March 13Mar 13 I don’t really think Starbucks and Edda/other local cafes compete. people are very specific about their coffee if people want Starbucks they’ll just drive to wherever it is if they’re having a slower day, want better food, a better ambiance, or want to shake it up they’ll go to Edda/local shops I don’t think having a Starbucks in OHC changes the market dynamic, just changes habits people may walk or bike more now than driving all the way to w117, downtown, or steelyard. I also like the location it’s kind of tucked away, Edda has that main corner you have to pass it first before getting there if you’re in OHC. to that end I’m curious how Starbucks will handle signage
March 13Mar 13 I do think the Starbucks is more likely to draw people who are visitors to the area for things like West Side Market that probably wouldnt be visiting a local coffee shop anyways. Or people who would usually just make coffee at home before leaving for work, now that there's the convenience of a drive-thru. And then maybe people coming to / leaving the rapid stop right there. Based on Starbucks' price and quality, I cant see anyone who frequents a local shop choosing Starbucks instead. I dont think the customer bases will overlap that much, hopefully. Edited March 13Mar 13 by daybreaker
March 13Mar 13 1 hour ago, BoomerangCleRes said: I don’t really think Starbucks and Edda/other local cafes compete. people are very specific about their coffee if people want Starbucks they’ll just drive to wherever it is if they’re having a slower day, want better food, a better ambiance, or want to shake it up they’ll go to Edda/local shops I don’t think having a Starbucks in OHC changes the market dynamic, just changes habits people may walk or bike more now than driving all the way to w117, downtown, or steelyard. I also like the location it’s kind of tucked away, Edda has that main corner you have to pass it first before getting there if you’re in OHC. to that end I’m curious how Starbucks will handle signage I think this is true. There were people worried when Starbucks opened in Lakewood across from Root Cafe. Not only is Root still there, I think there are more coffee shops in Lakewood now. Each coffee house serves a specific niche.
March 13Mar 13 46 minutes ago, freefourur said: I think this is true. There were people worried when Starbucks opened in Lakewood across from Root Cafe. Not only is Root still there, I think there are more coffee shops in Lakewood now. Each coffee house serves a specific niche. That is a valid point. My initial hesitancy was because I looked up the building name and it showed the Building that houses Chase Bank and GLBC.
March 13Mar 13 Port OK’s financing for $93.5M worth of projects — West Side Market, Superior Arts District apts By Ken Prendergast / March 13, 2025 Two transformative projects — a nearly $50 million West Side Market overhaul and a $44 million Superior Arts District mixed-use project — received significant financial support today from the Port of Cleveland following their approval by the board of directors. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2025/03/13/port-oks-financing-for-93-5m-worth-of-projects-west-side-market-superior-arts-district-apts/ "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 13Mar 13 4 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said: I don’t really think Starbucks and Edda/other local cafes compete. people are very specific about their coffee if people want Starbucks they’ll just drive to wherever it is if they’re having a slower day, want better food, a better ambiance, or want to shake it up they’ll go to Edda/local shops I don’t think having a Starbucks in OHC changes the market dynamic, just changes habits people may walk or bike more now than driving all the way to w117, downtown, or steelyard. I also like the location it’s kind of tucked away, Edda has that main corner you have to pass it first before getting there if you’re in OHC. to that end I’m curious how Starbucks will handle signage 100% agree. Not to mention having out of state funds more the needle on completely renovating an unused building is also not a bad thing. And a graffiti-covered (not to knock on graffiti 😀) one at that: 2076 Gehring Ave - Google Maps I travel a lot for work and quite often I'll be driving in my rental car and need a place to work for a bit of time, and find myself saying "SIRI take me to the nearest Starbucks." Ironically the last two times, it brought me to an area that also had a local coffee roasters so I ended up going there instead. I.e. Starbucks is a draw for people, for various different reasons. Edited March 13Mar 13 by MuRrAy HiLL
March 13Mar 13 On 3/10/2025 at 11:25 AM, sonisharri said: Same, actually I got all of these pics in one 3-hour long bike ride. I'd just been waiting for it to get warm out while I was free. Being on a bike makes it easy to cut across side streets to look for development activity. I think it would be cool to have a group go out and get some photos! In 2 months I'll be 21, so I'll be able to join y'all at breweries too ;) we got a 20yr old from dayton staying with us this semester while she is doing a college internship job. she and the handful of her peers out here are finding all the nightlife places they can sneak into. shes resourceful haha.
