Probate Court docket reflects that the "preliminary hearing" scheduled for December 12, 2006 has been continued.  No new date given.

At class on Wednesday night, we were supposed to have guest speakers in to discuss the project but was told they two speakers were giving a deposition.

 

Then this comes up today -

 

From Crain's:

 

 

Wolstein Group seeks permission to raze Flats buildings

 

By STAN BULLARD

 

4:45 pm, December 8, 2006

 

Property acquisition may be incomplete, but Wolstein Group is scheduled to ask Cleveland City Planning Commission at its meeting on Friday, Dec. 15, for permission to demolish eight buildings on Old River Road for its proposed $230 million Flats East Bank project.

 

A draft agenda circulated today by the city planning staff, says the to-be-flattened structures are on Old River and Main Avenue but noted the staff had not yet obtained individual building addresses from the developer. The agenda notes the developer will also ask for fencing to secure the site.

 

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

does anybody else think it would be a good idea if somebody could get down there and take some pics before we lose something? a final east bank photo memento tour?

I'll dig up some pics later this weekend, but honestly I can only think of maybe one or two buildings that are the least bit remarkable. The structures that used to hold the bars along the river aren't historic for the most part.

I did a general search on Flicker and found 712 pics, athough most of them ar the typical skyline/lit bridge shots.

There were a few gems hidden within.

 

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=cleveland%20flats&w=all

Mr. Gorbachev..uh...Wolstein..TEAR DOWN THE FLATS!

will this affect the shaker trains?  Will the rapid be changed/updated to accomodate the influx of residents (potential users) and visitors.  Will the construction interfere with the trains?  will they continue to be surface or will it be buried?

No. There are no plans to change the operation of the Waterfront Line. If ridership increases as a result of the FEB's completion several years from now, then RTA will probably consider changes.

 

None of the construction intrudes on the RTA Waterfront Line's right of way -- although there will probably be a lot of construction vehicles crossing the tracks on Main Avenue. Nothing will be built over the RTA tracks.

Beyond the boardroom

Sunday, December 10, 2006

 

Q: The Flats project is not a DDR project. It's a Scott Wolstein project. Your critics say that's because the risk is too great for a publicly [fni: no hyphen pls: ]-NT%>traded company. Is that true?

 

A: It's a Scott and Iris Wolstein project. My mom won't forgive me if I don't tell you that. It was my dad and I, and she's taken over my father's interest.

 

More at http://www.cleveland.com/business/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/business/1165743495319330.xml&coll=2

 

wow 500,000 sq ft??  thats pretty huge, I wonder how big that office building would be

Why don't thy ever say anything about public transportation, its right at their door?  :?

 

500k square feet?  Thats a big building, I wonder how tall that would be?  This proposed building would definitely change the look and feel of the flats and (potentially) block the view (of the west flats) from people who own homes in its site line.  This in turn makes any building built afterward, that much more desireable - as I would think the view is a top 5 selling point. (or is the view of the East Banks more diserable?)  Luckily there is enough lakefront/riverfront property to develop before its saturated.

Damn....500,000 sq. ft. Isn't that around the size of the old Ameritrust building that is going to get leveled on 9th and Euclid?

Damn....500,000 sq. ft. Isn't that around the size of the old Ameritrust building that is going to get leveled on 9th and Euclid?

 

I thought I read the powers that be are still trying to decide what to do with that building?  Why tear it down unless its absolutely necessary?  I don't love or hate the building, but I think its a one of a kind gem in Cleveland that shouldn't be lost.

There's another thread for that conversation...

 

Somehow, I missed this part of the interview in reading the Wolstein interview online.  Maybe there are two links?

 

Anyhoo, I'm surprised that there's so much office space being discussed and also that DFAS and Baker Hostetler are in the coversation.  I guess I'll take 'em wherever I can get 'em, but I don't want to spread out the traditional Downtown office core too much.  Then again, if this makes the FEB more feasible... hell, let the market do its thing!

 

Also, I'm thrilled to hear that Wolstein thinks they can start demo and construction to that significant extent before the e.d. proceedings are through.  That really surprised me!

Also, I'm thrilled to hear that Wolstein thinks they can start demo and construction to that significant extent before the e.d. proceedings are through.  That really surprised me!

