There is a 50 seat theater/classroom in Fenn, too.

Hey everyone, I know it's not a big deal, but I still get emails sent to my one account from CSU.  This is one I got the other day about parking on campus due to the new construction.

 

CAMPUS VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION UPDATE

 

The University anticipates that construction on the Campus Village Development project will begin on Monday, November 7th, 2011.

 

The impact to on-campus parking will be as follows:

 

Lot S3 will shrink by 265 parking spaces.

 

We encourage those affected to park in South Garage, built to accommodate the loss of parking for Campus Village.

 

Lot S2 will shrink and Lot J will close for a loss of 171 spaces for Campus Village.

 

Lots S2 and S3 will now accept pre-paid hangtags only.

 

NOTE: Due to the construction, Lots S2 and S3 must be accessed off of East 21st street at Payne Court.

 

Prepaid hangtags are still available for Fall semester! Log into your CampusNet account and students may post your parking fees to your student account. You may also purchase a prepaid hangtag in the Parking & Transportation Services office on the corner of East 24th and Euclid.

 

Thank you for your patience and cooperation during this new age of development in downtown Cleveland.

 

For complete, updated information, check the Parking & Transportation website at http://www.csuohio.edu/parking.

Groundbreaking today officially moves this project into construction phase...

 

Cleveland State to begin $50M residential project

 

CLEVELAND -- Cleveland State University is embarking on a $50 million housing-retail complex that it calls the city's largest residential development in more than 30 years.

 

The groundbreaking today marks another step in Cleveland State's drive to develop student housing and shed a commuter-school image.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/11/cleveland_state_to_begin_50m_r.html

OK, which project is this? Is this one on the south side of Euclid Avenue or the one north of Chester?

North of Chester.  Which project on the south side of Euclid are you thinking of?

The $50 million development at Euclid and East 22nd that would raze Viking Hall and the 84-year-old commercial building on Euclid......

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/07/cleveland_state_university_pla.html

Oh yeah.  I suppose it's a good thing that CSU has so much going on, it is hard for even us to keep up...

^I wish they could keep the Kinko's Building.

^As I understand it, the Euclid project has a long way to go before there will be any ground breaking.

^As I understand it, the Euclid project has a long way to go before there will be any ground breaking.

 

Thats right.  Nowhere near breaking ground on a project...  Viking may come down sometime sooner though. 

I believe it is currently vacant.

Parking wasn't too bad yesterday on North Campus during the middle of the day. ;)

^please tell me your little winking guy means we are not going to have three pages of discussion regarding the parking situation around CSU again.

 

Does anybody know if that huge warehouse looking building (I think it use to house Doan Electric) is going to be torn down as part of this development?

^Don't be afraid to admit you loved the parking discussion.

 

I'm pretty sure the Doan Electric building is coming down for this.  I can appreciate how much easier (i.e. cheaper) it is for this develop a site like this as a blank slate, but always a little bittersweet for me to see something like that get knocked down.

From the site plans, it appears everything will be torn down.

The townhouses away from the main streets.

 

 

Site plan(Thank you X for finding this)

I was at the Cleveland City Planning Commission meeting last Friday (11/4) and a woman representing the Cleveland Restoration Society did ask Rob Martinson of Buckingham Co. (Co-developing with Polaris) if they had considered a rehab for the Doan Electric Building. He stated that they had, but the density was too low to be profitable.

 

Couple of other notes from that meeting:

 

-Phase 1, ie the south facing brick buildings which will line Chester, is on an expedited construction schedule and they hope to have those finished by Fall of next year (2012)

 

-They have modified the design/layout of the rear units (phase 2) per the commissions request to make them more 'urban'. Based upon the renderings I saw in that meeting they didn't make much progress in that regard. One of the commissions jokingly suggested they label the rear units 'Twinsburg', 'Solon' and 'Westlake'

 

-The spacing between the rear buildings have been altered to allow for a pedestrian walkway called 'Viking Way' that will lead to a pool

 

-The developers are currently in talks with First Energy to bury the overhead electric lines between E.21st and 24th on Chester

 

 

 

 

-They have modified the design/layout of the rear units (phase 2) per the commissions request to make them more 'urban'. Based upon the renderings I saw in that meeting they didn't make much progress in that regard. One of the commissions jokingly suggested they label the rear units 'Twinsburg', 'Solon' and 'Westlake'

 

Heheh - who said that?

 

HUBZ....are the renderings you saw of the townhomes at the meeting much different (if yes in what way) than the rendering posted above.  I hope so...those pictured have just got to go.

