As for the Hessler crew--they just seem to be a loud minority.   Hopefully an easy compromise can be made, such as keeping a high number of bordering trees, but I'm guessing they'll want more.

 

I don't see that any compromise needs to be made with them.  One major one already has- the project was downscaled along the north side of the road based on their whining.

I would have liked to have been at the meeting.  I sure there was an extensive discussion of landscaping as there should have been.  However, given the "tone" of Litt's (what I had hoped would have been fact based given I was not there) article, it appears all they discussed was this issue.  It is clear that, based on his article earlier in the day (even before the meeting) he had a personal agenda regarding this issue and this colored his later reporting.  That is fine, but right now I am looking for facts rather than opinions.  I would have liked more reporting on the design boards impression of the actual buildings.  Boy sometime Litt does not even try to be subtle when he has a point he wants to get across.

I just don't understand WTF Hessler residents are worrying about here.  You don't want 10 story towers abutting your property line, fine I get it.  But we're talking 4 story buildings 100 feet from their property lines.  JFC.  I wonder if the Hessler residents there even represent the views of most Hessler residents.

 

At this point, if the Hessler complaints slow this down, it's the city's/CWRU fault.  I don't know anything about their stale purchase option, but putting that aside, I doubt the Hessler folks really have any legal standing to veto this.

 

I wish this town would put more thought into landscaping/streetscaping intially;

 

Agreed.  The state of landscape design in this town is pretty abysmal, IMHO.

 

Boy sometime Litt does not even try to be subtle when he has a point he wants to get across.

 

Um, yes, it's almost like he's the PD's art/architecture critic. ;)

I looked at apartments on Hessler a year or two ago by I believe Janice Gogger but may have been someone else.  I mentioned how cool the area will be after Uptown opens up and she laughed and said that they had failed over the past 20 years and that it won't happen.  There were a few apartments that she said she would not rent at all because she needed to preserve their historic character and did not want anyone to live there.  She just seemed a bit too protective of her little street complaining about CIA students across the street and just pissed in general about any kind of change.  Whoever owns buildings on Hessler will probably see their property values rise because of the project and they need to get a grip that they live by a university, an art school, and a music school and can not block any kind of development that will dense up the area. 

 

I have dreamed that someday this project would become a reality and it seems like my wish will come true.  My main question is what will they do to the triangle for their mini east 4th alley?  It is pretty ugly right now and will need some work to look decent compared to the new building on the south side of Euclid.  None of the images provide any hints but it looks pretty dreary right now.

I really like the plan for the most part, but I don't really understand the insistence on the "entertainment alley".  Why not front the active uses onto Euclid?

Strap Hanger...I don't have a problem with Litt having opinions or expressing them in a strong manner...like you said, that is his job.  Quite often, however, he is just "sneaky" in expressing them.  Again, at this point I thought the reporting should be more fact based but, because it is clear he has this landscaping agenda (again, clearly expressed even before the meeting), he neglected reporting on other aspects of the meeting and the project which I would like to know about (for example what was Maron's response when the board members stood on the table and started spitting on him).  Again I wish I had been at the meeting.  I have found in the past when  reading PD reporting on a meeting which I actually attended,  it was like the reporter and I were at two different events.

^That makes sense.  I wish I were at the meeting too to hear all of the presentation and the back and forth.

 

I really like the plan for the most part, but I don't really understand the insistence on the "entertainment alley". Why not front the active uses onto Euclid?

 

I wonder if MRN is a little too obsessed with E4th as a model.  I had assumed that the commercial spaces would open both onto Euclid and the alley (as opposed to a double row of spaces) which could allow the Euclid frontage to remain lively, but definitely something to worry about.

I really like the plan for the most part, but I don't really understand the insistence on the "entertainment alley". Why not front the active uses onto Euclid?

 

If the concept is even close to what they had originally proposed, it will be much more than an "alley" even if that is what they choose to call it.  IIRC, it was more like a giant plaza similar in scope to Fountain Square in Cincy.

