I like it better than the recently built dorms a few blocks down.  Some type of cornice would be nice, but not absolutely necessary to win my approval.  Of course, I imagine the design and placement of the garage are going to invoke some 'pedestrian deathtrap' comments on here

The site plan is better than I expected. Not a fan of the large sidewalk deadzone around the parking garage.

 

 

I like it better than the recently built dorms a few blocks down.  Some type of cornice would be nice, but not absolutely necessary to win my approval.  Of course, I imagine the design and placement of the garage are going to invoke some 'pedestrian deathtrap' comments on here

 

Absolutely people will complain about the garage.  There is nothing fronting the sidewalk from the alley to the surface lot on the other side. Lighting and garages entrances might help. At least there would be some kind of traffic around there.

 

 

Hard to assess from those renderings, but could be OK, I guess. Looks like there may be an interesting window pattern.  I agree with Hts that's its almost definitely going to be better than the junk further down Euclid.  Stinks to lose the "Playhouse Square Building" though.

 

I got excited at first when I read this in Michelle's article: The eight-story building would wrap around a four-story Prospect Avenue parking deck topped by a heated swimming pool and grilling area.

 

But alas, it doesn't really wrap around it, but is rather built on top of it, so much of the perimeter will be dead space.  The green screen is a nice touch, so could be a lot worse.

Isn't the building in the rendering the Playhouse Square Building?  I hope so, it is a lovely building. 

 

http://media.cleveland.com/business_impact/photo/1725-euclid-sw-aerial-2013-12-03jpg-db1118db5fd19448.jpg

 

I like it better than the recently built dorms a few blocks down.  Some type of cornice would be nice, but not absolutely necessary to win my approval.  Of course, I imagine the design and placement of the garage are going to invoke some 'pedestrian deathtrap' comments on here

I feel small things could be done such as having more glass on the building and placing lounges in that area for students to look out at the city so it wont seem so bland or more vibrant colors, just something to liven the area. I just don't like the dark colored building, and box shape it just looks so uninspiring.

 

EDIT: The parking lot in the back bothers me for some reason as well.

The site plan is better than I expected. Not a fan of the large sidewalk deadzone around the parking garage.

 

 

I like it better than the recently built dorms a few blocks down.  Some type of cornice would be nice, but not absolutely necessary to win my approval.  Of course, I imagine the design and placement of the garage are going to invoke some 'pedestrian deathtrap' comments on here

 

Absolutely people will complain about the garage.  There is nothing fronting the sidewalk from the alley to the surface lot on the other side. Lighting and garages entrances might help. At least there would be some kind of traffic around there.

 

It is the entrance which creates the deathtrap... if I understand the concern correctly

It is the entrance which creates the deathtrap... if I understand the concern correctly

 

I didn't really make my point clear. The renderings don't show any entrances (for cars or people) around the garage, making the entire area a deadzone. Even garage entrances would be better than nothing. It looks like entrances are in the alley between the buildings. But admittedly the renderings don't show much so maybe there are doors, offices, or something along the sidewalk.

 

Looks like a good project overall. The garage and residential fills in most of the surface lot along Prospect. It would be better if there was something along the sidewalk on Prospect to extend the neighborhood from the K&D Hanna building a block west. Can't have everything though.

 

I used to always walk up E. 18th on my way to my summer internship at CSU, and I always thought how desperately it needed to be spruced up. This building will help a lot. However, I think it's unacceptable to tear down that brick building.

Isn't the building in the rendering the Playhouse Square Building?  I hope so, it is a lovely building. 

 

http://media.cleveland.com/business_impact/photo/1725-euclid-sw-aerial-2013-12-03jpg-db1118db5fd19448.jpg

 

 

I think that's the Bonfoey Gallery building in the rendering.  The PHS Building is between that one and the JCF Building.  In theory, even the JCF building is significant loss because of the stature of the architect, but it really is pretty forgettable.

Site of Jewish Federation of Cleveland's former HQ could become student housing

By STAN BULLARD

11:49 am, December 3, 2013

(This story was updated at 3:40 p.m.)

