on along Route 91. Too bad the traffic in Hudson is awful -- a proposed commuter rail service would use the tracks that form the southern edge of First & Main where the old depot still stands. Oh well.

 

Haha, funny you should mention that. My parents live in the village section of Hudson, so I have been to First and Main quite often. My parents really enjoy being able to walk everywhere. The grocery store, the post office, the library, retail and restaraunts are all less than five small blocks away. It's nice because there is a decent selection of stores (all aimed at the demographic, of course!:) but not a whole shopping mall innundating the small-town feel. It's well-balanced. And even though Hudson is an affluent town, the concept could work all over the place.

 

You're right, the traffic can be pretty bad coming down 91 and it backs up pretty far on 303, too. The people in the city fought ODOT tooth and nail to keep those roads at two lanes total, though, and while it's a pain in the ass for a motorist, it really has kept the city pedestrian/bike friendly. Because the traffic is slowed by only having two lanes, people aren't afraid to cross over from the retail/restaraunts of Main Street to the town square and then over into the neighborhoods.

 

KJP, that depot would be the PERFECT place for a commuter rail station! Hudson already gets a lot of rail traffic right through that same area all day and night, so that wouldn't be a problem. I don't think there'd be as much opposition to it down there as there has been in some of the Cleveland suburbs, either, although I could be wrong. The mayor of Hudson even was talking about getting involved in regionalism recently, if I remember correctly. I think they might welcome it because, even though Hudson is a pretty conservative city, they seem to getting really progressive about development issues, ie., putting bike lanes on 91 and 303 and putting very visible "stop for pedestrian" signs on Main Street. I think they are also coming around to the idea that future of Cleveland is important to Hudson, especially because a sizable number of citizens work there. Because Hudson is part of Akron's Metro bus service, the downtown Cleveland options are very scant, though. I've made the rush-hour commute from Hudson to downtown Cleveland via 480 to 77, and it's HORRRRRRRIBLE.

 

In regards to Lexington, mrnyc, it's a little different from the Hudson development because Lexington is a very, very small/rural town. It's on Lake Huron about 1.5 hours by car from Detroit. It's more a summer home location for people from the city, so it's not as functional. They didn't install any parking decks and they didn't even add any new parking, just changed it to diagonal on-street parking, which I think is funny. But the buildings are very well built and beautiful. Unlike a lot of new developments, they look like they have been there forever. It's quite impressive because this part of SE Michigan is not exactly a wealthy area, lots of blue-collar folks, but it works well. They have motorcycle meetups with people from all over the Detroit area and cruise in and other family-friendly stuff. It's really cool. Besides Ann Arbor and Birmingham, my favorite place in Metro Detroit.

 

edit: Oh yeah, I didn't mean Eton is an ideal others should strive for, but it's nicer looking than the strip malls across the street. I grew up in Cuyahoga Falls, home of 100% heinous strip malls, so if you jazz one up, I'm easily won over, lol. And for the record, I'm not really a fan of Crocker Park, although I will probably continue to shop there becaue it's closer than Beachwood -- until we get some better downtown options. But CP rubs me the wrong way. It could use some panhandlers or something. It feels like the Twilight Zone.

Egggh.  I pray to GOD that anything built in Cleveland does not even remotely resemble that neoclassical bullshit.  Merging new and old?  It's merging old with...  hell with it, I'll just copy/paste my most recent rant on contemporary architecture and urban design,

 

"I understand your point to possibly seeing older styled lighting/traffic signals at W65th and Detroit because of the surrounding context, but there is a lot of merit to utilizing the idea of exposing the contrast between new and old as a dynamic design gesture.  It reveals the intricacies and detail of the old (buildings, in the case of W65th & Detroit) vs. the smooth or angled of the contemporary (lighting/signals), playing off the idea of the city being a multilayered organism.  This idea could be used throughout the city in a variety of different programs. 

 

In a previous thread somebody brought up the idea of using the grain silos near the Center Street swing bridge as some ultra contemporary condominium complex.  I love that.  Imagine how interesting this would look if some weird shaped addition to those silos was designed onto it.  Maybe it engages the river somehow.  It’s just an example, but it can be applied to almost anything.