^That makes sense.  I wish I were at the meeting too to hear all of the presentation and the back and forth.

 

I wonder if MRN is a little too obsessed with E4th as a model.  I had assumed that the commercial spaces would open both onto Euclid and the alley (as opposed to a double row of spaces) which could allow the Euclid frontage to remain lively, but definitely something to worry about.

 

Hi StrapHanger -

 

The commercial spaces are designed with glass walls, with the idea being that people can look through them from Euclid to the Alley and from the Alley to Euclid. There also are places where pedestrians can pass through the building, to get from Euclid to the Alley.

 

I don't know where individual tenants' doors will be. But during the design review meeting this morning, the development team expressed interest in having commercial spaces accessible from both sides.

 

Michelle

^Great to hear that.  Thanks, Michelle for reading this thread and providing the extra info.

I've heard Trader Joe's isn't even considering expansion opportunities right now outside the coasts.

The concept of the alleyway doesn't bother me, really. They are activating both sides of Euclid, but the idea of an alleyway means an additional corridor of activity on what is now surface parking. If it is built out how Michelle describes (with pass-through possibilities and high visibility of both sides, this could be a great way to expand the footprint of the project right off the bat. I think it also increases the likelihood that some more aesthetic improvements will be made to the lower parts of that existing retail strip, which would mean three strips of retail instead of two.

 

P.S. Michelle Jarboe is the best thing to happen to the PD since Dick Feagler announced his retirement :)

^I can buy that, but another question this all raises is the amount of new retail space this is going to bring on line.  I'm sure MRN and their lenders have conducted all sorts of market analyses, but I really wonder what we're going to end up with and if it's going to cannibalize other commercial areas.  All to say, I'm not sure we want three strips of retail on that stretch or can support them with quality tenants.  I am very eager to be wrong.

 

P.S. Michelle Jarboe is the best thing to happen to the PD since Dick Feagler announced his retirement :)

 

^^ That's valid, but I'd counter that there's not a great deal of non-restaurant retail on the city's east side to pilfer. A couple of places on Shaker Square, a couple on Cedar-Fairmount, galleries in Little Italy, several (but kinda specialized) on Coventry ... dunno, if we're talking clothing, homeware, books, media, I would say your closest significant competition is Severance, Beachwood Place and Legacy; it seems like Uptown could capture a great deal of the existing University Circle, Little Italy, Case and western Heights household buying.

 

I think it's smart to be wary, but if planned well (and the Marons' track record speaks to careful planning), I would argue that the chances of drawing in significant customer interest and thus significant tenant interest would actually increase as you add more spaces. It increases the likelihood of people doing "destination shopping" here, in addition to the most proximate residents doing most of their shopping here.

I have someone who wants to open a retail restaurant in UC (not Little Italy) and can tell you the options are very limited right now.

I think it's smart to be wary, but if planned well (and the Marons' track record speaks to careful planning), I would argue that the chances of drawing in significant customer interest and thus significant tenant interest would actually increase as you add more spaces. It increases the likelihood of people doing "destination shopping" here, in addition to the most proximate residents doing most of their shopping here.

 

Not to quibble, but the Maron's track record is attracting restaurant/bar/entertainment tenants to the their retail space. Period.  I'm excited about B&N- that will be a big amenity there, and I hope you are right and that this becomes a retail shopping destination, but I'm not super confident that's where this is headed.  I'm really sad to say that I think parking is one reason why (more precisely, a perceived lack of convenient parking).  One thing that would help it along (just as in downtown): a sizable infusion of residents.  Which is why 4 story apartment buildings along this long stretch of Euclid strikes me as a little timid.  Seriously though, I am ready to be impressed.  And I can very well imagine the place evolving over time.

Anyone want to organize a protest of Hessler Rd. residents.  I'll fly up from NOLA to join. 

