This is awesome.  It'll be great to see more activity down there.  My fingers are crossed.

 

As an aside, I'm not sure I agree that Tower City failed because it was too small, as much as it was a disastrous design with a virtually nonexistent residential component.

Is this going to turn into a turf war between Wolstein and Stark?

Let's hope so.  There definitely needs to be some kind of competition to bring about new and innovative development, instead of waiting for things to plod along per usual.

Is this going to turn into a turf war between Wolstein and Stark?

 

Doubtful. They are friends from boyhood. However, I was surprised about some comments that Khouri made to me about Wolstein, and they've been friends for 20 years. Those will appear in an article next week regarding the Flats East Bank. That article couldn't fit in this week's paper...

 

As an aside, I'm not sure I agree that Tower City failed because it was too small, as much as it was a disastrous design with a virtually nonexistent residential component.

 

I don't have any problems with its design, but I do agree that the lack of residential hurts it greatly. On that score, it is too small.

 

Khouri also told me he thought other projects like the Galleria and many of the housing developments were too small, but since I had limited room, I chose to mention his opinion on Tower City since it was the largest single development in recent decades, in terms of square feet and price tag.

I was going back over the pages in this thread and found a couple of things of interest....

 

KJP or anyone, would you say that the next tollgate for this project to become a reality is Stark securing a few big name retailers for this project? If not, what else would be the next progression that is necessary in order to keep this thing moving?

 

I can't say anything specific right now because I was asked to keep it off the record, but look for some big-name retailers to be publicly announced. And these are big (square footage) retailers, too. I don't know when that will happen, but I would be surprised if it is more than a matter of a couple of months. I'll keep prodding on that one.

 

And, here's a photo of the biggest continuously unbroken piece of property owned by Kassouf in the affected area. To belabor the obvious from the picture, it's a pretty strategic piece of land....

 

I was going back over the pages in this thread and found a couple of things of interest....

 

KJP or anyone, would you say that the next tollgate for this project to become a reality is Stark securing a few big name retailers for this project?  If not, what else would be the next progression that is necessary in order to keep this thing moving?

 

I can't say anything specific right now because I was asked to keep it off the record, but look for some big-name retailers to be publicly announced. And these are big (square footage) retailers, too. I don't know when that will happen, but I would be surprised if it is more than a matter of a couple of months. I'll keep prodding on that one.

 

And, here's a photo of the biggest continuously unbroken piece of property owned by Kassouf in the affected area. To belabor the obvious from the picture, it's a pretty strategic piece of land....

 

 

This is the project I'm most stoked about. I think it's really positive that Eton's new retailers are local businesses because it shows Stark isn't all about plugging in only national chains. He seems to be really working with other people.

 

I can't tell, is that piece of land you posted near the Waterfront Line, KJP? If this all starts taking shape by 2010, it will fit in with when I'll be about ready to purchase my first property/house/condo, I think. It could be a good opportunity if there are properties within my budget.

Yes, that's the Waterfront Line at the left (along with Norfolk Southern's tracks). You may recall that the Waterfront Line runs between Browns Stadium and downtown's central business district.

Thanks. I thought so. Between all the parking lots and the empty port, my sense of space is thrown out of whack -- not that it was ever that good, lol.

 

Wow.

 

Man, I bet Stark and the other guy are clicking their shoes. 

Fantastic news! I do believe this will be highly transformative.

 

In regards to Tower City; I just don't know if the timing and consumer trends were right when it was installed in 1990. Of course there wasn't much of a residential base then, but I don't know if people really had much interest in living "downtown" anywhere in 1990 - at least not like today. To me it seems like a lot more people in a lot of cities want to go back to into the city to shop, dine, live, work, etc. I know a lot of people in my generation feel this way more so than the baby boomers. I also think the opinion growing in a lot of people is that since suburbs keep sprawling they tend to go out of fashion as new ones pop up; downtowns look a lot less speculative nowadays - especially if they are done well and made to be attractive. And you have to consider that in 1990 there was no Rock Hall, no Gateway, and not nearly as many hotels downtown for some reason.

 

What about that decrepid parking deck at the corner of W.6th and Superior? Is that land controlled by Stark now?

