^That renderring is really brutal in my view point.  Living in Medina, I see stuff like that every day.  But that is where it belongs, Medina, not downtown Cleveland. 

 

You're such an OIMBY.

Is the planning commission out of the picture at this point?  Can they not say "Guys, we told you once and we'll tell you again, this design is not appropriate.  We don't live in an anarchy.  You don't get to ignore us."  How can there be such a disconnect on the part of CSU and the developers?  If cost is an issue, build less of them.  Public institutions like CSU should not be involved in making downtown look like Twinsburg.  If everyone knows this is wrong, why is it impossible to do what's right?

The University of Akron builds housing like Spicer Dorms which would look great in Cleveland.

Is the planning commission out of the picture at this point?  Can they not say "Guys, we told you once and we'll tell you again, this design is not appropriate.  We don't live in an anarchy.  You don't get to ignore us."  How can there be such a disconnect on the part of CSU and the developers?  If cost is an issue, build less of them.  Public institutions like CSU should not be involved in making downtown look like Twinsburg.  If everyone knows this is wrong, why is it impossible to do what's right?

 

 

Unfortunately not everyone "knows" this is wrong.  Some people don't understand the importance of the built environment with regard to the development of the city.  Still others think some things are more important than others.  Like Public Square, the difference between the 1920s pictures with hundreds of people in and around PS and the 2010s where a small fraction are present has nothing to do with physical changes.  The most important thing in a city is the people, and people "Live, Work, and Play" in that order (except for the lucky ones).  Where and how they live their lives is the most important part - housing, local retail, transport.  From it recreational pieces fall into place.

 

This is a bit of what Strap and I were discussing earlier.  It is especially significant with regard to CSU.  Unlike private developers, they are going to build residential units no matter what -- if it's too costly to make them look nice then they'll need to build in more phases.  Or the city and private money can innovate and get creative.  I'm not saying I have the answer (I'm not on CSUs development team, nor the mayor, nor someone with significant finances in the picture), but I do know political process and economic development and have seen hundreds of examples where "creative financing" has been used - so when people point to that hurdle I can't help but roll my eyes.  To be blunt, that "design" is as easy and standard as the financing mechanisms they are using the build it.  There are so many other ways to do this.

Is anybody in the know that can answer 327's question?

Yeah, that rendering of the CSU project is terrible.  Is that really what these things are going to look like?  I'm not a big fan of the site plan, but I got over it because it was going to add a lot of people to the area, but if they're going to look like cheap, suburban apartments then I think I'm out.  Those buildings do not belong anywhere near downtown Cleveland.

Is anybody in the know that can answer 327's question?

 

If they're about to break ground, it's hard to imagine they don't already have every discretionary approval in hand, which would mean any Planning Commission role is over.

 

Burnham, I certainly share your tastes for urban design, but I think it's a mistake, for many reason, to paint this as "right or wrong."  I will say, though, that I have a pretty diminished view of CSU's campus planning team at this point.  I applaud them for adding all this residential (Burnham, I disagree with your view that it was inevitable), but I think they choked big time on the Student Center and the south campus housing and generally have a pretty low standard of design.  Some of this may be the trade-off between getting [more] stuff done now vs. not, but I'd guess it's  more than that.  At the risk of being accused of hating Cleveland, I think the intellectual design capital around town is still pretty thin, despite the strong efforts of ParkWorks and CPA (yeah, I know LAND Studio) and others.

 

This is relevant to many discussions we have in UO, not just this one, but I think a very useful project for an enterprising young architect or planner would be to assemble a portfolio of built work that was cheap to develop but somehow isn't garbage to look at.  A sort of best practices for bargain design and construction.  First item, FFS, don't EVER use siding with fake wood grain downtown (or, hopefully, anywhere).

The University of Akron builds housing like Spicer Dorms which would look great in Cleveland.

 

I hope you're kidding. Why are they better, because they are brick?

 

Is anybody in the know that can answer 327's question?

 

Most likely this is the look that the University wants. That being said, a planning commission really can't tell people how to design, that is a matter of opinion. I'm sure there were plenty of people who didn't want the Peter Lewis building on the Case campus.

