yeah i see that is the plan closer to the lake, but that intimate feel should carry up to the warehouse district to some extent.  Which it seems like it will.

I remember seeing plans from St. Clair Superior that showed St. Clair being narrowed in much the same style as E. 12th ... diagonal parking, widened sidewalks and bike lanes. And I know that there is money in the city's 5-year authorization plan that allocates funds specifically for the bike lanes from E. 55th to I believe E. 13th. But I don't think I've seen anything that would extend this trend past the Avenue District.

I don't like angled parking on a street, especially in a downtown area. When I go to back out, I can't see past the SUVs and minivans parked next to me. Plus, it takes three actions to get out -- back up, stop, go forward. You need a big gap in traffic to do that. I much prefer to parallel park, which is easier to get into a parking space and get out of in an urban environment. If you see a car coming to a stop ahead of you, with its turn indicator on, next to an open parking space you shouldn't have to guess what's going on. And if you can't parallel park, how in the world did you get your driver's license anyway??

As far as I know, the major streets (St. Clair, West 3rd, etc) won't be narrowed but Frankfort might. And sidewalks might be widened at some locations.

 

If that has been shared with you, do you know if a narrowed Frankfort act like an E.4th st. for the development? 

really, HBIC is going to require anti-ADHD drugs...

 

 

Back on subject, KJP in your latest fact finding mission, has the focus shifted more towards office and less on retail and housing?

No, you're just lucky that cases of Great Lakes are back on sale :roll:

I really cannot see St. Clair being narrowed as suggested above.  Unlike E. 12th Street it is a major throughfare, even in the Warehouse District.  It can often be a traffic nightmare after major events downtown (especially Browns games) with its current number of lanes.  Also, it really isn't that wide when compare to other major downtown streets and would actually seem intimate if it was not framed by so many parking lots.

 

On a totally unrelated issue (I was going to post this on the Avenue District thread but did not want to come across as negative now that something positive is happen on 12th street but since it was slightly touched on above I thought I would just go ahead here)...but what does it say about Cleveland that it has taken 40 years to develop two of the last Erieview parcels.  The buildings on those two parking lots that Zaremba is now going to develop (hopefully both lots) were torn down in the mid 60's when Erieview was first conceived.  I know there were many reasons for the slow pace but really...40 years.  OK I got that out of my system and now I will be positive for now on.

 

40 years?  Consider the Van Sweringens opened an incomplete Terminal complex in 1930 with footings for "future development" -- that future didn't occur until nearly 1990, some 60 years later.  So a gaping hole of surface parking between what are now the Landmark Office towers and the main Post Office until Tower City, with it's mall, Ritz Hotel and Skylight Office Tower, all that time... Yes, I love this town, but you really have to be patient here.  Things take time.

 

... btw, I'm really disappointed to hear about the sad shape of the Galleria.  From all I've heard, things were looking up there...

so the taller building in that rendering was for ernst & young. i really hope a 500 footer can get built here......its pretty weak that metro of 3 million only has 4 buildings over 500 feet. how much office space does ernst & young currently take up in cleveland? they have a lot of buildings in other cities...i like the scraper in sydney a lot.

 

 

maybe stark reads UO so bob if you're reading this go vertical please

 

 

when are they going to begin construction on the warehouse district?

 

on a side note, does anyone here have an emporis account? they list 7 proposed high-rises and 2 on hold. what all would those be?

 

40 years?  Consider the Van Sweringens opened an incomplete Terminal complex in 1930 with footings for "future development" -- that future didn't occur until nearly 1990, some 60 years later.  So a gaping hole of surface parking between what are now the Landmark Office towers and the main Post Office until Tower City, with it's mall, Ritz Hotel and Skylight Office Tower, all that time... Yes, I love this town, but you really have to be patient here.  Things take time.

 

thats the problem. things dont get built here, whereas in other cities they do. we are either left waiting years and years for things to finally get done (lakefront plan, warehouse district, avenue district) or they dont get done at all. there is this non-chalant attitude by people that "oh there will eventually be something good to come along". thats why you have people who truly love urbanity here move away to nyc or chicago and become transplants. cleveland has so much potential but unless people at the top get it and get serious about building real progress this city will never realize it.