 

Gald to see they are thinking of burying the electrical lines...I hope this does not cost an arm and a leg and will happen.

Thanks for the meeting details, hubz1124. 

 

Here's the official CSU press release which has good renderings of the site plan and some perspective shots, some of which I don't think have yet been posted here: http://www.csuohio.edu/news/releases/2011/11/14951.html

 

The townhouses away from the main streets.

 

 

Site plan(Thank you X for finding this)

 

...Good god, what a shame...

-They have modified the design/layout of the rear units (phase 2) per the commissions request to make them more 'urban'. Based upon the renderings I saw in that meeting they didn't make much progress in that regard. One of the commissions jokingly suggested they label the rear units 'Twinsburg', 'Solon' and 'Westlake'

 

Heheh - who said that?

 

 

That was council woman Lillian Kuri

 

HUBZ....are the renderings you saw of the townhomes at the meeting much different (if yes in what way) than the rendering posted above.  I hope so...those pictured have just got to go.

 

Gald to see they are thinking of burying the electrical lines...I hope this does not cost an arm and a leg and will happen.

 

The design changes were minimal. I believe they added some vertical accents to the Town homes. As far as burying the electric lines are concerned, they said that they had budgeted that cost at around $2 million, but worked out some 'creative' ways to bring that down to less than $1 million.

Oh well...CSU has got to stop "settling" with their residental projects.

-They have modified the design/layout of the rear units (phase 2) per the commissions request to make them more 'urban'. Based upon the renderings I saw in that meeting they didn't make much progress in that regard. One of the commissions jokingly suggested they label the rear units 'Twinsburg', 'Solon' and 'Westlake'

 

Heheh - who said that?

 

 

That was council woman Lillian Kuri

 

HUBZ....are the renderings you saw of the townhomes at the meeting much different (if yes in what way) than the rendering posted above.  I hope so...those pictured have just got to go.

 

Gald to see they are thinking of burying the electrical lines...I hope this does not cost an arm and a leg and will happen.

 

The design changes were minimal. I believe they added some vertical accents to the Town homes. As far as burying the electric lines are concerned, they said that they had budgeted that cost at around $2 million, but worked out some 'creative' ways to bring that down to less than $1 million.

 

Haha, Hubs, I was there too, you were able to post this before I had a chance to ! No way, another UOer in the same room ! =)

 

A couple other quick points in case you don't want to read the entire summary:

 

- 318 apartments, 9,000 sq. ft retail

- to be built all at once, [opening late2012?]

- e. 23rd between payne and chester will be permanently closed.

- The Doan building is currently vacant.

 

Best quote from friday's meeting "Cleveland doesn't have a good track record with phase 2 in general." Lillian Kuri (again!)(works for the Cleveland Foundation)

The townhomes aren't actually that bad.  They are very similar to the ones in Victorian Village/Short North at Goodale Park in Columbus.  What makes this project disappointing is the huge parking lot between each of the townhome groups.

I wouldn't necessarily call those parking lots huge(see warehouse districts lots) and at least they are somewhat hidden. What I do like about the layout is that it appears that if these things do well, they will have room to expand by building on top of those lots. Look how nice a building would fit in those spaces.

 

-They have modified the design/layout of the rear units (phase 2) per the commissions request to make them more 'urban'. Based upon the renderings I saw in that meeting they didn't make much progress in that regard. One of the commissions jokingly suggested they label the rear units 'Twinsburg', 'Solon' and 'Westlake'

 

 

I doubt the developers/architect even understand that critique -- after all, what could *possibly* be wrong with design standards of Twinsburg, Solon and Westlake? 

I don't know who this developer is and what they have done in the past...but it just looks to me like they might have had an architect design these for some development they did in some suburb and they are now part of their portfolio....so rather than come up with a unique design, they just pulled these out since they had the rights to them as it would be cheaper to do so.  Of course this is pure speculation on my part, but they look so out of place, so that is my uninformed theory.

 

My big concern is the possibility of vinyl siding and the like.  These buildings are "made" for such a treatment.

What is on the upper floors of Norton Furniture building? This building will be almost touching this new development. Could apartments work there? Would have some nice views of the city

This is indeed another example of CSU dropping the ball design-wise.  So frustrating that we can't ever get it right.  In other news, I gotta meet this Lillian Kuri.  Based on a couple quotes here, she should be mayor.