^ That's sort of the correct answer. CSU does not need to go to Planning Commission for any project they do on campus. The only reason they present their projects to the City is to be nice. Everything CSU does is on their (state owned and controlled) property and, like some other state agencies (ODOT), they can do pretty much do whatever they want.

 

Now historically, at least the time I worked there, CSU and the contractors doing the designing would take input from the City into consideration for some of the projects.

^ That's sort of the correct answer. CSU does not need to go to Planning Commission for any project they do on campus. The only reason they present their projects to the City is to be nice. Everything CSU does is on their (state owned and controlled) property and, like some other state agencies (ODOT), they can do pretty much do whatever they want.

 

Now historically, at least the time I worked there, CSU and the contractors doing the designing would take input from the City into consideration for some of the projects.

 

Can someone verify this?

I just did.

I worked for CSU (the Architects Office) and before that, the Planning Commission

I love it when someone in the know is forced to pull out their knowledge ID card.  :speech:

Perhaps some letters to President Berkman are in order.  I paid CSU a ton of money, and I don't want it used in this manner.  The quality of this campus build-out is so awful it could impact value of my degree.  We're talking about a school that claims the #2 urban planning program in the country.  No amount of marketing can overcome a string of decisions this poor.

 

Strap, you may be right about what's available locally design-wise... evidence abounds... but this borders on gross incompetence.  They missed the point entirely.  They should be personally and professionally ashamed.  This is a disgrace in the making, and we shouldn't have to take it.     

May I suggest an Occupy CSU camp on the proposed lot?

For alumni?  You may not.

It's not the #2 urban planning program.  It's the MPA (Master's Public Administration), particularly one of the specializations that they constantly tout.

The design isn't that bad. Chester as it is right now is awful, it's basically CSU's backside where this development is going to go. As long as the building on Chester fits an urban bill, then I'm fine with it. The East 20s between Chester and Payne are dead zones now. These "townhomes" are going to be built along the street with parking hidden in the back, nothing wrong with that. The style is a tad suburban, but the layout is fine. Replace some vinyl siding with brick and a few urban decorative elements and we're good to go. In 15-20 years, or when demand permits build more units on the hidden parking.

 

Actually my biggest concern with this project is that they won't preserve the mature trees that already line these streets. Surprising as it may be, but these 4 streets surrounded by parking lots are the most tree lined streets of downtown.  see map: http://g.co/maps/nkpcb It would be a shame if these all get ripped out for construction. On the same vein, if these are preserved with the current design, it would help leaps and bounds with the finished product.

Hey, if it's truly designed as typical suburban multi-family housing, it won't last longer than 20 years anyway. :P

The design isn't that bad. Chester as it is right now is awful, it's basically CSU's backside where this development is going to go. As long as the building on Chester fits an urban bill, then I'm fine with it. The East 20s between Chester and Payne are dead zones now. These "townhomes" are going to be built along the street with parking hidden in the back, nothing wrong with that. The style is a tad suburban, but the layout is fine. Replace some vinyl siding with brick and a few urban decorative elements and we're good to go. In 15-20 years, or when demand permits build more units on the hidden parking.

 

Actually my biggest concern with this project is that they won't preserve the mature trees that already line these streets. Surprising as it may be, but these 4 streets surrounded by parking lots are the most tree lined streets of downtown.  see map: http://g.co/maps/nkpcb It would be a shame if these all get ripped out for construction. On the same vein, if these are preserved with the current design, it would help leaps and bounds with the finished product.

 

I agree about the design. Its fine to me.

 

Replace some vinyl siding with brick and a few urban decorative elements and we're good to go.

 

Maybe we are, but will they do that?  Do they even realize how important that is, how it reflects on the institution, the city and the state? 

What 3 buildings are being built first? The three fronting Chester, or the group of three on the far west side. I always assumed the later because those require no demolitions.

What 3 buildings are being built first? The three fronting Chester, or the group of three on the far west side. I always assumed the later because those require no demolitions.

 

 

http://www.csuohio.edu/news/releases/2011/11/14951.html

All 9 buildings are scheduled to be 'built' (physically constructed and open for the public) at the same time. 

 

At the meeting, I remembered the architect, in response to a question by Tony Coyne or David Bowens, stating that the units would open all at the same time but the press release above says there's 2 phases. I well could be wrong then.  :oops:

What 3 buildings are being built first? The three fronting Chester, or the group of three on the far west side. I always assumed the later because those require no demolitions.

