Jump to content

Featured Replies

  • Author

Is this Dr. Broc?

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Views 171.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • I talked to a resident there ~2 weeks ago who is friends with some of the management, he said the building is 53% occupied and 86% leased, the difference being the number of new leases they've signed

  • Current:   2013:  

  • sonisharri
    sonisharri

    Some more angles from today…

Posted Images

Is this Dr. Broc?

 

Nope!  Not me!

Michelle Jarboemjarboe[/member]  11m11 minutes ago

Rental townhouses planned for former Avenue District site along East 15th Street win approval from @CLEcityplanning.

  • 2 weeks later...

For the record. This...

Well this is probably just speculative, but maybe something is going on. Never know.

 

*Property Highlights:

Brand new construction to include multiple retail opportunities

Approximately 0.88 acres of land located at the intersection of E. 12th St. & St. Clair Ave.

 

http://www.passovgroup.com/listings/cleveland-one-cleveland-center-land/

 

...was just fleshed out a bit by this rendering....

 

This is on the PassovGroup website, they love these spec renderings.  Just looking to gauge interest. It is described as  235k sf of office space with 8.5k retail. Very Rockside Roadish.

22321276690_06134d8ecb_b.jpg

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

I hate that it's currently on a piece of property at that corner that actually looks okay as opposed to the dilapidated surface lots.  That's on property that currently has grass and trees on it, isn't it?

people use it as a dog park.  it gets constant use, from what I've seen

Went by yesterday and there's signs saying "For Lease" with pictures of that building up on the corners.

^huh well that's interesting.  If someone can put it in their brain tonight to check out that sign tomorrow. Look for a developers name/logo or a bank/financed by...

I hate that it's currently on a piece of property at that corner that actually looks okay as opposed to the dilapidated surface lots.  That's on property that currently has grass and trees on it, isn't it?

 

Agree that the grass/trees are well maintained, but so much of this area of downtown is in desperate need an urban makeover.

I hope Zaremba can actually get the financing lined up to develop 13th & Superior into a mid-rise.  That would help transform a sleeping area.

I hope Zaremba can actually get the financing lined up to develop 13th & Superior into a mid-rise.  That would help transform a sleeping area.

 

True. I'm a bit torn on the two story residential so close to downtown's tallest buildings.

I hope Zaremba can actually get the financing lined up to develop 13th & Superior into a mid-rise.  That would help transform a sleeping area.

 

True. I'm a bit torn on the two story residential so close to downtown's tallest buildings.

 

I don't like it either but I'm OK with having it along a minor side street like the current stuff.  Fronting Superior or St Clair?  No way.

Here's a few pics. The sign and the area fc54f184949c133540b0e7d960a6cd28.jpg

8952c19f18c32254fd0b36038f0cb9d8.jpg

7d79fece05974703f610a11a43a2ab29.jpg

26d89aac8841c9ad159956b7607b9c72.jpg

^ The last pic illustrates why I suggested the new building wrap the adjacent parking garage, fronting St. Clair. It's a real street killer.

 

^thats not the property though.  This is the site that they acquired from Zaremba.  Zaremba had it pegged for another phase of the AD.  I find this pitch odd as the old Charter One Building across the street has fairly high vacancy I believe.  They must not be in the business of apartment units and management.

^thats not the property though.  This is the site that they acquired from Zaremba.  Zaremba had it pegged for another phase of the AD.  I find this pitch odd as the old Charter One Building across the street has fairly high vacancy I believe.  They must not be in the business of apartment units and management.

 

Correct. That was merely wishful thinking on my part. I wish there was some kind of incentive to correct the parking garage setbacks; these garages are especially bad in the Avenue/9-12 District. In Columbus in the area between campus and Short North I've seen residential constructed along parking garage setbacks. It can be done.

  • 2 months later...

While the address isn't listed, a parcel map shows this property to be at approximately 1535 Superior Avenue...

 

SUPERIOR AVE

CLEVELAND

Sales Date 12/30/2015

Amount $985,000

Buyer ZAREMBA AVENUE MANAGEMENT LLC

Seller ZAREMBA LLC

Deed type RECEIVERS

Land value $653,800

Building value $0

Total value $653,800

Parcel 102-23-016

Property Residential vacant land

 

A short distance west of the above was this transaction which, given the exact same dollar amount, is probably part of the same transaction:

 

1435 SUPERIOR AVE

CLEVELAND

Sales Date 12/30/2015

Amount $985,000

Buyer ZAREMBA AVENUE MANAGEMENT LLC

Seller ZAREMBA AVENUE LLC

Deed type RECEIVERS

Land value $519,800

Building value $900

Total value $520,700

Parcel 102-22-033

Property Commercial parking lot

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

Zaremba has been trying to develop this site for 10 years.  Hopefully they are getting closer. 