 

The former Jewish Federation of Cleveland headquarters at 1750 Euclid Ave. and an adjoining building at 1720 Euclid may make way for construction of an eight-floor building for student housing and a parking garage.

 

Clayco, a Chicago-based construction and real estate firm, will ask the Cleveland City Planning Commission to demolish the two existing buildings for the proposed project, according to the agenda for the commission's meeting this Friday, Dec. 6.

 

A project description Clayco filed with the city planning department said the proposed building would have 217 rooms and beds for 519 students at Cleveland State University. The project, described as an upscale building with its own courtyard, would include a 234-car parking garage, according to the project description. Clayco would own and develop the property, the document stated.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20131203/FREE/131209938

I think this project is really exciting.  I might not like the design of the other dorms, but I fully appreciate what they have done for CSU and that stretch of Euclid.  This would give the campus another residential bookend and really add to some more life to the street.

 

It is the entrance which creates the deathtrap... if I understand the concern correctly

 

I didn't really make my point clear. The renderings don't show any entrances (for cars or people) around the garage, making the entire area a deadzone. Even garage entrances would be better than nothing.

 

Nor did I.  We are confusing the UO lingo of "pedestrian deadzone" and "pedestrian deathtrap".  No use of the wall creates the deadzone.  But a garage entrance creates a deathtrap, with vehicles plowing down pedestrians while entering/exiting the garage.  I didn't understand the distinction either until the casino garage discussion..... and of course I'm being a smarta&& about the whole thing.

Who's owns the parking lot in the foreground?  Perhaps this Playhouse Square Building could be saved if the dorms wrap more around the back.

 

http://media.cleveland.com/business_impact/photo/1725-euclid-sw-aerial-2013-12-03jpg-db1118db5fd19448.jpg

 

And ironically, an article on the importance of historic preservation by CSU: http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/12/integrating_the_legacy_of_the.html

Who's owns the parking lot in the foreground?  Perhaps this Playhouse Square Building could be saved if the dorms wrap more around the back.

 

http://media.cleveland.com/business_impact/photo/1725-euclid-sw-aerial-2013-12-03jpg-db1118db5fd19448.jpg

 

It looks like Victory Properties, which appears to be affiliated with Shaia's Parking.  The same entity owns the garage on the other side of 17th.

 

http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/bsqry/f?p=100:7:0::NO:7:P7_CHARTER_NUM:429115

Looks like a bland, institutional box.  It's the long flat roof line, like Uptown phase 1, with less flair, and a squared off corner instead of a curve.  I agree that it would be better to have less, but taller frontage on Euclid, and more building on E 18th, thereby creating more variety and saving the PHS building.

 

 

Regardless of the aesthetics of the property or its ground-level uses (or lack thereof), I PRAY that we verify all financing is in place before there's even a hint of a wrecking ball showing up. Given their timetable, it sounds like they have funds in hand, but Planning, please let's check :D

 

This property already sits across the street from the little used greenspace next to Levin, and the requested demos open up a sightline of an immense amount of existing surface parking ... Walking across East 18th on the south side of Euclid, you would have a big swath of green to the north, and to the south, you could see surface parking all the way to East 14th and Sumner ... a quarter-mile of parking only interrupted by road!!! If this project starts to fill in some of those lots and fronts the streets, bully for us. But if this falls through post-demo, or just gets tied up for a few years while the developers navigate layered financing, it would be a huge blow to an intersection that otherwise stands to benefit from increasing pedestrian cross-traffic between PlayhouseSquare and CSU (opposite placemaking by PlayhouseSquare).

Also, is it just me, or does this building look unusually short for 8 stories? It looks significantly shorter in the rendering than the 1900 building, which I think is 8 stories, and about the same height as the business school, which has got to be, what, like 6 maybe? Maybe it's just my 3-D challenged mind :)

And... Prospect Ave. unfortunately continues to be one of the bastard step-children of downtown.  How many parking garages and surface parking lots have to front Prospect?  Just sayin'... I think the street deserves better.