 

 

http://www.csuohio.edu/news/releases/2011/11/14951.html

All 9 buildings are scheduled to be 'built' (physically constructed and open for the public) at the same time. 

 

At the meeting, I remembered the architect, in response to a question by Tony Coyne or David Bowens, stating that the units would open all at the same time but the press release above says there's 2 phases. I well could be wrong then.  :oops:

 

I recall the developer stating that this is a 2 phase project and the buildings along Chester are phase 1.

^ That's sort of the correct answer. CSU does not need to go to Planning Commission for any project they do on campus. The only reason they present their projects to the City is to be nice. Everything CSU does is on their (state owned and controlled) property and, like some other state agencies (ODOT), they can do pretty much do whatever they want.

 

Now historically, at least the time I worked there, CSU and the contractors doing the designing would take input from the City into consideration for some of the projects.

 

Can someone verify this?

I just did.

I worked for CSU (the Architects Office) and before that, the Planning Commission

 

Thanks for the verification musky, However I do recall the Planning Commission stating that CSU had come to them in the 90's, asking to demolish the Doan building (which was on thier 'owned and controlled' property) and they were denied.

 

Quote from the PD

 

"Two structures, the dilapidated Doan building on East 22nd Street and CSU's Theater Arts Building at East 23rd Street and Chester, occupy the site. If Cleveland planning officials approve, Doan will be demolished."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/05/cleveland_state_university_picks_developer_for_50_million_first_phase_of_north_campus_neighborhood.html

 

Actually my biggest concern with this project is that they won't preserve the mature trees that already line these streets. Surprising as it may be, but these 4 streets surrounded by parking lots are the most tree lined streets of downtown. 

 

Good point. Alot of the trees shouldn't be touched though, and it looks like they plan on planting several new ones in areas they have to go, or were just parking lots before, so thats good.

 

That design is very bland to me, something you would find in the burbs as its be stated numerous times. Some progress is better then no progress, let's just hope it looks better once it gets built :-D

People on here still seem to be ragging on the dorms. Do you guys still think the dorms are painful to look at? I personally would have preferred all brick but at least they kept the aluminum siding off the facade on the Euclid Avenue side. I dont think they are as bad as some make them out to be.

 

So, I wanted to present a few "random" examples of developments that have been done in various cities in the last few years (some are drawings of the eventual projects).  They are all rowhouse/townhouse in style.  Now before we argue over the different economic issues I think we can all agree that every project is unique (tax credits, local demand, developer private v nonprofit, City Government involvement) and so instead of debating how none of these other images would have been possible, I think we should take a bit of break from that and think both optimistically and creatively. 

 

Below are images from Charlotte, Baltimore, Iowa City and Chicago.  I specifically looked for variety, so we could see it can be done "anywhere".  What's amazing is that all of these examples show how designs can be "distinctly urban".  Or, at least they show that there is a spectrum and that budget and vision have to be balanced.  Materials and design elements can be changed, made more or less elaborate, and the budget can also evolve depending on the priorities of the developer. 

 

 

After looking at the 4 images, there is a fifth that I specifically included because of its location.  Maplewood is a neighborhood of Rochester about 3.5 miles away from the CBD, so not at all downtown.  Take a look at the design of these units.  Brick all the up for 3 floors, bay windows, detailed roofs with only a slight angle (for those who want to pull our the "snow" card...  this is Rochester).  These are infinitely better than what is going to be developed in Cleveland's CBD, just 10 blocks from skyscrapers and a stones throw from hundreds of millions in investments to infrastructure.  The budget and the vision of a project must work together, and of course economic constraints exist, but I think CSU should be taking the long term value of good design into account here.  Small changes to materials and design do incur a premium on costs (say, 3.5% for more brick, 7% for more brick and additional architectural elements) etc. but these changes won't be added later, and you really do get one shot at these kinds of things.  That's why it's so important to do them right from the start.

I personally dont like those designs either. The second picture is very bland, and only two stories. Cleveland state is building 4 stories. The large stairway on the 3rd picture would not fit in well there, and would push the building further away from the street. And the other ones are just kind of blah.  I do like the last ones though, good find. If they just moved them closer to the curb and added one more floor they'd be perfect!

that's what I have not seen...  pics of the finished csu dorms...  looks good to me, have to go check out euclid when I get home...