March 14Mar 14 On 3/13/2025 at 1:26 PM, KJP said: Port OK’s financing for $93.5M worth of projects — West Side Market, Superior Arts District apts By Ken Prendergast / March 13, 2025 Two transformative projects — a nearly $50 million West Side Market overhaul and a $44 million Superior Arts District mixed-use project — received significant financial support today from the Port of Cleveland following their approval by the board of directors. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2025/03/13/port-oks-financing-for-93-5m-worth-of-projects-west-side-market-superior-arts-district-apts/ I am surprised at the 50m for the WSM. It seems like about a year ago it was 10m and then 20m. You can do some significant damage with 50m but the description of what is being proposed doesnt seem to add up to that price. I am happy for the increase I just hope to see some big changes for that amount. There is not a lot of renderings that I can find. This was the only one.
March 14Mar 14 Just now, freethink said: I am surprised at the 50m for the WSM. It seems like about a year ago it was 10m and then 20m. You can do some significant damage with 50m but the description of what is being proposed doesnt seem to add up to that price. I am happy for the increase I just hope to see some big changes for that amount. The brewer down at Thirsty Dog once told me that their building, the old Burkhardt Brewing Company, "would take as much money as your could throw at it," lol. I wonder if WSM is a similar scenario.
March 15Mar 15 I believe the $20 million (at one point it was only $10mil after 20 had been promised) is the city's contribution to the market as owner to address years of deferred maintenance, which seems to always be in the case with the city. I believe the $50 million is a loan from the port which has to be paid back as I understand it. The new group behind the renovations and remaking of the market said a few years back they needed $60 mil., and the city only contributing $10 mil was going to hamper their efforts to fund raise from other sources (foundations etc.) because it gave the impression the city was not fully committed given the need. As I understand it you won't see $60 mil. worth of splashy new things to play with. The majority of the money is going to the nuts and bolts and behind the walls-mechanical work, new walk in coolers, lots of basement repairs and new stalls. The stuff you see in the renderings will only be a fraction of the money spent. All of the unsexy stuff is absolutely necessary and obviously very costly. I have great faith in the new body governing the market and the people behind it. From what I can tell they have been working now for 2-3 years, if not longer, to get a clear understand of the infrastructure deficiencies and how to address them. There are clearly many. Moreover, at the same time they have been hard at work studying other similar markets nationwide to get a feel for what works best in the new retail environment, and have also worked hard on a new business model and plan, things the city could hardly be bothered with. All of this takes a lot of $$$, especially given all the neglect by various administration over the years. Edited March 15Mar 15 by Htsguy
March 15Mar 15 The city also has a very detailed website with updates on the specific improvements for each area of the building. And here are some more renderings too - it's going to be really exciting to watch the transformation!
March 16Mar 16 On 3/14/2025 at 7:39 PM, freethink said: I am surprised at the 50m for the WSM. It seems like about a year ago it was 10m and then 20m. You can do some significant damage with 50m but the description of what is being proposed doesnt seem to add up to that price. I am happy for the increase I just hope to see some big changes for that amount. There is not a lot of renderings that I can find. This was the only one. Inflation is a b**ch.
March 16Mar 16 On 3/14/2025 at 10:43 PM, Henke said: The city also has a very detailed website with updates on the specific improvements for each area of the building. And here are some more renderings too - it's going to be really exciting to watch the transformation! This might be a stupid question, but I wonder if Coke pays a product placement fee to be in a rendering similar to the above. They do it in movies and TV shows. Maybe some young turk marketing guru at the company has come up with a new small and obscure gimmick and solicits architecture firms.
March 19Mar 19 They've really been cruising on the new window installs on the east side of the eastern building in the Franklin Yards project. Looking nice!!
March 21Mar 21 Some drama in Ohio City over the uses at Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry offices on Franklin. If Lutheran were smart they would take this offer, unloading this property to a developer for probably a good sum and using the money to build a better facility on a commercial street where they wouldn't get pushback. Neighbors contesting Cleveland youth drop-in center offer concession. Nonprofit calls it 'absurd' O'Leary wrote in an email this week that he and several other neighbors representing themselves had offered a potential resolution to the ongoing legal challenges during mediation in February 2025; LMM did not accept the terms. The neighbors would agree to allow LMM to operate the youth drop-in center on a "relatively short, temporary basis" at the Franklin Avenue location until LMM can identify a new permanent facility. LMM must put "adequate safeguards" in place around "nuisance activity" and criminal activity during the temporary operation. LMM would discontinue its "non-conforming commercial use" of the property on Franklin Avenue and eventually redevelop it as residential housing with "development guidelines" in place that the neighbors would agree to. O'Leary argued this resolution would allow services to begin after more than two years of delays while ultimately giving neighbors what they want.
