the port dis use eminent Domain to secure land for the FEB project.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/earlyedition/2007/03/flats_land_seizure_debated_in.html

 

 

Early rendering...

 

Just kidding  :-P Anybody believe it for a second?

Early rendering...

 

Just kidding  :-P Anybody believe it for a second?

 

Oh sure, I'll believe anything for a second. Nice job! Love the Browns player reflected in the Superior facade.

^^Was that an old Stark proposal?

 

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. 

 

All true

That was a proposal for eaton, before they decided to build a giant glass toilet bowl surrounded by asphalt by an exit ramp.

New real estate companies aren't generally formed as "shells" to hide intentions or nefarious dealings.  Developers also rarely own the majority of the projects that they develop .  Developers will usually only have a small monetary stake in the partnership, but act as the general partner and generally be "in charge" of the project.  The larger actual ownership stake is held by the banks and other financiers who provide the financial backing for the project.  So the companies that end up buying land and developing it represent actual new partnerships. 

New real estate companies aren't generally formed as "shells" to hide intentions or nefarious dealings.

 

Yep. After all, I was able to find it. If I can find it, anyone can!

New real estate companies aren't generally formed as "shells" to hide intentions or nefarious dealings.  Developers also rarely own the majority of the projects that they develop .  Developers will usually only have a small monetary stake in the partnership, but act as the general partner and generally be "in charge" of the project.  The larger actual ownership stake is held by the banks and other financiers who provide the financial backing for the project.  So the companies that end up buying land and developing it represent actual new partnerships.

 

 

I was just taken back to the Debacle with the Stanley building and all the disinformation about the intentions of the New buyer and who they were.

 

 

either way there is a marked difference in valuation of lots by the couty and the prices they usually sell for once parties become interested in redevelopment.

New real estate companies aren't generally formed as "shells" to hide intentions or nefarious dealings.

 

Yep. After all, I was able to find it. If I can find it, anyone can!

 

Its not really done to "hide" anything, but rather to limit liability (and that is perfectly legal).  FCE is notorious for this.  Their projects will be developed by a partnership, whose general partner is a joint venture, made up of a limited partnerships, consisting of some FCE subsidiaries which even still have 6 degrees of separation from the parent company.

 

The company you found is the holding company.  If the land is ever developed, it will sell that land for "$1 and other valuable consideration" to whatever shell will directly enter into contracts with either a general contractor (whch may be another shell company of FCE) or directly with a costruction manager and the trades.

And the fact they bought the land for $61,000 is amazing. The property last sold for $90,000 in 1983 -- 28 years ago!

 

BTW, Chelm Properties is managing the property (as a parking lot) for Forest City Enterprises. Chelm is not marketing the property for lease (or sale, but Chelm isn't in the business of selling) according to its website.

Here is a link to the plan that was shown last week and shared by urbanlife in the West Side Transit Center thread:

 

http://www.riderta.com/usercontent/file/WSTC_PublicMeeting_11.pdf

 

My first reaction is that I would rather see the residential tower placed at the corner of West 3rd and Superior to provide more vertical balance with respect to what structures already exist in the area, if that makes any sense. I think we all hope this isn't the last structure to be built for a long time in the area with some meaningful vertical height. But until that happens, whenever that may be, this reorientation would also rightfully place more of the density closer to Public Square where it probably belongs. But I'm OK with anything up to 20 +/- stories placed along Superior.

Just so I am straight on this...is it true that RTA does not have the money for this project (the transit center portion) but they are applying, and that the Warehouse District and Downtown Cleveland Alliance people won't even start looking for a developer until earlier next year (who must then come up with a design and secure financing)?

Here is a link to the plan that was shown last week and shared by urbanlife in the West Side Transit Center thread:

 

http://www.riderta.com/usercontent/file/WSTC_PublicMeeting_11.pdf

 

My first reaction is that I would rather see the residential tower placed at the corner of West 3rd and Superior to provide more vertical balance with respect to what structures already exist in the area, if that makes any sense. I think we all hope this isn't the last structure to be built for a long time in the area with some meaningful vertical height. But until that happens, whenever that may be, this reorientation would also rightfully place more of the density closer to Public Square where it probably belongs. But I'm OK with anything up to 20 +/- stories placed along Superior.

 

I was thinking that as first as well, but wonder if focusing housing on West 6th would be a better investment for a developer due to the amenities the street already offers, as well as being more integrated with the warehouse district as a whole.

One of the first takes from the audience, "TOO MUCH DENSITY."  Jesus...

Just so I am straight on this...is it true that RTA does not have the money for this project (the transit center portion) but they are applying, and that the Warehouse District and Downtown Cleveland Alliance people won't even start looking for a developer until earlier next year (who must then come up with a design and secure financing)?