 

thanks for the above examples of what you like...  the one to me, that has major separation from what csu is doing is the rochester pic... 

I personally dont like those designs either. The second picture is very bland, and only two stories. Cleveland state is building 4 stories. The large stairway on the 3rd picture would not fit in well there, and would push the building further away from the street. And the other ones are just kind of blah.  I do like the last ones though, good find. If they just moved them closer to the curb and added one more floor they'd be perfect!

 

 

I meant to post those to show how varied the options can be.  The conversation of "what is urban" could fill infinite forum posts (on another thread, of course), and is the topic of perpetual discussion.  However, in my opinion, one of the most important pieces of urban design (beyond liveability and density) is varied architecture, the result of cities having developed organically block by block.  As a result you could walk a 500 foot stretch of a road and pass 7 kinds of architecture, 3 types of zoning, various colors, uses, (smells and languages!).  The degradation of the city came  when we tried to organize it.  Financial districts, entertainment districts, residential neighborhoods and later bedroom communities (suburbs). 

 

In a nutshell: mass produced, homogeneous, homes in the suburbs were the antithesis of the city.  Acres were planned, residents could chose House A or House B, and the world became very beige.  I believe that a simple diversification of the materials and architecture of the units could make an enormous difference.  It may seem a little like we're pretending this happened organically (read: Variations on a Theme Park by Michael Sorkin) but I would prefer fictional diversity to genuine uniformity.

 

As always, to illustrate my point:

 

 

thats one of my favorite books! great post. exactly my thoughts.

Anyone been through downtown Berea? Those townhouses must have been built somewhat recently, but they offer a good (and varied) urban feel.

 

That would definitely be ideal, but I just want something that doesn't have aluminum panels.

Anyone been through downtown Berea? Those townhouses must have been built somewhat recently, but they offer a good (and varied) urban feel.

 

That would definitely be ideal, but I just want something that doesn't have aluminum panels.

 

Which townhouses? The ones at the downtown triangle? If so, they have been there for at least 10 years. But you are correct, they definitely have an urban feel. The folks designing the buildings off Chester should take notes.

I know Litt didn't like them, but the recent Case dorms are another good model.

I personally dont like those designs either. The second picture is very bland, and only two stories. Cleveland state is building 4 stories. The large stairway on the 3rd picture would not fit in well there, and would push the building further away from the street. And the other ones are just kind of blah.  I do like the last ones though, good find. If they just moved them closer to the curb and added one more floor they'd be perfect!

 

 

I meant to post those to show how varied the options can be.  The conversation of "what is urban" could fill infinite forum posts (on another thread, of course), and is the topic of perpetual discussion.  However, in my opinion, one of the most important pieces of urban design (beyond liveability and density) is varied architecture, the result of cities having developed organically block by block.  As a result you could walk a 500 foot stretch of a road and pass 7 kinds of architecture, 3 types of zoning, various colors, uses, (smells and languages!).  The degradation of the city came  when we tried to organize it.  Financial districts, entertainment districts, residential neighborhoods and later bedroom communities (suburbs). 

 

In a nutshell: mass produced, homogeneous, homes in the suburbs were the antithesis of the city.  Acres were planned, residents could chose House A or House B, and the world became very beige.  I believe that a simple diversification of the materials and architecture of the units could make an enormous difference.  It may seem a little like we're pretending this happened organically (read: Variations on a Theme Park by Michael Sorkin) but I would prefer fictional diversity to genuine uniformity.

 

As always, to illustrate my point:

 

 

 

We also need to look at the time, place, target audience, financial situations, prefered/preferential building materials used at that time, residential and neighborhood growth and business patterns etc..etc...etc.. when those homes in DC were built compared to the apartments on Chester?  There are a whole lot of variables.

 

For shits and giggle, lets say a developer built the perfect uber UrbanOhio infill project.  Would the cost of building development translate into a marketable & affordable development in Clevelands current economy?  ROI?

 

ROI is irrelevant on UrbanOhio  You know that, MTS.

ROI is irrelevant on UrbanOhio  You know that, MTS.

Darn....you're right!

