For those of you who have actually visited (and spent money) at SYC, what is your opinion?

Dan, don't cut and paste your text book responses for a place that you've never visited. I was there last weekend and the Guv is correct. Its a very interested experience. From the parking lot, you see this large working steel mill closely situated behind all the boxes. To the north, there is a bluff with an assortment of homes sitting atop it. To the west, there are a few stories of highway bridges that bookend the site. I'm not saying that its a wonderful place, but you definitely know that you are somewhere different.

 

I have been there, so HA.  I will note that all of the so-called attractive features you mention are extraneous to the jive plastic consumer hell of Steelyard Commons.  How exactly does the architecture and orientation of the strip mall enhance these existing features? 

 

Did I give a textbook response?  Well, in a sense, yes.  That's because THERE USED TO BE BOOKS that governed the principles of good design.  Now, all you have to do is look up the number of required parking spaces in the Municipal Code, and plop your shitbox wherever and however you want.

 

Let me put it to you this way:  Take your mental image of Steelyard Commons.  Now go to the photo thread of Hagerstown/Baltimore/DC, and tell me the two are even close.  Steelyard Commons could easily be in Macedonia, Strongsville, Avon, or Bainbridge.  There is NOTHING unique about it, other than the scale of the wasted opportunity. 

i can get with idealistic goals discussion like this, but i dk here. i mean it was a freakin steel plant previously, a private property horizontal paean to consumerism if there ever was one. its not like that land could be safely or economically redeveloped into a residential neighborhood, unless you want children that look like versions of blinky on the simpsons:

 

 

i can get with idealistic goals discussion like this, but i dk here. i mean it was a freakin steel plant previously, a private property horizontal paean to consumerism if there ever was one. its not like that land could be safely or economically redeveloped into a residential neighborhood, unless you want children that look like versions of blinky on the simpsons:

 

 

LMAO...MRNYC...YOU'RE INSANE MAN!

Can someone please answer this question?

 

How does a developer create a big box retail center (present in nearly every American city) that is not a nowhere?

^You don't.  Big box centers are inherently an anti-urban form--out of scale, oversaturated with retail, physically isolated, dominated by parking lots, and almost always single-use zoning.

^ Well, then isn't this a rather moot debate? Steelyard Commons has been in development for well over a year now; if big box is inherently anti-urban, then debating its aesthetics after it's already been approved seems to be a pretty hollow exercise.

 

I am inclined to agree that you are not going to get aesthetically pleasing design with big box.

That being said, I have been pleasantly surprised with how Steelyard Commons has roled out and particularly the role that trail and potentially train connections have been incorporated into the plan. Am I excited about big box? No (okay ... I will be a patron of Target - sue me). But I feel that the developer and the tenants are going beyond what they had to do. It could be a WHOLE lot worse.

 

As an aside, I heard from an artist the other day that there are plans to have multiple pieces of public art throughout the site (beyond the public art up the hill at the Quigley Connector, the historical steel pieces and the steel history exhibit). So, in addition to foregoing tax advantages, remediating a pretty toxic-looking site, injecting money into the school system, neighborhood storefront improvements and trail connectors and being an advocate for a north-south train connection, the developer is also supporting our local artist workforce. Frankly, I don't think we could have expected much better, and as has been noted, I don't think the city would have ever attracted a better use and certainly not in the foreseeable future.

^Schneider (the developer) has given around $100k to the Tremont cdc for public art and some other assorted items.

^Duly noted, but it was not imperative to build *something* on that site.  Now, the soil may have been cleaned up, but by paving acres of parking lot, you're inviting all sorts of fluids from automobiles to flow directly into the Cuyahoga.  Not to mention that you're messing with the river's hydrograph, which could lead to increased flooding--especially in years of heavy snowfall.

 

And am I the only one who thinks it's a stupid idea to place a statue in a traffic circle that is downright hostile to pedestrians?  Whose enjoyment is this statue intended for--the cars going by at 35 mph?

 

The developer only builds what the city permits.

 

I know I've been very aggressive in my criticism of this development, but I firmly contend that you can't trot out a cookie cutter shopping center as "progress" while you simultaneously question where the bright, young people are going. 

