So what are the odds that the city design and planning committee tear it apart tomorrow and tell them to go back to the drawing board?

Well, it's bigger than a billboard, so they may gum it a little bit, but they won't say too much.

Concord Hotels' Ohio properties all seem to be Marriott brands - several Courtyards including Stow and Willoughby, and a Fairfield in Beachwood.  There are a couple other brands (Hyatt Place, Sheraton) but the vast majority of their properties are under the Marriott flag.

 

http://www.concordhotels.com/our_hotels/interactive_map.asp

Don't they have some role in the Intercontinental as well?

 

BTW, the rendering (I believe) is from this view - http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=9795+Newton+Avenue,+Cleveland,+OH&sll=41.595846,-81.547134&sspn=0.008457,0.019248&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=9795+Newton+Ave,+Cleveland,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio+44106&layer=c&cbll=41.507852,-81.605743&panoid=uGLXf0-qnxZy-Z4sKohJlA&cbp=11,56.98,,0,-11.61&ll=41.507854,-81.605737&spn=0.003246,0.02105&z=16

Probably, but those buildings look nothing like what is there.

Don't they have some role in the Intercontinental as well?

 

BTW, the rendering (I believe) is from this view - http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=9795+Newton+Avenue,+Cleveland,+OH&sll=41.595846,-81.547134&sspn=0.008457,0.019248&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=9795+Newton+Ave,+Cleveland,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio+44106&layer=c&cbll=41.507852,-81.605743&panoid=uGLXf0-qnxZy-Z4sKohJlA&cbp=11,56.98,,0,-11.61&ll=41.507854,-81.605737&spn=0.003246,0.02105&z=16

 

It is i believe

 

Yes that is the view.

It will be directly behind the Charter One/Starbucks etc. with the entrance on Cornell Rd. opposite UH's new Cancer Hospital (hosp. set to open this coming Spring)

 

Btw I don't know if this has been discussed on here but the whole reason why the Cancer Hospital has been constructed as it is (free-standing, which is not the norm) and the inclusion of a hotel directly across the street is because of the ongoing effort to get the exemption from the "ceiling" on Medicare payments. This takes an act of Congress. To have a free-standing building is one of the basic criteria and, as this 2008 article states (and does a better job than I could), it could propel UH into the top echelon of cancer care (a magnet for patients, their families, sales people, visiting physicians, etc). Last I heard UH has not yet received this exemption. I was further told it is now not expected.

Anyway the hotel would do fine now with emerging Uptown District and all of the UC attractions in general.

So forward motion with the hotel it seems.

It would be great for Cleve though (despite the protests of CCF) to get this exemption.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/medical/2008/06/uh_seeking_exemption_for_new_c.html

 

EDIT: Maybe this is the wrong thread for this?

 

what exactly does free standing mean?  It is attached to the building next door and I would imagine it is connected to it as all UH building as generally connected despite the fact they are seperate buildings.

Don't they have some role in the Intercontinental as well?

 

Intercontinental's brands include:  Intercontinental, Crowne Plaza, Hotel Indigo, Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express, Staybridge Suites, and Candlewood Suites.

 

/So no I-con is not involved. :)

what exactly does free standing mean?  It is attached to the building next door and I would imagine it is connected to it as all UH building as generally connected despite the fact they are seperate buildings.

From my brief experience in construction, an addition to a building attaches to the existing water and electrical, and the foundation itself is physically altered. As long as the new building has its own separate foundation, circuit breaker box, and pipe system its a freestanding building.

Don't they have some role in the Intercontinental as well?

 

Intercontinental's brands include:  Intercontinental, Crowne Plaza, Hotel Indigo, Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express, Staybridge Suites, and Candlewood Suites.

 

/So no I-con is not involved. :)

 

I think you are confusing "brands" with "ownership and operation".  Concord does indeed own and operate at least one Intercontinental Hotel, just maybe not the one in UC.

 

Also related to Concord Hospitality, weren't their corporate offices formerly located in Cleveland?

Don't they have some role in the Intercontinental as well?

