Regarding the liquor store: Are you sure this is a good idea? Its one thing if this is a higher end classy  place, but another if they're going to sell, or even sneak in some rot gut whiskey or Wild Irish Rose....as if we needed more of those kinds of "glass flowers" sprouting all over the city grounds after the winos toss 'em...  And speaking of the parking... Met a guy who lives in Lakewood..... and could not find parking anywhere near the Galleria! Can you believe this? The place has its own underground garage and is surrounded by others. Are people BLIND who actually say things like this...this out of touch with their downtown...Or is it that if a lot does not come in the form of being on the surface, they're clueless.. But even then, we have a glut of these too. WTF???  :wtf:

I don't know how I feel about this liquor store thing yet. On the one hand, I'm a bit uncomfortable with it. On the other hand, I hate being a development snob so I'll just withhold judgment until I see the full plan.

I'm not going to rip the liquor store... but I'm not doing handstands about it, either, esp at that location where, on a normal Friday or Sat night, public drunkenness makes it undesirable; to me, at least... surprisingly, I'd rather there be a full service Walgreens, ... if not there, somewhere nearby (ditto for Ohio City, btw)...

The location and the stigma is what makes me cautious about it. I am a little concerned. I just hope it doesn't become a trouble magnet. But as I said earlier and like you said, I'm not going to trash it just yet either.

 

And by the way, the Walgreens thing is a great idea. It could be one of their bigger stores, something that aesthetically should fit a downtown and I think it could go good with downtown as far as increasing the whole "neighborhood" vibe. I could go for that. Great idea.

I've been clicking on property records in the Warehouse District and I discovered something interesting. County Auditor records show that the recently demolished parking deck at Superior and West 6th is on properties owned by Kersdale Ltd Partnership and Superior-West 6th LLC. Well, apparently this information has not been updated in recent years....

 

I found a property transaction in the Daily Legal News that this $2.5 million property was sold by quit-claim deed for $61,500 on June 15, 2010:  http://www.dln.com/realestatetransfers/details/id/17148

 

Ironically, the tax mailing address for these properties was updated by the county auditor, just not the ownership listing.

 

The buyer was a paper company created two months earlier (April 21, 2010) called West Sixth Superior, LLC.

This is a company created by Forest City Enterprises, according to: http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/bsqry/f?p=100:7:99404125530674::NO:7:P7_CHARTER_NUM:1931062

 

So the question is, why did FCE seek site control for this land? It should be noted that this is next to large sections of land owned by Weston Corp. which proposed a large development for the Warehouse District that has seemingly gone silent since the recession.

 

EDIT: And there are some other strange property records listings in that quadrant of the Warehouse District, bounded by Superior, St. Clair, West 3rd and West 6th. For example, there's a listing that the Jacobs Group owns a parcel off St. Clair, as does a tiny insurance brokerage called FAI Inc. I researched all of these properties several years ago but never saw Jacobs or FAI as owners listed, even though the auditor's site says Jacobs and FAI have owned the properties for more than a decade. Something's not adding up.

Clearly, so they can sit on it until someone is willing to get fleeced trying to purchase the land. 

 

Knowing FCE, this company is probably owned by a limited partnership, which would be owned by a joint venture of two or more limited partnerships, made up of 6 or 7 limited liability corporations owned by one of the 800 or so subsidiaries of FCE.  Don't ya just love how these corporate shell games work?

I'm with Hts on this -- gotta love that the only investing these people are willing to do in the WHD is land speculation.  If they put any effort into developing that land as an investment they'd find you can make money by building something!  Sort of like the mortgage backed securities and the financial crisis, all this effort to make money without creating any value.  It's bad enough that outside entities do it, but Jacobs group?

 

The city should just eminent domain all of that and sell it to a developer.

The city should just eminent domain all of that and sell it to a developer.

 

They're in the hands of developers -- who are acting more like investors than developers.

 

We'll see what, if anything, they do with the properties.....