I just guess I'm inclined to disagree that there's a correlation between Steelyard Commons and the exodus of young people from the region. There are a number of bright, young people in Cleveland, including a number on this board, and I don't anticipate any of us will be packing our bags for the east coast because of Steelyard.

 

I agree that big box is not a sexy kind of development, nor one that will increase the "buzz" or "vibe" among affluent, educated and/or young people. But the sad fact is that Cleveland residents currently spend millions of dollars at big box in the suburbs. We have to face the reality that these developments were already accessible to the urban market, even if they weren't in the city proper.

 

Moreover, while I think it's important to develop a city environment that's hospitable to bright, young people, catering exclusively to this demographic fails to serve the needs of an overwhelming majority of urban residents nationwide. Again, I'm not a fan of big box, but it does arguably have the ability to employ more city residents and to offer lower prices on consumer products than is currently available; in that sense, it will provide a service to a large number of Cleveland residents, beyond the tax revenue that it will generate.

 

My response is quite simple, love it or hate it, it is good for the City of Cleveland.

RE:

"You don't.  Big box centers are inherently an anti-urban form--out of scale, oversaturated with retail, physically isolated, dominated by parking lots, and almost always single-use zoning."

 

A  www search employing the search terms, "big box center 'city name' " provided the following big box centers that seemingly aim to be somewhere.  Also, what do you make of a big box center in the form of a lifestyle center?

 

- Trolley Square at Santee Town Center (CA)

http://www.shopsanteetrolleysquare.com

 

- Carmel Mountain Plaza (CA)

http://www.carmelmountainplaza.com

 

- Pittsburgh Mills (PA)

http://www.pittsburghmills.com

 

- Kentlands Square (MD)

http://www.kentlandssquare.com

As a person who once rented in Tremont and now owns a house in Old Brooklyn - I am ecstatic about having these retail options closer to home.  I've visted the Home Depot several times and I was impressed with the area.  Like many have said - the steel mills behind the development is impressive, as well as looking up at the 71/Jennings interchange and Metro Hospital hovering above.  Regardless of what you think about the development, it is being welcomed by the people that live nearby.  When petco opens up - it will be the only pet store with in 10 miles of the area..only Old Navy within 15 miles, etc. etc. 

 

The development may not make the grade for those of you that are urban renewal dreamers - but Cleveland will be better off with this development. 

It's not entirely the development itself, per se, but the mentality behind it.  By building something like this, the City of Cleveland effectively says, "We're stuck in the 1950s!". 

 

There's nothing that says normal, everyday people can't have decent environments.  Obtaining as much shit as cheaply as possible doesn't have to trump good design.  I've been in downright dangerous neighborhoods in DC that look far more civilized than this sparkling new shrine to drive-in, drive-out mass consumption.   

Actually I believe the parking lots and drainage areas of SYC were built to either filter or absorb runoff from the lots to protect the Cuyahoga.

 

 

Dan just curious as to how you would have designed and built a retail ,office or residential center with the same stores as SYC, so that it was ingrained into the city?

Well, this Target in downtown Minneapolis ain't a bad start.  I'm sure you could find an empty lot or building in downtown Cleveland. 

 

Then there's this Best Buy in the Tenleytown neighborhood of DC.  A vacant Sears store from the 1950s houses this location.

 

Or how about Home Depot in SoHo, Manhattan?

I agree that would be a great start in downtown Cleveland, but I'm talking specifically about the SYC site. Also I'd rather see a flagship Macy's or Neimans in downtown before a Target :).

 

^Who says you have to build on the SYC site?  Public Square has a transit hub and sits  half-empty and underutilized, and you want to build new somewhere else?  What are they putting in Cleveland water these days?

^Who says you have to build on the SYC site?  Public Square has a transit hub and sits  half-empty and underutilized, and you want to build new somewhere else?  What are they putting in Cleveland water these days?

 

Since when is public square ½ empty??  ¼ of the outer quadrants lacks development, but I would hardly say "½ empty".