 

On another note, I hope the Zimmerman townhouses break ground soon.  I heard their delay has been getting the proper permits from City Hall to start construction.

Does anyone know if the Avenue District Tower is fully rented?  They had some high

pricing for these units. Is there any plans for a phase 2 tower?

  • 2 months later...

It's great that something is going there, but wow what a boring design.

I'm kinda confused. Is this the long skinny lot next to the self storage place? I'm looking out my window and I see three empty dirt lots. 4d520c2fe44ebc1eb6829629dc0090c3.jpg

I'm kinda confused. Is this the long skinny lot next to the self storage place?

 

Yes, it's the eastern most lot at the top of your picture next to storage place.

I'm kinda confused. Is this the long skinny lot next to the self storage place?

 

Yes, it's the eastern most lot at the top of your picture next to storage place.

 

Ok. Does anyone know of any plans to fill in those other lots? [emoji58] I wish someone would come in and fill in all the blanks, build the other two Avenue Towers, and start pushing development east.

Hmph... "gated community" in Downtown Cleveland... lovely

Ok. Does anyone know of any plans to fill in those other lots? [emoji58] I wish someone would come in and fill in all the blanks, build the other two Avenue Towers, and start pushing development east.

 

Zaremba had plans for similar 3 story townhomes on the other two lots (left and middle lots in the picture). This rendering is from 2014. If anything has changed since then it hasn't been made public.

 

http://image.cleveland.com/home/cleve-media/width960/img/business_impact/photo/avenue-district-apartments-site-plan-813174beeca4b29c.jpg

 

Hmph... "gated community" in Downtown Cleveland... lovely

 

What's gated about it? The lot extends from Rockwell to Superior with the townhomes facing the sidewalk on all 3 sides.

 

http://image.cleveland.com/home/cleve-media/width960/img/plain-dealer/photo/2015/10/15/151015-rdl-15th-st-binder-page-001jpg-c61fdab6057e287a.jpg

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/10/rental_townhouses_planned_for.html

^I'm just reacting to the term as is described in the article by Fresh Water. Of course, a full detailed site plan might show something completely different.

 

"Plans are now underway to build sixteen 1,200-square-foot, two-story market rate town homes on the land in a gated community."

 

 

 

Hmph... "gated community" in Downtown Cleveland... lovely

 

Beats a vacant lot, right?

 

There were some objections on one of the UC/LI threads to the fences around a development there, and a resident of same commented on why they were valuable.

^I'm just reacting to the term as is described in the article by Fresh Water. Of course, a full detailed site plan might show something completely different.

 

"Plans are now underway to build sixteen 1,200-square-foot, two-story market rate town homes on the land in a gated community."

 

You're right. I missed that wording. Maybe there is a gate blocking the shared access drive? I don't remember fencing in the pictures presented to design review (or BZA variances).

 

http://www.themiltoncleveland.com/

Beats a vacant lot, right?

 

No.  Putting a low-density single-use gated community along a major downtown street would permanently end any hope of making this a functional section of downtown.  The loss impacts not only this lot but everything within walking distance, and since this is downtown, the entire city. 

 

At least right now it is possible, and relatively inexpensive, to pursue an appropriate (high-density, mixed-use, transit-oriented) development for this nice graded lot.  Once we put a little piece of Strongsville there, we're stuck with it.  Any other possibility is deferred for a generation.

 

 

 

 

Beats a vacant lot, right?

 

No.  Putting a low-density single-use gated community along a major downtown street would permanently end any hope of making this a functional section of downtown.  The loss impacts not only this lot but everything within walking distance, and since this is downtown, the entire city. 

 

At least right now it is possible, and relatively inexpensive, to pursue an appropriate (high-density, mixed-use, transit-oriented) development for this nice graded lot.  Once we put a little piece of Strongsville there, we're stuck with it.  Any other possibility is deferred for a generation.

 

I don't really think Cleveland's problem is not having enough land for mixed use development, lets start with filling in the gaps in the city center then we could worry about development outward and to the east. I think developing townhouses there would be a huge upgrade from what it currently is, empty lots.

