i would love to see more pictures of that time

I may take on this project. I think there is enough interest in this subject even from beyond Northeast Ohio to make this worthwhile. Let me know by e-mail if you'd like to contribute -- Musky I KNOW you've got some stories from working down at the Aqualon/Whiskey/Smart Bar!

KJP, were about the same age.  I only mentioned summers because I was at Ohio State so the only time I could party in the flats was on weekends, a school break or the summer.

Folks... please...

 

 

 

I was at Kent State in the 1980s and Myers College (then-Dyke College -- hated that name) in the early 1990s. That gave me lots of opportunities (actually WAY too many) to visit the Flats. By the early-1990s I was going down there about a dozen times every month.

 

EDIT: Sorry MayDay. Back to development news.....

^please more folks come to forum meets. yes, normal, off topic, interesting conversation ensues. but oh no, only 6 people come while most lurk on here the internet, alone, hoping for social connection. Most rather go off topic here.  Jesh! no one is too geeky or autistic

Mike Trivisonno is currently interviewing two men - Fred Nancy and Dennis Roach - who, I believe, work for the Chamber of Commerce and Convention Bureau.  One of them said that they'll break ground at the East Bank when the weather improves (guessing they mean when there's no chance of snow)!!!

 

Nice:)

Cross post from "Ohio Business and Economy":

 

 

#2 business trend to watch this year, from the Cleveland.com Real Estate blog: http://blog.cleveland.com/business/real_estate/

 

 

2 Downtown deals

 

 

Commercial development downtown might be a more uplifting antidote to the gut-cramping struggles of Cleveland's residential market this year. Between ambitious mixed-use projects aimed at revitalizing pockets of the center city and a game of musical chairs played by some of the city's biggest and most desirable office tenants, downtown could see changes around its edges and along its skyline this year.

 

The first building in developer Scott Wolstein's $400 million project to revamp the Flats' east bank could rise this year. Hungry marquee office tenants have been sniffing seriously around the project, pitting Wolstein against fellow developers including Bob Stark, Forest City Enterprises, John Ferchill and the Richard E. Jacobs Group.

 

Could it be the building nearest to the lake? The one in the center? Hum...

 

 

A close-up view of that building - I believe DFAS will be staying put in the Federal Building:

 

^ Oh yes, I forgot that was the proposed DAFS building. Thanks

My wager is that it will be built on the site formerly proposed for Lighthouse Landing, bounded by West 10th, Main and Front.

Might be just me, but that building looks a little too suburban-y...kind of reminds me of Wolstein's own DDR HQ in Beachwood...but I guess it's better than what's there (or not there) now.

^Right.  Why not put the office building, you know, in the actual project footprint?

^Don't get me wrong, that building is fantastic...if it was in Independence. Don't these developers know what urban architecture is? I know that we here are the experts - they should listen to us :-D

 

I know it's just a rendering, and it could change several times between now and the final product, but man, that's right on par with that other god-awful complex (which was thankfully never built), Ontario Pointe.

 

I'm as jazzed as everyone else about the possible construction boom, but let's hope that the Planning Commission aspires for something a little more iconic. Now, if you were to stand the building on its end, then you might be on to something...

Now, if you were to stand the building on its end, then you might be on to something...

 

I don't think a high-rise is appropriate for that area.

Now, if you were to stand the building on its end, then you might be on to something...

 

I don't think a high-rise is appropriate for that area.

 

Maybe not, but Wolstein did say that there was going to be an "iconic" residential highrise.  So if that's the case, I don't see why an office highrise couldn't go there.  I certainly realize that if a highrise were to go there, it wouldn't be 40 stories, if that's what you mean.

Yes, I think KJP has it that it would be on the Lighthouse Landing site.

That rendering posted on the previous page isn't anything that's actually going to be built. It's just a glorified massing to help sell the project to potential tenants. As has been previously reported in the media, the first building to go up on the Wolstein site will be an office building on Main Avenue -- not in the RTA Loop site (though that could happen in a later phase).

Blinker12, do you mean the Lighthouse Landing site at Main & Front & West 10th?

Main Avenue between W9th and W10th -- on the right as you're coming down the hill. Right now it's a big old parking lot.

Interesting.  This would actually be a pretty significant outlier from the rest of the CBD for a significant office tenant...though I guess proximity to the WHD and, eventually, the rest of Wolstein's project will make it feel less isolated.  If I were an office Tenant, I think I'd prefer being closer to Public Square (Stark's project or Jacobs) and the rest of downtown's business amenities.  But I'm not, so whatever.

