McCleveland, I don't doubt that it is that way, or this place wouldn't look like it does.  But at some point we have to change the rules of the game or it will continue to look like it does.  And then some.  Would we be facing this problem in Manhattan?  Boston?  SF?  London?  Others will judge us, as a community, by the standards we set.

yes, we would be facing those same problems regardless of which city you are in.  You can not force someone to develop something the way you or I, or anyone else wants.  it's his property, he can do what he pleases with it.  Every city has suburban crap mixed in it in places.

Can't we have some form of zoning requirements?  For anything built in UC, it needs to have x, y, and z. 

yes, we would be facing those same problems regardless of which city you are in.  You can not force someone to develop something the way you or I, or anyone else wants.  it's his property, he can do what he pleases with it.  Every city has suburban crap mixed in it in places.

 

 

Can't we have some form of zoning requirements?  For anything built in UC, it needs to have x, y, and z. 

I think the zoning/building law only applies to Euclid right now.  McCleveland, 3231?  Correct or explain that in greater detail.

MTS, do you have an unending library of graphics?  Where do you get that stuff from?  You have a perfect image for every situation.

 

 

 

I think the zoning/building law only applies to Euclid right now. McCleveland, 3231? Correct or explain that in greater detail.

 

Yes, and only a portion of Euclid has form-based zoning.

 

 

MTS, do you have an unending library of graphics?  Where do you get that stuff from?  You have a perfect image for every situation.

 

LMAO!  If I tell you, I'll have to have you killed!

You can not force someone to develop something the way you or I, or anyone else wants.  it's his property, he can do what he pleases with it. 

 

With respect, that's not even the case in my parents' subdivision.  So why should it be more so in the region's preeminent cultural hub?  The appearance of my parents' property is tightly controlled, by and for the community.  If they wanted to move out and put a bank branch there, even a beautiful one, the answer would be a resounding no.  In their particular case it's a deed restriction tied to a homeowners' association.  Obviously this guy's deed is what it is, so that won't work here.  But I don't believe solutions are as far outside our grasp as they're made out to be.

 

I think the zoning/building law only applies to Euclid right now.  McCleveland, 3231?  Correct or explain that in greater detail.

 

Yes, and only a portion of Euclid has form-based zoning.

 

 

 

I thought the Midtown zoning overlay covered Payne to Carnegie west of 55th, Chester to Carnegie east of 55th.  Each Avenue is zoned differently, but if I recall correctly "drive-up" type businesses were restricted to Carnegie only.  Of course, this property falls well outside that zone anyway.

Oh no.....

You can not force someone to develop something the way you or I, or anyone else wants.  it's his property, he can do what he pleases with it. 

 

With respect, that's not even the case in my parents' subdivision.  So why should it be more so in the region's preeminent cultural hub?  The appearance of my parents' property is tightly controlled, by and for the community.  If they wanted to move out and put a bank branch there, even a beautiful one, the answer would be a resounding no.  In their particular case it's a deed restriction tied to a homeowners' association.  Obviously this guy's deed is what it is, so that won't work here.  But I don't believe solutions are as far outside our grasp as they're made out to be.

 

That is a completely different legal situation. When a large swath of land is subdivided by one entity and deed restrictions are placed on the subdivided parcels, you can't get those removed unless all parties agree.

You can not force someone to develop something the way you or I, or anyone else wants.  it's his property, he can do what he pleases with it. 

 

With respect, that's not even the case in my parents' subdivision.  So why should it be more so in the region's preeminent cultural hub?  The appearance of my parents' property is tightly controlled, by and for the community.  If they wanted to move out and put a bank branch there, even a beautiful one, the answer would be a resounding no.  In their particular case it's a deed restriction tied to a homeowners' association.  Obviously this guy's deed is what it is, so that won't work here.  But I don't believe solutions are as far outside our grasp as they're made out to be.

 

It's not totally accurate to say "it's my property and I can do what I want with it."

 

My roommate from college was from Dublin.  He told me they couldn't even paint their shudders a particular color.  It just seems crazy that they can enforce such things in Dublin, but not in Cleveland. 

 

Maybe they have no regulations?  Maybe older properties get grand-fathered? 

Oh no.....

 

I'll post that picture again!!  I swear I will!

You can not force someone to develop something the way you or I, or anyone else wants.  it's his property, he can do what he pleases with it. 

 

With respect, that's not even the case in my parents' subdivision.  So why should it be more so in the region's preeminent cultural hub?  The appearance of my parents' property is tightly controlled, by and for the community.  If they wanted to move out and put a bank branch there, even a beautiful one, the answer would be a resounding no.  In their particular case it's a deed restriction tied to a homeowners' association.  Obviously this guy's deed is what it is, so that won't work here.  But I don't believe solutions are as far outside our grasp as they're made out to be.

