November 28, 200618 yr Is that before the Landmarks Commission? "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 28, 200618 yr Its the Design Review. It also mentions the Southworth building as being a part of the project. Which building is that? from the city's website.. DRC 06-154: 140 Public Square, Park Building/Southworth Building Project, Penthouse Addition, etc. (HGN/Ward 13)
November 28, 200618 yr Just think how great the view from the Park Building would be if Public Square were unified...
November 28, 200618 yr ^ i think it already makes a difference by eliminating lanes. the sidewalk in front of the park building is roughly double what it was before. i think this goes a long way toward making the square more pedestrian friendly while still allowing some traffic through.
November 28, 200618 yr Its the Design Review. It also mentions the Southworth building as being a part of the project. Which building is that? That's the building directly behind the Park Building, which Matt Howells also bought. I spoke to Cimperman today about this project, and will have an article in this week's paper (not much new to folks here, though). I still haven't been able to get a call-back from Howells. I'd like to, but I understand he is a low-key guy. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 29, 200618 yr Unfortunately, no. I didn't see the blurb on here about the planning commission until I was already at the office, and the cool photos that were sent to me are sitting in my computer at home. We have so much stuff waiting to get into the paper, that I doubt we'd have room for a picture of it anyway. My article on the Inner Belt project which I wrote in early November has been able to make it into only one paper thus far. I'd love to see some interior photos, or tour the building personally. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 29, 200618 yr OK, just don't throw any cigarette butts on the floors. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 29, 200618 yr I'll throw them out the window onto the construction workers. Oh Papal one....please don't throw your butt(s) on the sexy construction workers! :-D
November 29, 200618 yr MTS... stop harassing the hets! clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
November 29, 200618 yr MTS... stop harassing the hets! Harassing? ME? Never! I love the hets, like convicts love a jumpy virgin at a prison rodeo! :-o
November 29, 200618 yr wow, off topic boys! I got to stand at the bus stop on Public Square last night for about 30 minutes, facing the Park Building. It's just a perfect building for this sort of conversion and the impact of a couple dozen lit up windows with people behind them will be great for the square. An interesting penthouse addition will be nice too!
November 29, 200618 yr Too bad I screwed up my article. Don't be too harsh, people. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 29, 200618 yr I'll throw them out the window onto the construction workers. Oh Papal one....please don't throw your butt(s) on the sexy construction workers! :-D have you seen these construction workers? Not by any stretch of my hetero imagination could these guys even be considered "fix-er-uppers".
November 29, 200618 yr have you seen these construction workers? Not by any stretch of my hetero imagination could these guys even be considered "fix-er-uppers". Oh ye of little faith! I like a challenge! :wink:
December 1, 200618 yr Excellent, KJP, thanks. I might just have to move in myself so I can agitate for a unified pubic square from ground zero! I really like the last paragraph too (the first sentence of it anyway)-points to where the real action is!
December 1, 200618 yr "In related news, CRM Development Research Inc. reported this week that Cleveland issued the most for-sale residential building permits in the first nine months of 2006 in Cuyahoga County. Cleveland issued 183 permits, with Westlake and North Royalton tying for a distant second at 79. In the seven counties of Northeast Ohio, only North Ridgeville and Avon issued more permits, 283 and 201 respectively, than Cleveland." I heard that these permit numbers do not include renovations. Cleveland would have a much higher number if loft conversions were included.
December 1, 200618 yr Good point. Is there a way they could account for that? In my book, you take a factory or office and make it residential, that has the same effect as new construction. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 1, 200618 yr I heard that these permit numbers do not include renovations. Cleveland would have a much higher number if loft conversions were included. and you'd think that the city would want to publicize this presumably larger number, and then break it down by type. for example, "300 housing starts, including 183 single family residence permits."