March 21Mar 21 From the amount of complaining about how the drop-in center doesn't fit the neighborhood, I never would've guessed there was already another homeless shelter and a food pantry located within a block. LMM has been in the same building for 60 years, so I can understand why they wouldn't want to move. Quote “The reality is that O’Leary purchased a property in an urban environment that is located steps away from St. Herman House men’s homeless shelter (4410 Franklin Blvd.) and the food pantry provided at St. Paul’s Community Church (4427 Franklin Blvd.),” the filing reads. Quote "The neighbors behind the lawsuit have made an 'offer' that is absurd, disrespects LMM and the young adults who chose 4100 Franklin as a site that would meet their needs, is privileged in its tone, and is self-serving," Burke wrote. "LMM’s building was built in 1965, long before Mr. O’Leary and his neighbors moved onto the block and has been used ever since as a place where people in need could obtain charitable social and family services...
March 21Mar 21 9 hours ago, sonisharri said: From the amount of complaining about how the drop-in center doesn't fit the neighborhood, I never would've guessed there was already another homeless shelter and a food pantry located within a block. LMM has been in the same building for 60 years, so I can understand why they wouldn't want to move. This is what annoys me most about this. If it was just some random house in a suburban neighborhood that would be bussing in homeless people I could understand some complaints. But this is a building 5 houses down from an existing shelter that has people coming and going all day long, almost always without issue. Add onto this that we're talking about giving children who are homeless or in poverty a safe place to go and it's even more ridiculous.
March 24Mar 24 Imagine how great it would be if the suburbs had their own homeless shelters instead of having their police drop the homeless off in downtown Cleveland
March 26Mar 26 On 2/7/2025 at 10:40 AM, Paul in Cleveland said: The corner of W 29th and Clinton is sure a-changin'! 😉👍 We see the entire site between 28-29 is cleared -what a difference! Hope construction starts soon so it gets its own thread.
March 26Mar 26 1 hour ago, Willo said: We see the entire site between 28-29 is cleared -what a difference! Hope construction starts soon so it gets its own thread. I don't believe it has received final approval yet. I think it is Landmarks.
March 26Mar 26 8 minutes ago, Htsguy said: I don't believe it has received final approval yet. I think it is Landmarks. I could have sworn I was just rereading one of Ken's articles from October that mentioned it had final approval after some minor changes with a start date this spring/summer, am I wrong? *Just checked again "After some minor modifications to the design of the proposed apartment buildings, the city’s Planning Commission gave the project final design-review approval last year, Pinney said. The Landmark Commission provided the developer with a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the 1920-built Cleveland Vibrator structure and add new buildings to Ohio City, a designated historic district." Edited March 26Mar 26 by FutureboyWonder
March 26Mar 26 17 minutes ago, FutureboyWonder said: I could have sworn I was just rereading one of Ken's articles from October that mentioned it had final approval after some minor changes with a start date this spring/summer, am I wrong? *Just checked again "After some minor modifications to the design of the proposed apartment buildings, the city’s Planning Commission gave the project final design-review approval last year, Pinney said. The Landmark Commission provided the developer with a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the 1920-built Cleveland Vibrator structure and add new buildings to Ohio City, a designated historic district." I thought they approved the demolition as the developer stated the neighborhood was concerned about vandalism and potential crime but the final design still had to be approved.
March 26Mar 26 Checked again. At the November 14, 2024 Landmark's Commission meeting there was final approval of the demo but the developer had to come back to the Commission for final design approval once they addressed staff, community and Landmarks suggestions and concerns. As far as I can recall they have not been back before Landmarks since then.
March 26Mar 26 14 hours ago, Htsguy said: Checked again. At the November 14, 2024 Landmark's Commission meeting there was final approval of the demo but the developer had to come back to the Commission for final design approval once they addressed staff, community and Landmarks suggestions and concerns. As far as I can recall they have not been back before Landmarks since then. I couldn't find any documentation of them getting final approval, but Pinney told me he said the project has final approval. I guess we'll find out if/when they request a building permit! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 4Apr 4 That's rising fast! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 4Apr 4 12 minutes ago, KJP said: That's rising fast! D4 running a tight ship. I’ve said it before on this forum but I’ll say it again: Jim Miketo deserves some recognition with a street sign on Lorain for all his effort in reviving this area. It’s impressive.