I get excited everytime this thread gets a bump, but invariably, I end up being disappointed because it seems as this is moving at an even slower pace than Cleveland's standard exciting new project slowness.  I don't want "it may start" or "is expected to start" I want "will start".

 

To me, this is one of the most important projects going in NE Ohio.  The Warehouse district is great now, but neither it or anything else has rivaled what the flats was at one point.  And while this proposal is completely different (for the better) it has the potential to generate the same level of activity as before, but with more substance.  Why?  It has the one thing nothing else ever will - the river.  Not that the river itself is particularly exciting, but it provides Lake Erie boaters somewhere to go - it's an instant marina.  The are tons of boaters in a 75 mile radius of Cleveland and they will travel just to go somewhere with their boat.  And people who don't have a boat will go to places where they can watch boats/look at the water.  And you get local people coming in and out of downtown more, they will spring the idea that next time downtown, they to go to the theater, or try that nice looking restaurant on West 6th, or pop into Tower City, etc.  And in the middle of a yucky winter day, they'll go down to the flats to think about summer.  Sometimes I think this is overlooked.

 

But this thread started 4 years ago and we're still talking about the first building might start to be constructed soon.  I guess I'm just frustrated with progress.

shs96,

 

Until just a few months ago, they weren't going to be able to do much until spring 2009. Thanks to a deal with the strip club, major work should begin in spring 2008.

 

 

To me, this is one of the most important projects going in NE Ohio.  The Warehouse district is great now, but neither it or anything else has rivaled what the flats was at one point.  And while this proposal is completely different (for the better) it has the potential to generate the same level of activity as before, but with more substance.  Why?  It has the one thing nothing else ever will - the river.  Not that the river itself is particularly exciting, but it provides Lake Erie boaters somewhere to go - it's an instant marina.  The are tons of boaters in a 75 mile radius of Cleveland and they will travel just to go somewhere with their boat.  And people who don't have a boat will go to places where they can watch boats/look at the water.  And you get local people coming in and out of downtown more, they will spring the idea that next time downtown, they to go to the theater, or try that nice looking restaurant on West 6th, or pop into Tower City, etc.  And in the middle of a yucky winter day, they'll go down to the flats to think about summer.  Sometimes I think this is overlooked.

 

 

I think any pics from Riverfest would validate your post!!!!

 

Nothing beats being on/near the water.

 

 

Agree with shs96.  I think the water (river) has the potential to make this the best project going.  However it has to be done right and none of the initial renderings (however true or not) are inspiring.  Hopefully, having a completely blank canvas as everything has been demolished will allow some creative thinking.

 

Further south on the East bank I've always thought the old Arhaus building would be a great building for condos.  That building has great architecture and views of both the river and the West bank.  This would create some one-of-a-kind pads.  Wonder if the current owner is considering anything like this?

shs96 i'm sure you know but i'll just say anyway that you aren't the only one who is frustrated about the slow progress. as you can tell by my handle where i live i literally have buildings going up on every block i walk on so when i check on here the slow pace drives me nuts sometimes. we all know how the flats were, so we're all frustrated no question.

 

you just got to channel the rev jesse jackson when you clik on here -- "keep hope alive!"  :laugh:

How long have some of those buildings been in the works, mrnyc? (meaning from first public mention of them to actual construction)

^^ shs96, I'm actually surprised Wolstein's moving as quickly as he is.  The original talk of 2009 or 10 "starts" was very frustrating.  But the strip-joint deal along with the apparent corporate office competition with Stark (and maybe even Dick Jacobs) seems to have upped the ante.  Ever since the settlement things have been moving rapidly … Most of the riverfront site west of Old River Road within the footprint has been cleared already with the old Fagan’s building seemingly ready to meet the wrecking ball any day now.  I, however, liked the dual tower Lighthouse Landing concept.  I hope, only, those high-rise residences are simply moved from the original site and not replaced by office buildings (which seems to be what people are saying), even though high-grade new office space would be nice for the Flats and downtown in general.

I think that it is important to point out that we are talking about an entire neighborhood and not just one building. This doesn’t happen overnight.

Things happen overnight in other cities.  Why not here?  And from the looks of the renderings, the urban planning/architecture aspect of the project is not revolutionary and there are probably a bunch of case studies out there to help expedite this process.  Cleveland really isn't an enigma.  We make it one. :|

 

 

Things happen overnight in other cities. 