 

Travel down East 6th going into downtown Charlotte you'll see the same thing, lower level apartments and townhouses. I don't think it realistic, especially in the near future, that a developer would choice that location for a large mixed use development project.

The 'gate' is not a problem.  Thank god someone is actually going to develop housing here.  The plans are kinda plain but 1000x better than what's there now. 

 

The bigger question is what Zaremba is going to do on the bigger site.

I'm not sure Cleveland can succeed by emulating Charlotte or any other sunbelt city.  I believe we've done too much of that already, and our focus needs to shift toward being the best Cleveland we can be.  We will never be able to compete with Charlotte on Charlotte's terms.  Meanwhile, Charlotte can't offer authentic traditional urbanism the way we can.  But our ability to offer that diminishes with every inappropriate development.

our focus needs to shift toward being the best Cleveland we can be.

 

Guess it depends who's defining that.  You seem to assume your definition is the correct one.

I'm assuming the gate will go on the driveway since the garages are around back.  Prior to all of the Avenue District Townhomes selling, we did occasionally have some questionable things going on in the driveway courtyards, although any illicit activity halted once all of the units were occupied.  This makes sense for the apartments since those driveway areas will hardly be visible at all since they are sandwiched between buildings.  It may also help from a liability standpoint, although I am an engineer, not a lawyer, hahaha.

our focus needs to shift toward being the best Cleveland we can be.

 

Guess it depends who's defining that.  You seem to assume your definition is the correct one.

 

Well, yes.  I might be wrong but I'm not insane.  Enough about me.  What's your opinion on the thread topic?

our focus needs to shift toward being the best Cleveland we can be.

 

Guess it depends who's defining that.  You seem to assume your definition is the correct one.

 

Well, yes.  I might be wrong but I'm not insane.  Enough about me.  What's your opinion on the thread topic?

 

I think within extremely broad limits, property owners should be able to do what they see fit.  I welcome the town homes, gates and all.  Although they may not check every box on my dream home checklist, I feel no need to impose my idea of "good" on anyone else.  If the developer provides a house that someone voluntarily decides to live in then that is a net positive in my book.  I guess that's "tolerance" or something.  :wink:

I think within extremely broad limits, property owners should be able to do what they see fit. 

 

In rural areas, that's generally the law.  In cities, the effects of one property on another are amplified considerably.  For example you can't have manure lying about.  That would cause plagues, so it's not allowed.  Lower stakes here, admittedly, but the principle is the same.

I think within extremely broad limits, property owners should be able to do what they see fit. 

 

In rural areas, that's generally the law.  In cities, the effects of one property on another are amplified considerably.  For example you can't have manure lying about.  That would cause plagues, so it's not allowed.  Lower stakes here, admittedly, but the principle is the same.

 

The principle is not the same here.  Open manure or something like it poses an immediate health risk if it indeed can cause plagues (need to check on that).  That would fall into the police power of government.  Can you identify the immediate health risks posed by these town houses?  I don't think the state's police power should be used to enforce aesthetic preferences or even use preferences within broad confines.  The particular condition of the land (open piles of feces, pollution spewing factory), if it poses a particularized harm to the health and safety of others, can be enjoined.

Until anyone actually sees a gate in the plans I would assume this was a writer throwing around terms without thinking.

Hold up, is it because the vehicular access to the rears of the homes is gated? This is like fencing in your backyard. The front door is still very much accessed from a public sidewalk. Hardly a "gated community."

Yeah, that's not a gated community in any meaningful sense, but see what I wrote above.  Journalists throw around terms without really understanding what they mean.

Yeah, that's the same assumption I also posted earlier.  Probably just a gate on the driveway, which would be a good thing considering there would be no sight line from the street back there.

I think it's a good project for the people who want this type of home. The idea that a vacant lot would be better than this development is absolutely outrageous on so many different levels. Not every project is going to be for everybody. And that's ok. You don't eliminate a potential market because it's not everything that you want. I'm all for it. I want people to be able to live however they choose in the city. If that's super urban life, so be it. If that's "gated" community town homes, so be it.

  • 3 months later...

Hey DocBroc -- how is this project progressing?  Any news?

Hey DocBroc -- how is this project progressing?  Any news?

 

No idea - we don't live there anymore :). 

Hey DocBroc -- how is this project progressing?  Any news?

 

No pics but I can see from my office window that they have foundations poured.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No pics but I can see from my office window that they have foundations poured.

 

 

Foundations? For what?? Where??

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.