This is on the City Planning Commission's docket for Friday:

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2013/12062013/index.php

 

Here are most of the renders published by CPC (others, including site plans, are at the link above):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This may be a silly question but we keep on hearing how the downtown market cannot yet support the cost of new construction.  Yet this project and even the Mariner's Watch project on Detroit are completely privately financed projects complete with garages and other big ticket stuff (pool on the roof of the campus district project).  So....is this noise about the Cleveland market being too depressed to support new construction incorrect/overblown?

^my first thought is that this is not classic market rate housing.  It is student housing which I imagine has a different financial forumula.

This may be a silly question but we keep on hearing how the downtown market cannot yet support the cost of new construction.  Yet this project and even the Mariner's Watch project on Detroit are completely privately financed projects complete with garages and other big ticket stuff (pool on the roof of the campus district project).  So....is this noise about the Cleveland market being too depressed to support new construction incorrect/overblown?

 

That's a good topic for general discussion at:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,24830.0.html

 

Let's keep the discussion here focused on the merits, design, etc. of specific Campus District projects such as 1750 Euclid.

@SixthCity, I think, at least for the CSU one, that student housing can demand higher prices as they stick more people into one unit. A four bedroom apartment is common around campuses and rent for a lot, but those same units would make no sense for the general public. Its the same reason you see apartments like this around other campuses, like Kent State.

 

Edit: posted this without refreshing the page. Missed KJP's post.

@SixthCity, I think, at least for the CSU one, that student housing can demand higher prices as they stick more people into one unit. A four bedroom apartment is common around campuses and rent for a lot, but those same units would make no sense for the general public. Its the same reason you see apartments like this around other campuses, like Kent State.

 

Edit: posted this without refreshing the page. Missed KJP's post.

 

Thanks

All I hear are excuses about rehab and renovation costs. Meanwhile, dozens of century old buildings were rehabbed into successful apartments. Obsolete office space? Maybe, but it would make decent apartments.

 

They are demolishing the Playhouse Square Building so they make a useless courtyard in the middle of the apartment building. How about leaving the 4 story portion along Euclid and demolish the 1 story back portion along Brownell Ct? Put the courtyard where the current 1 story section is (that you cannot see from the street).

 

That would make everybody happy. The historic building fronting Euclid with ground-floor retail gets to survive. The new apartment building can then fill the entire space where the JCF building currently is.

Trade a non used office building with deep recesses in the middle of downtown (and surface lot) for a pretty decent 500 person development?  All day. 

All I hear are excuses about rehab and renovation costs. Meanwhile, dozens of century old buildings were rehabbed into successful apartments. Obsolete office space? Maybe, but it would make decent apartments.

 

They are demolishing the Playhouse Square Building so they make a useless courtyard in the middle of the apartment building. How about leaving the 4 story portion along Euclid and demolish the 1 story back portion along Brownell Ct? Put the courtyard where the current 1 story section is (that you cannot see from the street).

 

That would make everybody happy. The historic building fronting Euclid with ground-floor retail gets to survive. The new apartment building can then fill the entire space where the JCF building currently is.

 

I walked by the Play House Square building this morning and it is really a beautiful building, so I will be very upset if they tear this one down. 

 

It is ironic because I saw Kathleen C. from the Cleveland Restoration Society posted yesterdays PD story by  Dr. Ryberg-Webster, the assistant professor of urban studies at the Levin College of Urban Affairs.  The story is regarding the Ameritrust Building and preserving Cleveland's heritage for the future, adaptive re-use and mentions a historic preservation conference here next year.  So ironic, and right across from the building that houses the historic preservation and urban affairs program.

 

Obsolete is what old buildings become which is why the term "adaptive re-use" exists.       

^ It ironic that Cleveland State has anything to do with historic preservation when you look at their actions up to today.

^ It ironic that Cleveland State has anything to do with historic preservation when you look at their actions up to today.

 

I mentioned that on their blog as well.  Perhaps Dr. Ryberg-Webster should be writing about that. 

^are you including this project?  They have nothing to do with it.