 

the only thing holding back cleveland is cleveland

thats the problem. things dont get built here, whereas in other cities they do. we are either left waiting years and years for things to finally get done (lakefront plan, warehouse district, avenue district) or they dont get done at all. there is this non-chalant attitude by people that "oh there will eventually be something good to come along". thats why you have people who truly love urbanity here move away to nyc or chicago and become transplants. cleveland has so much potential but unless people at the top get it and get serious about building real progress this city will never realize it.

 

the only thing holding back cleveland is cleveland

 

Yep. This city will never change unless there is a massive desire for it.

"i really hope a 500 footer can get built here......its pretty weak that metro of 3 million only has 4 buildings over 500 feet."

 

Glacial sediment. Please - learn about what happens to an area when glaciers carve out a Great Lake and deposit the sediment in said area.

 

"on a side note, does anyone here have an emporis account? they list 7 proposed high-rises and 2 on hold. what all would those be?"

 

They would likely be phases of Stonebridge. For the record, emporis.com (aka skyscrapers.com) is one of the worst sites for finding info about high-rises in Cleveland. They treat their contributors like complete sh!t (they owe some of them money for photos they've sold, for starters). I repeat - if you want inaccurate information (and inferior photos), keep using emporis.com.

 

"here is this non-chalant attitude by people that "oh there will eventually be something good to come along".

 

Just as bad are the people who really don't have the first understanding of regional economics, and who have selective memories about what has and hasn't happened in this city.

If that has been shared with you, do you know if a narrowed Frankfort act like an E.4th st. for the development? 

 

Stark did say he wanted Frankfort to be more of a pedestrian-oriented street, but he didn't use East 4th as an example. Stark doesn't like to use other developments as references. He likes to believe his developments are unique.

 

40 years?  Consider the Van Sweringens opened an incomplete Terminal complex in 1930 with footings for "future development" -- that future didn't occur until nearly 1990, some 60 years later.

 

And there's some gaping holes at Tower City 77 years later (corner of Prospect and Superior; corner of Huron and Ontario).

 

thats the problem. things dont get built here, whereas in other cities they do.

 

For the reason why, check out the post at http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=13766.msg208328#msg208328

And there's some gaping holes at Tower City 77 years later (corner of Prospect and Superior; corner of Huron and Ontario).

 

Do you know if footings were sunk in those corners as well?  I recall plans by the Stouffer (?) to expand to the west over the Prospect/Superior corner, as well as drawings of a Flatiron-esque 20 story office at Huron/Ontario.

And there's some gaping holes at Tower City 77 years later (corner of Prospect and Superior; corner of Huron and Ontario).

 

Do you know if footings were sunk in those corners as well?  I recall plans by the Stouffer (?) to expand to the west over the Prospect/Superior corner, as well as drawings of a Flatiron-esque 20 story office at Huron/Ontario.

 

IIRC, that was just before Marriott corp bought the property and branded it a "renaissance". 

 

If my memory serves me correctly when a new new convention center is built, this property would expand.

, as well as drawings of a Flatiron-esque 20 story office at Huron/Ontario.

 

Here's the rendering of the building, actually called the Gateway at Landmark (I got it backwards in my first attempt at this message). This was from an ad for a downtown magazine from 1989. I included the text from the ad separately to save bandwidth...

 

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/Clevelandpics1/GatewayAtLandmarkS.jpg

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/Clevelandpics1/GatewayAtLandmarkText.jpg

 

Would 77 year old footers still be safe to build on?  Or will they have to put in new ones?

Depends on how deep they are. If they are really caissons and are as deep as those supporting the Terminal Tower, they're fine.

Glacial sediment. Please - learn about what happens to an area when glaciers carve out a Great Lake and deposit the sediment in said area.

 

ive been well aware of the glacial sediment issue for a long time. didnt stop key tower, terminal tower, BP, and erieview from being built. its called digging deep.

 

Just as bad are the people who really don't have the first understanding of regional economics, and who have selective memories about what has and hasn't happened in this city.

 

you obviously dont understand my point then. from your posts on here you fall into the same "cant do" camp that inhabits NE ohio and seem to be happy with just development period. do you think things are going to happen if nobody wants them to? the economy here sucks and cleveland continues to lose population in droves. we dont need those parking lots in the warehouse district filled so why not tell bob stark to cancel his plans. who shops or lives downtown now? stonebridge.....they'll never sell any units there no one wants to live downtown. pittsburgh is building high-rise residential in the year 2007. is their economy really much better than cleveland? its still losing population.