What is on the upper floors of Norton Furniture building? This building will be almost touching this new development. Could apartments work there? Would have some nice views of the city

 

Looks like they're using a lot of space there now..... :)

 

I wouldn't necessarily call those parking lots huge(see warehouse districts lots) and at least they are somewhat hidden. What I do like about the layout is that it appears that if these things do well, they will have room to expand by building on top of those lots. Look how nice a building would fit in those spaces.

 

 

Look again at the new housing parking lots. You do realize there is more "super-lot" (as they are called by the school administration) parking adjacent to the proposed project, right?

I give them credit though for slowly removing these super-lots and building the garages. Thus freeing space for more projects like this.

I'll never understand why we try to reinvent the wheel with our city structures.  Whether or not they need more parking we should not be creating large surface lots between the units -- ever.  I have a great appreciation for what CSU has done and is planning to do with their campus, but it still baffles me how little respect is paid to the decades of Urban Policy research (ironically at CSU of all places!).

 

A grid of streets (particularly short blocks according to Jane Jacobs) creates dynamic pathways for pedestrians.  Pedestrian traffic is the key to retail prosperity.  If the aim is to make this a true neighborhood, then that goal should be #1, with parking accommodations being at the very most #2.  Design for people first.

 

Here's a 10 minute mockup of a very small change.

I cant make renderings as well as Burnham_2011 but this is what I would like to see happen in the future based on their current plans. I would like more buildings to the north, as well the building on the left take up the entire triangle shaped parking lot. This is the best I could do.

 

Regarding the townhouses, just taking off those slanted roofs and putting on rooftop decks would go a long way in making them feel less suburban (and probably more attractive to potential buyers).  Look at the townhomes at Superior and East 14th for inspiration.

Regarding the townhouses, just taking off those slanted roofs and putting on rooftop decks would go a long way in making them feel less suburban (and probably more attractive to potential buyers).  Look at the townhomes at Superior and East 14th for inspiration.

I dont agree.  Not everything need to look and/or function the same.  In addition these are apartments not condos.  Something like that could being issues with safety as well as maintenance.

 

What I dont like is those "black hole" parking lots in the middle.  They could have added another set of building in each parking lot.  Or hidden the parking on the ground floor and built the units on top.

The building designs are predictably somewhere between meh and blah, but like others said above, I'm at least happy the parking is all behind the buildings and not right on the public ROW.  From an urban design perspective, I'm not really so concerned wither the space between the buildings is parking, lawn or more buildings.  I do kind of wish East 23rd was maintained through the development though, to better integrate the whole thing into the street grid- that wouldn't even sacrifice any of the precious, precious parking.

 

Can anyone tell from the site plans or otherwise know whether the townhouses will have rear garages?  I think the site plans show garages, but I can't tell for sure.

Well I have to say that I like Burnham's layout better than the actual site plan. It makes me question the design process if someone on this forum can come up with something that to me is obviously better. I would like to think that the professional architects who come up with the site plan also came up with something similar, but it was rejected by the city or CSU for some foolish reason.

 

That being said, I don't think the proposed layout is too bad. If the north side of those back lots is eventually built upon it would resemble a housing block like those found in many European cities where you have multi-story apartments surrounding a central open area that is used for parking and/or green space.

 

My biggest problem is with those townhomes. It looks like the architect came up with something out of 1990's suburbia for inspiration. It's not that hard to look at new housing being built in other cities to get ideas that are more contemporary. This makes me question if Cleveland has any good local architects, lacks design standards, or if CSU just wants this kind of outdated look for some reason.

 

 

-They have modified the design/layout of the rear units (phase 2) per the commissions request to make them more 'urban'. Based upon the renderings I saw in that meeting they didn't make much progress in that regard. One of the commissions jokingly suggested they label the rear units 'Twinsburg', 'Solon' and 'Westlake'

 

 

That's awesome, subtle slam.

 

In my experience what happens with these university housing developments is the developer has to make their money with good profits within 20 years. Usually they sell them to the University for $1 after that.

 

That being said, they want to achieve a few key things:

1. Keep them generic as not to upset too many people, most people don't comprehend "good design" and "urbanism"

2. Keep the design and materials to typical single family housing style so that they can hire anyone with a hammer and wheelbarrow to do the construction work, keeping their investment costs down

It makes me question the design process if someone on this forum can come up with something that to me is obviously better.

 

Yeah.... but we don't have to worry about securing financing and meeting the requirements of any financing agreement when we mock up renderings.