No, we realize that.  We are talking about Cleveland's recent poor record with historic preservation. 

Positives - more students living downtown, more foot traffic on Euclid, more customers for the local businesses, a relatiely unused corner of the intersection on the edge of PHS gets put to good use

 

Negatives - we may lose a building that most of us barely knew existed or took much notice of prior to this proposal

 

This is why I don't visit the demo thread..... the glass half empty attitude is overwhelming and unfortunately plays into a lot of the negative stereotypes people have of our City.

I certainly knew that building existed and am disappointed to see it go. Not surprised, though, given that our surface lots are probably more valuable than most of the small buildings in our crap real estate market.

 

Another negative: no storefronts facing Euclid. It's one thing to naively hope for storefronts on the ground floor of every far flung parking garage or whatever, but I'm legitimately surprised the developers aren't proposing any retail space to house complementary commercial tenants for a building housing 500 students. Most of that Euclid frontage could end up being pretty dead unless they plan to put a gym or other high-activity common space on the ground floor there.

When has it been determined that there are no storefronts on Euclid? I think that was just speculation on this board based on a rendering from far away.

^This is in the comment section by the writer of the article:

 

Hi askajak -

 

Thanks for commenting. I did ask Rob Lochner about ground-floor retail space. His response was that Clayco is "singularly focused" on the residential experience at this property. He also pointed out that there are vacant storefronts nearby.

 

That said, I won't be surprised if the question comes up at one of the public meetings this week.

 

Michelle

Today, I drove by something similar under construction in downtown Akron.  Depot Akron, to be ready for next fall.  It is within walking distance of the university and has a similar long, low, full block shape.

 

Today, I drove by something similar under construction in downtown Akron.  Depot Akron, to be ready for next fall.  It is within walking distance of the university and has a similar long, low, full block shape.

 

 

There is no reason to have retail on the one in Akron now and in the foreseeable future based on location.

 

As far as the height, 4 stories is as tall as they can go with typical wood framing. Wood framing is used because it is the most affordable.

 

Another negative: no storefronts facing Euclid. It's one thing to naively hope for storefronts on the ground floor of every far flung parking garage or whatever, but I'm legitimately surprised the developers aren't proposing any retail space to house complementary commercial tenants for a building housing 500 students. Most of that Euclid frontage could end up being pretty dead unless they plan to put a gym or other high-activity common space on the ground floor there.

 

I'm surprised and disappointed by this.  This is a substantial development that could serve as a transition/bridge between the campus and PHS.  A large building of this kind could serve as a barrier and not a bridge if it becomes a large 1st floor dead zone, despite the very positive aspect of 500 student residences.  This will be especially true during the substantial periods where CSU is on brake and during the summer when there probably will be few students living in housing...  Let's hope that, since this is just a concept plan at the moment, that with additional comment on this issue developers can "fix" this retail aspect. 

 

CSU is doing so many things right, and they really have an actual "college town" with foot traffic along Euclid that didn't exist even a year ago... Let's hope they take their time (but not too much time) and get this important project right.

My fear is that retail spaces seem to have trouble getting filled over there, so the developer doesn't want to have to deal with that and rather have residential units in those spaces. More concerning to me is 668 Euclid Avenue. Now THAT is a major 1st floor dead zone in an area where filling retail spaces shouldn't be as hard!

My fear is that retail spaces seem to have trouble getting filled over there, so the developer doesn't want to have to deal with that and rather have residential units in those spaces.

 

I understand that concern, as well as the other concerns expressed here about activity on the street.  Let's hope the space is designed to accommodate future conversion to street-level retail.

Clayco student-housing plan for former Jewish Federation site needs design revisions, boards say

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/12/clayco_student-housing_plan_fo.html#incart_river_default

Clayco student-housing plan for former Jewish Federation site needs design revisions, boards say

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/12/clayco_student-housing_plan_fo.html#incart_river_default

 

Weird that there was no mention of the Playhouse Square Building?

Weird that there was no mention of the Playhouse Square Building?