 

Complex projects involving mixed use/environmental remediation/extensive property acquisition/demolition/complex, partially public financing happen in other cities overnight?  Where?  The urban planning/architecture phase is seldom what is holding up any development.

Things happen overnight in other cities. 

  LOL!  Cleveland negativism in its purest form.

 

 

Things happen overnight in other cities. 

 

Complex projects involving mixed use/environmental remediation/extensive property acquisition/demolition/complex, partially public financing happen in other cities overnight?  Where?  The urban planning/architecture phase is seldom what is holding up any development.

 

No, entire developments don't pop up overnight in other cities, but their progress is remarkably quicker.  The whole thing may not pop up overnight, but part of it seems to.

 

And since you asked for an example, I will give one I lived through.

 

When I moved to Dallas in 2001, the Mavericks were playing basketball in Reunion Arena.  The following basketball season, they moved into the new American Airlines Arena.  At the time, it was located by an old train depot, away from anything else downtown.  Basically there was nothing there.  But as that first year of playing in the arena closed, the next year pieces of property were bought around the arena and development started.  First was an apartment complex, then a restaurant, etc.  By the time I left in July 2006, the last piece of property had been acuqired.  TODAY, right now, there is now a large mixed use development complex with office buildings, rental units, condo/townhomes for sale, and the standard restaurants and bars surrounding the arena.  For anyone who watches basketball (or hockey) regularly, you used to have an open view of the arena with the fountains in front.  Now you look down this row of buildings.  The majority of it was not there when I left 1.5 years ago.  And yeah, it had been talked about for the 4 years prior to it actually happening, but during that time other smaller projects kept pushing forward and some noticable progress was being made.  And really, what did it matter if Cuban/Hicks (Stars Owner) gained all of the property they were after?  They still had a huge asset to build off of - the arena where the Mavs/Stars play.  So who cares if they didn't get property x, y, z...they were still going to build on property a,b, c because there was potential there.  Meanwhile, they continued to pursue x, y, z.

 

At the end of the day, the entire complex was built in 7 years.  And if you want to talk "pre-talk", Cuban bought the Mavs in January 2000.  The entire concept of the American Airlines Arena and the development around it was his idea.  The arena opened in November 2001.  So in roughly 2 years time, he designed it, worked through the minutia while building parts of the master plan, and completed it 8 years after it started.

 

Why does Wolstein have to wait out for Larry Flynt's Hustler strip club to start his project?  The asset - river/location to downtown - is there to build around.  How many press clippings did he say "the whole project depends on getting control of all the buildings".  That's crap if you ask me.

 

That's the difference, IMO, between Cleveland being the best city it is capable of being and it being what it is.  Too many people are fighting through red tape, squabbling over details, and being narrow minded rather than simply taking the situation as its presented and saying "OK, here is where I want to go, and here is where I am.  What can I do with what I have now?  What do I need to do to get it done?"  Why does it have to be all or nothing?  Does Wolstein (or insert developer here) not feel that if they only build part of their proposed project that other like minded people won't capitialize on its success?  I'm not saying it should be rushed into, but certainly it doesn't take this long to develop a great concept for development of that area  - I'm sure those on this forum could knock it out in a day or so ;)

 

And I don't think this is a case of "Cleveland negatisim in its purest form".  Its looking at the high level situation and addressing something that needs to be corrected.

I don't think the two are really comparable.  The Wolstein project requires relaying the infrastructure for the entire area.  That is why he needs all the property, not just some of it.  He has to clean slate all of it to restart from the underground up.  Some of us, me included, would have preferred a more piecemeal approach, but that isn't what is happening.  In order to make this approach work, he needs all the land to start, and most likely he needs to develop all of it to make a profit.

At the end of the day, the entire complex was built in 7 years.

 

I'm not disagreeing that the process can't be improved. If we're going to compare then 7 years would be 2011 for FEB. If the ground is broken this year it should be completed by 2011 if not before.

^^ As X points out these scenarios aren't comparable.

At the time, it was located by an old train depot, away from anything else downtown.  Basically there was nothing there.  But as that first year of playing in the arena closed, the next year pieces of property were bought around the arena and development started.

  As you noted they started building where there was nothing... which is immensley easier than working in an urban environment with existing buildings.  Everyone understands your frustration, but this project in particular is rather complicated.

 

Why does Wolstein have to wait out for Larry Flynt's Hustler strip club to start his project? The asset - river/location to downtown - is there to build around. How many press clippings did he say "the whole project depends on getting control of all the buildings". That's crap if you ask me.