 

Gotta have a detailed plan before you can ask for money and marketing it to developers.

 

 

One of the first takes from the audience, "TOO MUCH DENSITY."  Jesus...

 

Yep. I thought the same thing.... Hello!! It's a friggin' city! It supposed to have density! OY!!!

Any updates on Tomo or the new mexican place going in the former Phoenix on West 9th?

 

Tomo looked like it was ready to go more than a month ago, and now just sits dark.

 

It also looks like the new liquor store on west 6 is going to be half liquor store and half cafe/restaurant.  Any info on this place?

It will be half liquor store and half Barroco Grill (the same as in Lakewood).

One of the first takes from the audience, "TOO MUCH DENSITY."  Jesus...

 

"Thasss righ man, nobody mess with the Jesus"

do you think they meant "its too tall for the warehouse district and doesn't fit in" .. which they marked as "too dense" in the report?

 

F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio) is a serious topic among developers of urban areas. They could be going for a lower score.. or its possible that the proposed development was out of scale for that site.

 

I am not saying I agree or disagree.. just thought of an alternative and thought I'd share.

do you think they meant "its too tall for the warehouse district and doesn't fit in" .. which they marked as "too dense" in the report?

 

F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio) is a serious topic among developers of urban areas. They could be going for a lower score.. or its possible that the proposed development was out of scale for that site.

 

I am not saying I agree or disagree.. just thought of an alternative and thought I'd share.

 

They proposed to make it the same height as the Rockefeller Building across West 6th. Can't speak to mass or F.A.R. but the massings show it having less mass than the Rockefeller. At least that was my impression. Perhaps those who think this project is too dense (which is the only description provided and thus the only public comment I can react to) feel the Rockefeller doesn't belong in their district. I think the residents need to be shown what the area looked like before 1960.

 

Look to the left of Terminal Tower.....

 

 

Do you remember the check-cashing business on Superior just east of West 6th that was surrounded by the parking deck -- and was demolished about a year ago? Well, the building that had the check-cashing business was built in the 1830s. You can see it in the above picture. It has an angled white billboard on top of it in the lower-left corner of the picture. That's part of the property Forest City Enterprises now owns, and above it is where the 13-story residential tower is proposed (atop the 3-story transit center).

I don't think it matters whether we're talking FAR or building height; the idea that the massing shown in that RTA presentation for a site on Superior is "too dense" is totally absurd.  I like to think RTA felt like it just needed to show it heard stuff, but heaven help us if that's their real take away.

Just heard from a friend who knows Al Ratner. He says it is no coincidence that the apartment tower proposed atop the West Side Transit Center is above land FCE bought last year, and that the transit center is being pushed by the DCA and HWD.

What location exactly is the Westside Transit Center Proposed for. 

They're looking at the Westside Transit Center to be located between West 6th and West 3rd and Superior and Frankfort Ave.

 

I'm for the project.  If Forest City is involved, that could be the developer RTA needs to actually make this project happen.

Here is an example from another city, similar to what FCE may be interested in doing here although apparently on a smaller scale.....

 

Forest City Wins Prized Atlanta TOD Contract

Posted December 1, 2011

 

ATLANTA - Forest City Real Estate Asset Services has won the nod from the Georgia Department of Transportation to lead the project team for the development of a multi-modal transportation hub in downtown Atlanta.

 

Cleveland-based Forest City will partner with Cousins Properties Inc. and the Integral Group, both Atlanta-bred firms. Forest City role is fee-based master planning for the 119-acre project in the "Gulch: area near Philips Arena, the Georgia Dome and World Congress Center. Forest City also will coordinate planning, engineering and architectural activities plus facilitate stakeholder involvement.

 

"This will be one of the largest transit-oriented developments in the country," said Emerick J. Corsi Jr., president of Real Estate Asset Services for Forest City Enterprises Inc. "We envision a project that combines residential, office, retail and recreational components to energize and connect downtown Atlanta."

 

READ MORE AT:

http://atlantarealestate.citybizlist.com/3/2011/12/1/Forest-City-Wins-Prized-Atlanta-TOD-Contract.aspx?CFID=148047&CFTOKEN=40595171

Here is an example from another city, similar to what FCE may be interested in doing here although apparently on a smaller scale.....

 

Forest City Wins Prized Atlanta TOD Contract

Posted December 1, 2011

 

ATLANTA - Forest City Real Estate Asset Services has won the nod from the Georgia Department of Transportation to lead the project team for the development of a multi-modal transportation hub in downtown Atlanta.