Not yet. It's still owned by Kersdale Limited Partnership, according to Mr. Russo's website.... http://auditor.cuyahogacounty.us/REPI/General.asp?txtParcel=10110014

 

I suspect Stark is putting most of his staff's efforts into going after the larger chunks of land first, although he's invited all affected property owners to his presentations. And while John Coyne says he's low on the totem pole, he's being a bit modest. His family's land (3 acres) is one of the largest single properties in the Warehouse Distrct.

 

By the way, here's the land that Kassouf owns in the affected area and under the following companies:

 

Prime Properties Limited Partnership

Flats Waterfront Association

Cuyahoga Lakefront Land LLC

 

600 Front – 4.15 acres

1010 Front – 3.51 acres

? ? ? Front – 0.06 acres

1060 Front – 1.12 acres

1069 Front – 0.377 acre

229 St. Clair – 0.16 acre

1277 West6th – NA

1285 West6th – 0.1

1296 West6th – 0.17

1299 West6th – 0.12

? ? ? West6th – 0.18

1290 West4th – 0.06

TOTAL Kassouf --- 9.96 acres

 

This is what Duane Cameron of Los Angeles owns under the following companies:

 

System Property Development Co.

C-K Properties

 

1369-1383 West9th – 0.34 acre

1391 West9th – 0.33 acre

1397 West9th – 0.42 acre

701 StClair – 0.47 acre

715 StClair – 0.19 acre

725 StClair – 0.12 acre

733 StClair – 0.15 acre

? ? ? Frankfort – 0.15 acre

? ? ? Frankfort – 0.06 acre

TOTAL Cameron --- 2.17 acres of land

 

This is what John Coyne owns through a family company C & K Properties/C-K Investments Inc. (very similar name to Cameron's but the names on the company filings with the state are under Coyne's name)...

 

1151 West6th – 2.78 acres

 

Prior to the internet, this would have taken me several days' worth of trips to the auditor's office to sift through all their records to find this stuff. And I had to cross-check it with the Ohio Secretary of State's website to learn who actually owned which companies. Even that didn't always work, so I did Google searches using attorneys names and the property owners whom I suspected they represented and was able to come up with some matches based on past legal filings. How long would that have taken me at various courthouses?? Instead, I was able to compile all this in a half a day, from my own home, and on a Saturday no less!

 

Wonderful thing, this Internet....

Re: Tower City

 

Wasn't there originally supposed to be three different phases to the project?

And did it not include residential?

I'm not an authority on Forest City's original plans, but I think that was the plan for the Scranton Peninsula.

I remember that they had that "Tower City Phase II--Neiman Marcus" sign up for a few years.

Re: Tower City

 

Wasn't there originally supposed to be three different phases to the project?

And did it not include residential?

 

Three phases, but not sure if it was to include housing.  The entire area where the parking deck, going south (overlooking the peninsula not on it), was suppose to have two maybe three towers.  I know one was suppose to be the Westin Hotel as it would have connected to Needless Markup.

 

Fantastic news! I do believe this will be highly transformative.

 

In regards to Tower City; I just don't know if the timing and consumer trends were right when it was installed in 1990. Of course there wasn't much of a residential base then, but I don't know if people really had much interest in living "downtown" anywhere in 1990 - at least not like today. To me it seems like a lot more people in a lot of cities want to go back to into the city to shop, dine, live, work, etc. I know a lot of people in my generation feel this way more so than the baby boomers. I also think the opinion growing in a lot of people is that since suburbs keep sprawling they tend to go out of fashion as new ones pop up; downtowns look a lot less speculative nowadays - especially if they are done well and made to be attractive. And you have to consider that in 1990 there was no Rock Hall, no Gateway, and not nearly as many hotels downtown for some reason.

 

What about that decrepid parking deck at the corner of W.6th and Superior? Is that land controlled by Stark now?

 

I agree, and as I've often been a critic of FC back then when I was in Comm. Relations at SOHIO many people asked why not build housing along with the mall.  Although I don't know your age Vulpster, there are a lot of people in our metro area in their later 30s earlier 40s that would like to live in "urban" neighborhoods closer to the action, not out in the cookie cutter 'burbs.  I even know suburbanites that would like a vibrant inner city that they can come "play" which would provide them a place to have fun or enjoy a city "weekend getaway".

 

Albeit late, the city is now starting to properly "connect the dots" as more and more people (single, families, new people to the area, people returning to the area) want a wide array of activies/options in the neighborhood they chose to settle down in.