 

im glad we have people like stark and zaremba who actually put their money where their mouth is.

stonebridge.....they'll never sell any units there no one wants to live downtown.

 

Is this sarcasm? If so use  :|, if not please elaborate.

 

Glacial sediment. Please - learn about what happens to an area when glaciers carve out a Great Lake and deposit the sediment in said area.

 

ive been well aware of the glacial sediment issue for a long time. didnt stop key tower, terminal tower, BP, and erieview from being built. its called digging deep.

 

 

 

You can dream of digging deep, but not everybody has deep enough pockets to dig deeper. Money rules, and its cheaper to just put Downtown Cleveland towers on Pads and limit the heights.

sooo uhhh no one got pictures of these renderings?  no cell phone picture or anything...??  i drove by last saturday and they were definately not in the windows anymore...

Just got off the phone with someone from Stark... Here's the skinny on the Ernst & Young building rendering. None of us we're supposed to see that! It was accidentally left out in public view. But the source would neither confirm nor deny whether Ernst & Young is part of the plan. When I asked about the geotechnical survey crews on site, I said there must be something big coming. His response -- "Greater Cleveland has never seen anything like it. It will be Crocker Park on steroids."

I'm assuming someone would have posted it by now, unless they're worried about any potential legal ramifications.

stonebridge.....they'll never sell any units there no one wants to live downtown.

 

Is this sarcasm? If so use  :|, if not please elaborate.

 

 

Come on now, it was pretty obvious he was being sarcastic there (and I'm not being sarcastic).

^That 1989 hotel proposal would be sweet; but I guess I can say, some 77 years after Terminal Tower's opening, I'm reasonably satisfied that it is now, mostly finished.  In the scheme of things, the triangle at Ontario & Huron is small.  Also, remember, there are Terminal spinoff developments like the Gateway stadiums and the 24-story Stokes Courthouse that are outside of the Vans' footprint. 

 

Aside from the aspects that killed Higbee's noted: most notably, Dillard's

B-level store compared to old Higbee's, many customers swarmed Tower City and the mall stores, essentially, became the 'departments' in the department store, albeit individual owned/operated.  I think Med Mart (if we can somehow build/get it) is better for the property and Stark's Pesht is were  a new store should go; and/or May's old space, if it can be had.

Aside from the aspects that killed Higbee's noted: most notably, Dillard's

B-level store compared to old Higbee's, many customers swarmed Tower City and the mall stores, essentially, became the 'departments' in the department store, albeit individual owned/operated.  I think Med Mart (if we can somehow build/get it) is better for the property and Stark's Pesht is were  a new store should go; and/or May's old space, if it can be had.

 

All joking aside, I'm still trying to figure out what the heck you were trying to say here.

"from your posts on here you fall into the same "cant do" camp that inhabits NE ohio and seem to be happy with just development period."

 

Yep, you're right. I'd be happy if they built three vinyl-sided houses on the superblock. If only I could "want" something to be built - that would solve all the financing issues, excavation issues, vacancy rates... geez, I'm glad you came along to set me straight!

... geez, I'm glad you came along to set me straight!

 

Ummm... nevermind

^That 1989 hotel proposal would be sweet; but I guess I can say, some 77 years after Terminal Tower's opening, I'm reasonably satisfied that it is now, mostly finished.  In the scheme of things, the triangle at Ontario & Huron is small.  Also, remember, there are Terminal spinoff developments like the Gateway stadiums and the 24-story Stokes Courthouse that are outside of the Vans' footprint. 

 

Actually, the Stokes courthouse is in the Van Sweringen's footprint. The whole south side of Huron Road (over the former coach yards of Cleveland Union Terminal) was to be built on as part of a future expansion of the railroad terminal, with the coach yards moved elsewhere. If you go down to the parking area where the coach yard once was, you'll see steel girders sticking out of the wall below Huron Road. Those were put there in the 1920s to attach to buildings as part of the future expansion that never happened. The Vans also planned to build southward along Ontario, south of Huron and above the railroad and transit tracks. If only the Great Depression hadn't happened....