 

We need to define the time that we’ve had control of the city, and there is no other way to do that than to always be forward thinking when it comes to urban planning and design.  We should be saying, “let’s use what’s left of this old industrial city to be the most progressive city in the world, aesthetically, and then one would hope at some point, socially.'"

 

Why make architecture look like it was built 100 years ago?  I find it hilarious to see some fake old building that appears "historic" to have a built date on the top "entabliture" and it says 2005.  This crap drives me to drinking.  It only reveals many of today's architects' extremely low self esteem and developers' unimaginative development ideas.

 

Here is an excellent example of what we should be doing in this city and it's old structures instread of trying to match old architecture:

http://wiener-gasometer.at/de/gasometer/b/

Sorry, but the building on the left doesn't do anything for me. I would much prefer a replica of the building on the right. The beauty of architecture, like art, is always in the eyes of the beholder...

 

Well, you gotta take into account the opinions of the people who live in the community. Lexington, Michigan and Hudson, Ohio are not fertile places for architectural bravado. At least both towns embraced urbanism by rejuvinating their small downtowns with retail/residential development. You can't have everything!

 

But I'm with KJP on that building above. I guess I don't get it.

 

I actually like that glass condo tower in the Warehouse District much more.

 

 

 

I don't care for Pinnacle either. Looks like it's unfinished.

^Is it actually finished? If so, then yeah, it definitely looks unfinished.

Yes, the exterior is finished, although I believe some interior spaces aren't yet done (at least they were lagging the last I'd heard).

what, it looks fine.  i think it matches up with the bridges in the flats.  altho i think its kinda stout and wish it was 5-10 stories taller heh

It would look better if not for the curved roof.  It doesn't match the rest of the building, which is all right angles except for the recessed balconies, which don't seem to make much of a visual impact in the final design.  Maybe the exposed girders should have been carried around to the top of the building.  And it would look better if it was taller and less long.

I love the way it looks from a distance, but not up close. Up close the glass already looks kinda dingy or something.

Fairmount was the developer for First & Main in Hudson.  Maybe its not so bad afterall?  :|

 

P.S.  I'm new here...so I'll try to keep my comments fairly educated. 

^My uneducated comments are usually how I find out things quickest, so comment awaY! :-D

 

And welcome to the forum.

I'm on board with W28 (maybe arch school has a standard brainwashing effect).  I haven't been to Crocker Park but quick drive-throughs of Legacy Village and Eton Collection made me uber-queasy.  Heck, even typing the cutesy names hurts.  To say they're better than the strip malls across the street may be true in many people's eyes, but not sure that's much of a test.

 

It should be pretty interesting to see how (assuming away the "if") mega-projects like Flats EB and WB, Pest (not sure why we use "Pesht") and the UC "uptown Euclid" (or whatever it's called) shake out.  I think it would be a real bummer if we end up with a bunch of bland boxes, cheaply dressed up on the surface to appear like separate older buildings (the fakey downtown look) or,  on the other hand, a set of identical bland boxes like those shown in the albeit very early renderings of FEB.  Surely there's something better out there that isn't alienatingly bizarre or blandly slick and glassy one hand but isn't run-of-the-mill neo-snore inducing or cloying either.

 

 

KJP, that depot would be the PERFECT place for a commuter rail station! Hudson already gets a lot of rail traffic right through that same area all day and night, so that wouldn't be a problem. I don't think there'd be as much opposition to it down there as there has been in some of the Cleveland suburbs, either, although I could be wrong. The mayor of Hudson even was talking about getting involved in regionalism recently, if I remember correctly. I think they might welcome it because, even though Hudson is a pretty conservative city, they seem to getting really progressive about development issues, ie., putting bike lanes on 91 and 303 and putting very visible "stop for pedestrian" signs on Main Street.

 

Wasn't there a commuter rail line of sorts connecting hudson and clevo back in the day??

Each rail line into Cleveland had at least one round trip train permitting a work day in Cleveland. The one that lasted the longest was a Conrail service from Youngstown to Cleveland via Warren, Garrettsville, Aurora, Solon, North Randall and many other enroute stops.