 

Intercontinental's brands include: Intercontinental, Crowne Plaza, Hotel Indigo, Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express, Staybridge Suites, and Candlewood Suites.

 

/So no I-con is not involved. :)

 

I think you are confusing "brands" with "ownership and operation". Concord does indeed own and operate at least one Intercontinental Hotel, just maybe not the one in UC.

 

Also related to Concord Hospitality, weren't their corporate offices formerly located in Cleveland?

 

They were out in Lake County I believe. Or Geauga.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/10/university_circle_hotel_will_b.html

 

University Circle hotel will be a Courtyard by Marriott

Can somebody with knowledge please explain to me what exactly happen between design committee and the later meeting of the planning commission which gave the go ahead.  Even though it has the green light does that mean the significant concerns of the design committee can be ignored or do they still have to be addressed.  Again, anybody with knowledge of the process in general and what exactly happen in this instance.  Seems almost like a fix.

^Great question.  From the article, it sounds like design review raised the right questions:

 

Members of a Cleveland city design review committee expressed reservations about the project Thursday. They asked the developer to pay more attention to the Mayfield Road view of the hotel, which is designed with a focus on Cornell Road and University Hospitals's new cancer center.

 

The committee tabled discussion of the project and asked the developer to return with examples of building materials and more detailed images showing how the hotel will relate to existing and proposed buildings around it -- including the planned Museum of Contemporary Art Cleveland at Euclid Avenue and Mayfield.

 

For my own selfish self, I'm disappointed by the flag they've selected for this hotel.  Someday I would love to stay in a decently stylish hotel in UC, even if not particularly high end.  Glidden House is OK, but I've had issues with it.

Maybe Tudor Arms will fit the bill, of a 'stylish' hotel, when completed.

 

^^I don't know this Htsguy, but I assumed that the "green light" was given with certain reservations.... particularly, resolving the concerns of the design committtee.  They probably just wanted to avoid delay when they are, more or less, arguing about asthetics that won't change the size, scope, or footprint of the project.

^I'm excited about Tudor Arms as a project, but it wouldn't thrill me to stay at that exact location, in a Doubletree.  I'm not a snob about price or amenities, I just fine standard hotel chain decor depressingly and unnecessarily bad, and I like going car free, so immediate surroundings are a priority.  Hence my displeasure with all of the current UC hotel options, except maybe Glidden House.  Nothing would make me happier than to see a small (less than 100 room), stylish, new-build hotel in a prime UC spot.  Part of Uptown would have been awesome.  Maybe if the condos don't pan out and I win megamillions.

^I'm excited about Tudor Arms as a project, but it wouldn't thrill me to stay at that exact location, in a Doubletree. I'm not a snob about price or amenities, I just fine standard hotel chain decor depressingly and unnecessarily bad, and I like going car free, so immediate surroundings are a priority. Hence my displeasure with all of the current UC hotel options, except maybe Glidden House. Nothing would make me happier than to see a small (less than 100 room), stylish, new-build hotel in a prime UC spot. Part of Uptown would have been awesome. Maybe if the condos don't pan out and I win megamillions.

 

What exactly is going on with the Tudor Arms project?  Every time I drive down Carnegie it looks the same.  Are they still securing funding?

^I'm excited about Tudor Arms as a project, but it wouldn't thrill me to stay at that exact location, in a Doubletree.  I'm not a snob about price or amenities, I just fine standard hotel chain decor depressingly and unnecessarily bad, and I like going car free, so immediate surroundings are a priority.  Hence my displeasure with all of the current UC hotel options, except maybe Glidden House.  Nothing would make me happier than to see a small (less than 100 room), stylish, new-build hotel in a prime UC spot.  Part of Uptown would have been awesome.  Maybe if the condos don't pan out and I win megamillions.

 

What exactly is going on with the Tudor Arms project?  Every time I drive down Carnegie it looks the same.  Are they still securing funding?