 

Anyway, back to Pesht!

^That 1989 hotel proposal would be sweet; but I guess I can say, some 77 years after Terminal Tower's opening, I'm reasonably satisfied that it is now, mostly finished.  In the scheme of things, the triangle at Ontario & Huron is small.  Also, remember, there are Terminal spinoff developments like the Gateway stadiums and the 24-story Stokes Courthouse that are outside of the Vans' footprint. 

 

Actually, the Stokes courthouse is in the Van Sweringen's footprint. The whole south side of Huron Road (over the former coach yards of Cleveland Union Terminal) was to be built on as part of a future expansion of the railroad terminal, with the coach yards moved elsewhere. If you go down to the parking area where the coach yard once was, you'll see steel girders sticking out of the wall below Huron Road. Those were put there in the 1920s to attach to buildings as part of the future expansion that never happened. The Vans also planned to build southward along Ontario, south of Huron and above the railroad and transit tracks. If only the Great Depression hadn't happened....

 

Anyway, back to Pesht!

 

 

Wait, one more.

This is hanging in one of our hallways.

THAT IS AWESOME!!! But perhaps that should be put in abandoned plans. I have some renderings somewhere of what the Vans proposed for the Cleveland Union Terminal complex. That could also go in abandoned projects. If only I could find them......

What is interesting is to see what the north/ south streets used to be called before they were renamed on a numerical basis.  THe Waterstreet Grille obviously lends its name to the original street name, Water Street.

Hey! I just noticed - I can see myself in there.

Is that Payne or Chester that used to run into Superior at Munson St. (now E. 12th St.)?

 

I always thought it was interesting how everything south of Superior is laid out on two different grids oriented at 30 degree angles to each other, like the planners were in a fight about which direction those streets should actually run.  This ended up in having some neat Times Square-ish pointed buildings.

That's Payne. The angular intersection was eliminated when the Park buildings (now Reserve Square) were built nearly 40 years ago.

The black is trolley tracks, right??

What is interesting is to see what the north/ south streets used to be called before they were renamed on a numerical basis.  The Waterstreet Grille obviously lends its name to the original street name, Water Street.

 

.... and don't forget the Water Street Apts nestled on the other side of the Main Ave bridge overlooking the lake... 9th Street was the other missing Great Lake downtown street (Michigan was destroyed in Terminal Tower's construction/street reconfiguration)... 9th was Erie Street; hence the ancient Erie Street Cemetery across from Jacobs Field.

Aside from the aspects that killed Higbee's noted: most notably, Dillard's

B-level store compared to old Higbee's, many customers swarmed Tower City and the mall stores, essentially, became the 'departments' in the department store, albeit individual owned/operated.  I think Med Mart (if we can somehow build/get it) is better for the property and Stark's Pesht is were  a new store should go; and/or May's old space, if it can be had.

 

All joking aside, I'm still trying to figure out what the heck you were trying to say here.

 

Let's try again... Dillards became Higbee's around the time (or shortly thereafter) Tower City opened.  Dillards was universally panned and shunned by many Higbee's shoppers who, rightfully, thought these Arkansas hicks couldn't run our prime downtown department store.  Next door, however -- attached, in fact, you have a gleaming new mall filled with individual shops.  These shops, located under one roof, for some/many, no doubt became like the departments of their long-gone Higbee's (hence the title "department store") the only difference is that these shops are owned by separate companies but, again, of a higher quality than Dillard's; logic would dictate a specialty store would do better than Dillard's weak effort.  So rather than go to Dillard's men's dept (cause the product and service is crap) you may go to Brooks Brothers, if you can afford it.  A younger woman may go to Ann Taylor's; teens, the Gap.  Guys, rather than going to Dillard's shoe dept, ... Johnston & Murphy, etc...

 

Obviously, the type of high-end department store FCE initially sought -- Neiman Marcus, would NOT have hemorrhaged customers as Dillard's did Higbee's old crowd.  But, alas, N.M. could not be landed.

 

Now, do you get what the heck I'm talking about?