 

yeah, i thought they had to redo the street grid and significantly upgrade the sewers, electrical, etc.  i guess the office building #1 would be by the bend in the RTA tracks, so maybe that site is OK, but the residential and other uses?  i'm not sure how that will play out.

They do. The demolitions are needed to start putting in the infrastructure for the new street grid. New construction will follow, although some might be possible to do simultaneously. For example, Front Street needs no realignment, and construction on two locations for the office component could start before the other aspects of the project do.

The DFAS building was contemplated for the loop in the WFL.  It was 10-12 floors, hardly 500,000.  I can't imagine where a second office building would fit in the original scheme.  KJP, do you know if there has been any significant changes in the original layout....or is Wolstien cooperating with someone else on the second bldg?  perhaps up the hill?

Since developers are usually loathe to talk about potential tenants, I have to believe that these buildings are closer to reality then we know.

The DFAS building was contemplated for the loop in the WFL.  It was 10-12 floors, hardly 500,000.  I can't imagine where a second office building would fit in the original scheme.  KJP, do you know if there has been any significant changes in the original layout....or is Wolstien cooperating with someone else on the second bldg?  perhaps up the hill?

Since developers are usually loathe to talk about potential tenants, I have to believe that these buildings are closer to reality then we know.

 

hmm.. maybe in Shaia's location.  ;)

Actually, the footprint of the 10-12 story structure in the renderings could easily be

500,000 sqft.

The 200 - 300 units of residential could be Shaia's Lighthouse Landing proposal !!

Actually, Wimwar got my reference. I hope that answers Sooner's question, too.

That would explain why Shaia sold his property when he was probably in the best position to defend himself from the ED action. 

What?  Now I'm lost!  He sold it and now he's going to be the developer?

The Shaia family hasn't sold it yet, but is negotiating to sell it -- with conditions. Since negotiations are continuing, I've resisted writing an article about it, and I don't have all the details yet. But after a phone conversation today with someone who is very close to the situation, I can tell you that Lighthouse Landing is not dead. Furthermore, the placement of one, possibly two office buildings may be different than what's being discussed above. The one is likely to be inside the Waterfront Line's hairpin curve. The other one I'm not sure about, but it sounds like it would be closer to West 9th Street on land that Wolstein doesn't yet own.

 

Now you know as much as I do about this, so you can see why I'm not ready to write anything about this yet.

 

 

From renderings shown previously, it looks like the office tower will be marooned in the curve of the Waterfront Line in sort of Rockside Road configuration.  It's obviously not set in stone, but it would be a huge missed opportunity to integrate a large piece of office space into the new urban fabric.  I don't really trust Wolstein for some reason (doing suburban strip malls for decades may have something to do with it).

That's one office building...

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1166348507101340.xml&coll=2

 

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

Developer Scott Wolstein hopes to start razing buildings next month in pursuit of his $230 million project on the Flats east bank.

Second, I agree that we demolish way too much, and there are a couple of buildings at Wolstein's site that are worth saving. But the ones in question here are mostly godawful. They are wooden shacks built right on the riverbank, and they aren't historic. They're just sleazy, vacant bars.

 

I agree with blinker (above quote).

 

The structures are basically suburban restaurant buildings that were built next to the river in the early 1980's.

For visual reference - the only buildings really worth mentioning are two older brick structures:

 

Almost dead center, below the Main Avenue Bridge:

 

And a closer look. Granted they're old but quite frankly they're not terribly remarkable for being old brick warehouse buildings. I'm usually on the side of preservation/re-use, but in this case I don't think there would be any significant loss. As blinker12 and w28th have pointed out, the vast majority of the buildings in question are dumpy 80s shacks:

 

 

Are the brick structures going to be demo'd?  If so, that's just sad.

 

Do you have any shots of the Old River Road buildings from the street?  I can't say I remember what the fronts look like.

^maybe go browse through the main page

 

NE > Cleveland > Neighborhood > Downtown, scroll down to Flats & Warehouse District

I'm all about saving buildings -  but all of them are heaps of crap.

IMO, the only worth saving is Kindlers.

Do my eyes deceive me, or is that ColDayMan running?

I see too much knee-jerk preservationism in this thread.

^^sorry, rumors untrue, that is not said Mr. DayMan

I didn't think so - unless it's Giveaway Day at Hot Sauce Williams, ColDay runs for NO one. :lol:

I am interested in seeing what type of legal challenges the property owners can bring to contest the demolition permit approved by the Planning Commission.