 

The westside is sprawling down Lorain and Detroit with it all starting from the activity on the West Bank.  The eastside has the East Bank Project, The Avenue, CSU/Upper Prospect, Sterling Payne/China Town as areas that are about to explode and as of today, Burke has been thrown in the mix.

 

So in a few years we should have rejuvenated neighborhoods that easily flow from one another yet have their own appeal.

Great update KJP!  The response from partner developers is so positive...and it's great that they're treating each other as allies, instead of competitors...it's great to see this!

I have a question, and I apologize if it’s been covered already, but where’s the port supposed to go when all this is finished?  I don’t see how the city can just not have it anymore.

^ there is a nice interactive map of the lakefront vision.

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/lakefront/

 

basically, the port would move to reclaimed/new fill land north of whiskey island. 

I have a question, and I apologize if it’s been covered already, but where’s the port supposed to go when all this is finished?  I don’t see how the city can just not have it anymore.

 

Check out this article I wrote in January....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=6727.msg70057#msg70057

wow great investigative work kjp. coyne was being modest wasn't he? he controls a little more of the affected land than cameron does! glad he appears to be on board. the outta-towner cameron is the wildcard so far.

Thanks for the responses urbanlife and KJP, I had seen some visuals on the island idea before but never considered it a real option because I knew it would take several decades to accumulate enough dredge material to make it...I can’t believe how long it’s taking to fill Dike 10B.  I had never heard of this “rubber soil” stuff.  It’s interesting.

Unbelievable to think that someday you may be able to drive right up to the Lighthouse!!!  Done carefully, the island could mitigate the years of so called "improvements" that completely ruined our coastline. This would be accomplished by adding new sand beaches, wetlands and areas of public access.

 

I wish however that the island concept didn't necessitate taking over so much of Whiskey Island. The marina there is an asset.

Unbelievable to think that someday you may be able to drive right up to the Lighthouse!!! 

 

This isn't a dig at you surf...but at our regions mindset.  DRIVE????????????    We should be able to walk there or get there via public transportation!

When do you think we might have an official announcement about this?

 

Perhaps as early as this fall, maybe early next year. Just a guess though.

anyone see this plan for Pittsburgh??  Seems like other rust-belt cities are getting sizeable projects going as well.  seems to be a high level of design with this one (or a really creative rendering at least!).  I really hope Stark pushes the architecture of this development.  An old/new mix would be great here.  I really dont think mimicking the warehouse district buildings already there is going to set it apart from lifestyle centers that do the same thing.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06191/704773-100.stm

 

700-unit housing plan chosen for Cultural District

Monday, July 10, 2006

 

By Timothy McNulty, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

 

The Pittsburgh Cultural Trust today announced plans for a $460 million housing development that will link the Downtown Cultural District with the Allegheny riverfront.

 

The development, which features 700 rental and condominium units, will be along Fort Duquesne Boulevard between Seventh and Ninth streets. Parking lots currently dominate the area.

bah, Zaceman you got me excited for a second. I was scrolling up and thought that you had found the latest on Stark's plans.

 

C'mon Mr. Stark, we're hungry for some more news!

haha sorry

 

but honestly if places like Pittsburgh (where even the metro is steadily shrinking) has developments of that quality then Cleveland sure can as well.  i mean granted theirs is rental housing, half the cost of Pesht and is gonna take 10 years to eventually build.

WAAAY too early to judge, but I don't think the Warehouse District project will turn out to be as interesting as the Pitts project unless Stark makes a complete 180 degree turn from what he and most developers have done.  The reason Pitts project looks to be very interesting from a design and urban planning standpoint is because the city developed a design competition to seek out the best developer and architectural team to develop the city land (not the case in Stark's plan, it's his land).

I believe Bialowsky Architects did Crocker Park and maybe even the conceptual renderings for WHD, and trust me, that firm is not capable of doing very interesting urban architecture, and very often developers stay with the architects that they have worked with the longest, not necessarily the most talented ones.

Hopefully all that changes and Stark goes for something even more contemporary and exciting as the Pitts project.

I'm not being pessimistic, I know it sounds like it, I just want the most dynamic space possible because this city deserves it.  Cmon Robert, give it that to us!

I took a cursory look at the web page of the project's developer, the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust. It's a cultural organization that oversees an arts district in Downtown Pittsburgh, funded by the Heinz family fortune. No wonder the design is so high-calibre!