 

Seems like they have no issue with demolishing both buildings, but want a proper development put in their place. I agree with the planning commission in this case. I would rather they save the Rogers (Playhouse Square) building, but high quality mid-rise in its place is a decent compromise.

 

During meetings on Thursday and Friday mornings, board members offered little resistance to Clayco Realty Group's plans to demolish the buildings, including the federation's former headquarters at 1750 Euclid Ave.

 

Various public proposals fell through. And real estate brokers pointed out that the federation building and the neighboring Playhouse Square Building, a 1920s structure also known as the Rogers building, needed major infrastructure investments and would be difficult to adapt for modern offices or multiple tenants.

My fear is that retail spaces seem to have trouble getting filled over there, so the developer doesn't want to have to deal with that and rather have residential units in those spaces. More concerning to me is 668 Euclid Avenue. Now THAT is a major 1st floor dead zone in an area where filling retail spaces shouldn't be as hard!

 

I hear what you're saying... Filling 668 has been slow, no doubt, but I thought they did get that Environment 4 Business (IIRC) firm as well as the Potbelly's sandwich shop  on the corner... I guess I'd rather the retail space be built in, even if it sits empty for a while -- yes, I know Clayco is resisting this, but businesses and/or restaurants will eventually come. I'm not a huge fan of pop-up businesses, but at least they keep a space active... Having no space at all makes a permanent wall...

I think you two are talking about different buildings. The ground floor space at 515 Euclid is full thanks to Potbelly opening last year. I don't think 668 Euclid is actually available to lease. The Prospect side is mostly full. The Euclid side is just a lobby. I thought I saw a small office or something adjacent to the lobby but nothing else.

 

Not all store fronts are the same. Just because others are empty doesn't mean this would be too. It's a new space with a built in audience. And a growing neighborhood right next door. Keep in mind this new building is practically next door to the Keith building and Playhouse Square.

Except for lunch hours, I think the area near 668 Euclid has less pedestrian traffic than East 18th and Euclid. I would think East 18th/Euclid warrants some new ground-floor mixed use. What does that area lack retail-wise or service-wise?

All of the storefronts between 18th and 21st.... are they back up to full capacity?  I seem to remember that we lost some businesses there when the Euclid Corridor was under construction.  Is the deli still there?  That place always seemed popular, at least moreso than the Giro place

 

As for what would work at this property, I would guess those businesses which cater towards the college aged crowd moreso than theatre goers.  A convenience store or CVS/Wallgreens/RiteAid would probably do well, as would any fast-food joint or sandwich/pizza shop.  A coffee shop, perhaps.  I doubt any botique/independent style retailer would survive very long.

I think there needs to be a hard-line position that any private construction on euclid must include space for retail.  At least from public square to the highway.

Doesn't the market determine whether there can be ground floor retail?  I am all for street level store fronts but merely building them doesn't put tenants in.  By the looks of it, this is not Clayco's first look at a spreadsheet.  If we still have vacancies along Euclid, why would we build more space we can't fill?

 

When more people move downtown it will become profitable to build out a storefront...and so they will.  These guys are developers - they exist to make money.

@sixthcity, that is true that developers exist to make money. And for that reason, they will tend to create utilitarian, single-use developments. They are cheap to build and easier to manage. It is the role of public agencies to ensure that what they build meets other needs as well--the vibrancy of the street, etc. That means balancing the needs of the developer with the needs of the community. If the development can still be profitable--just slightly less profitable--and inclusive of a few first-floor retail spaces, then we should require it. On the flip side, if a developer came with a proposal for a gas station (which could probably be extremely profitable), the commission would deny it because it doesn't suit the public interest.

 

Also, just because there are vacancies along Euclid does not necessarily mean retail doesn't work there. In Columbus, for instance, there are a number of vacancies along high street, but it is because none of these vacancies are in updated, modern spaces. I have spoken with downtown people here that have said they could fill numerous spots if there were appropriately sized, new spaces along High Street. There may just be a mismatch on Euclid Avenue as well (I don't know, just surmising).

How many vacancies are there on Euclid between 18th and the Innerbelt?  Honest question.