 

That is a completely different legal situation. When a large swath of land is subdivided by one entity and deed restrictions are placed on the subdivided parcels, you can't get those removed unless all parties agree.

 

My point is only that communities are not entirely without leverage against wayward property owners.  And this is only one aspect.  University Circle owes it to itself to find a way to get more aggressive about building standards.

My point is only that communities are not entirely without leverage against wayward property owners.  And this is only one aspect.  University Circle owes it to itself to find a way to get more aggressive about building standards.

I'd like to ask you a question and it's sincere. 

 

Are you on any Cleveland community board or neighborhood group?

 

The reason I ask is you have some strong opinions, suggestion, comments.  I wonder is you're putting any of this energy into improving area/neighborhoods that you say need help.

My point is only that communities are not entirely without leverage against wayward property owners.  And this is only one aspect.  University Circle owes it to itself to find a way to get more aggressive about building standards.

I'd like to ask you a question and it's sincere. 

 

Are you on any Cleveland community board or neighborhood group?

 

The reason I ask is you have some strong opinions, suggestion, comments.  I wonder is you're putting any of this energy into improving area/neighborhoods that you say need help.

 

I almost blew out academically because of excessive community involvement.  I had to scale back a couple years ago.  I'm researching the feasibility and popularity of different ideas right now, aren't I?  The rest will have to wait. 

 

But this is about what's best for University Circle.  For all we know, they might actually build "what's best" on this lot.  If they don't... again... we need to get creative about how we'll address that.  I would surmise the solution begins with a comprehensive zoning revision.

Would we be facing this problem in Manhattan? Boston? SF? London? Others will judge us, as a community, by the standards we set.

 

Definitely not.  More than anything, the problem is that land in Cleveland is in such low demand and is so cheap that owners/tenants can afford to devote large swaths to lawns and single story buildings...The Market is not helping fulfill our design aspirations.

^ I agree with this completely.  Though I also always tend to think that people around here really tend to romanticize other cities.  I have traveled a great deal in my career.  At one point it reached the level where I would wake up in a hotel room and really have to think about what city I was actually in.  I have seen most of the major cities, most of the mid majors, and a lot of the podunks too.  I'm hypercritical of a lot of places. I look for the "not so good" even in the great cities. And I assure you it exists everywhere. This stuff is not a problem unique to the city of Cleveland (and I'm not saying that makes it allright).

^ I agree with this completely.  Though I also always tend to think that people around here really tend to romanticize other cities.  I have traveled a great deal in my career.  At one point it reached the level where I would wake up in a hotel room and really have to think about what city I was actually in.  I have seen most of the major cities, most of the mid majors, and a lot of the podunks too.  [glow=red,2,300]I'm hypercritical of a lot of places[/glow]. I look for the "not so good" even in the great cities. And I assure you it exists everywhere. This stuff is not a problem unique to the city of Cleveland (and I'm not saying that makes it allright).

 

The Mayor speaks the truth once again!    :clap:

Would we be facing this problem in Manhattan?  Boston?  SF?  London?  Others will judge us, as a community, by the standards we set.

 

Definitely not.  More than anything, the problem is that land in Cleveland is in such low demand and is so cheap that owners/tenants can afford to devote large swaths to lawns and single story buildings...The Market is not helping fulfill our design aspirations.

 

While I generally agree, that "problem" is not applicable to THIS particular parcel.  It has one of the most prime locations in the entire City and, from all indications, demand was quite high.

 

I think the real issue is this owner wished to turn a profit AND maintain ownership at the same time.  The best way to do that was through a lease and he probably just jumped on the highest and most advantageous offer.  Also, since his ownership dates back some time, he might be 'grandfathered' with regard to any newer land-use/zoning regs that may apply if title to the land was transferred.

 

All that said, since it is a land lease and not a lease on a building the property owner plans to erect, I would believe that Key can design the building any way they want.  Let's just hope Key does the "right thing".

I don't know... I kind of tend to disagree.  I think the only reason it was a hot botton to get the property from that guy is because there's been a rotting gas station on it for a decade, which is awful.  I mean if anyone really wanted to develop this the way people are talking about, you would have to get your hands on both blocks on either side of 105th between Chester and Euclid. and tear down everything on them and start over. It is most unfortunately a suburbanized waste land all around this property.  And the owner refusing to sell the land further devalues it.  Building something like we're talking about on land you don't own would be very risky.

Now is as good a time as any... if this guy can do anything he wants with his little parcel, what the heck happened with the flats?  If a developer showed similar interest in that part of Chester for a comparable mega-project, how much veto power would this guy retain?  How could the former owners of the flats have had so much less power than him? 

because someone wanted to really develop the flats.  That's my point.  I think someone would have to buy both of these blocks, to make some sort of large scale development happen... and I don't think anyone has any interest in that right now (sadly).