If Cleveland State can get a developer to build " $850 to $1,550 per month" apartments on a parking lot over there, how the hell cant we get ANYTHING built on the lots in the Warehouse district.

A few possibilities. 

 

1.  The lots are more profitable as lots than they would be as market rate apartments.

 

2.  The owners are waiting for the right time to sell to maximize profit and it is not much of a seller's market right now.

How in the hell did they get it for $61,000???

I think your second point is dead on, in that they own these properties as investments to sell and not opportunities to develop.

 

But to your first point I disagree.  This is a case of lazy/unmotivated ownership.  It takes capital to build and so when faced with a steady stream of present cashflow with low costs v. larger future cashflows but high costs, a good businessman will move on the longer term more profitable option. 

 

So whether it is just building a garage to take up the demand and create 3,4 or 5 times as many spots in the same footprint, or building a 14 store mixed use building with apartments, retail, and parking garages -- motivated businessmen don't just sit on an asset when they could make more moving on it.

 

The commercial demand may not be there, and perhaps (though I don't believe so) the residential demand may not be there, but surely if they built a 5 story parking garage with competitive rates in the WHD it would draw the cars from other surface lots and bring in more money.

 

This is about doing as little as possible with something and trying to make money from it.

 

 

Emporis has this location listed as Tower I of the "Superior-Frankfort Warehouse District Project" measuring 12 stories for offices:

http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=building&lng=3&id=1149865

 

Tower II is listed on the corner of West 3rd and Superior.

 

I would be more excited about this if it wasn't Emporis, which still has Jacobs' Public Square tower due to be finished this year....

1.  The lots are more profitable as lots than they would be as market rate apartments.

In several PA cities, including Pittsburgh for a while (I believe there is still a special district that has it) land is taxed at a rate higher than the improvements upon it.  I've brought it up a half dozen times around here but my guess is that there may be state laws stopping that kind of thing from happening here.  To me it's a no-brainer.  Choke these parking lot owners out with taxes.

 

If labor, buildings or machinery and plants are taxed, people are dissuaded from constructive and beneficial activities, and enterprise and efficiency are penalized due to the excess burden of taxation. This does not apply to LVT, which is payable regardless of whether or how well the land is actually used.

^ you bet! and thats certainly not the only way to get rid of them. unfortunately, i would almost bet the owners are so well connected with the city and each other they are able to squelch any creative tax thinking like that. makes you wonder about all that poor stark ran into.

It's not just the parking lot owners that would put up a fight.  I would bet that all the WHD business operators and pretty much every other downtown interest other than Stark would go ape if the city did something that made parking more expensive or harder to find.

I think your second point is dead on, in that they own these properties as investments to sell and not opportunities to develop.

 

But to your first point I disagree.  This is a case of lazy/unmotivated ownership.  It takes capital to build and so when faced with a steady stream of present cashflow with low costs v. larger future cashflows but high costs, a good businessman will move on the longer term more profitable option. 

 

So whether it is just building a garage to take up the demand and create 3,4 or 5 times as many spots in the same footprint, or building a 14 store mixed use building with apartments, retail, and parking garages -- motivated businessmen don't just sit on an asset when they could make more moving on it.

 

The commercial demand may not be there, and perhaps (though I don't believe so) the residential demand may not be there, but surely if they built a 5 story parking garage with competitive rates in the WHD it would draw the cars from other surface lots and bring in more money.

 

This is about doing as little as possible with something and trying to make money from it.

 

 

 

Not so sure that making the capital outlay to build on those lots in what a good businessman would do.  there are a host of other questions that would need to be answered before the obvious solution is to build.  Specificaly what is the ROI.  What is the cost of financing.  The biggest problem though may be the margins that are generated right now compared to what the margins would be if the site is improved. 