 

Cleveland-based Forest City will partner with Cousins Properties Inc. and the Integral Group, both Atlanta-bred firms. Forest City role is fee-based master planning for the 119-acre project in the "Gulch: area near Philips Arena, the Georgia Dome and World Congress Center. Forest City also will coordinate planning, engineering and architectural activities plus facilitate stakeholder involvement.

 

"This will be one of the largest transit-oriented developments in the country," said Emerick J. Corsi Jr., president of Real Estate Asset Services for Forest City Enterprises Inc. "We envision a project that combines residential, office, retail and recreational components to energize and connect downtown Atlanta."

 

READ MORE AT:

http://atlantarealestate.citybizlist.com/3/2011/12/1/Forest-City-Wins-Prized-Atlanta-TOD-Contract.aspx?CFID=148047&CFTOKEN=40595171

 

I hate how FCE is so involved and active in developing other cities but when it comes to Cleveland they do NOTHING they can't even get relevant stores in Tower City it's a shame really and it always baffles me. :-o

^ i know, but rather rather get into that lets just be glad that they are finally doing something urban scaled at the westside transit center!

^ i know, but rather rather get into that lets just be glad that they are finally doing something urban scaled at the westside transit center!

 

I've heard about this transit center are there any renderings or pics available for it? I would love to see it...

 

I've heard about this transit center are there any renderings or pics available for it? I would love to see it...

 

No renderings yet. Just massings and some examples from other cities. Here's what RTA presented at a public meeting recently....

 

http://www.riderta.com/usercontent/file/WSTC_PublicMeeting_11.pdf

That is by far the coolest looking plan I've ever seen from RTA.  My reservations about having so much bus facility frontage along Superior are more than assuaged by the positive impact on Frankfort and West 6.  The street life enhancement will be immense and immediate.

 

I've heard about this transit center are there any renderings or pics available for it? I would love to see it...

 

No renderings yet. Just massings and some examples from other cities. Here's what RTA presented at a public meeting recently....

 

http://www.riderta.com/usercontent/file/WSTC_PublicMeeting_11.pdf

 

OOOOOOHHH!!! This is the Warehouse District project that has all of this controversy behind it about should they put a bus station in a thriving nightlife scene....well if they are going to add residential (and the building looks reasonably tall) then I'm for it because Downtown Cleveland has a residential shortage beginning to occur right now...(Side Note: Look at all of those parking lots in one area that is TERRIBLE)  :x :|

One of the feedback comments is "Too much density". Did this come from residents living in the area? I can't believe anyone would think this in an area full of parking lots.

Here is the massing from the PDF presentation mentioned above.

One of the feedback comments is "Too much density". Did this come from residents living in the area? I can't believe anyone would think this in an area full of parking lots.

 

I'm sure it was just someone who wandered in from cleveland.com.

I am still not thrilled how this concept turns Superior into a dead zone, but I guess there is not much happening on the street any way from the bridge to pass Public Square, so it is not like it is going to destroy the urban fabric....the fact that Superior is so wide does not help the situation much either.

I am still not thrilled how this concept turns Superior into a dead zone, but I guess there is not much happening on the street any way from the bridge to pass Public Square, so it is not like it is going to destroy the urban fabric....the fact that Superior is so wide does not help the situation much either.

 

the enclosed passenger waiting area, with glass, possibly some limited vending/retail, and access to sidewalk are along superior, so at least in this proposal, there should be some activity, light, eyes on the street, and some reason to walk there. 

 

also, iirc, there are only 2 lanes entering from superior, and the 3 or 4 exit lanes go out to w3.  I think w3 actually will be a bit of a deadzone between superior and frankfort with this large bus exit as well as the proposed entrance and exit to the parking garage.  there could be a 60 foot + curb cut here that pedestrians have to cross - but that also means no curb cuts on frankfort or west 9.

^As you describe West 3rd, I perceive some definite safety issues.  That is a long curb cut watching for bus and auto traffic (and in connection with  the parking garage, both in and out).  I would avoid that sidewalk if I could (and I am not the type to walk down the street on talking on a cell phone or texting which is common place today).  I don't know what the creative solution is here.  Maybe a second floor balcony/walkway along the facing of the garage.  But that does not seem practical. Who is going to climb up and down stairs just to walk a half a city block?

i was wondering if RTA could buy the design Stark envisioned for this property with slight modifications. The plan looks similar.

Here is the screen shot from the presentation.  It looks like there is actually 172 feet between curb cuts on w3.

 

 

The aerial photo showing all the parking lots is a knock out slap in the face of reality that is so embarrassing about this part of downtown. There IS not town... this, right in the middle of the urban hub. Looks as though there should be a Lowe's and Home Depot there with the parking lots. I can never believe how this property has sat undeveloped for so long, despite parking goons having their way with the city. I look at all this parking and wonder... "Parking for WHAT?"

It is a pretty shocking picture.