April 10Apr 10 Holding my breath during this Landmarks Meeting over 2061 Gehring Ave... they approved 7-2. Drive through was the sticking point. Tom Gillespie did drop an interesting tidbit that Harbor Bay was trying to purchase the building for a 6 story build out there and said that his use was far less burdensome to traffic than the alternative. Edited April 10Apr 10 by downtownjoe
April 10Apr 10 1 hour ago, downtownjoe said: Holding my breath during this Landmarks Meeting over 2061 Gehring Ave... they approved 7-2. Drive through was the sticking point. Tom Gillespie did drop an interesting tidbit that Harbor Bay was trying to purchase the building for a 6 story build out there and said that his use was far less burdensome to traffic than the alternative. Was this just approving the building redesign? Or everything, including adding a drive through?
April 10Apr 10 2 minutes ago, PlanCleveland said: Was this just approving the building redesign? Or everything, including adding a drive through? Approve building redesign (including drive through) while working with comission on traffic studies and to come back for signage and patio approval.
April 10Apr 10 Landmarks Commission logic- Five story new building with mixed use retail (a historic cleveland type of development) = NO GOOD. Historic building being restored to be used as a drive thru, which is not in keeping with its historic use or even exterior openings = ALL GOOD. Make it make sense.
April 10Apr 10 Popular coffeeshop pays local owner to restore historic building, subsidizing 4 micro-retail units for new businesses.
April 10Apr 10 18 minutes ago, RMB said: Popular coffeeshop pays local owner to restore historic building, subsidizing 4 micro-retail units for new businesses. And jeopardizes safety of local community with inappropriate use for a historic district.
April 10Apr 10 Was Gillespie under oath when saying a 6 story (office?) building would have a greater impact on pedestrians than motorists flying up 25th to his drive-through's exit on Abby (at a rapid stop!) on their way downtown? The proposed drive-through also violates the pedestrian retail overly zoning that Map Change 2670 imposes under the item approved by the CPC last week. CCO Sec. 343.23(e)(1)(D) prohibits "Any business served by a drive-through lane providing access to windows or other facilities at which food or merchandise can be ordered or picked up, or business can be transacted by a person in a motor vehicle" within the overlay district. See, April 4, 2025 CPC Agenda at 25/361. The CPC was caught sleeping on this one, and the City needs to reconsider its options on how to block the drive-through component of the project: Edited April 10Apr 10 by grayfields
April 11Apr 11 1 hour ago, grayfields said: Was Gillespie under oath when saying a 6 story (office?) building would have a greater impact on pedestrians than motorists flying up 25th to his drive-through's exit on Abby (at a rapid stop!) on their way downtown? The proposed drive-through also violates the pedestrian retail overly zoning that Map Change 2670 imposes under the item approved by the CPC last week. CCO Sec. 343.23(e)(1)(D) prohibits "Any business served by a drive-through lane providing access to windows or other facilities at which food or merchandise can be ordered or picked up, or business can be transacted by a person in a motor vehicle" within the overlay district. See, April 4, 2025 CPC Agenda at 25/361. The CPC was caught sleeping on this one, and the City needs to reconsider its options on how to block the drive-through component of the project: Zoning approved days ago doesn’t apply to a previously applied project as far as I’m aware. It’s also not landmarks place to speak about zoning issues, that’s BZA. They approved it on the grounds that materially, the reuse of the building fit the needs of the historic area and community.
