^ They're doing it in Miami....

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article13075355.html

Cleveland is not Miami.  Do I see this type of development in Cleveland down the road?  Maybe.

^ Having lived in Miami for half a decade, I'm not sure what's meant by that. Cleveland has a much larger transit footprint and more our transit goes through/to the heart of our CBD. This is neither in the heart of Miami's CBD nor in an area of much density... A TOD bus hub/retail/residential seems a lot more plausible in downtown Cleveland. Let's hope they can figure out a way to still weave a "west side transit center" somewhere into the warehouse district area (especially if it helps free up our Public Square of asshole bus drivers that try to run me over during red lights)!

^ Having lived in Miami for half a decade, I'm not sure what's meant by that. Cleveland has a much larger transit footprint and more our transit goes through/to the heart of our CBD. This is neither in the heart of Miami's CBD nor in an area of much density... A TOD bus hub/retail/residential seems a lot more plausible in downtown Cleveland. Let's hope they can figure out a way to still weave a "west side transit center" somewhere into the warehouse district area (especially if it helps free up our Public Square of a$$hole bus drivers that try to run me over during red lights)!

Yea, I don't get that either. I also lived in Miami for a few years and they are a million times more anti-transit than Cleveland. They have floors and floors of parking for every single building.

... Let's hope they can figure out a way to still weave a "west side transit center" somewhere into the warehouse district area (especially if it helps free up our Public Square of a$$hole bus drivers that try to run me over during red lights)!

 

Agreed. I know there's some contention about this, but buses shouldn't be on Public Square, imho.

To get us back on topic, here's some news coverage by the non-PD/Crain's media of Cleveland....

 

Massive downtown Cleveland development could be coming

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/cleveland/2015/11/20/massive-downtown-cleveland-development-could-be-coming/76125004/

 

New 5-acre neighborhood to replace parking lots near Public Square

http://fox8.com/2015/11/20/new-5-acre-neighborhood-to-replace-parking-lots-near-public-square/

 

PHOTOS: Mixed-use development project proposed for 5-acre area near Public Square

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/photos-mixed-use-development-project-proposed-for-5-acre-area-near-public-square

 

Warehouse District Parking Lots Could Blossom Into High-Rise Apartments

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2015/11/20/another-massive-mixed-use-project-planned-for-downtown

 

I certainly hope that at least some of the bldgs are 1-4 br condos. I would likely buy one. But I wouldn't spend $20k-$30k/year in rent. I know condos are harder to finance than apartments. However there is an entire market segment that is excluded by not having condos.

Cleveland apartments, not parking lots, are what downtown needs: editorial

By Editorial Board

on November 24, 2015 at 11:08 AM, updated November 24, 2015 at 11:38 AM

 

If downtown Cleveland is an unfinished jigsaw puzzle, then an all-important missing piece has finally been found.

 

The parking lots northwest of Public Square have long been a blemish on the center city, a dismal, barren eyesore that separates the comings and goings in and around Terminal Tower from the apartments and restaurants of the Warehouse District.

 

If the plans of Weston Inc. and Citymark Capital come to fruition, several acres of surface lots will be converted into trendy urban offerings anchored by hundreds of apartments.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/11/apartments_not_parking_lots_th.html

Dare I read the comments?

Dare I read the comments?

 

Surprising lots of positive commentary on there. My favorite being from iHEARTCLE22, "The suburban basement crowd is losing and their tears are tastier than ever!"

Dare I read the comments?

 

Surprising lots of positive commentary on there. My favorite being from iHEARTCLE22, "The suburban basement crowd is losing and their tears are tastier than ever!"

 

Except that guy is the biggest troll there is on Cleveland.com. He turns a positive thing into a negative.

Dare I read the comments?

 

Surprising lots of positive commentary on there. My favorite being from iHEARTCLE22, "The suburban basement crowd is losing and their tears are tastier than ever!"

 

Except that guy is the biggest troll there is on Cleveland.com. He turns a positive thing into a negative.

 

Oh, well, I don't often venture too far into the comment area. But I appreciated the sentiment.

 

Also, here's a story from WKSU about the development: http://www.wksu.org/news/story/45000

Dare I read the comments?

 

Surprising lots of positive commentary on there. My favorite being from iHEARTCLE22, "The suburban basement crowd is losing and their tears are tastier than ever!"