I like Burnham's plan, but it is is waaaay underparked.  The developers are likely aiming for at least one space per unit, possibly more, depending on unit size and guest accommodation.  I doubt we can even blame financing requirements or zoning, I'm sure this is what the developers think they need to lease these things.

A couple points on parking.

 

First off, Strap, you are right that it contains fewer parking spots (probably by 1/3) however this is the crux of the issue.  If we build a city to the standards of 2011 Cleveland then it is immediately out of date.  Consequently on the flip side we cannot build in Cleveland like it's the 1930s again, but instead must balance vision and reality to develop something in between.

 

Street parking surrounding all the infrastructure will allow for a good amount of parking, and if a supplement is needed (considered important) then it could be arranged by building a garage beneath the taller/denser apartments along Chester.  Remember the rest of the units are apartments as such a single unit takes up the length of street-space of one car.

 

If a plan were built that contained 1 spot for every 1.5 units and forced people to park in adjacent areas (or opened opportunity for private developers to build garages nearby) it might harm demand in some ways.  However especially because this is a college campus most residents would not need their car nearby.

 

When I went to school I parked my car in the Football field garage about 1.5 miles from my dormitory.  Whether it was 5 degrees outside or raining, I had to walk to get it.  The result?  I used it less.  We need to plan for the Cleveland of tomorrow and take risks.  As far as financing?  I think the more times risks pay off (East 4th, Uptown, etc.) the more financiers will be willing to back up projects.  We set a self-fulfilling prophecy when we only do what we can already do.  That's why runners push an extra mile each run, or lifters add another 5lb each workout.  You have to strive beyond your limits - and CSU is one of the few institutions in Cleveland that has the capital and long term presence to take such a risk.

Well first off, I think your plan was more like one space for every 3 units :)

 

But more to the point, my heart is with you (I live car free), and I know it's a fine line between self-fulfilling dullness and reasonable accommodation of reality, but I just don't think we're there yet in terms of price points to support below-ground parking or walkability to support market rents without accessory parking in this particular location.  This is a bigger discussion that's been hashed out over the years on many threads at UO, and it's a good one, but we should probably continue it somewhere else.

 

To be perfectly honest, I think this site is a bit of dog, between the backside of CSU and everything else on Chester, so I'm mostly just happy that we will be removing a bunch of surface parking (for urban design reasons, not to punish commuters) and adding hundreds of new residents downtown to get us closer to a critical mass of amenities and demand.

A bit of a dog eh? 

 

I think that's part of the seeing things for what they are v. what they could be.  If this were a well developed urban enclave with a "Vikings Way" that eventually rivaled East Fourth, and had a beautiful pedestrian walkway as well as 300+ residents (growing to 400+ on my diagram) with many in their 20s - it could be an anchor that encouraged the development of our "arts district" in the 20s near Superior.

 

From this perspective it is situated in the Center of Euclid and Superior and could have an enormous impact on the development of the NE part of the CBD.

 

 

To be perfectly honest, I think this site is a bit of dog, between the backside of CSU and everything else on Chester, so I'm mostly just happy that we will be removing a bunch of surface parking (for urban design reasons, not to punish commuters) and adding hundreds of new residents downtown to get us closer to a critical mass of amenities and demand.

 

I completely agree. I've always disliked the location decision on this project. Given the location, the design and the parkability, this project will attract people who don't get urban design yet have enough sense in them to realize that downtowns are cooler places to live than suburbs.

^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. 

Given Cleveland States future plans, I like the location of the building. They plan on demolishing the Chester Building(right across from this site) and build a new science building fronting Chester. The Rec Center is also right there. Access to the Main Classroom has also been improved on Chester.

 

^Thanks for putting that together.  Replacing the Chester Bldg would sure help freshen that face of campus.

 

Burnham, I admire your ambition, but after picturing what this site could be for literally 20 years (and I'm not even that old a guy), I'm happy to see something breaking ground that gets some of the big things right (Chester frontage, parking in rear, at least some ground floor retail).  I'm not a design softy for most projects, but at this point I'm happy to see the ball start rolling for a non-key site.  I think it would be swell if it were planned in a way that would allow retail frontage to continue up a pedestrianized East 23rd street to accommodate your East 4th-like vision, but I believe CSU and City are focusing on the Collegetown area (i.e., south of Euclid) for that kind of energy, where there also are hundreds of students living and room for additional residential development.

And hopefully more like their longer term goal once this thing is extremely successful!...

 

(This is the best I can do with little time and very basic programs, Powerpoint/Preview on Mac)