It seems we should be doing similar, arts & culture-oriented development in Cleveland. A comparable set-up here would be if the Cleveland Foundation started funding residential development projects overseen by Playhouse Square or University Circle. We'd get higher-quality design that way (especially, perhaps, if UCI were at the helm).

Ya know what, though?  I like Crocker Park, city dweller that I am.  I think the scale is appropriate.  Not every urban project needs to be (nor should be) some ridiculous Frank Gehry spaceship plopped down from space.  That Pittsburgh thing, IMO, is horrendous--it looks like those plastic boxes you put in your closet to store stuff.  Architecture doesn't need to stick out like a sore thumb to be "interesting".

 

By the same token, if you hold design competitions for every little development in the city, you'll never build a damn thing.  In this case, the zoning regs are in place--let the developer and design team do their work and start building on those parking lots!

There shouldn't be a design competition for every single thing built, but we sure as HELL shouldn't just be happy something is built!  The Pesht project could possibly be half our damn city!  If you take that stance, you will get shit project after shit project.  If you think that Pittsburgh thing sucks, Crocker Park is good architecture, AND you think there shouldn't be competions to get the best product, you have some serious issues.  Architecture should be pushing the reality and perception of our built environment, not be content with simply copying it's surroundings.

I've never typed so quickly in my life to respond to your ridiculous blather DaninDC.

Whoa.  Cut the personal bullshit, okay? 

 

As a design professional, I certainly don't take the "take whatever you get approach".  Ultimately, though, it's up to the developer/owner to determine what is suitable.  The city's only means of reproach is through zoning (which I hope would be form-based in this location).  You can't realistically expect the City to meddle in every free-market project by imposing design competitions upon every owner who wants to set up shop in town.  No one would want to build anything, because the expense and hassle wouldn't be worth it.

 

Architecture *should* push the envelope.  It does not need to be ridiculous to do so.  Look at the Pittsburgh renderings--do they even acknowledge the context of the surrounding environment???  Any new project in the Flats/WHD should rightfully respect the history of the city, the neighborhood, and its context.  Just as you wouldn't plop a Tudor mansion into the Flats, you don't just plop a modernistic building onto an empty lot.

 

Crocker Park only seems hokey to some because it's plopped in the middle of plastic-fantastic suburban Westlake.  Within the development, it does retain a fairly urban quality--something that has become nearly a foreign commodity in NEO.   

 

If that consititutes ridiculous blather, so be it, but I can assure you I know a thing or two more about the design and construction process than most on these boards.

I'm not an architecture expert, but I've browsed Bialowsky's projects on the web and some of them seem a lot better than others.

 

I think we have to keep in mind that even though Crocker Park architecturally speaking might look awkward to serious architecture enthusiasts - it actually fits the architecture quite well being propogated throughout Westlake, which is a lot of traditional revivalism we are seeing in a lot of applied postmodernist structures. In my opinion it does create an appropriate "downtown" there - at least stylisticly. I don't think Crocker Park's design is over-the-top phony like Legacy Village, or something out of Vegas or Disney World.

 

 

I will defend Crocker Park here, but I think I do so for good reasons. First of all I think people need to understand that a semi-upscale shopping center on the West Side was simply inevitable. The population is growing and the market is pretty much there. Stark's plan for a shopping center on the West Side was a lot better than the other option that was on the table; Dick Jacob's plan to build a sprawling shopping "mall" in Avon (which is outside of Cuyahoga County). 

 

Assuming the inevitablity of a semi-upscale shopping center on the West Side - the fact that Crocker Park includes residential, office, public transit, and civic functions with a medium density and parking garages is pretty impressive. It has also been fairly sensitive to its surroundings with the incorporation of the Promenade, Crocker Rd. streetscape and pedestrian improvements, extension of Crocker Park Blvd., Union St., and Market St., across Crocker Road into land for other developers to build.

 

BTW, the Sierra Club did endorss this as a good development.

well im not even saying the pittsburgh development is that great archiecturally since the rendering looks kinda unfinished and vague, however the design competition is something that a project of this size deserves.  I mean yea we dont need one building by building, but there were ones held for the lakefront plan werent there?  why not this project as well??  i think its relevant given Stark's source of influence for this development.

I'm not even going to comment on the design of that Pittsburgh project because the rendering is frankly just overstylized visual saccarine.  It's misleading.