 

Dillards was universally panned and shunned by many Higbee's shoppers who, rightfully, thought these Arkansas hicks couldn't run our prime downtown department store.  Next door, however -- attached, in fact, you have a gleaming new mall filled with individual shops.  These shops, located under one roof, for some/many, no doubt became like the departments of their long-gone Higbee's (hence the title "department store") the only difference is that these shops are owned by separate companies but, again, of a higher quality than Dillard's; logic would dictate a specialty store would do better than Dillard's weak effort. 

Obviously, the type of high-end

 

I couldn't agree more!  As a die hard higbees shopper, who still has a few Higbees sweater and 3 fabulous chairs from the old womens lounge & one from outside the silver grill (shhhhh) Dillards f*cked over a store in the process of a makeover reducing it from 9 shopping floors.  IIRC, the 9/10 floor were converted to corporate offices after towercity took back the prospect level (which was part of the mens store) conversion and reconfiguration.  Next thing you know Higbees downtown is reduced to a five floor flea market!

 

The old Dillards plus Neiman's would have been a great draw to Tower City as Higbees would have something for regular everyday shoppers, casual shoppers to upscale with a decent array of luxury items.  Neimans would have have upscale items and luxury brands accross the board.

 

Now one things I disagree on is the "new" mens store (in the basement) was actually nice and above average, with a much better layout and product mix.

 

Damn!

, as well as drawings of a Flatiron-esque 20 story office at Huron/Ontario.

 

Here's the rendering of the building, actually called the Gateway at Landmark (I got it backwards in my first attempt at this message). This was from an ad for a downtown magazine from 1989. I included the text from the ad separately to save bandwidth...

 

 

 

wow cool find. to tell the truth that building rendering is an ugly 80's-esque view blocking pos so i'm glad it wasn't built.

 

Aside from the aspects that killed Higbee's noted: most notably, Dillard's

B-level store compared to old Higbee's, many customers swarmed Tower City and the mall stores, essentially, became the 'departments' in the department store, albeit individual owned/operated.  I think Med Mart (if we can somehow build/get it) is better for the property and Stark's Pesht is were  a new store should go; and/or May's old space, if it can be had.

 

All joking aside, I'm still trying to figure out what the heck you were trying to say here.

 

Let's try again... Dillards became Higbee's around the time (or shortly thereafter) Tower City opened.  Dillards was universally panned and shunned by many Higbee's shoppers who, rightfully, thought these Arkansas hicks couldn't run our prime downtown department store.  Next door, however -- attached, in fact, you have a gleaming new mall filled with individual shops.  These shops, located under one roof, for some/many, no doubt became like the departments of their long-gone Higbee's (hence the title "department store") the only difference is that these shops are owned by separate companies but, again, of a higher quality than Dillard's; logic would dictate a specialty store would do better than Dillard's weak effort.  So rather than go to Dillard's men's dept (cause the product and service is crap) you may go to Brooks Brothers, if you can afford it.  A younger woman may go to Ann Taylor's; teens, the Gap.  Guys, rather than going to Dillard's shoe dept, ... Johnston & Murphy, etc...

 

Obviously, the type of high-end department store FCE initially sought -- Neiman Marcus, would NOT have hemorrhaged customers as Dillard's did Higbee's old crowd.  But, alas, N.M. could not be landed.

 

Now, do you get what the heck I'm talking about?

 

Yes.

 

Thanks for articulating more clearly the second time around.  Your first post really didn't make much sense when I read it...maybe it was just too late and I couldn't get past a couple grammatical errors, I don't know.

^What a monstrosity.  Would have blocked a lot of Terminal Tower views in the process.

I agree that the placement isn't the best. But I really love the design.

Groan....

 

I'm with CTownsFinest216 on this.  Why?

 

Because, Cleveland is the only town that I have been to whose developers, citizens, pols, planners, et al, simply settle for whatever comes along instead of demanding bigger and better.

 

Otherwise, how do you explain that smaller and less significant cities (many of whom are in worst or at least as bad a shape as C-Town) still manage to get excellent developments?