 

 

Because you can't rip up all the streets, sewerlines, waterlines, electicity, etc when there is a business operating there.

 

I don't understand how you can question the site control issue? If you don't own the buildings, the judge hints that he won't let you use eminent domain to acquire the land, and the hold out landowners are demanding 20 times the offer price, then it is difficult to start a project.

 

Additionally, in Dallas they had to do a lot of utility work for the new arena. Once that was there, it is much easier to build smaller projects because you don't have to rebuild the entire infrastructure.

 

Oh, how's the World Trade Center and Atlantic Yards coming along?

 

 

I know the perception is that this project is moving slowly. Even if that were true, I think we would have much more to fear from the opposite, ie, just throwing something together as quickly as possible.  Given the somewhat generic architectual renderings, would you really want to see this whole thing just appear overnight? That's how things were where I'm from- the mafia controls everything. No real planning, no period of review and no opportunity for public comment. Visit the Jersey Shore if you want to see block after block of shiny, brand new buildings of the most generic quality.

 

It is truly amazing how the Flats died so completely. It speaks to the ineptitude of our elected officials and possibly a conspiracy, but that speculation doesn't help things now. The river and the waterfront are special, and we have to ensure that things are done with careful consideration for the next 100 years. This project means too much for the city to be a rush job. 

 

That's the difference, IMO, between Cleveland being the best city it is capable of being and it being what it is.  Too many people are fighting through red tape, squabbling over details, and being narrow minded rather than simply taking the situation as its presented and saying "OK, here is where I want to go, and here is where I am.  What can I do with what I have now?  What do I need to do to get it done?"  Why does it have to be all or nothing?  Does Wolstein (or insert developer here) not feel that if they only build part of their proposed project that other like minded people won't capitialize on its success?  I'm not saying it should be rushed into, but certainly it doesn't take this long to develop a great concept for development of that area  - I'm sure those on this forum could knock it out in a day or so ;)

 

Oh you mean like Stark in the Warehouse district.. :wink:

 

I think there is a bit of truth to what shs96 is saying here.  I believe it is harder to make projects feasable here compared to an area thats growing and economically better off (like in her example).  I think Cleveland projects can be much more complicated and possibly take longer because of the complicated amount of ingredients (such as the necessity for different subsidies and amount of pre-leasing) they need for feasability (remember some places actually have housing and office shortages and can more easily build on spec.)  Cleveland in this regard, should probably only be compared to other rust belt cities that are going through the same struggles.  I think then it would look pretty simililar if not even make Cleveland seem like things are happening.            

And from the looks of the renderings, the urban planning/architecture aspect of the project is not revolutionary

 

Must we constantly be reminded that we haven't seen any renderings of the project that represent the design of what will actually be built?  We've seen massings and site plans and that's about it.  As for being revolutionary, it would take something like bulldozers on Burke's tarmac to be labeled "revolutionary," but this is certainly one of the largest master planned developments of this complex nature (land assembly, infrastructure, geography & geology, finance, market conditions, expectations, partnerships, etc.) to have been tried in Cleveland in recent history.  Sure, other cities have projects of this scale that are above the ground, or are inhabited already, but for every one that gets built, you've got to recognize that there are probably 100 that end up on a book shelf in the developer's office.

 

Because you can't rip up all the streets, sewerlines, waterlines, electicity, etc when there is a business operating there.

 

 

Why not?  The streets outside my front door are ripped up right now.

 

I don't understand how you can question the site control issue? If you don't own the buildings, the judge hints that he won't let you use eminent domain to acquire the land, and the hold out landowners are demanding 20 times the offer price, then it is difficult to start a project.

 

I don't question the issue.  I'm saying that issue has no bearing on the first building that is proposed to be completed.  I don't think only being able to develop 75% of the proposed project should preclude you from getting started.  I would think having a number of residents and businesses down there putting pressure on the strip club to move would be more powerful that just owning property and having a proposal on the table...should it come to that (and as we found out, it didn't).

 

Additionally, in Dallas they had to do a lot of utility work for the new arena. Once that was there, it is much easier to build smaller projects because you don't have to rebuild the entire infrastructure.

 

Obviously there will need to be upgrades, but I didn't know the area that used to be home of a thriving entertainment district was void of all utility infrastructure.

 

 

Oh, how's the World Trade Center and Atlantic Yards coming along?