Is Steelyard Commons one of those shopping centers like Legacy Village in Lyndhurst where the visitors have to walk outdoors between the clusters of stores?  I hate that.  I saw a shopping center near Seattle where they did that and it was fine, but Seattle does not get fifty or a hundred inches of snow and a five month winter. 

 

On the contrary, we should have development like Minnesota or the cities in the plains-provinces of Canada where one could walk for blocks on a second-floor-level walkway.  Or there is the "Mall of America" concept in Minnesota which is the gigantic mall.  I know it does not sound too swell here on UrbanOhio, but it would be OK if it was not too far from home and energy-and-carbon-efficient.

 

P.S.: I loved DanInDC's architecture lesson

Assume there is nowhere to put retail in downtown and you the developer have been given this plot of land to develop into a neighborhood or retail area and make it part of the larger surrounding hoods. How would YOU do it?

 

 

Boreal SYC is a typical shopping plaza or strip mall, its surroundings are very unique though.

"^Who says you have to build on the SYC site?  Public Square has a transit hub and sits  half-empty and underutilized, and you want to build new somewhere else?  What are they putting in Cleveland water these days?

 

I have no problem with the first part of your post - the last sentence is unnecessary and it's insulting.

^Who says you have to build on the SYC site?  Public Square has a transit hub and sits  half-empty and underutilized, and you want to build new somewhere else?  What are they putting in Cleveland water these days?

At this point, there isn't a demand for a Target on Public Square.  I don't know why you would think a developer would chose that spot to try to woo Target.  You can't just build things somewhere because it would look good.  Target is trying to make money, not rejuvinate downtowns across America. 

^Honestly?  If I were given that land, I'd either build warehouses on it, or sell it. 

 

The parcel is too isolated.  You have a freeway to the west, and a large hospital on the other side of that. To the east, you have the ISG mill and the railroad tracks.  The elevation of the property is significantly lower than the real estate on the other side of the freeway, so connectivity of the site is going to be poor at best.  To illustrate this point, ODOT had to build a new interchange to even make the site useful.  Your tax dollars directly into Mitchell Schneider's pocket.   

 

There is functioning industry nearby, so residential use here is a bit dicey.  Transit connections are poor (a commuter rail station is still a pipe dream).  The soil may or may not be contaminated.  Quite honestly, there are not many desirable aspects of the site. 

 

What got built was not built because "it's what people want", but because it's exactly what th e City of Cleveland zoning regulations prescribe.  I reiterate that this site was *not* crying to be built upon.   

"^Who says you have to build on the SYC site?  Public Square has a transit hub and sits  half-empty and underutilized, and you want to build new somewhere else?  What are they putting in Cleveland water these days?

 

I have no problem with the first part of your post - the last sentence is unnecessary and it's insulting.

 

What's insulting is suburban crap so close to the historic heart of downtown.  There is a pronounced lack of respect for Cleveland's history and urbanity on this thread.  It's not my problem Cleveland has chosen to forget how to function as a city.

 

At this point, there isn't a demand for a Target on Public Square.  I don't know why you would think a developer would chose that spot to try to woo Target.  You can't just build things somewhere because it would look good.  Target is trying to make money, not rejuvinate downtowns across America.

 

But there is a demand for a Target a mile away, on a remote site, virtually inaccessible by transit? 

 

And if it doesn't look good, why build it?  Cleveland's #1 goal, on the other hand, should be rejuvenating its existing neighborhoods, including downtown--not making money for private enterprise at the expense of the existing neighborhoods.  If that doesn't fit into the business plan of Wal Mart or Target or whomever, then so be it.  You have to have standards of planning and design if you want to have a well-functioning city.   

^Who says you have to build on the SYC site?  Public Square has a transit hub and sits  half-empty and underutilized, and you want to build new somewhere else?  What are they putting in Cleveland water these days?

At this point, there isn't a demand for a Target on Public Square.  I don't know why you would think a developer would chose that spot to try to woo Target.  You can't just build things somewhere because it would look good.  Target is trying to make money, not rejuvinate downtowns across America. 