 

Right now it is fairly inexpensive to park there due to supply, but the associated costs are ridiculously low.  Besides property taxes, a maintenance contract (snow removal, general cleanup after weekeds, etc), and a minimum wage security job there isn't much outflow.  This results in some pretty good margins.  Improving the lot would increase the revenue no doubt, but would also increase the costs as well.  Probably to the point where their margin suffers. 

 

The question a good businessman has to ask is does the outlay and decreased margin (which would be compounded as there would be more use and therefore more revenue) outweigh the higher margin but lower revenue. 

 

This question, along with the lack of available financing right now is what is likely holding up Weston's development plan, more likely the financing though.

"It's not just the parking lot owners that would put up a fight.  I would bet that all the WHD business operators and pretty much every other downtown interest other than Stark would go ape if the city did something that made parking more expensive or harder to find."

 

See, I think the solution to the surface lot problem lies in the exact opposite; we need strategically placed garages that are cheaper or even free. We need someone who is willing to first undercut the lot barons. Perhaps wearing a bullet proof vest lol.

 

Think of how many visitors would opt for the free garage option. I'm sure many would even be willing to walk a few extra blocks for it. Now here's the key; make retail space a major component of the garage. This pays for the garage. Then maybe you can apply revenues to offer trolley service, making the garage even more attractive.

 

p.s. Sorry Strap, quote/reply not working on my ancient browser!

 

 

 

^For sure.  I think Stark and others have proposed as much.  It would require a whole lot of public subsidy, though, for land acquisition, construction and operation, and not sure where that money will come from in our new age of austerity.

Or how about a weekend evening/night trolley loop that circulates the downtown area (where there is plenty of parking, on the street, in lots, and garages) and delivers people to the WHD, E. 4th, etc?  Anything that would spur development on those lots would be a significant boost for downtown, especially if it gets more residents (which I think is the absolute key to stabilizing everything and changing perceptions about the city.) 

 

Barroco Grill recently posted on FB that they are opening a location on W. 6th,

 

El Guero Mexican grill will be opening in the former Phoenix Coffee space on W. 9th

Sorry, I forgot we had a West Side Transit Center thread already. I will be moving posts over to it for the next few minutes. Here is that West Side Transit Center thread.....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,23756.msg493333.html#msg493333

Clueless, thanks for all the updates!

Sorry, I forgot we had a West Side Transit Center thread already. I will be moving posts over to it for the next few minutes. Here is that West Side Transit Center thread.....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,23756.msg493333.html#msg493333

 

Now I'm wondering if I should have moved the transit center discussion over to the transit center thread, since not as many people don't venture over to the transportation section as they do to this projects/development section. But RTA staff usually don't venture over here to add their two cents and to answer our questions.

 

The transit center is proposed to have a 13-story housing tower on top of it, so this is not just a transportation project. Also intriguing (at least to me) is that Forest City Enterprises bought the land just last year where the transit center is proposed to be built (in the block bounded by Superior, West 3rd, Frankfort, and West 6th).

 

So should this project be discussed here or in the West Side Transit Center thread?

KJP--I would recommend keeping it here as it is--at least as currently envisioned--as it is more than a just a bus facility. the bus part seems may be the 'catalyst' for greater development, as many here are hoping. maybe specific details regarding the bus facility itself (number of bays, lanes, etc.) could be discussed in the transportation section, but the project as a whole could stay here.... just my thoughts.

We can discuss the transit implications of the transit center like the debate on whether the duo transit concept makes sense etc over in Transit. The more parochial impact the project will have on the WHD here.

 

I have total faith that we forumers can pull that off... yep, no doubts.  :wink:

KJP-What if you move the West Side Transit Center thread from Transportation to Projects and Construction.

 

Or and I am half joking here, just move it to Abandoned Projects seeing that Forest City is the land owner. Because they are probably preparing to hold somebody up for the price of that land. Cuz thats wut they do...

OK, here's the ground rules.... I'm quoting jborger's posting from earlier this evening so that we'll have the substance of his findings from the RTA public meeting about the project. He shared details of the project most of which were non-transit in nature such as the residential tower, the doubling of on-site parking, the creation of the foundations (financial and physical) on which the tower would be built, street-level retail/facade elements, and the decision to leave out a substantial office component.