^As you describe West 3rd, I perceive some definite safety issues.  That is a long curb cut watching for bus and auto traffic (and in connection with  the parking garage, both in and out).  I would avoid that sidewalk if I could (and I am not the type to walk down the street on talking on a cell phone or texting which is common place today).  I don't know what the creative solution is here.  Maybe a second floor balcony/walkway along the facing of the garage.  But that does not seem practical. Who is going to climb up and down stairs just to walk a half a city block?

 

I don't see a problem with a W. 3rd deadzone popping up.  I cut through those parking lots all the time en route from work downtown to my friend's place at the Pinnacle.  My usual plan of attack is though the lot in front of 55 Public Square and then through the lot behind the proposed RTA site (with the possibility of a stop at the Subway on St. Clair  8-)).  I bypass that area entirely and doubt the transit center would create much more traffic heading north on W. 3rd to impede crossing at W. 3rd and St Clair.

The aerial photo showing all the parking lots is a knock out slap in the face of reality that is so embarrassing about this part of downtown. There IS not town... this, right in the middle of the urban hub. Looks as though there should be a Lowe's and Home Depot there with the parking lots. I can never believe how this property has sat undeveloped for so long, despite parking goons having their way with the city. I look at all this parking and wonder... "Parking for WHAT?"

 

Believe it or not, restaurant owners in the WHD have opposed infill on parking lots because of the fear in losing the customers.

If true, I'm not spending any more money at Warehouse District restaurants. I've visited WHD establishments for 20+ years and whenever I've driven, I've never used any of the surface parking lots in the  WHD. I've always parked at meters because I refuse to enrich the owners of those lots. And if the restaurant owners really do oppose developing the parking lots, then I will expand my boycott to the entire WHD.

It was an anecdotal remark by Jennifer Coleman. There were some sort of plans for redeveloping a surface lot with a several stories building, and the owners of nearby businesses freaked out. (shes not just chair of Landmarks, also downtown design review). It was anecdotal, I don't recall the building, the point was the parking issue down there.

 

I have heard of one interesting way to combat parking lots (or empty lots). I have heard in some cities that an undeveloped piece of land in the center city is taxed more than developed land, an attempt to halt demolitions of buildings to decrease taxes. It could be a piece of the puzzle to force parking lots out too.

I was originally skeptical when I heard about a transit center in the warehouse district, but I do like this plan a lot. The residential component would of course be great and it nicely fills a city block that is horrible surface parking.

 

I think a smart developer would also build on the north side of Frankfort, basically mirroring the low-rise buildings shown on the south side of the street in that rendering. This could be used to create another E. 4th type street, which I believe was an aspect of one of the warehouse district development plans that had been proposed in the past. Frankfort could then later be developed to the west as the area grows.

 

Sounds like someone needs to give the local business owners a lesson in critical mass though. Not to mention informing them that there are plenty of places to build a parking deck as the parking lots get developed in the future.

It was an anecdotal remark by Jennifer Coleman. There were some sort of plans for redeveloping a surface lot with a several stories building, and the owners of nearby businesses freaked out. (shes not just chair of Landmarks, also downtown design review). It was anecdotal, I don't recall the building, the point was the parking issue down there.

 

I have heard of one interesting way to combat parking lots (or empty lots). I have heard in some cities that an undeveloped piece of land in the center city is taxed more than developed land, an attempt to halt demolitions of buildings to decrease taxes. It could be a piece of the puzzle to force parking lots out too.

 

This is precisely the right policy, because the way that taxes work and the disallowance for passive depreciation losses several decades ago created a perverse incentive for landlords to knock their empty buildings down if they couldn't get a really good price for them. And if there's demand for parking, all the better...of course, such a policy might deter purchases in the first place, because who wants to get stuck with a mothballed old building with no tenants, no buyer, and no alternative income stream?

 

If this new development goes forward, I think it is a giant step in the right direction.

Believe it or not, restaurant owners in the WHD have opposed infill on parking lots because of the fear in losing the customers.

 

The vast anti-density conspiracy strikes again!  I'm telling you, it's real and it's the #1 problem in this town.

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,26612.0.html

Groups work to improve Cleveland's Warehouse District

 

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/cleveland_metro/groups-work-to-improve-clevelands-warehouse-district

Believe it or not, restaurant owners in the WHD have opposed infill on parking lots because of the fear in losing the customers.

 

The vast anti-density conspiracy strikes again!  I'm telling you, it's real and it's the #1 problem in this town.

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,26612.0.html

 

This is disturbing, but not totally surprising.  The biggest obstacle to development progress in this town is the pure selfishness/small-minded-ness of major property owners and retailers.  Every man (and woman) for him/her-self and to hell with the greater good of the city.