 

not to mention there certainly isnt a demand for a flagship target, which what the minneapolis target is (or was, when hudson owned them). so unless clevo is going to come up with a new retail chain that takes off in a big way, downtown aint gettin no new giant retail buildings for awhile. b&n maybe.

 

otoh, speaking of local, maybe the locals can come through after all. can you imagine an all new flagship stouffers brand frozen pizza store with residential over the top of it and cafes and stuff at ground level in pesht or maybe a new chef-boy-ar-dee office tower? yeah, that would be ef-ing cool -- very tokyo pop!

 

^I've heard that the downtown Chicago Target is the 2nd worst performing store in all the US. I don't think Target loves building downtown (MN is their HQ).

I feel like everyone is just reiterating their points now, but anyway I haven't commented in a while. I was kind of disappointed in the project at first, because I felt like some housing could have been incorporated, stores could have been planned to be two stories, and parking garages could have planned instead of surface lots. I'm still disappointed that this is not the case, however I've reached the point where I accept the project because it is unique in many regards, and this is NOT the only project that has taken place in Cleveland in the past twenty years nor is it the last project for the next twenty years.

 

First of all, the number of big-box retailers within a single center is unmatched by the suburbs. The aesthetics of it are at least better than most suburban centers or big box agglomerates (take Avon Commons - a First Interstate Property - and compare it to the agglomerate in North Olmsted; there can be a difference. Some big box retail developments include more greenspace and promote more pedestrian activity). RTA service was incorporated in its plans. It was environmentally conscious in that it cleaned up a brownfield site and  parking lots were designed to filter runoff. It has been a good neighbor in that it is not seeking tax credits, and it wants to help the towpath trail and scenic railroad. Furthermore Walmart has recently announced a plan to be particularly sensitive to local businesses.

 

It is good for the city, because it keeps more dollars within the city. The reality is that residents have to or choose to travel outside the limits to shop at stores they want to shop. The center may still be automobile-centric, but at least many people will only be driving 5 miles instead of 20 miles to shop at these stores. I like nice things and services, but I don't think its right to have an elitist position that people shouldn't buy their socks and underwear from Walmart or Target.

 

No other big city in the country (as far as I know) has a development like this so close and accessible from the center of the city. The reality is that while people really get excited about higher end retail and vibrant mixed-use developments, people still need big box stores for basics or discount shopping. I draw on some personal experience while being car-free in Europe for six months. It was nice to see all the high end stores and restaurants in vibrant old city centers, but during the six months I needed basic goods and I didn't want to struggle to find them or pay an absurd amount of money. Europe does in fact have big box shopping, but they are no where near the center of the city and I could never get to them because of transporation issues. My point is that having a shopping center like Steelyard near the center of the city isn't by any means "exciting," but it can compliment some of the more exciting mixed-use and higher-end projects for the Flats and Downtown. 

"What's insulting is suburban crap so close to the historic heart of downtown.  There is a pronounced lack of respect for Cleveland's history and urbanity on this thread.  It's not my problem Cleveland has chosen to forget how to function as a city."

 

Perhaps, but what IS your problem is that you find it necessary to 1. insult other forumers and 2. disregard a reasonable request from an Admin and with a little attitude. You've earned a day to cool off and learn how to post your (I mean this sincerely) insightful comments without resorting to insulting forumers - and the residents of Cleveland.

there it is -- just in the nick of time vulpster swoops in with a well thought out & level headed post!

I love when MayDay plays parent. I hope I never get grounded.

I have no problem with people disagreeing and having arguments, nor do I have a problem with someone who may prefers to be known for having a snippy rep. However, when I or another Admin says enough is enough, it's probably a good idea to back off.

^Who says you have to build on the SYC site?  Public Square has a transit hub and sits  half-empty and underutilized, and you want to build new somewhere else?  What are they putting in Cleveland water these days?

At this point, there isn't a demand for a Target on Public Square.  I don't know why you would think a developer would chose that spot to try to woo Target.  You can't just build things somewhere because it would look good.  Target is trying to make money, not rejuvinate downtowns across America. 