 

Those are the things that we should discuss here. The transit-related components of the project will be discussed in the West Side Transit Center thread in the transportation section:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,23756.msg493333.html#msg493333

 

Here are the elements of the transit center, many of which are non-transit, as described in detail by jborger....

 

I went to the meeting this evening to hear more about RTA's plans for a bus transit center in the warehouse district.  I went in cautiously optimistic and left feeling like this is a good plan - if a developer ever buys into it.

 

RTA's consultant looked at parking lots throughout the Warehouse District and settled on the lot bordered by Superior, West 6th, West 3rd and Frankfort as the best option.

 

The transit center would have one lane of buses entering via Superior, just east of West 6th.  They would exit via four lanes that dump out onto West 3rd.  So the buses would turn right into the center off Superior, then exit by turning right onto West 3rd and then left on Superior to head back east.

 

Around the edges of the transit center - along West 6th and down Frankfort - would be retail that would be 60-65 feet deep.  There seems to be concern from some that this is not deep enough for retail.  There was talk of moving Frankfort slightly north to make more room for retail, but they decided not to do this because a water main would have to be moved and because they wanted a straight road connecting West 9th to West 6th, West 6th to West 3rd and West 3rd to Public Square.

 

There would also be a small amount of retail (maybe one store) along Superior.  West 3rd would pretty much be a dead zone due to four lanes of bus traffic exiting the building. 

 

Above the retail would be three floors of housing along West 6th and Frankfort.  Then at the corner of West 6th and Superior, there would be a 13 story residential tower, about the same height as the Rockefeller building across West 6th.

 

Above the transit center would be 3 levels of parking for about 540 cars.  The current parking lot holds around 240.

 

There had been previous suggestions of a 450,000 sq. ft. office tower at West 3rd and Superior, but this has since been taken off the table due to lack of demand.  There may be the possibility of creating the transit center in such a way that a tower could be built on top in the future, but the consultant said this is a very involved process and adds a lot more work because you have to plan for things like stairwells for a building that doesn't exist and that you don't know how tall it will be.

 

Some have voiced concern that people heading west down Superior towards the Warehouse District will first be greeted by a parking garage/transit center at the corner of West 3rd and Superior.  Not the best entryway to this neighborhood.  So they're going to see if they can make that corner more appealing somehow.  Fancy entrance or something. 

 

They showed block renderings which I'm sure will be available online soon.  The next step is creating more realistic renderings that they can shop around to developers.  Because none of this happens without a private developer wanting to be a part of it.  The public-private partnership may be appealing to a developer because RTA can gather all the land and even do things like build the parking garage which may make new construction of the residential tower more affordable than it would be without RTA.

450,000 square foot building would be awesome! I think it would add so much to our skyline. Why CANT they build it?

1.  5 Parking garage levels

2.  10 Office space levels

3.  15 Apartment/Condo leves.

 

It really sounds like they are lazy and want to do the bare minimum; which is Cleveland's problem anyways. LAZYness. EVERYONE knows that Cleveland is on a comeback! The Medical Mart, Casino 1 & 2, Flats, and now the Lakefront plan?! I don't see why there wouldn't be a need for the space two to three years from now. Cleveland will be a changed city for the better by then. That building would be in the center of all the action! Shame on them for NOT thinking about the FUTURE GROWTH of Cleveland. They seem to be stuck on the now!

^In my experience, construction workers do their best work when they get paid.  Same thing for property owners.  And architects.  And pretty much everyone else that's needed to get stuff built.  Just sayin'.

 

Sorry if this is covered somewhere else, but anyone know if RTA's lease for its WHD space is nearing its end?  Is that building in play (conceptually) for possible residential conversion?  RTA always seemed like a weird fit to me for West 6th.