 

Not familiar with the Atlantic Yards, but I've been to the WTC site a few times since 2001 and each time I go, I can visually see progress.  In fact, there's a website you can check out to see for yourself:  http://www.projectrebirth.org/  Is there a new building yet?  No.  But it is in progress and if you revisit every few months, you can see whats changed.  I imagine they had a lot of hoops to jump through there too, but it's moving along...

 

It's just an overall culture.  The differences don't extend simply to projects...even business culture in the community.  So while the situation here may be different than elsewhere, I just think there is a prevailing attitude over anything that goes like this:  OK, that sounds like a great idea.  But I don't like this part, you need to change this part, and before you get started, you need to complete this checklist of 100 things then you can break ground.  And during construction, good luck with building inspections and having government departments not delay your progress.

 

I want more: OK, this is a great idea.  What do we need to do collectively to make it happen?

 

Maybe at the end of the day it comes down a recent history of poor civic leaders... 

I don't think you understand the level of infrastructure repair and upgrade needed to make this a viable mixed use area.  The infrastructure that was down there was adequate for the warehousing and light manufacturing that was there 100+ years ago when it was laid in, and sufficed for the warehouse clubs and restaurants that replaced them.  That infrastructure is not adequate for the level of development Wolstein is proposing, and the buildings, streets, and supporting infrastructure are not going to be laid out as they exist today when they are rebuilt.  The infrastructure is also past it's useful service life, and therefore  it is risky to continue to depend on that infrastructure.  In addition, the bulkheads need some work, or maybe even total replacement to keep from failing and the street layout doesn't allow for an efficient layout of modern mixed use buildings or the type of riverfront access that is being demanded.  That is why all of that land needs to be acquired and cleared to redevelop it.

"I don't think only being able to develop 75% of the proposed project should preclude you from getting started.  I would think having a number of residents and businesses down there putting pressure on the strip club to move would be more powerful that just owning property and having a proposal on the table...should it come to that (and as we found out, it didn't)."

 

With all due respect, you're showing a serious lack of understanding about financing when it comes to development. Banks don't give loans with that kind of flexibility for projects of this scale. Banks don't say "oh well, never mind the thousands of hours invested in preparing the papers for this, we'll just take whiteout to the pages where you can't develop". Um sorry - doesn't work that way. In the same situation, the city cannot give a developer that kind of flexibility with their contracts. That's a careless approach to handling taxpayer money and opens the door for abuse.

 

"I just think there is a prevailing attitude over anything that goes like this:  OK, that sounds like a great idea.  But I don't like this part, you need to change this part, and before you get started, you need to complete this checklist of 100 things then you can break ground.  And during construction, good luck with building inspections and having government departments not delay your progress."

 

I would rather that the Economic Development and Law Departments (that my tax dollars pay for to represent me) be empowered to ask questions and keep everyone honest. You'd be surprised at what people will try to pull aka "well the city should just hand over hundreds of thousands of dollars - but don't ask us to itemize everything. Just be glad we're deeming you worthy of helping our project". That "prevailing attitude" exists to ensure that my tax dollars are being used effectively and in a way that will benefit the city. Developers have people on their team doing the same exact thing - but because it irks you - apparently the city and its residents don't deserve the same?

With all due respect, you're showing a serious lack of understanding about financing when it comes to development. Banks don't give loans with that kind of flexibility for projects of this scale. Banks don't say "oh well, never mind the thousands of hours invested in preparing the papers for this, we'll just take whiteout to the pages where you can't develop". Um sorry - doesn't work that way. In the same situation, the city cannot give a developer that kind of flexibility with their contracts. That's a careless approach to handling taxpayer money and opens the door for abuse.

 

My point was they knew there were considerable obsticles to hurdle from the start.  Rather than include those obsitcles in their master plan for submission for financing, limit it to what they know they can get done.  When those obsticles have been worked through and you can further the deve, submit for additional financing.  And if they aren't worked through, then you at least have developed valuable assets.  I didn't expect the bank to just line item veto parts that were no longer to be included.  Have phase 1, phase 2, phase 3 - all with separate financing.  If you never get to phase 3, phase 1 and 2 will be there creating value.  If that is not possible, then yes, I need to be educated on how development works.

 

I would rather that the Economic Development and Law Departments (that my tax dollars pay for to represent me) be empowered to ask questions and keep everyone honest. You'd be surprised at what people will try to pull aka "well the city should just hand over hundreds of thousands of dollars - but don't ask us to itemize everything. Just be glad we're deeming you worthy of helping our project". That "prevailing attitude" exists to ensure that my tax dollars are being used effectively and in a way that will benefit the city. Developers have people on their team doing the same exact thing - but because it irks you - apparently the city and its residents don't deserve the same?