Maybe they will move out and community builders, rather than isolationists, will move in. 

 

Euclid Corridor Design Review Committee approves Uptown architecture, but hammers developer for lack of detail

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/04/euclid_corridor_design_review.html

 

the Marons received predictable and fair criticism for the incompleteness of their presentation, which lacked detail on everything from parking to drainage and garbage pickup.

 

 

...

 

The Swiss cheese presentation left the developers vulnerable to criticism from activists in Hessler Road neighborhood who attended the meeting. Some would be only too happy to see the project delayed and reduced, even though the developers have already cut back the scale of apartments in response to previous comments from residents.

 

After the meeting, Janice Cogger, a Hessler resident, said she wouldn't be at all concerned if neighborhood opposition forced the Marons to halt the development temporarily.

 

She said she was convinced the developers could retain the complex, 11-part financing package they painstakingly assembled over the past two years in the midst of a credit crisis and the worst recession since the Depression.

 

"This project can go into next year," she said.

 

 

I agree. Let's show up at the planning commission as wearing buttons or stickers that read...

 

"PAIN: People Against Inflexible Nimbys"

 

It's time to inflict some pain (emotionally speaking) on those who have nothing else to say but "Not In My Back Yard" no matter what's proposed!

 

^Agreed.  Those who oppose progress for the city at large, especially a project that will help capitalize on arguably Ohio's most under utilized asset (the cultural mecca that is UC) are quite frankly selfish.  Foolish selfish people too.  They above all others stand to gain the most in increased market value of their property, vibrancy of their neighborhood, increased amenities in the form of shopping (hopefully as others have pointed out a grocery store) and yet another high caliber cultural tenant in MOCA.  I really don't understand these people... would they prefer parking lots and vestibules of blight??

It's pretty clear the Hessler folks want to maintain their quiet little island w/ little contact w/ the outside world.  The light traffic and little noise that currently exists w/ the empty lot/parking lots suits them fine, and they want to keep it that way.  Development of any kind is a threat and they will fight it all... It's too bad because I really like Hessler court as a historical, neat little street.  But its leaders are very selfish, close-minded and development killers... I constantly ask myself: why so many people and groups dominate Cleveland and Ohio...

 

 

Otherwise, I'm thrilled MRN is moving forward with this.  I think the landscaping piece will be worked out.  Clearly the Maron's track record on E. 4th is great where, mind you, they didn't build a single property but retrofitted old buildings -- so uptown is new territory for them.  But their start small and develope into something much larger is clearly the formula that should be followed by other developers in this town (... hmmm, and Bob Starks is doing what in Cleveland these days???)

This is the first I've heard of these "Hessler folks". I'll have to take a drive over there and see for myself, but it really sounds like they have a suburb in the middle of the city and they don't want it to change.

Before we begin looting nearby riot stores for pitchforks, torches, tar, and feathers, and head for Hessler Street, keep in mind a few things (especially you up and coming urban planners):

 

- There has been a long and uneasy history between Hessler property owners and Case/UCI, and folks have long memories of attempts in the late 60, early 70s to eminent domain, urban renew, and generally parking lot the heck out of that street. They battled Case/UCI for decades. And for us outsiders, would you rather see what you have now on Hessler or a row of dorms like the ones built on Juniper?

 

- Early plans for "the beach" were for 6-7 story buildings with surface parking behind.  But, since there are already concerns about parking for the currently-planned lower-density development, I doubt that surface parking would have sufficed for the denser development.

 

- Given this history, the fact that the developers didn't have information at hand about parking, garbage and service access, and landscaping and buffer spaces (all things that are of great importance to surrounding neighbors) was a pretty big mistake.

 

Learn from this, ye young planners, architects, and developers!

^they may have been right then, but they are wrong now

But is Hessler's objections based on the fact that the lot will be developed or on the lack of detail in the plans in terms of what exactly will be seen behind them?  If it is the former, they should be put in their place.  If it is the latter, I can understand their argument.