^^Does RTA lease that building...I thought they owned it (especially given the huge renovation they did to it when they first moved in).

^^^^ Where did you get that conclusion from?  :wtf:

 

They are already planning a transit center with 3 floors of apartments over retail and a 13 floor apartment building. Also a 540 car parking garage. Finding financing will be hard enough, adding the office tower could delay it even further. Also is the demand there for a new office tower? I dont believe so at this time. I do hope they build this thing so that in the future a tower could be built, but that can be expensive.

 

RTA should not be in the Root-McBride building on W. 6th.

Way too fancy digs for their needs.

^^^^ Where did you get that conclusion from?  :wtf:

 

They are already planning a transit center with 3 floors of apartments over retail and a 13 floor apartment building. Also a 540 car parking garage. Finding financing will be hard enough, adding the office tower could delay it even further. Also is the demand there for a new office tower? I dont believe so at this time. I do hope they build this thing so that in the future a tower could be built, but that can be expensive.

 

Wait that sounds like you read RTA's press release.  That takes too much time.  Rampant speculation is sooo much more fun.

 

Regarding the actual proposal, I really don't think the office tower should be included at all.  If it is the PS lot next door may never get built on, which would be a true disaster.  Also, with the former East Ohio Gas building being renovated into more office space I think that until the vacancy rate is considerably lower there wont be much demand for new office space.

Referring to an earlier, now-deleted post... Let's not call a new forum member lazy. Instead, point him the direction of other, previous discussions on this issue. Thanks.

^KJP...in addition you might want to suggest to new forum members that profanity is not appreciated on the board as well.

^KJP...in addition you might want to suggest to new forum members that profanity is not appreciated on the board as well.

 

Thanks. I missed that. Where is/was it?

I don't know this but I would not surprised that Forest City Enterprises, the new owner of the block where the transit center is located, might remain as the property owner after GCRTA builds its transit center and then FCE adds the apartment tower above it. GCRTA is already the tenant and FCE the landlord at Tower City where GCRTA has its rail station.

 

And considering this project was brought to GCRTA by the Downtown Cleveland Alliance and the Historic Warehouse District CDC, perhaps FCE went to them first and said "the numbers don't work for us building residential towers downtown, but if you were able to get GCRTA to revive its West Side Transit Center project and we built on top of it, then the numbers work a lot better." Of course, FCE could approach them directly, but it would not be a request from community. And given some of the past opposition by Warehouse District stakeholders to prior plans for the transit center, having this request come from DCA and HWHD would probably short-circuit much of that opposition.

Would the Healthline run through this transit center?  Seems like it would be a difficult turn to make for those buses off of Superior unless they catty-cornered the entrance somehow at the intersection with W 3rd.

 

KJP, what subsidiary of FCE owns the land?  That might offer some clues as to their intentions.

Would the Healthline run through this transit center?  Seems like it would be a difficult turn to make for those buses off of Superior unless they catty-cornered the entrance somehow at the intersection with W 3rd.

 

KJP, what subsidiary of FCE owns the land?  That might offer some clues as to their intentions.

 

The first question is for the West Side Transit Center discussion in the transportation section.

 

The second question can be answered here:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3323.msg578258.html#msg578258

Did FCE buy this land from Weston or is there other land in the WHD that Weston owns.  I thought this was the plot they were trying to develop after the whole Stark partnership fell apart.  While the Weston development was clearly a long shot, at least it was out there (or again am I confusing the parcels?)

of course fcr wants to pair up with some government agency before they build -- they dont do anything until they can milk uncle sam's cash cow.

 

also, they certainly have gotten some major experience working with transit agencies lately, thats for sure.

 

since amazingly its a nice project that is actually in cleveland for a change i sure hope they pull it off - ha!

Did FCE buy this land from Weston or is there other land in the WHD that Weston owns.  I thought this was the plot they were trying to develop after the whole Stark partnership fell apart.  While the Weston development was clearly a long shot, at least it was out there (or again am I confusing the parcels?)