December 1, 200618 yr Absolutely. Start putting together a few projects and the numbers climb pretty quickly: Park Lane Villa 96 units Franklin Lofts 18 etc
December 4, 200618 yr Condos in offing for Public Sq., Flats Park Bldg., former marina lined up for conversion By STAN BULLARD 6:00 am, December 4, 2006 The Park Building, a century-old office building with shuttered upper floors on Public Square in downtown Cleveland, and a one-time marina on Scranton Road in the Flats will be redone as condominiums under plans two different developers are pursuing. “We’re working on a real gem here,” said Matt Howells, a construction manager and managing partner of Howells & Howells LLC, in describing his plans to convert the nine-story Park Building into 26 for-sale condominiums and to add a 10th floor of penthouses to the structure at 140 Public Square. The building has beautifully preserved brass elevators, intricately crafted terrazzo floors and first-floor retail, all of which will be retained. Howells & Howells plans to have one-, two- and three-bedroom units costing upwards of $200,000. The plan calls for the adjoining Southworth Building to become two floors of attached indoor parking garage serving the Park Building. The Southworth’s upper floors will be developed later as more residences or offices, Mr. Howells said. Legislation is pending before Cleveland City Council to authorize the Jackson administration to enter into a project agreement for the Park Building and a separate agreement for Riverside Landing, a plan to redo the site of a marina at 2065 Scranton Road as housing. Among other things, the agreements would provide 15-year property tax abatements to condo buyers. Councilman Joe Cimperman, whose 13th ward includes downtown, said he supports both plans and expects City Council to adopt them. “Both are examples of Cleveland people slugging it out to get it done here and do projects in the middle of everything,” Mr. Cimperman said. Hip to the on the Square Mr. Howells said he is negotiating with lenders for his project, but added he wouldn’t seek financial commitments until after receiving approvals for his plans from the city. Mr. Howells said he hopes to begin the conversion in earnest early next year. However, using its own financial resources, Howells & Howells is starting work before landing the bank loan. Interior wall studs are visible on the Park Building’s second floor and painters who were stepping outside the building last Wednesday afternoon for smokes showed rehab work is under way. Mr. Howells said his company has pulled permits to create a model suite that he hopes to use soon to display the granite countertops and original maple floors the Public Square condos will offer. He will have Progressive Urban Real Estate market the suites. One suite already is taken inform-ally, Mr. Howells said, and another has two bidders vying for it through word-of-mouth marketing. While it is a stunning thought to consider housing on Public Square, it is a natural development in the Historic Gateway Neighborhood east of the square. The Grant Building, which sits on Euclid Avenue only a few hundred feet from the Park Building, was converted to rentals three years ago. It borders MRN Limited’s East Fourth Street neighborhood of rental apartments, restaurants and the House of Blues. Busy Public Square, the haven of hundreds of mass transit commuters during rush hours and typically the outpost of panhandlers, may not be everyone’s dream home site. But Mr. Howells isn’t concerned. While he worries that high-end buyers may have a hard time selling their homes before committing to move downtown, he does not doubt the value of the location. “The beauty of this thing is that it’s a rare opportunity for someone to own a piece of the center of Cleveland,” Mr. Howells said. “These are super-unique and have awesome detail.”
December 4, 200618 yr A much better article than mine. Congrats to Stan! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 5, 200618 yr b-b-b-brass elevators? t-t-t-terrazzo floors? wow. a rare opportunity indeed. In my book, you take a factory or office and make it residential, that has the same effect as new construction. oh hellz yes. that's what's kept new construction down -- despite tearing the place up over the years, clevo still has a lot more stock than typical to do conversions with. i have no idea why the city would not count those kinds of things in with new construction permits. lord, now there is some free publicity!
December 5, 200618 yr Makes me happy: one-, two- and three-bedroom units costing upwards of $200,000 Makes me nervous: The plan calls for the adjoining Southworth Building to become two floors of attached indoor parking garage serving the Park Building.
December 5, 200618 yr ^but then it goes on to say that the Southworth could become residential or office in a future phase. So is the parking going to go on the interior?
December 5, 200618 yr It sounds like the first couple floors would be parking and the uppers would be left alone. Sounds like a lame way to utilize a busy Ontario Avenue storefront...
December 5, 200618 yr It is a terrible use for the Ontario storefront, but the thought of building more residential units atop it are quite intriguing.
December 5, 200618 yr Of course it's intriguing, but the thought that it's not possible without the incorporation of in-house parking is a damned shame, considering that this is the ultimate Cleveland transit hub and that there are several underutilized garages within a 1 to 2 block radius...
December 5, 200618 yr At the least, it seems a deal could be worked out with an existing garage to provide parking for Park Building tenants who wanted it. This is less the developer's fault than the city's, though. I believe code calls for a certain amount of parking per residential unit. It's time we started realizing that people, not buildings, create demand for parking.