This project is getting significant support from the public sector.  Are you guys worried about ROI for the dorms too?  They're dorms, at a public school.  Public-private partnership does not mean developers get to do whatever they want.  Yes they get the profits, but those profits aren't the only interest at play.  We're all putting money into this-- you, me, the lot of us.  If a public board says it's too suburban for downtown, that should count for something.  I love the fact that at least someone on one of these boards is willing to stand up for better standards in our city, instead of accepting more garbage for the sake of profiting one company.  That has to end.  If the people want to make a better investment with our money, that's our prerogative.  The quality of this development impacts the value of everything else downtown.  Sorry, this is not a developer-ocracy.  If they want total control over every decision, they can spend their own money. 

This project is getting significant support from the public sector.  Are you guys worried about ROI for the dorms too?  They're dorms, at a public school.  Public-private partnership does not mean developers get to do whatever they want.  Yes they get the profits, but those profits aren't the only interest at play.  We're all putting money into this-- you, me, the lot of us.  If a public board says it's too suburban for downtown, that should count for something.  I love the fact that at least someone on one of these boards is willing to stand up for better standards in our city, instead of accepting more garbage for the sake of profiting one company.  That has to end.  If the people want to make a better investment with our money, that's our prerogative.  The quality of this development impacts the value of everything else downtown.  Sorry, this is not a developer-ocracy.  If they want total control over every decision, they can spend their own money. 

 

First don't make assumptions.  I'm not saying it's its the best, but it's not the worst taking lots (things I think about for a development) into consideration.  Would I like to see something else, built?  HELL YES.  But in reality, that is what the developer proposed and was approved.  Do I like it, not really.  Just because we - those of us on UrbanOhio - say its not designed for its location, doesn't mean jack sh!t, since not one of us, that I know of, sits at the negotiating table.

 

Yes, I'm all for high quality, high density, mixed use developments in the city as a whole, but some of us here need to take a step back and look at both sides of the situation along with the economic times we live in.

^ I agree 100%.

People on here still seem to be ragging on the dorms. Do you guys still think the dorms are painful to look at? I personally would have preferred all brick but at least they kept the aluminum siding off the facade on the Euclid Avenue side. I dont think they are as bad as some make them out to be.

 

 

Thanks indeed for posting that!  I think it's the first pic of the finished Euclid facade to be posted on UO, and I admit, from your photo, it looks better than I expected/feared.  It's still not awesome, but the only super garbage-y part appears to the far corner visible in the photo, that flattened gray corner with the white windows.  And I guess retail ground floor retail space there would have been nice too (maybe there is some?).  But a pretty solid street wall, which is great.

 

Anyone have photos of the exterior of the finished student center from Euclid?

 

Burnham, I think you're largely making an aesthetic argument regarding the townhouse designs, so there's plenty of room to disagree.  The examples you show have the same mass-produced/interchangeability of the suburban horror you portray, they're just dressed up in different, sometimes fancier, clothes.  We could have a whole debate about "authenticity," which I don't really want it to have, but my personal preference is to avoid superficial mimicry of organic urban accretion most of the time, and I readily recognize it as taste, not "right or wrong."  What's more objective is the expensiveness of the materials, whatever style the developer goes with, and that's tied up in the business discussion.

People on here still seem to be ragging on the dorms. Do you guys still think the dorms are painful to look at? I personally would have preferred all brick but at least they kept the aluminum siding off the facade on the Euclid Avenue side. I dont think they are as bad as some make them out to be.

 

 

Thanks indeed for posting that!  I think it's the first pic of the finished Euclid facade to be posted on UO, and I admit, from your photo, it looks better than I expected/feared.  It's still not awesome, but the only super garbage-y part appears to the far corner visible in the photo, that flattened gray corner with the white windows.  And I guess retail ground floor retail space there would have been nice too (maybe there is some?).  But a pretty solid street wall, which is great.

 

Anyone have photos of the exterior of the finished student center from Euclid?

 

Burnham, I think you're largely making an aesthetic argument regarding the townhouse designs, so there's plenty of room to disagree.  The examples you show have the same mass-produced/interchangeability of the suburban horror you portray, they're just dressed up in different, sometimes fancier, clothes.  We could have a whole debate about "authenticity," which I don't really want it to have, but my personal preference is to avoid superficial mimicry of organic urban accretion most of the time, and I readily recognize it as taste, not "right or wrong."  What's more objective is the expensiveness of the materials, whatever style the developer goes with, and that's tied up in the business discussion.