 

Cities such as:

Milwaukee (with a kickass downtown mall and fairly good riverwalk)

Pittsburgh (with an eco-friendly CC and high-rise residential)

Miami (trust me, people don't like living in downtown Miami...except for the bums...but they have a department store)

Fort Lauderdale (okay, if C-Town has "dig deep" issues then swampland like that in Fort Lauderdale should be even worst)

Stamford, CT (their downtown mall sucks...but its undergoing a huge re-development and it has a department store with a brand new Target store nearby)

 

There is no excuse, absolutely no excuse why Cleveland does not have a Target, TJ Maxx, Barnes and Nobel and/or Marshalls in downtown by now...and when OfficeMax was based here, why it didn't have an OfficeMax downtown.

 

The only reason for these things not happening is because of the "can't do" attitude...luckily there are a few like Zaremba, Marous, Stonebridge who don't buy into this crap and move forward...

 

In my opinion, anyone who believes that if FCE/pols/Cleveland really wanted a Target in the Higbee building they could not have done it by now is a fool.

 

Hopefully, Stark and his "Building Pesht" will change everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

^market demographics

 

(meaning that you can't just plop Retailer "X" anywhere)

 

Classic Example: Trader Joe's looks for 50% of people within a Five Mile radius to have a college degree (just an example from memory, don't delve into the numbers.)

 

I'm sure for a compact urban store for a target or other box they'd look for a sizable downtown population base with disposable income. Sure cleveland is growing in that regard, but I doubt that the market and associated costs of doing business in a CBD are within Target's (or retailer "x's") tolerable range.

 

(i feel like this is the 8th time I've posted this in this thread alone)

Fort Lauderdale (okay, if C-Town has "dig deep" issues then swampland like that in Fort Lauderdale should be even worst)

 

The "dig deep" issues involve how far below street level the bedrock lies, not the composition of the material in between. I'm not sure why people have such a hard time understanding this. In places like NYC, Chicago, etc. there's about 25 to 50 (maybe 100 and that's rare) feet of soil from the street level down to the bedrock. Now, to build anything taller than 400ish feet - you have to anchor your building on bedrock, otherwise you're topped out at 400ish and you use the "floating pad" (a 7-8 foot thick pad of concrete upon which the building floats). I don't know about Ft. Lauderdale but I doubt their bedrock is too far below the surface.

 

In Cleveland, you have to dig in excess of 200 feet down - 200 feet is the height of the Federal Reserve Bank building - and the depth is usually more like 250 feet, the height of the AT&T Lakeside building. In order to even get a buildable site, you have to excavate that far down and of course, build a support system (caissons) to support your structure. Do you see how and why Cleveland's soil has been such an impediment to getting tall towers built? Hell, that's why the hillside along Franklin Avenue east of West 25th is unbuildable. That's why the GSA reduced the Federal Courthouse Tower by a floor (to keep in budget because of higher excavation costs). Now in spite of everyone's hopes and wishes, the economic reality (and geotechnical reality) is compared to most other cities, building tall towers in Cleveland requires a much larger outlay of cash just to get the site buildable. Apparently pointing that out makes me a "can't do" kind of guy :roll: Gee, let's think about the towers over 500 feet - Key Tower, 200 Public Square, Terminal Tower... hmm, is it possible that those were built at a time where the boundless egos behind the buildings were equally matched by boundless financing?!? Noooo, silly me - it had nothing to do with THAT!

 

Next!

 

"Pittsburgh (with an eco-friendly CC and high-rise residential)"

 

An eco-friendly white elephant; and Pittsburgh's not exactly exploding with huge residential towers. What they do have (and especially what they have planned) is certainly impressive but it's not as if Cleveland's lacking (Stonebridge, Pinnacle, Avenue, etc.) in the new residential department.

 

"Miami (trust me, people don't like living in downtown Miami...except for the bums...but they have a department store)"

 

Hmm... maybe something to do with a higher tourist trade? Nah...

 

"There is no excuse, absolutely no excuse why Cleveland does not have a Target, TJ Maxx, Barnes and Nobel and/or Marshalls in downtown by now"

 

What the pope said. Believe me, if it were up to me, I'd have that and more downtown but I'm not on the board of any major retailers nor am I a "pol" who is able to lure said retailers here. I agree with you about OfficeMax but again... I'm not a top executive there.

 

"(i feel like this is the 8th time I've posted this in this thread alone)"

 

Until people actually get a grasp on reality, you'll probably have to rinse/lather/repeat.