It was mentioned in the comment section for the article about the Courtyard. The reporter said:

From reporter Michelle Jarboe:

 

Hi Fordhamesis -

 

Yes, the Doubletree project is moving forward in the former Tudor Arms Hotel at Carnegie Avenue and East 107th Street. You can't see much from the outside, but the developer has made dramatic improvements to the inside of the building. The hotel is scheduled to open in the spring.

 

I toured the building in August with my colleague Steven Litt, who covers architecture for the paper. You can see his blog post about the tour here: http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/08/tudor_arms_renovation_is_bring.html

 

Michelle

nyone have any additional info on the Hazel Rd apts mentioned in the article?

There are some renderings on the WXZ website..

 

http://www.wxzdevelopment.com/hazel.htm#

Some "improvements" to the proposed University Circle Marriott Hotel.  I honestly think I like the original one better... this is starting to look like choosing between a "douche and a turd" (south park reference):

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/11/marriott_courtyard_hotel_desig.html

 

Note the the public backlash papagraph about his supposed love of out of state architects.

 

Yeah it is a fairly disappointing design but hopefully they can continue to come up with a few minor things to improve it.  I think the original was better too though.

Yeah it is a fairly disappointing design but hopefully they can continue to come up with a few minor things to improve it.  I think the original was better too though.

 

It's a courtyard Marriott hotel.  They are mid level budget conscientious properties.  They are almost always boxing and bland.  I wouldn't get bent out of shape, as that is Marriott's specs for the brand.  If this were a JW Marriott, my feelings on this would be different.

I think I might actually like the newer one better

Yeah it is a fairly disappointing design but hopefully they can continue to come up with a few minor things to improve it.  I think the original was better too though.

 

It's a courtyard Marriott hotel.  They are mid level budget conscientious properties.  They are almost always boxing and bland.  I wouldn't get bent out of shape, as that is Marriott's specs for the brand.  If this were a JW Marriott, my feelings on this would be different.

 

 

But this is also University Circle -- Cleveland's premier district outside of Downtown.  Hell, I've seen McDonald's change their building styles to fit into a nicer area.

I've long ago lost faith in Design Review.  All they can do is ask for a different color lipstick on the pig. 

 

That said this design neither excites nor disappoints me.  It's a common building on a secondary street, and I think it's fair for infill.  The facade Litt is b*tching about is a back side for the building.  What we should be worried about is getting some good infill on the other side of the lot to make the back side of the building not so obvious.

But this is also University Circle -- Cleveland's premier district outside of Downtown. Hell, I've seen McDonald's change their building styles to fit into a nicer area.

 

I agree. McDonald's won't adapt because they're urban design lovers, they do it likely because of some kind of design requirement in a particular city/village, etc. code...otherwise they'll do their typical spit and paste garbage. But yes, this is an area that should expect and demand what fits well and respects the surroundings. Another reason I have always said...letting developers dictate city planning is like letting loggers dictate sustainable forest management.

Yeah it is a fairly disappointing design but hopefully they can continue to come up with a few minor things to improve it.  I think the original was better too though.

 

It's a courtyard Marriott hotel.  They are mid level budget conscientious properties.  They are almost always boxing and bland.  I wouldn't get bent out of shape, as that is Marriott's specs for the brand.  If this were a JW Marriott, my feelings on this would be different.

 

 

But this is also University Circle -- Cleveland's premier district outside of Downtown.  Hell, I've seen McDonald's change their building styles to fit into a nicer area.

 

Comparing a hotel to a fast food restaruant is comparing apples to oranges.  Two different businesses and business models. 

 

Those hotels are target budge consumers.  Look at their properties, at locations where they have reflagged the properties are usually motels.  Their new build properties are bland boxes are they are tier two properties.  We or any other location is not going to get some ultra fabulous design as it doesn't fit in with the model of this type of hotel.  You may not like, but it is what it is.  Again, if this was a full service Ritz-Carlton, Marriott, Marriott marquis, or JW Marriott, my opinion of the design would change.

The hotel doesn't ask the architect to design poor buildings, that's just what their given because they hire dog sh_t firms.  Not sure how a firm can get an interesting urban infill project like this and fail so miserably.