 

In addition, hes comparing individual homes to a multi unite apartment complex.  Those brownstones were built as one family units.  You cannot compare the two products.

Just to clarify, I'm very familiar with the economic realities of development projects today, and understand fully that the "sweet spot" between cost and vision can sometimes be very narrow (you add one square foot per closet, use a new type of door, or alter the roof X degrees and the costs are too high, private equity backs out -- and you're done.)

 

With regard to MTS questioning the DC rowhouses v. the CSU dorms and all other references to the townhomes I posted earlier: I'm trying to show that there are many varieties of architecture and materials that exist out there.  That projects ALWAYS have to search for a sweet spot between what they can afford, and what in a perfect world they would want.  The idea that along that spectrum townhouses that look incredibly suburban with large parking lots behind them were the "final" product says to me that either this project is being done without the needed resources to do it properly, OR that those in charge do not have the right vision. 

 

I won't pretend I'm sitting at any table in a backroom -- but I think to say "Just because we say its not designed for its location, doesn't mean jack sh!t, since not one of us sits at the negotiating table." implies we might as well not have a forum for posting discussions.  Sure, it would be great if the "big players" were all reading these posts and taking them to heart - but that's not why we come here.

 

To be clear, I post my ideas and questions here to get the opinion of other like minded individuals.  We have had some incredible dialogues before where ideas went from comments to complete thoughts, and at some point I believe the ideas discussed here will briefly and sporadically get thrust into the public dialog.  Perhaps with better ideas and discussion even more so.  So I don't mind constructive criticism, but to simply say "what's being done is what's being done" and to conclude that there are variables we do not know, and that if those variables didn't exist we would have the best urban design principles in place, is the same kind of thinking that allowed passive citizens, governments, and non profits to watch American cities core demolished and neighborhoods split up by highways.  We should demand excellence beyond reality (as should CSU students, alum, and their Urban Studies department) in the hope that we move the bar, even just a little bit, and perhaps get something better.    In this, and in all projects.

Thank you for posting your ideas Burnham.  I think you made some excellent points with a well researched post.  It's easy to brush off constructive criticisms with thoughtless, pointless responses like "were you at the table when the deal was inked?", but that doesn't really add to the forum like your post did.

Thank you for posting your ideas Burnham.  I think you made some excellent points with a well researched post.  It's easy to brush off constructive criticisms with thoughtless, pointless responses like "were you at the table when the deal was inked?", but that doesn't really add to the forum like your post did.

Really?  OK.  Here we go again.

Just to clarify, I'm very familiar with the economic realities of development projects today, and understand fully that the "sweet spot" between cost and vision can sometimes be very narrow (you add one square foot per closet, use a new type of door, or alter the roof X degrees and the costs are too high, private equity backs out -- and you're done.)

 

With regard to MTS questioning the DC rowhouses v. the CSU dorms and all other references to the townhomes I posted earlier: I'm trying to show that there are many varieties of architecture and materials that exist out there.  That projects ALWAYS have to search for a sweet spot between what they can afford, and what in a perfect world they would want.  The idea that along that spectrum townhouses that look incredibly suburban with large parking lots behind them were the "final" product says to me that either this project is being done without the needed resources to do it properly, OR that those in charge do not have the right vision. 

 

I won't pretend I'm sitting at any table in a backroom -- but I think to say "Just because we say its not designed for its location, doesn't mean jack sh!t, since not one of us sits at the negotiating table." implies we might as well not have a forum for posting discussions.  Sure, it would be great if the "big players" were all reading these posts and taking them to heart - but that's not why we come here.

 

To be clear, I post my ideas and questions here to get the opinion of other like minded individuals.  We have had some incredible dialogues before where ideas went from comments to complete thoughts, and at some point I believe the ideas discussed here will briefly and sporadically get thrust into the public dialog.  Perhaps with better ideas and discussion even more so.  So I don't mind constructive criticism, but to simply say "what's being done is what's being done" and to conclude that there are variables we do not know, and that if those variables didn't exist we would have the best urban design principles in place, is the same kind of thinking that allowed passive citizens, governments, and non profits to watch American cities core demolished and neighborhoods split up by highways.  We should demand excellence beyond reality (as should CSU students, alum, and their Urban Studies department) in the hope that we move the bar, even just a little bit, and perhaps get something better.    In this, and in all projects.