 

The most important thing I would say about Pest's design is that I'd hope that when it is done, nobody will be able to tell that it was one big "development".

architecture aside, the worrisome part is that the pitts development has a summer 2007 groundbreaking and is for real and going to happen. so in that sense it's light years ahead of pesht. despite some backstage land manoevers, pesht remains a conceptual idea so far.

 

am i wrong? somebody please say yes.

^ right, but what i've read in other articles is that it'll be finished in 10 years... or at least its aiming to be and its 700 rental units... i thought there was a strong housing market in downtown pittsburgh, why no for sale?  seems like all of the cleveland projects including pesht seem to be looking to be complete before 2017... heh even the art museum...

The lakefront plan had more to do with civic amenities.  This is a private-sector residential/office/retail development, which is an entirely different animal, hence no design competition. 

 

I think all renderings are misleading, to tell you the truth.  They always show happy people walking around, and it's 70 degrees and sunny outside.  LOL

 

The Pesht project will be subjected to the same review and permitting process as every other project in town, so the City will see the architectural drawings prior to issuing a permit.  It is not atypical for permitting authorities to make comments during this process that are addressed prior to construction. 

 

Stark knows that what he builds is going to have a tremendous impact.  I have to think that given the myriad number of lots that there will be varied building types, especially if the construction is phased.  Let's have some faith and confidence in this team, folks.  If, for some reason, they screw up, I'll be more than happy to lead the lynch mob.  :-)

   

 

 

Well, I am not sure what this means.  The lot at W.9/St. Clair has been sold for twice the amount that it was bought for a couple years back (I am pretty sure its the same lot).  I believe that Stark was trying to get the owner to sign a development agreement. Hmm... KJP, do you know anything??

 

 

Monday July 31, 2006

 

Los Angeles firm pay $24M for prime lots

 

By STAN BULLARD

 

6:00 am, July 31, 2006

 

L&R Auto Parks of Los Angeles is the new owner of three of Cleveland’s best-located parking sites.

 

Article Removed

Hadn't heard anything. Perhaps this explains why Stark was having a harder time trying to get the former owner, Duane Cameron, to sign a development agreement....maybe because Cameron was interested only in finding a buyer for the lot?

bummer...if KJP doesn't know what's going on, nobody does!

Oh the pressure!  :oops:

Sounds like bad news, indeed.  If L&R paid twice the amont the lot had been bought for, how does Stark possibly believe he's going to encourage development on it now -- esp since L&R's a parking lot company in the 1st place... Stark has nice ideas, but frankly, this Pesht deal relied on too much cooperation from those -- particularly highlighted by the Cameron sale -- who may have different motivations than Stark.  Maybe this isn't a deal breaker, but looking at this deal, esp in light of an article noting that RE developers, nationally, are pulling out of their condo developments, this sale can't make one feel good about Pesht by any stretch of the imagination.

Maybe this isn't a deal breaker, but looking at this deal, esp in light of an article noting that RE developers, nationally, are pulling out of their condo developments, this sale can't make one feel good about Pesht by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Isn't that stretching the analogy a bit? Many other cities have over-built their residential units in the past couple of years. Cleveland never experienced that bubble. I wouldn' throw Pesht in the trash can so prematurely.

^I agree!  With the other mega lots moving forward, and the value of the land rising significantly, the pressure will be on this new owner to either pump rates up beyond acceptable levels or to improve the land.  That may mean a garage (a la 515 Euclid) with a retail front and the potential for a tower or for a future sale to someone who will develop it.  Either way, they'll probably make a ton of money...

 

Fact is, Stark's grand plans are going to take years to realize, so I wouldn't go throwing in the towel just yet! 

and if you notice, the premium was paid for surface lots.  the parking deck, with more spaces and more potential parking revenue, sold for much less per space, for instance, than the surface lot next door. 

 

the value of the land itself is going up.  this is a good sign for development, although in the short term it may slow things down.

 

Price Per Space

9.4m  - 250 spaces = $37600/space  (gateway lot)

5.35m - 400 spaces = $13375/space  (parking deck)

10m  - 400 spaces = $25000/space  (warehouse lot)

 

Stark will need the local government to find a way to raise significant dollars to help develop these sites.  He will need MAJOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE if he's to build Buddah.  Pesht will come later as a natural revitalization/consequence.  (Actually, the Avenue District is the start of Pesht.) 

Buddah?

Buddah?

 

As in "Buddah Pesht", I believe