 

not to mention there certainly isnt a demand for a flagship target, which what the minneapolis target is (or was, when hudson owned them). so unless clevo is going to come up with a new retail chain that takes off in a big way, downtown aint gettin no new giant retail buildings for awhile. b&n maybe.

 

otoh, speaking of local, maybe the locals can come through after all. can you imagine an all new flagship stouffers brand frozen pizza store with residential over the top of it and cafes and stuff at ground level in pesht or maybe a new chef-boy-ar-dee office tower? yeah, that would be ef-ing cool -- very tokyo pop!

 

 

FYI.  Dayton-Hudson is "Target".  The company changed names (from Dayton-Hudson to Target) when they did a brand "re-image" in 2001.

 

If Stouffers did relaunch, I would want the retail restaurant to go back to Shaker Square, the home of their original restaurant.

I love when MayDay plays parent. I hope I never get grounded.

 

Me too.  The only thing that was missing with the evil queen or eye of saron key tower photo  :-D

Boreal SYC is a typical shopping plaza or strip mall, its surroundings are very unique though.

thanks for your response

 

FYI.  Dayton-Hudson is "Target".  The company changed names (from Dayton-Hudson to Target) when they did a brand "re-image" in 2001.

 

 

i know but the point being the new target is there because the hq is or was based in minneapolis.

 

SYC will not only keep Cleveland retail dollars in Cleveland, but will attract new retail dollars from suburbanites on their way to, from and through downtown.

 

Would I rather see a retail rebirth in downtown proper - of course! But at least this is getting people who for a generation have only known the drive out to the suburban fringe to the the latest big box/strip/life style center to see there are other options.

 

It's a step in the process and better that the "no-build" option for sure.

http://www.steelyardcommons.com/pdf/Steelyard%20Openings%20by%20month-short%20version%20(2).pdf

 

full tenant list and opening dates.

 

it is bittersweet. i'm glad we are getting all these chains in Cleveland proper, and this would further push me to move downtown in the future; however, I'd like to see these chains in the downtown area first. There is so much vacant space downtown. For example, the old Higbee's building would make an excellent big-box store.

 

Higbee's would make an excellent big box store or obviously Department store  :laugh:, but I don't think that can happen now that its being remodeled for other uses. I keep hoping that the stark project will inject much needed retail into downtown though and atleast rumor (from this site) says it will we just have to be patient, but its killing me.

 

And am I the only one who thinks it's a stupid idea to place a statue in a traffic circle that is downright hostile to pedestrians?  Whose enjoyment is this statue intended for--the cars going by at 35 mph?

 

 

 

Yes.

 

It is not a statue (I know, semantics). The artist (local) Michael Murphy, spent a lot of time with the community when designing his sculpture.

It was designed to have a specific look from every angle when approaching the roundabout (it's not a traffic circle, again semantics).

The main image will be seen when driving on West 14th toward SYC. It is a hand holding a Lotus Flower which signifies the act of giving.

 

It was approved last October by the Planning Commission with commendations from Lillian Kuri.

 

Here is the summary from that meeting http://clevelandplanner.blogspot.com/2006/10/september1-2006-cleveland-planning.html:

 

2. DRC 06-123:

This is possible through a grant from NPI and Steel Yard Commons developer, Mitch Snyder ($45,000). Local artist, Michael Murphy http://www.michaeldmurphy.com/# is the designer. The installation, poles holding up various cut metal sheets that when looked at from a certain direction will show a hand holding a lotus flower (signifies the act of giving), will be 8 feet in diameter and range from 12 to 16 feet high. The traffic circle is 128 feet in diameter. The landscaping will have Thornberry bushes around it to prevent people from getting to close to the art. The lighting element is still under discussion. The installation will be up by the end of the year.

(Approved with commendations)

 

*Note: There is a four minute video http://www.michaeldmurphy.com/newsite/homeset.html on the artist website that "was part of the presentation that I prepared for the project selection committee. It's a video portrait of the site and the mill within it's view. It discusses the imagery used and how it relates to modern, art, architecture , the site and the associated individuals."