But is Hessler's objections based on the fact that the lot will be developed or on the lack of detail in the plans in terms of what exactly will be seen behind them?

 

That's a little hard to tell based on this most recent article alone, but based on my understanding of the history of this project, the objections stem from the paucity of information about the landscape architecture which will most affect the project's neighbors.

 

^they may have been right then, but they are wrong now

 

It really doesn't matter whether they are wrong now. My point is that when you are dealing with the intersection of public opinion (on the part of the Hessler residents) and project plans, it is unwise to present an admittedly "half baked" plan to an already skeptical audience.

^Thanks Avogadro for the perspective; their street is a jewel and I admire them for holding tight while the institutions around them pretty much destroyed UC as a residential environment (UC is great, but a cohesive neighborhood it is not). But I just don't understand what they want at this point.  The scale of the current proposal is puny.  Four stories, located 100 feet from your rear property line.  And I don't really understand how any landscape scheme can be worse than the gravel parking lot there now.  Regarding parking- if Hessler demanded a residential parking permit scheme for their street, I would totally understand.

 

I think it's not worth getting upset about anyway because I doubt the Hessler folks really have the power to hold this up at this point.

 

But a big question- what gives them power in the first place?  Is it just design review taking their objections into consideration?

 

Related comment- the City of Cleveland needs to join the modern age and post its zoning code on its web site in an easy to navigate format.  Even a 200 page PDF would be easier to use than the garbage link they have up there now.  Unless I just can't find the right site.

They may have conerns about how the developers will treat the border between the rear of Hessler's residences and the rear of the proposed buildings.  Will there be a fence?  What kind?  People who own properties like that are very conscious of these types of things.  Another concern might be the parking/placement of trailers, construction equipment, etc. during the building phase.  I really don't blame these residents for having such concerns.  Howere, like I said, if they just don't want ANYTHING to be built on those lot's, they can go... (profanity not included).

The Hessler folks are notoriously anti-development.  They've opposed just about every Case development project that remotely approached the street, including the Peter Lewis (Gehry) building, the George Dively (Weatherhead's executive education) building, and every attempted development of the vacant parking lot at 4th and Euclid. 

The Hessler folks are notoriously anti-development.  They've opposed just about every Case development project that remotely approached the street, including the Peter Lewis (Gehry) building, the George Dively (Weatherhead's executive education) building, and every attempted development of the vacant parking lot at 4th and Euclid. 

 

Isn't this supposed to be "Ford and Euclid"?

 

 

Yes, my mistake.

I went into the UCI office at mayfield and euclid today because i noticed new uptown renderings set up.  They had a bunch of large prints of renderings including some that were not posted online.  They also had floorplans for the apartments.  The girl setting it up said that groundbreaking will occur in July and that includes the demolition of the corner building where MOCA will go.  It is looking good, I'm waiting to sign a lease in 2 years

^awesome.

Oh and the apartment floorplans include a lot of studios, 1 bedroom and some 2 bedroom so it looks like it will be affordable and not too crazy luxury oriented.  This kind of housing option is really needed in this area.  It is either too nice like at Park Lane Villa or too junky in Little Italy.  Students have to go up into the heights for better quality affordable apartments.

Oh and the apartment floorplans include a lot of studios, 1 bedroom and some 2 bedroom so it looks like it will be affordable and not too crazy luxury oriented.  This kind of housing option is really needed in this area.  It is either too nice like at Park Lane Villa or too junky in Little Italy.  Students have to go up into the heights for better quality affordable apartments.

 

i don't think these will be "affordable" in that sense.  although apparently the numbers aren't finalized, i heard $1.50-$2/sq ft/month.  they are basing the pricing on the success on park lane units and the high demand.

From yesterday's zoning meeting:

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/agenda/2010/pdf/crr7-6-10.pdf

^  Wait, what? Did I read that wrong, or are there a "required" number of parking spots? Does the city zoning ordinance really require parking allocations for buildings? No wonder we've managed to destroy our home with parking lots.