And this is coming out of the office of Kent State's new dean of the college of architecture....

I know I live in a dream world but UCI should just say thanks but no thanks and leave it an empty lot until they can find somebody willing to do better (better brand and/or architecture) even if this means 20 years (that is how much I hate this building at that location).

The hotel doesn't ask the architect to design poor buildings, that's just what their given because they hire dog sh_t firms.  Not sure how a firm can get an interesting urban infill project like this and fail so miserably.

And this is coming out of the office of Kent State's new dean of the college of architecture....

 

I'm saying look at their brand and the buildings they've built of reflagged.

 

Often times I think we only think on one side of the situation.

We have to think from one side (concerned with the urban fabric) because it's generally in complete contradiction to what the builder is thinking about (schedule, costs, etc).  Ideally they would naturally make the correct decisions, but we know how that usually goes. 

However, I really think all fault can be put on the architect in this case.  Just because it's inexpensively built doesn't mean it has to look poor.

What would people have done differently?  Or, what would you have asked for as a member of the design review committee?

Start over again

I hardly ever post but I think the design review committee was right to table the first model but I would assume they were hoping for a better, not worse like this new model.

The design review committee should reconsider.

 

Also, off the subject, why put a Doubletree brand in Tudor Arms?

If I was on a travel website and I saw the doubletree listing I would dismiss it and I assume many people will feel the same. A doubletree doesn't due the Tudor Arms justice.  I own a place in NYC and Cleveland, I would stay at the doubletree because I know what the building is doesn't correspond to the brand but trying to convince some business partners from NY to come out and stay at the doubletree will be pretty hard. And even when I stay there I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy the lack of services.

 

I hardly ever post but I think the design review committee was right to table the first model but I would assume they were hoping for a better, not worse like this new model.

The design review committee should reconsider.

 

Also, off the subject, why put a Doubletree brand in Tudor Arms?

If I was on a travel website and I saw the doubletree listing I would dismiss it and I assume many people will feel the same. A doubletree doesn't due the Tudor Arms justice.  I own a place in NYC and Cleveland, I would stay at the doubletree because I know what the building is doesn't correspond to the brand but trying to convince some business partners from NY to come out and stay at the doubletree will be pretty hard. And even when I stay there I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy the lack of services.

 

 

I love how we can always come up with reasons NOT to do something, how about listing reasons WE SHOULD redevelop an iconic building?

 

Why doesn't the building correspond to the brand?  What does owning a home in NYC and CLE having anything to do with picking a hotel?  :?

 

If you had business colleagues traveling to CLE, they would probably stay downtown instead of Univ. Circle, unless of course they had business in the Univ. Circle/Fairfax area, so it's a moot point.

 

The Univ. Circle and adjacent areas are growing and we need more hotels in the area, not just for the clinic/UH, but to leverage the cultural assets in the area.  Your obviously have a one dimensional view on this.  Having these properties in University Circle gives travelers who want to visit Cleveland more options.  We increase leisure traveler options.  Now people do not have to travel downtown they money can be spent directly in and only in Univ. Circle.  Univ. Circle is a "destination" in name only, now with hotels, it will be a destination without of city/state travelers.  Look outside the obvious box.

^MTS, nobody is questioning the desirability of adding a hotel to the heart of UC, just asking why it has to look like garbage.  Pointing to the flag it will fly is a pretty narrow answer.  For $150 per night rates, decently priced land, recession construction pricing and HUGE public/non profit subsidy, I'm pretty disappointed.  Will be interesting to compare this to the Aloft at FEB down the line- I doubt the room rates will be so different.

 

Anyway, it's not an urban design disaster but still a seemingly unnecessary piece of junk.  I agree with W28 and Litt- I simply don't understand the choice of architects here. There's a vast ocean of firms between Braun & Steidl and Farshid Moussavi.  It's not like the developers had to hire an expensive starchitect.

^MTS, nobody is questioning the desirability of adding a hotel to the heart of UC, just asking why it has to look like garbage.  Pointing to the flag it will fly is a pretty narrow answer.  For $150 per night rates, decently priced land, recession construction pricing and HUGE public/non profit subsidy, I'm pretty disappointed.  Will be interesting to compare this to the Aloft at FEB down the line- I doubt the room rates will be so different.