 

I'm honestly not trying to lambast or lash out at anyone in particular and I'm not saying anyone is an ignorant person. But the comments themselves are ignorant of the facts - the economical facts, the geotechnical facts, etc. If you would develop a basic understanding of why things are the way they are (in no way, shape or form am I saying they couldn't be done better), it would be a lot less frustrating to those of us who have taken the time to actually learn.

Fort Lauderdale (okay, if C-Town has "dig deep" issues then swampland like that in Fort Lauderdale should be even worst)

 

The "dig deep" issues involve how far below street level the bedrock lies, not the composition of the material in between. Next!

 

"Pittsburgh (with an eco-friendly CC and high-rise residential)"

 

An eco-friendly white elephant; and Pittsburgh's not exactly exploding with huge residential towers. What they do have (and have planned) is certainly impressive but it's not as if Cleveland's lacking (Stonebridge, Pinnacle, Avenue, etc.)

 

"Miami (trust me, people don't like living in downtown Miami...except for the bums...but they have a department store)"

 

Hmm... maybe something to do with a higher tourist trade? Nah...

 

"There is no excuse, absolutely no excuse why Cleveland does not have a Target, TJ Maxx, Barnes and Nobel and/or Marshalls in downtown by now"

 

What the pope said. Believe me, if it were up to me, I'd have that and more downtown but I'm not on the board of any major retailers nor am I a "pol" who is able to lure said retailers here. I agree with you about OfficeMax but again... I'm not a top executive there.

 

"(i feel like this is the 8th time I've posted this in this thread alone)"

 

Until people actually get a grasp on reality, you'll probably have to rinse/lather/repeat.

 

 

Right on MayDay and Pope.

 

 

"Miami (trust me, people don't like living in downtown Miami...except for the bums...but they have a department store)"

 

Hmm... maybe something to do with a higher tourist trade? Nah...

Have you been to that Macy's personally?!  I had to go there, its worse than the Downtown Brooklyn A&S store!  Its straight ghetto.  If I compared the downtown Miami Macy's to Dillards downtown Cleveland, I would have to say Dillards would come out smelling like Bloomingdales.  Just because its there...doesn't mean its worth being there!  Even the Macy's on Miami Beach is pure Sh*t, but atleast that is being renovated, but that is an entirely different market.

 

There is no excuse, absolutely no excuse why Cleveland does not have a Target, TJ Maxx, Barnes and Nobel and/or Marshalls in downtown by now...

 

I agree that there is no reason why Marshalls & TJ Maxx do not have stores in Downtown Cleveland.

 

In my opinion, anyone who believes that if FCE/pols/Cleveland really wanted a Target in the Higbee building they could not have done it by now is a fool.

 

Target's business model doesn't include many downtown locations. Only about 0.006% (or 9 locations out of 1400) are downtown stores.

Pope: Tell me exactly where the residential, officeworkers or tourists are in Milwaukee?  Stamford, has desirable demo's outside of the city, but subjectively speaking it seems that in both residential or officeworkers they trail Cleveland by too much to justify both a department store and a Target...plus both those cities suck when compared to Cleveland.

 

MayDay: Tourists in Miami go to Bayside, they step nowhere near the Macy's and I don't blame them.  Thanks for the dig deep explanation, clearly, I did not know that, and appreciate the lesson.

 

MyTwoSense: Thanks for letting MayDay know why the tourists (or anyone for that matter) would not like to go to that Macy's...imagine that, Macy's in Miami is worst than Dillard's in Cleveland and yet it is exists...because somehow, somebody is getting greased enough to keep the store there...the pols or executives there, have a "can do" attitude.

 

You guys pretty much made my point for me, either the top executives in the companies don't care enough to make these things happen or the politicians are not willing to go the extra mile to prove to the retailers that it is indeed worth it to come to Cleveland.

 

In other words, "tolerable ranges" to use Pope's words, can be easily adjusted by either providing enough cover to the risk (i.e. $$) or by trying just that much harder to convince them that statistics lie ("can do" attitude).

Florida Guy, agreed, but that is something they are changing...and I happen to have been to two cities where they have done it.  Their hometown of Minneapolis (which notice I did not include in the list above as that is one city that kicks ass way more than Cleveland does and they deserve it) and Stamford...not to mention what they did in the dump that is Midtown Miami...