Beating a dead horse, but simply replicating old buildings trivializes both the new architecture and the old.  It becomes nothing more than "decorating" a contemporary structural system with styraphome (sp), and calling any architect a decorator is just about the worst thing one can say.  But for the most part, in places like Crocker, Legacy, whatever, that is the case. 

It is the equivalent of putting a propeller on an F15.

It bothers me more when a developer replicates an old building in an established urban area than when the same is done in suburbia. When done downtown, the new building usually sticks out like a sore thumb. In suburbia, the entire setting is a farce so the building doesn't bother me as much.

hey w28 right on. put those grain silos and warehouses, etc. to use. put some interesting new structures with them too, fine. that shows off that yes we are reverantly reusing an old building, but we are in the here and now as well.

 

anyway that kind of stuff is happening in clev too, ie., i take you approve of the stonebridge cantina building?

 

But what about the question of whether or not the design creates a pleasant, or better yet, inspiring setting?  I know, people with discriminating tastes (like us!) will walk into this new development and set off on our hyper-critical analysis, but what if the place is actually designed well, while taking cues or even mimicking a style from the past?  I don't see anything wrong with that. 

 

Understanding that I'd want something modern and unique (that hasn't been done before) that can accomplish the best result even moreso, if this project (or others) can be accomplished by borrowing from the past, but using quality materials, creating a superior product, and a desireable place to live, work and play, then I'm not going to complain.  Now, if the use of classical or traditional styles is just a token gesture...like adding cheap crowns or mock roof-lines to a building and it ends up looking like freakin Disneyworld, then I'll complain! 

 

One of the hazards of trying to do something new and unique is that you'll produce something that people don't understand...renters, buyers, commercial tenants, whatever...and the project gets lost along the way.  On the other hand, you might end up with something that everyone else in the country will want to emulate for generations.

 

Interesting conversation...you think anyone's listening?

When it comes to this project and its design, my mind just can't get past the 1) undiscriminating demolition of everything in sight and 2) the bazillion parking spaces. It's hard for me to imagine good urban design resulting from those premises.

Agreed

mgd good point. this is the problem wolstein is stuck with in the east bank setting. imo it's such a unique area and given local history and that particular setting the pressure is really on (from an architectural point of view).

 

west bank, pesht and the avenue are luckier not to have much of that baggage. those sites are almost ideal urban tabla rasas.

 

so if wolstein can pull off a functional and beautiful looking miracle we can all be proud off, he should be handed a scepture, hoisted up on a throne and paraded up and down euclid avenue (sorry for the hoisting and parading flight of fancy, but the italian giglio fest is going on this week in williamsburg and has been in the local ny news - ha).

 

here it is - if all goes well, post east-bank build out wolstein's parade seat goes way up top here yee-ha!:

fun info link: http://www.giglio-usa.org/Giglio_Facts.htm

 

 

 

I'm worrying more and more about the demo too.  It's more than the river and views that make the Flats so cool, it's the history and layers of architecture and infrastructure. 

i said it initially and i will say it again. there are two to look out for: the first rockefeller warehouse and kindlers. both should be saved. both structures are locally historic, if not architecturally significant. the city should twist wolstein's arm to incorporate them somehow.

Talks on Flats East Bank appear headed to court

Thursday, July 13, 2006

By Ken Prendergast

Brooklyn Sun Journal

CLEVELAND _ Months after two property owners were sued to take their land for the proposed Flats East Bank neighborhood, no one is doing any negotiating that would prevent the takings from going to court. That communication isn't happening, despite a desire by city officials to see negotiations thrive among all parties involved.

 

In particular, two property owners who have been sued and have proposed development projects of their own said they were frustrated at the lack of discussions. The Shaia Family and a partnership of Rustom Khouri and Jim Kassouf have proposed high-rise condominium projects on land they own at the northeast corner of the Wolstein Group's planned Flats East Bank neighborhood.

 

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

I think at this point id rather see lighthouse landing get built even if its a "risk" of not building the east bank project.  altho at this point how far can shaia go with his project??