This does totally suck, but let's hope Key can at least do as good a job as NCB did with its Stokes branch by bringing it up to the street, if not all the way to the corner.  I guess the good news is that if this is just a dinky single story building (a good bet), it probably won't stand in the way of ambitious development proposals that come down the pike in 10 years.

I completely agree.  Though I have a feeling if a developer really wanted to get a large scale project going in that area... and at some point I would think it makes a lot of sense... I think they would go after the block between 105th and 107th first.  Aside from being able to incorporate the building on the NW corner of 107th & Euclid... there really isn't much else on that block.  The block where this property is located however is 2/3 occupied by the ronald mcdonald house, which would probably be pretty difficult to obtain.  In the meantime, I'd much rather drive past a well taken care of bank, than a decaying abandoned gas station.

I feel a little better about it now.  The last 2 posts make good points.  But now that you mention it, how great would it be to move that Ronald McDonald house?  All it gives pedestrians is a big fence, and Euclid Ave should be as open to the public as possible.  105th deserves something prominent at every corner of every intersection through there.  It's one of the few serious N-S streets in the whole town.  I was hoping for a catalyst instead of a placeholder, but improvement is improvement.

Although I believe Frank Jackson has done a credible job as mayor, to me this guy is what we need. I hope he runs before someone offers him the big bucks that's hard to turn down.

 

University Circle head Chris Ronayne, chief of staff under Jane Campbell, turns down a feeler from Chicago

Mayor Richard Daley

by Henry J. Gomez/Plain Dealer Reporter

Monday April 06, 2009, 5:26 PM

 

Chuck Crow/The Plain Dealer

University Circle President Chris RonayneChris Ronayne, the president of University Circle Inc. and an oft-mentioned prospect for Cleveland mayor, has caught the attention of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley.

Buzz around town is that Daley's people recently gauged Ronayne's interest in a Cabinet position overseeing Chicago's Department of Community Development. The new office combines the city's planning and housing departments.

 

continued at>>>>>>>

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2009/04/university_circle_head_chris_r.html

 

I had the chance to meet Chris when he came down to speak about urban development here at Miami.  In talking with him for mere minutes about our mutual passion for Cleveland, I could tell he genuinely loves the city and would do anything he could to bring it back to greatness.  He has had vision in building up University Circle Inc and could translate those intangibles to the mayoral post.

After graduating college and looking for a job when he worked for Campbell, I wrote a letter to him explaining my situation and my view on the city and what it meant from my perspective.  In a 3 page hand written reply, he stated that there were no positions available, but went on explaining what it meant to be a Clevelander and the pride that that entails, and wished me the best of luck.  I hope he does eventually run for mayor and believe he is waiting his turn (even though I think he should run now).

Ronayne is solid.

Bye-bye beautiful

 

^Does anyone else think that this building is not that impressive? It looks like an early 90s attempt at replicating a 300 year-old structure.

I hope he does eventually run for mayor and believe he is waiting his turn (even though I think he should run now).

 

Not to take this off-topic, but I agree .. at least, from what I've seen of him so far, which is relatively limited. He's also younger, which I think would be great for Cleveland as well.

how about moca buy this property and turn it into their campus

how about moca buy this property and turn it into their campus

 

how could they pull that off financially and why would they want to do that given their current plans?

 

^Does anyone else think that this building is not that impressive? It looks like an early 90s attempt at replicating a 300 year-old structure.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, the Euclid facade is the front - complete with a godforsaken waaaay-too-big setback? Philip Johnson had some great buildings in his day - too bad this isn't one of them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the Euclid facade is the front - complete with a godforsaken waaaay-too-big setback?

 

If anyone proposed this sort of structure for Euclid in 2009, we'd be burning him at the stake.

^Does anyone else think that this building is not that impressive? It looks like an early 90s attempt at replicating a 300 year-old structure.

 

Agreed.  I won't miss this structure.  What shouldn't be missed in this is how much land along a relatively strong part of Euclid this puts in play for redevelopment.  Hopefully the Clinic won't bank it as a parking lot, and a private developer will see the potential for some high density housing with maybe a little retail or other use mixed in.  That said, I'm sure the Clinic will bank it as a parking lot.

The clinic's new 1,000 employee lab? They said it would be built off clinic property.

The irony will be that the Clinic will not tear down the building but renovate and expand it.

 

The Clinic only likes (wants) to tear down historic buildings.  ::)

 

Anyway......back to Playhouse Square Developments. ;)

I'm a bit surprised that everyone seems so ambivalent about the building. Granted, the exterior is not my favorite in the city, but some of the interior space is actually pretty stunning, particularly the lobby on the section closest to Euclid and the connecting walkways going toward the MOCA end. And the complex does actually have an interesting history to it. From their website:

 

The original Play House facility was built in 1927 on farmland donated by industrialist Francis Drury, and housed two theatres that remain in use today.  To accommodate substantial growth in the years just after World War II, The Play House operated the 77th Street Theatre from 1949-83 in a converted church a few blocks away.  That venue featured America’s first open stage – the forerunner of the thrust stage that was popularized in the 1950s and ‘60s.  In 1983, a Philip Johnson–designed addition to the original facility opened, annexing a Depression-era Sears building to the original Drury Theatre building, making The Cleveland Play House the largest regional theatre complex in the United States.