 

FCE bought the two-level parking garage property at the corner of Superior and West 6th from two separate property owners and demolished the parking garage. All other properties with the block bounded by Superior, West 3rd, St. Clair and West 6th are owned by Weston, as are other scattered properties (mostly parking lots) in the Warehouse District.

Are there any renderings of this project available yet?

^So this project would encompass FCE and Weston land, but the majority is owned by Weston. Is that correct?

Are they 'owned' by Weston, or does Weston simply hold an option on them?

 

The SOS filings did not reveal anything special to me.  Specifically, I was looking for some indication of Forest City Residential or Forest City Development being involved.  Not saying they are not, just nothing to indicate that on the SOS filings.

 

 

Are there any renderings of this project available yet?

 

According to jborger's post above, some general renderings will be made available soon. These will be refined based on the input given at the public meeting.

 

^So this project would encompass FCE and Weston land, but the majority is owned by Weston. Is that correct?

 

Maybe 50/50. I have not taken the time to look at the dimensions of the properties. But anyone with the time can do so by checking the GIS at the City Planning Commission's website.

 

Are they 'owned' by Weston, or does Weston simply hold an option on them?

 

The SOS filings did not reveal anything special to me.  Specifically, I was looking for some indication of Forest City Residential or Forest City Development being involved.  Not saying they are not, just nothing to indicate that on the SOS filings.

 

 

Not sure. My understanding is that Weston purchased the properties rather than doing quit-claim deed transfers.

 

I didn't think the company name would reveal anything as to their intentions with the site. If I was in their position, I wouldn't limit my options by doing that. But I do think it's interesting is that the residential tower is proposed to be at the corner of Superior and West 6th -- above the land Forest City Enterprises owns.

How do you use eminent domain to obtain property for less than market rate?  I always thought market rate is what must be paid (i.e. just compensation) whenever ED is used.

 

I mean that lot owners have a tendency to bid up the price of the land once developers become interested in the property. these same owners will often petition the county to lower the appraised property values of parking lots, to lower their tax burden.  the honest truth is that if properties like the the lot on public square were appraised at valued close to that of what could be built there, it would force the lot owners to develop something to make the land generate more revenue. 

 

It is common for large developers to act as silent partners and form shell corporations to hide their true intentions for the property to not give the seller any leverage over the property.  for the FEB, the port acted as a public authority to secure property for the devloper, an (i think) used eminent domain to secure land from a stubborn land owner.

 

Using RTA keeps the City's hands clean because both the port and RTA are Quasi public organizations that are more resistant to political interference, they can operate like ODOT, and whether opposition better than politicians can.

 

 

Any mention of whether the healthline buses would be using this transit center.... or would they continue to loop around PS?

 

My guess is yes the  slide listed slots for 60ft buses, consider all East side buses will terminate there. ALL OF THEM.

 

the big guy in the sweatsuit, Calabreese (SP?) said he was in conversation with the city or FOUR days about how to get the buses of the square, He said it is impossible , ALL buses must go thru the Square, regardless of the West side transit center, they must go thru the Square.  he speculated about a BUS ONLY lane thru the Square, he said a 3 lane road would be more than adequate to handle bus Traffic.

 

If we add all of this together

Forest city aquiring the site in secret

Group plan commission redesign of public square.

Mayor Jackson support the closing of the entire square

The sponsorship of the West side transit center by both WHD and DCA.

 

there seems to be a plan in the works to over come all obstacles to the redesign of the square with honey for all parties involved.

 

Good insights and a reasonable take.  I know "land deals" or some such wording is exempt from Ohio sunshine laws, but it would be nice if the public were a little more privy to what its servants were up to.  In the case of FEB, a political check may have been warranted.  At this point I'm for practically anything that would get those lots developed.  I don't think it should require a bus yard, but in this case we're not actually losing anything, so it feels like a decent compromise... as long as the entire plan gets built along with it.