 

Just so you know, we all have varying opinions in regard to style and design.  I get what you want to show, however, I believe that showing homes for purchase in a residential neighborhood built at X time and comparing them to an urban infill apartment complex was the wrong choice to make. 

 

As I stated before, I'm not blow away by this and I believe they could do more, but how can anyone make generalizations without full knowledge?  I to post here to discuss projects and development with like minded individuals, we all care, why else would we be here?  We should demand excellence but as you state there has to be "sweet spot" that works for all.  How do you know this isn't the "sweet spot".  Why must we be passive, I'm sure there were many planning meetings, were you in attendance at any and if so what were your thoughts/comments then?  And to that what's done is done.  What is your proposal for changing the development at this time?

While both are important, function trumps aesthetics in my book.  I hate siding, but I've also personally priced brick, so I have some sympathy, especially considering the location.  It's a fringe development at this point and a step in the right direction.

 

FWIW, I never viewed this board as a place where you shouldn't critique criticisms.  In fact, I always thought that was its strength

While both are important, function trumps aesthetics in my book.  I hate siding, but I've also personally priced brick, so I have some sympathy, especially considering the location.  It's a fringe development at this point and a step in the right direction.

 

FWIW, I never viewed this board as a place where you shouldn't critique criticisms.  In fact, I always thought that was its strength

Agreed. I think the CSU "Campus Village" is a good project. Its going to add, what, 300 more apartments to the downtown market (which is DEFINITELY needed)? And most importantly, these aren't dorms just made for CSU students. They're made for professors, downtown workers, and essentially anyone who can afford them. Its a great thing, in my book. Could it have been better? Of course. But don't let perfect be the enemy of good. "Campus Village" is a good plan. Not perfect, but good.

 

And I think Euclid Commons are fine, btw. Don't understand the big fuss over those either. They aren't perfect either, but they're good.

A week old PR, but the iron is still hot.......

 

http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=50703

 

November 9, 2011

 

News Release

Indy Developer Starts Big Cleveland Project

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio—Buckingham Companies, along with co-developer Polaris Real Estate Equities and Cleveland State University, city officials and area leaders, gathered today to break ground on the single largest residential development in Cleveland in more than three decades: the Campus Village, a new $50-million mixed-use community on the Cleveland State University Campus.

 

Located at the corner of East 23rd Street and Chester Avenue on the CSU campus, The Campus Village will feature nine buildings, 300 market-rate apartments, a swimming pool and 9,000 square feet of retail space. The Campus Village will be a modern lifestyle development designed to attract young professionals, alumni and graduate students interested in living downtown and near a campus community.

 

“This is a significant step in our ongoing process of creating a vibrant campus neighborhood,” said CSU President Ronald M. Berkman. “With 600 additional residents in the area, there will be a new energy on campus that will spark additional development throughout the surrounding area. This is a very exciting time for CSU and the City of Cleveland.”

 

Buckingham expects the first phase of construction to be completed by fall of 2012; the second phase by fall of 2013.

 

“Buckingham Companies is proud to be the co-developer with Polaris on such an important project to the campus neighborhood’s vitality, Cleveland State University, and the City of Cleveland,” said Rob Martinson, Development Manager for Buckingham. “It is our hope that the Campus Village will be the catalyst for further investment in the neighborhood’s vibrancy and re-development.”

 

The development is similar in concept to other Buckingham mixed-use communities that blend market-rate apartments with restaurant and retail space to create an urban lifestyle and housing option for students near city campuses. In Indianapolis, The Avenue near Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis is now leasing its retail space in anticipation of first occupants in January 2012.

 

###

 

About Buckingham Companies

Founded in 1984, Buckingham is a full-service, fully integrated, real estate company that includes the development, acquisition, management and construction of a wide variety of property types including multifamily, student housing and mixed-use communities. Buckingham manages nearly $1 billion of real estate assets for its own account, clients and institutional partners. More than 100 properties consisting of nearly 20 million square-feet of property and approximately 20,000 rental units nationwide comprise the managed portfolio.

 

Source: Buckingham Companies