 

Boy, oh, boy, wouldn't I love to get into reformation of the zoning ordinance. Required setback? Why on earth would you need something like this in anything but a residential neighborhood?

More news...

 

Landscape architect James Corner and Field Operations firm appointed to design public spaces in Cleveland's Uptown project

Published: Wednesday, July 07, 2010, 2:28 PM   

Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

 

It's been clear for years that project sponsors in Cleveland's Uptown development have been aiming high in architectural standards for new buildings in the pivotal project. Architects with international reputations working on various aspects of Uptown include Farshid Moussavi of London, England; and Stanley Saitowitz of San Francisco.

 

Now, at long last, public spaces in the eight-acre development will also have a distinguished author. Ann Zoller, director of the non-profit ParkWorks, announced today that James Corner of New York and Philadelphia, head of the landscape architecture firm Field Operations, will design outdoor spaces at Uptown.

 

Corner, one of the nation's leading landscape architects, led the design of the High Line, a highly acclaimed park mounted atop an elevated rail line on the lower West Side of Manhattan in New York.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/07/james_corner_and_field_operati.html

 

 

^Awesome news!  Great to hear that the open space won't just be leftover land the way it's often treated.

I find it almost wasteful that this prime real estate is only going to go up three stories.. :/

^ Wait, what? Did I read that wrong, or are there a "required" number of parking spots? Does the city zoning ordinance really require parking allocations for buildings? No wonder we've managed to destroy our home with parking lots.

 

Boy, oh, boy, wouldn't I love to get into reformation of the zoning ordinance. Required setback? Why on earth would you need something like this in anything but a residential neighborhood?

 

While common overseas, many more U.S. cities are adopting maximum parking requirements rather than minimums to promote walkability, transit and reduce costs for landowners and developers.

 

Perhaps Cleveland wants us to spend more on pavement, stormwater run-off management and infrastructure, EPA cleanup mandates for road salt discharges into Lake Erie, etc. etc.

 

Glad to see Cleveland is right on top of things.

^ So does anyone know what the results of the BZA meeting were? I saw earlier in the thread that groundbreaking will start in July, but since that's here now, is the project postponed?

Developer MRN Ltd. to break ground Monday on Uptown project in University Circle

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- After decades of discussions and nearly five years of planning, a developer finally is ready to build homes, stores and restaurants along Euclid Avenue in University Circle.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/07/developer_mrn_ltd_to_break_gro.html

I have lived in University Circle for the past 4 years and am so glad this day has finally come.  I had heard that a July groundbreaking would take place and was getting a bit nervous at time went on but I am really glad to hear this news.

Wow...after all these years and so many false starts, looks like that parking lot is finally going to be developed. Awesome news.

hallelujah.

 

funky, modern (and curving around a bit?).

 

two thumbs up!

 

It is going to be great to have Coventry, LI and Uptown all within walking distance of each other..... coupled with the fact that the Healthline and Red Line offer easy and quick access to downtown from those locations.  This is a great addition to our urban fabric.  With all the developement (Coltman, Circle 118, Uptown, MOCA, UH construction, CCF construction), that stretch of Euclid which runs through UC will be almost unrecognizable from what it was just 5 years ago.

I am so excited for this.  I'm not gonna get to enjoy it really cause I should be outta UC by the time it gets all built, but I'm glad at least some of it's happening after I've been here for 8 years!!!!!

I know I know I know they just started yesterday but could someone post visuals (pics) of the areas where apt will go..thanks

^You can use the Google Maps streetview tool to view it.  The location is along Euclid Avenue immediately to the east of the Mayfield/Ford intersection.  One building will go on the surface lots on the NE corner of that intersection and another building will go roughly where the strip mall is on the SE corner of that intersection, but slightly more to the east because of the MOCA building planned right at that intersection.