December 5, 200618 yr It's time we started realizing that people, not buildings, create demand for parking. Well said. There's a parking deck at 200 Public Square (BP Building), the former May Co. garage that has Fat Fish Blue in its ground level, plus another (I believe) that's between that deck and the Southworth Building that Howells bought. I'm surprised Howells didn't request a variance to reduce or eliminate the need for parking within his development. I guess he felt he needed the parking to market his residential units. I wished he wouldn't though. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 5, 200618 yr ^^One of many reasons some of Cleveland's live-work loft conversions are illegal in the eyes of the state (e.g. the Tastebuds building, Artcraft) is that parking is generally not provided. State building code requires something like 1.5 spaces for each residential unit. You start to understand why every new project has to have a huge amount of parking included. So actually this may be more of a state issue than a city issue, despite what I said above. I'm not very well-versed on this though; anyone know the exact details of parking requirements, particularly downtown?
December 5, 200618 yr You'd think that there would be more of a neighborhood-based context to these regulations. Obviously (to us), the demand for parking will be different in one neighborhood versus another. Also, the target market will make a difference. Arbor Park, just southeast of Downtown, has on-street parking ONLY because the vast majority of its residents don't own cars. If they had to follow this parking statute, they'd have a wasteful mess of empty garages in that neighborhood! Same goes for Downtown. I've gotta think that if a developer says, "Guys, you're killing me with this parking requirement...40% of my project costs are for acquisition and development of a parking structure. I could be spending that money to develop another 40 units. Do you want more people Downtown or more cars?" From what I can tell, people spend more money and pay more taxes than their cars do. Just an observation...
December 5, 200618 yr Now we see the impact of the moronic anti-home rule laws being put forth by the blubberbutt Grendell from Geauga County. Of course, he spins it as "simplifying the laws" - well, one-size-fits-all laws simply can't work in a state like Ohio. clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
December 5, 200618 yr You'd think that there would be more of a neighborhood-based context to these regulations. Obviously (to us), the demand for parking will be different in one neighborhood versus another. Also, the target market will make a difference. Arbor Park, just southeast of Downtown, has on-street parking ONLY because the vast majority of its residents don't own cars. If they had to follow this parking statute, they'd have a wasteful mess of empty garages in that neighborhood! Same goes for Downtown. I've gotta think that if a developer says, "Guys, you're killing me with this parking requirement...40% of my project costs are for acquisition and development of a parking structure. I could be spending that money to develop another 40 units. Do you want more people Downtown or more cars?" i think the developer CAN line up a parking contract with an existing garage or surface lot to satisfy parking requirements. for example, bridgeview uses the ampco lot across the street (they don't own it) but the sincere building on e4 has 12 condos with NO parking whatsoever. i still think that having an attached parking in cleveland is a good thing and that the developer will have a much easier time selling these units. many people who use transit all the time still don't like to walk 3 blocks [in freezing rain, at 3am, alone] with groceries, kids, etc. i rarely use a car during the week, but i wouldn't live some place that didn't offer an attached garage or an underground spot. the key here is *offer*. maybe i go from 2 to 1 car? sure, but there has to be an option. imo. also, this eliminates some more office space from the market, which could then spur some more commercial development.
December 6, 200618 yr also, this eliminates some more office space from the market, which could then spur some more commercial development. I was just thinking about that today. I'll comment on it at: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=4266.msg145409#msg145409 "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 6, 200618 yr i still think that having an attached parking in cleveland is a good thing and that the developer will have a much easier time selling these units. many people who use transit all the time still don't like to walk 3 blocks [in freezing rain, at 3am, alone] with groceries, kids, etc. i rarely use a car during the week, but i wouldn't live some place that didn't offer an attached garage or an underground spot. the key here is *offer*. maybe i go from 2 to 1 car? sure, but there has to be an option. imo. Right, and that's your opinion, as you stated. I'm just disappointed that this location...which is THE most transit friendly of all Cleveland locations...is perhaps a no-go without attached parking. I'd hope that the draw and amenities (transit and otherwise) to this location would elicit enough unique demand that people would be willing to walk around the block to fetch their ride.
December 6, 200618 yr i still think that having an attached parking in cleveland is a good thing and that the developer will have a much easier time selling these units. many people who use transit all the time still don't like to walk 3 blocks [in freezing rain, at 3am, alone] with groceries, kids, etc. i rarely use a car during the week, but i wouldn't live some place that didn't offer an attached garage or an underground spot. the key here is *offer*. maybe i go from 2 to 1 car? sure, but there has to be an option. imo. Right, and that's your opinion, as you stated. I'm just disappointed that this location...which is THE most transit friendly of all Cleveland locations...is perhaps a no-go without attached parking. I'd hope that the draw and amenities (transit and otherwise) to this location would elicit enough unique demand that people would be willing to walk around the block to fetch their ride. I 100% agree. If we continue to build every new development with a garage, why is the incentive to people to reduce a car or stop using their car all together?