 

http://www.clevelandplayhouse.com/about-history.asp

 

Wow indeed.  I hope the playhouse would still be able to keep their commitment to local performers and stagehands unlike farming much of the cast and crew in like playhouse square does with their touring performances. 

1.  For some reason I too don't really care too much about this building (and I ALWAYS care about tearing down buildings).  I either typically am going past on Carnegie, where the back end of a giant yellow brick wall completely devoid of life hulks over me.  Or I'm coming past on Euclid, where honestly the building is set so far back I really can hardly even see it.  This has to be up there with the cole eye institute among the worst sited buildings in town.  I'd feel better about the situation if it wasn't the clinic buying the property.  They'll probably build something worse looking, sitting in the middle of the property 50 feet from the sidewalk in each direction... of course that will also be after it sits as a parking lot for the next five years.  :|

 

2.  The interior is beautiful.  The real problem I see is that this IS a perfoming arts venue.  I don't see how it can be anything but a performing arts venue.  And if the Clinic can't even figure out how to put offices in an Art Deco office tower... How are they going to figure out how to do anything hospital related in a performing arts venue.  This building, unfortunately is toast.

 

3.  I hope at least while the clinic is gobbling this up they go ahead and buy the "Eagle" building that has been rotting on this lot (the only portion not owned by CPH) for god knows how long.  If I owned a place in Beacon Place I'd be furious that I had to look at that dump every day.  Who knows maybe the clinic will find a way to do something really transformative with this block.  Their track record is just so bad, that it's hard to imagine.

 

4.  The one other place in play here that I've been thinking about... Stages.  They have to get 90% of their business from the Playhouse.  And maybe a little filtered in from the clinic.  I hear it's a pretty good restaurant though admitedly I've never been.  I also heard awhile back that Playhouse Square Real Estate Services (or whatever they are going as these days), were looking for another "anchor" type restaurant to compliment Bricco.  This would seem to be a pretty good fit.  They already have the "name credibility" and I'd imagine they would get way more business with not just having the playhouse but all the other theatre patrons to draw from, plus downtown workers for lunch.  The people at playhouse square, much like UCI really seem to have gotten their act together and are doing a great job of assembling property and carrying out their masterplan.  This of course is complete speculation on my part, but it just seems to be a good fit, seeing as PHS is looking, and stages is about to lose most of their business.

The clinic's new 1,000 employee lab? They said it would be built off clinic property.

This is the first thing I thought of when I read the article. I will not miss that building if it goes away. This could turn out to be a big win for downtown.

I really hate to see ANYTHING torn down between the CC main campus and CSU if for no other reason than there is so much open land in that stretch of Euclid already.  And, contrary to some opinion here, I actually do like this building.  The fact that one can only presume that it will become a 12 acre parking lot only adds to the worry.  Nonetheless, I suppose nothing is set in stone yet and maybe the CCF will build something like the research lab discussed above and I will quickly get over any disappointment I might have seeing a wrecking ball. 

Happy to hear this.  I don't mind the current building but its setback is outrageous.  Therefore it must go.  I love the idea of bringing another facet to playhouse square.  Although when I first saw this story I was hoping they would build new on the open lots by the Hanna building.  Oh well.  Still good.

 

Besides, now the Playhouse will be at Playhouse Square.  This helps tourists a lot.  One day I was walking past the Palace theater and a foreign family, who seemed to be late already, came up and asked me which one was the Cleveland Playhouse.  I so felt bad for them, and I felt stupid explaining that the Playhouse is the one major theater that's not at Playhouse Square.   

The clinic's new 1,000 employee lab? They said it would be built off clinic property.

This is the first thing I thought of when I read the article. I will not miss that building if it goes away. This could turn out to be a big win for downtown.

 

Except the new lab was possibly to break ground this summer, and the article says that nothing would happen with the Playhouse till 2011.

I moved the previous 17 messages from the Playhouse Square thread to this thread. To read the Playhouse Square thread, see:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,14187.0.html

The Clinic hosts a fair amount of conferences, don't they?

 

Are the theater buildings adaptable for that?

^^ Not sure how their new buddy MMPI would feel about that.  :-)  Maybe the continuing ed classes though.

Most of the conferences at the clinic are 250 people or less. They are mostly small groups who have a day of two of 'classes' and small scale meetings. I don't know how many of these would be better served by a full size convention center.