April 11Apr 11 8 minutes ago, downtownjoe said: Zoning approved days ago doesn’t apply to a previously applied project as far as I’m aware. It’s also not landmarks place to speak about zoning issues, that’s BZA. They approved it on the grounds that materially, the reuse of the building fit the needs of the historic area and community. The application doesn't matter legally. A building permit does. No permit has been awarded for the drive-through yet. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 11Apr 11 Ohio City Starbucks OK’d by Landmarks panel By Ken Prendergast / April 10, 2025 A plan to renovate an historic car dealership with retail uses, including a new Starbucks in Cleveland’s Ohio City neighborhood, was approved today by the city’s Landmarks Commission. But the question of whether a proposed drive-through should remain in the design was referred to the city’s Division of Traffic Engineering to decide. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2025/04/10/ohio-city-starbucks-okd-by-landmarks-panel/ "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 11Apr 11 13 hours ago, KJP said: The application doesn't matter legally. A building permit does. No permit has been awarded for the drive-through yet. Unfortunately this isn’t how the city looks at these types of situations…
April 11Apr 11 1 hour ago, noname said: Unfortunately this isn’t how the city looks at these types of situations… That is how I understand the law/process as well– there are grandfathered rights (which exists to protect non-conforming uses after changes) and vested rights (protects owners with in progress/active applications started before the new zoning took place) which serve to buffer widespread ramifications when zoning changes. Here's an Ohio supreme court case tried in the past: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2024/2024-Ohio-1888.pdf#:~:text=all the legislative requirements for,the application for the permit "Thus, where, as in the instant case, a property owner has complied with all the legislative requirements for the procurement of a building permit and his proposed structure falls within the use classification of the area in which he proposes to build it, he has a right to such permit, and there is a duty on the part of the officer charged therewith to issue it. Subsequent legislation enacted pending applicant’s attempted enforcement of such right through administrative or legal channels cannot deprive him of the right. The right became vested, under the law applicable thereto, upon the filing of the application for the permit." And one more reference: https://www.kplaw.com/news/news-and-updates/2024/06/ohio-zoning-the-code-in-existence-at-the-time-an-application-is-filed-governs/#:~:text=Based on the foregoing%2C the,2 General Retail classification Edited April 11Apr 11 by downtownjoe
April 11Apr 11 On 4/10/2025 at 12:05 PM, downtownjoe said: Holding my breath during this Landmarks Meeting over 2061 Gehring Ave... they approved 7-2. Drive through was the sticking point. Tom Gillespie did drop an interesting tidbit that Harbor Bay was trying to purchase the building for a 6 story build out there and said that his use was far less burdensome to traffic than the alternative. What does this mean? Was the a parking deck what was being contemplated?
April 11Apr 11 3 hours ago, mtnbikefan said: Sam McNulty posted on Facebook that SOHO is moving into the Xinji space. So much of Lorain to fill in– great news all things considered.
April 11Apr 11 1 hour ago, coneflower said: What does this mean? Was the a parking deck what was being contemplated? I think he was alluding to a large amount of full time residents versus a morning rush for coffee is less burdensome. Unsure!
April 12Apr 12 10 hours ago, Mendo said: I'd rather have the 6 story mixed use building to be honest. especially if it was attached to Intro Phase 2. Since talk of Intro 2 seems to have ended, activating this building now is better than remaining vacant and boarded up.
April 12Apr 12 11 hours ago, Willo said: especially if it was attached to Intro Phase 2. Since talk of Intro 2 seems to have ended, activating this building now is better than remaining vacant and boarded up. In terms of intros second building I remember the city and state getting into a spat over environmental credits I believe? Nonetheless they credited the dispute as the reason they had to scale back in order to immediately start. Given that's long since cleared up I'm curious as to if that was ever really the full story Honestly, what i do now for the vast majority of developmenal projects is I expect phase 1 to be what's really going to end up being built, anything after is a bonus. Maybe my memory is over inflating the feelings of incomplete promises, but it does seem like plenty of developments get stuck in phase 1/2 stage.
April 13Apr 13 On 4/10/2025 at 1:57 PM, noname said: Landmarks Commission logic- Five story new building with mixed use retail (a historic cleveland type of development) = NO GOOD. Historic building being restored to be used as a drive thru, which is not in keeping with its historic use or even exterior openings = ALL GOOD. Make it make sense. The Cleveland Landmarks Commission follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation when issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness for projects involving locally designated properties, either individually or in a historic district. These same Standards are used by cities across the country. When applying for Historic Tax Credits, a developer must follow these guidelines in order to qualify. These also apply to projects using the City's Storefront Renovation Program (which this is also receiving funds through). The Rehabilitation Standards are important because they allow for new compatible construction. The building on Gehring is a contributing structure to the Market Square Historic District making it eligible for these credits. The first standard: "A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed into a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment." The pick-up window is on the rear of the building and it is not changing the defining characteristics of the building. Standards Nine and Ten also apply in this case: 9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Again, no historic materials appear to be destroyed and this is a reversible condition. So, the proposed plans are appropriate in this case. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/taxincentives/secretarys-standards-rehabilitation.htm
Create an account or sign in to comment