 

Anyway, it's not an urban design disaster but still a seemingly unnecessary piece of junk.  I agree with W28 and Litt- I simply don't understand the choice of architects here. There's a vast ocean of firms between Braun & Steidl and Farshid Moussavi.  It's not like the developers had to hire an expensive starchitect.

 

I think you have two conversations mixed up.  The Doubletree and the Marriott are two different projects in UC.

 

Point to the properties history is important, since I explained what the brands other properties are designed like.  They are bland boxes.  The brand caters to business travelers who want cheap digs.  The properties bland INSIDE and OUT. 

 

In regard to rates, these are mid and low tier properties and i doubt rates will be that high, but who knows.

^I'm not talking about the Doubletree.  Just reacting to your posts, about the Courtyard by Marriott, beginning with:

 

It's a courtyard Marriott hotel.  They are mid level budget conscientious properties.  They are almost always boxing and bland.  I wouldn't get bent out of shape, as that is Marriott's specs for the brand.  If this were a JW Marriott, my feelings on this would be different.

 

If a Courtyard by Marriott means garbage design, no exceptions, then maybe the real problem was the RFP not being specific enough about allowable hotel flags.  Or, more likely, UCI knows the actual market demand for a hotel in UC is very low, so offering gobs of public/non-profit money and restricting the site as little as possible was the only way to get any hotel built.

 

EDIT: I love how the new rendering has totally new, but equally arbitrary representations of the buildings surrounding the site.

That said this design neither excites nor disappoints me.  It's a common building on a secondary street, and I think it's fair for infill. 

 

What he said.

i came across the designs for the university circle rapid transit station.  check under projects and it is #8.  I look forward to this design becoming a reality

 

http://www.yazdanistudio.com/

^Yup.  We all salivated over those a year or two back when they were released.  I think there's a lot of discussion about them on on the RTA thread.  The design sure looks awesome.  Wish we didn't have to wait so long!

FYI that project has its own thread in the mass transit board...

The soon-to-be 12 story Wind Turbine is currently being erected on CWRU campus.  It's about two stories out of the ground right now, with pieces lying on the ground ready to be hoisted up.  It's a $6 million project.

cool!  I was not aware of this project.  It will be interesting to see how this project goes.

First I've heard of it, too.

Case Western Reserve University continues to make progress toward a multimillion-dollar wind energy research center.

 

The first wind turbine, scheduled to be operational sometime during fall semester, will be near Veale Athletic Center and 121 Fitness Center.

 

“Once it’s up and running, the university is going to provide energy directly into Veale Center,” said Nick Christie, project manager. The wind turbine will provide about 18.5 percent of the electricity on an annual basis.

 

Last year, the Ohio Third Frontier Commission Wright Projects Program awarded a $3 million grant to the Case School of Engineering and the university’s Great Lakes Energy Institute. The funds, combined with contributions from Case Western Reserve and its industry partners, will comprise support for an overall $6 million Ohio Wind Energy Research and Commercialization Center (WERC) dedicated to wind turbine innovation and education.

 

Case Western Reserve plans to install three wind turbines, possibly the largest university facility of its kind in the country dedicated to innovation and commercialization. In addition to research, the turbines will offer opportunities for local companies to create, test and commercialize wind energy-related technologies.

 

The university recently received approval from city officials and planning commissions to erect the wind turbines. According to Christie, the smallest wind turbine—the one near Veale Center--will be a100-kilowatt unit that is 156 feet tall at the top of its upright blade.

 

The medium and large turbines are expected to be in Euclid on one of the WERC Center’s industrial partners’ sites. All of the wind turbines will serve as a resource for faculty and student research.

 

http://blog.case.edu/case-news/2010/09/08/wind_turbine_scheduled_to_power_up_this_fall

 

 

Gracias!

Picture taken by MuRrAy HiLL

 

New $6 million wind turbine