 

Also, I recently checked the court docket (I believe the hearing is now scheduled for sometime in mid Jan. after the December continuance) and observed from court filings that there have been numerous discovery battles.  Without reading the briefs I really cannot determine what they are all about.  The docket reveals that the Probate Court has mostly ruled in favor of the property owners in connection with the various motions.  Don't believe this is a sign of what will happen on the merits.  The lawyers are getting rich though.  God Bless America.

there are only to buildings there worth saving, and both of those for local historic purposes only not architectural merits. those are kindlers, the oldest bar in cleveland (not counting dunhams tavern) and the original rockefeller warehouse. both of those should be saved and incorporated into wolstein's plans. unfortunately, i see a distinct lack of creativity in this project so far so they'll prob get torn down w/o a care -- unless anyone knows a couple local julia butterfly hill's who would squat in those two buildings to save them? heh.

unless anyone knows a couple local julia butterfly hill's who would squat in those two buildings to save them? heh.

 

I'll be at Kindler's tomorrow, then.  Who's with me?

 

I know that most of the buildings slated for demolition are not fantastic.  Some of them probably need to go.  Cleveland doesn't have the most illustrious history with preservation, though, and often times, things have a habit of getting demolished with the only new construction being a parking lot.  Frankly, I fear the homogenization of downtown, which is not an unrealistic possibility.

 

 

^ and ^^: my feelings exactly.  I welcome all the new housing but don't have a great deal of confidence in the FEB design (impress me!).  I don't want an empty, decrepit downtown no matter how much character, but I really don't want crocker park (I know, different developer) plopped down and erasing all traces of what was there before. 

Here are some numbers that I received in December about the project:

 

455 residential units

280,000 sq ft of retail space

800,000 sq ft of office space

2k parking spaces

2.5 acres of park space

 

That sure is a lot of office space!!

^well, like otherwise stated on the forum, Class A vacancy downtown is below 10%

that's more residential units that I'd previously thought they'd build.  I wonder if the amount of office space will change if they can't lure a major tenant (Baker-Hostetler, for example).  And those 2,000 parking spaces scare the hell outta me.  They'd better find a good way to incoporate them into the design of the place!

 

Anyone noticed if the demo has begun?

Maybe this has been answered before, but why is there a need for 2k parking spaces?  There is a train stop (possibly two) adjacent to this community, correct?  Yes, there will need to be parking spaces for visiting workers, handicapped, tourist, but to encourage people to use public transportaiton and rebuild faith in the public transportation network, building 2K parking spaces, doesn't build alot of confidence and seems rather ass backwards.

 

I can see one car per unit, but not 2k.  With so many people in the WHD and the Flats, who will need a car? 500 spaces seems more appropriate to me.  Most people who live in the area will work downtown, I do understand that people will need to get to other portions of the city and would like to keep a car.  I thought I read in another thread that there are too many parking lots in downtown cleveland, gateway in particular, that aren't being utilized as is, why build more?

  And those 2,000 parking spaces scare the hell outta me. 

 

What are you talking about?? I'd say 5 spaces per unit sounds about right to me. ;)

Anyone know how many workers would fit into 800,000 sq ft of office space?

Anyone know how many workers would fit into 800,000 sq ft of office space?

My 400,000 sq ft office building has 1000 employees, so about 2,000.

Anyone know how many workers would fit into 800,000 sq ft of office space?

My 400,000 sq ft office building has 1000 employees, so about 2,000.

 

That's actually pretty lavish, spacewise.  The standard is anywhere from 1 office worker per 150 sq ft up to about 1 per 400 sq ft.  So anywhere up to 5,000-ish, but probably lower.  So really 2,000 spaces isn't alot for 5,000 workers, 455 units of residential, and 280,000 sq ft of retail.

Anyone know how many workers would fit into 800,000 sq ft of office space?

My 400,000 sq ft office building has 1000 employees, so about 2,000.

 

That's actually pretty lavish, spacewise.  The standard is anywhere from 1 office worker per 150 sq ft up to about 1 per 400 sq ft.  So anywhere up to 5,000-ish, but probably lower.  So really 2,000 spaces isn't alot for 5,000 workers, 455 units of residential, and 280,000 sq ft of retail.

 

I'd like to add that my source is second hand. However, that second hand source had put those numbers in print.