 

I wasn't suggesting the city (or any involved party) not be thorough.  I was suggesting it often seems that the parties are working against each other rather than with each other.  "Keeping people honest" is why various branches of government exist and for good reason.  But I'm sure everyone has had to work with someone else before to accomplish a goal and each person involved has different interests in mind.  Some things are easier to work on than others, and most of the time it has little to do with the task at hand, but rather the attitude of the people you're working with.  I'm not questioning the core function of the city government or its departments; I'm questioning the manner in which they go about their business.  I'm sure many of you have watched/been a part of a city council meeting or meetings of other government departments.  How often do you walk away with adjectives like, challenging, teamwork, and helpful in your head rather than abrasive, stubborn, and difficult?

 

  I think shs96 is right, Wolstein should just clap his hands two times, plant the magic bean seed and watch the flats east bank neighborhood sprout up overnight...

 

  Seriously I think everyone feels your frustration, but you need to pick a different project to pick on.  There are plenty of projects in this city that are fine examples of developers dragging their feet, or general ineptitude (see county administration building for how to ruin a job on many levels)... This project is significantly more complex than you are giving it credit for.

"If that is not possible, then yes, I need to be educated on how development works."

 

It's not that what you're suggesting isn't possible, it's simply not how the financial aspect of real estate development works - especially with a large project like Flats East Bank. In a more proven market or a much smaller project (smaller footprint, no complete reworking of infrastructure, etc.), banks might be willing to offer a modicum of flexibility for financing a multi-phase project.

 

"I'm not questioning the core function of the city government or its departments; I'm questioning the manner in which they go about their business.  I'm sure many of you have watched/been a part of a city council meeting or meetings of other government departments.  How often do you walk away with adjectives like, challenging, teamwork, and helpful in your head rather than abrasive, stubborn, and difficult?"

 

When you have 21 different council members egos, each charged with getting as much as they can for their respective little fifedoms (instead of compromising and working together for the greater good) - do you really expect any one at 601 Lakeside to get along? More to the point - many of those 21 egos have varying levels of expertise in real estate development (or any field for that matter) - some have absolutely none, but they aren't about to demonstrate that lack in public. Couple that with the respective egos in the departments involved and it's no surprise that you don't see a lot of group hugs in council chambers. So I'm not misunderstood - there are some wonderful people at City Hall (council members included) doing a great job - but there are some realities as well.

 

As I've said before, people (and the aforementioned egos) approach the city for funding for various projects. When they aren't given everything they want (aka they get funding for the projects they can account for), you'll hear them disparage whatever department they feel has wronged them since that department is "holding things up" when in actuality it's likely that they've asked for funding but failed to follow the processes that keep things checked and balanced. Sometimes it's a honest mistake of not knowing the nittygritty of how things work - other times it's a deliberate attempt to sneak in a few extra dollars. Would they admit to that? Of course not - it's much easier to say "I pleaded with ______ department, but they have refused to fund my project!!!" and give us (and you) the perception that whatever department is "abrasive, stubborn and difficult". And you're much more likely to hear a councilperson's viewpoint simply because they have better representation in the media - most of the departments don't have that and the perception is that the departments are the instigators of whatever trouble is involved.

 

 

In short, this is a very risky investment given the market it is being constructed in.  Therefore, Wolstein had to seek financing, and assume ownership very creatively in order to maximize the profits from the project.  In other hot real estate markets, it is moreso who can get their tower up faster due to the fact that thousands of people are shopping for a house. 

watching a council meeting put me the dumps for a long time. kind of like watching a frat boy run a nation.  thank the lord I didnt see the group hug.

I've covered lots of suburbs, and Cleveland City Council meetings are tame by comparison. I was pleasantly surprised when I started covering Cleveland for Sun in 2005, as I expected a lot of infighting -- worse than what I saw in the 'burbs. Instead, Cleveland council members get along better than many of their suburban counterparts. Cleveland council meetings used to be more combative according to my predecessor at Sun who covered Cleveland council from 1989 to 2007. When you fight, you're only delaying the inevitable accord that needs to be reached. Nothing good comes from it. Too many suburbs haven't learned that lesson Cleveland gave years ago, or the lesson they're offering now.

 

Back to the Flats....