 

 

I just hope they add bollards or guardrails in addition to thornberry bushes - keeping people away won't be the problem, keeping cars away will. I know that there is a Tremont gardeners group that will be adding flora to the center of the traffic circle but again - who will be able to enjoy that (other than those zipping by at 35mph)?

Its a small circle. I don't think that you can zip by it. You'd tip your car.

3231,

 

What Target in downtown Chicago?  The closest one I can think of is the one on Roosevelt-south of the Loop.  There's no way that Target is doing poorly?...

 

 

yeah, I use the south loop one all of the time.  the only problem they have is keeping the shelves stocked. 

I don't like Steelyards.  It's big box.  It's isolated from neighborhoods and lacks, at present, even RTA. All it offers is some money in the tax coffers.  That's about it.  But it's negatives outweigh its positives.  It has the potential to hurt whats already there.  And why the hell are focusing so much energy building a suburban, anti-neighborhood/city people retail project when so little effort has been made to develop large-scale retail in downtown... What's more, the few big boxes that are somewhat convenient and exist in the neighborhoods, stand to be hurt.  I've even taken the Rapid from downtown to Home Depot (its 3 blocks from the Red Line's W. 117 station) with ease -- a 10 minute ride; 11 tops.  Does this new, people-unfriendly Steelyards Home Depot stand to deep-6 this convenient one?  It makes no sense.

 

We've done a lot of good things in Cleveland, esp downtown, but at times like these, I really don't get this town; often our priorities seem totally screwed up. 

It's isolated from neighborhoods and lacks, at present, even RTA.

 

RTA has been providing service to SYC since the day Home Depot opened. That's only one store.

Again, It is a suburban style shopping center, but if you were the developer and wanted to put in all this retail on THIS site how would you do it? The area's geology along with infrastructure thats been in place for years cuts it off from the city. How are you supposed to connect it?

 

The area will have rta service eventually I believe.

 

I think this area will pick up the people traveling in and out of town on I-71 and Oh-176 more so than those heading west and taking the Shoreway/Detroit/redline/I-90 to get home, which may be why Home Depot and Target decided these stores wouldn't canabalize the others. Plus this development is to serve the nearwest side and Near East/South East and south suburbs moreso than anything else. Also remember these types of stores like to have great freeway visibility, something that would be hard to get amongst the downtown buildings.

 

 

 

I was just thinking. If in 10 years some of these stores (like Wal-Mart) go under, would it be relatively easy for these huge buildings to be converted into warehouse use?

And why the hell are focusing so much energy building a suburban, anti-neighborhood/city people retail project when so little effort has been made to develop large-scale retail in downtown... 

 

Stark and Wolstein might disagree with you on this one.  Why is it that this thread is giving some people amnesia regarding other projects happening in the city?  One big box development and everybody is forgetting all the other stuff that is happening in this town.  Yeah, SYC sucks from an urban design standpoint.  We aren't going to like everything that gets developed.  That doesn't invalidate every other project that is occuring within the city or make our "priorities seem totally screwed up."

Here's my take: We didn't change overnight from a densely developed, mixed-use, walkable, streetcar city to an metro area where the principal development pattern is sprawling, exclusionary, subdivided, unwalkable, car-dependent exurban. We first transitioned to inner-ring suburbs where densities were reduced, there was some mixed-use, some density, transit accessible primarily in rush hours, but more residential-only and commercial-only areas. That transition from one land use form to another took decades.

 

I similarly expect that it will take decades for us to re-learn how to design and build cities again. The first steps are happening now, and that is an admission that the city's retail needs are underserved. Developers are building what they know how to build. Most of these developers aren't youngsters. They've been developing one way their entire lives. That fact that some are willing to dabble in new things is an evolutionary step in the right direction. Sorry to say folks, but this transition is going to take a lot of time, and no one knows where the transition will take us.

KJP, you point is well made.  I don't blame the developers so much--Schneider only built what the City legally allows.  But how hard is it for City Council to visit Chicago, or an East Coast city, and start fixing the flawing zoning regs that have produced this suburbanized mess?  A big box here, a drive-through there, a strip mall here, and before you know it, the vast majority of Cleveland's urban fabric is gone forever.  You have to draw a line somewhere.