December 6, 200618 yr i still think that having an attached parking in cleveland is a good thing and that the developer will have a much easier time selling these units. many people who use transit all the time still don't like to walk 3 blocks [in freezing rain, at 3am, alone] with groceries, kids, etc. i rarely use a car during the week, but i wouldn't live some place that didn't offer an attached garage or an underground spot. the key here is *offer*. maybe i go from 2 to 1 car? sure, but there has to be an option. imo. Right, and that's your opinion, as you stated. I'm just disappointed that this location...which is THE most transit friendly of all Cleveland locations...is perhaps a no-go without attached parking. I'd hope that the draw and amenities (transit and otherwise) to this location would elicit enough unique demand that people would be willing to walk around the block to fetch their ride. I 100% agree. If we continue to build every new development with a garage, why is the incentive to people to reduce a car or stop using their car all together? i guess i think that this has to be more evolutionary in nature. there are very few cities in the world that are truly car-free, where having a car is a huge liability, cost, inconvienence, etc. Although it makes sense in my mind to build mixed uses, TOD, etc., there are a lot of activities that are still outside of the downtown proper and not easily accessible by transit. Maybe in 15 years as more ammenities and population is downtown, newer developments will not need parking. people have fled cleveland proper for years, and in at least some neighborhoods, including downtown, people are considering coming back from whatever far out suburb they reside in now. i think having the availability of some parking option for residences makes sense. now, you can price these spots for purchase at a rate that reflects the scarcity or the desire to limit parking.
December 6, 200618 yr i still think that having an attached parking in cleveland is a good thing and that the developer will have a much easier time selling these units. many people who use transit all the time still don't like to walk 3 blocks [in freezing rain, at 3am, alone] with groceries, kids, etc. i rarely use a car during the week, but i wouldn't live some place that didn't offer an attached garage or an underground spot. the key here is *offer*. maybe i go from 2 to 1 car? sure, but there has to be an option. imo. Right, and that's your opinion, as you stated. I'm just disappointed that this location...which is THE most transit friendly of all Cleveland locations...is perhaps a no-go without attached parking. I'd hope that the draw and amenities (transit and otherwise) to this location would elicit enough unique demand that people would be willing to walk around the block to fetch their ride. I 100% agree. If we continue to build every new development with a garage, why is the incentive to people to reduce a car or stop using their car all together? i guess i think that this has to be more evolutionary in nature. there are very few cities in the world that are truly car-free, where having a car is a huge liability, cost, inconvienence, etc. Although it makes sense in my mind to build mixed uses, TOD, etc., there are a lot of activities that are still outside of the downtown proper and not easily accessible by transit. Maybe in 15 years as more ammenities and population is downtown, newer developments will not need parking. people have fled cleveland proper for years, and in at least some neighborhoods, including downtown, people are considering coming back from whatever far out suburb they reside in now. i think having the availability of some parking option for residences makes sense. now, you can price these spots for purchase at a rate that reflects the scarcity or the desire to limit parking. WHY?? don't we already have MORE THAN ENOUGH parking garages. How about doing a marketing deal/colloboration with the existing lots?? That is a win-win situation for both. No new parking spaces are built and the current garages increase income as they will service the new homes coming onto the market. If the current garages want to take it a step further by adding "concierge" services, like valet, assigned parking for buildings on the lower levels, etc. that is an additional plus. This isn't rocket science!
December 7, 200618 yr ^Amen to all that, and Ryan McKenzie can step in with some City Wheels to add to the other transportation options that are already available. I'm basically just asking that they test the market before gutting another building near Public Square for parking. Maybe he can sell 20 units without parking in house. If he can only sell 2, then I'll shut my yap!
December 9, 200618 yr I went to a christmas party thrown by Mr. Howells and other investors last night in the Park Building and the model suite is completed. Not necessarily what I prefer design-wise, but it means they are full go on this project.
December 9, 200618 yr They have a large new sign up on the building that says "Do Not Open Until January 2007" (or something to that effect...)
Create an account or sign in to comment