 

Except that guy is the biggest troll there is on Cleveland.com. He turns a positive thing into a negative.

Yea, he makes me cringe. He's had so many profiles deleted lol. The negative comments always come from the same people as well. They just fight back and forth so it looks like a lot of people are commenting. How anyone can say this development is a negative is beyond me.

 

Yea, he makes me cringe. He's had so many profiles deleted lol. The negative comments always come from the same people as well. They just fight back and forth so it looks like a lot of people are commenting. How anyone can say this development is a negative is beyond me.

 

One of the first comments I got when I posted the article on Facebook last week was someone complaining about how much tougher it will be to park downtown now. I was blown away that that was somebody's first reaction to seeing such news.

That's always their first reaction.

 

"What about the people coming Downtown for a football or baseball game? Where are they going to park now?"

 

It amazes me that people don't realize, hey, if you're only coming down for those types of events that yeah, parking will be tougher and more expensive. But the other 95% of the time when those events AREN'T happening parking is easy and cheap and people actually call that place home and want a place to live. The idea that Downtown is just for entertainment where you drive in, have fun, and drive out is still something much of the Midwest needs to overcome.

One of the first comments I got when I posted the article on Facebook last week was someone complaining about how much tougher it will be to park downtown now. I was blown away that that was somebody's first reaction to seeing such news.

 

Wow. Because the great cities of the world are known for their easy parking...  :roll:

One of the first comments I got when I posted the article on Facebook last week was someone complaining about how much tougher it will be to park downtown now. I was blown away that that was somebody's first reaction to seeing such news.

 

Wow. Because the great cities of the world are known for their easy parking...  :roll:

Honestly, some people don't even view it for what it is.  That city that is.  It's just a place to work, see a concert or sporting event, maybe go out to dinner.  They drive to the same lot they always park at.  They don't take notice of a single sight, or attraction en route to that.  They are unaware as to what's going on around them, and just focused on getting to where they're going.  They don't believe that CLE should be anything more than what it is, because to them, it's just a place, and that's it.  Similar to the way a kid would view the city.  Just more excited to get to where there going, and less concerned about their surroundings.  There's nothing wrong with that attitude either.  We just need to understand that it exists, and it's simply how their wired, and not how we're wired.  I'm sure there's things that I know northing about, that completely "jazzes" them, which probably makes them think I'm weird. 

 

Now back to the WHD, because we all care about that on this board!

That's always their first reaction.

 

"What about the people coming Downtown for a football or baseball game? Where are they going to park now?"

 

It amazes me that people don't realize, hey, if you're only coming down for those types of events that yeah, parking will be tougher and more expensive. But the other 95% of the time when those events AREN'T happening parking is easy and cheap and people actually call that place home and want a place to live. The idea that Downtown is just for entertainment where you drive in, have fun, and drive out is still something much of the Midwest needs to overcome.

 

It can be both things and more.  Sometimes you need to get in and get out, nothing wrong with that.  But there will still be a ton of parking after all this is built.  Everybody wins!

^ That's a pretty good assessment.  I know so many people who have either been metro Clevelanders all their lives or lived in the area for years and they still don't know basic landmarks or even entire areas of the city.  Even more, they don't care too.  It just is what it is, I guess - neither good nor bad.  But it is like talking to an alien creature sometimes.

That's always their first reaction.

 

"What about the people coming Downtown for a football or baseball game? Where are they going to park now?"

 

It amazes me that people don't realize, hey, if you're only coming down for those types of events that yeah, parking will be tougher and more expensive. But the other 95% of the time when those events AREN'T happening parking is easy and cheap and people actually call that place home and want a place to live. The idea that Downtown is just for entertainment where you drive in, have fun, and drive out is still something much of the Midwest needs to overcome.

 

It can be both things and more.  Sometimes you need to get in and get out, nothing wrong with that.  But there will still be a ton of parking after all this is built.  Everybody wins!

 

I disagree. Big picture wise, we all lose with more parking. That's one of my gripes with this proposal-- too much parking!

Live and let live-- no amount of available parking prevents anyone from residing there, walking there, or using transit.  What's important is we finally have a "there" to talk about.  As projects like this make city life more viable, we'll see more people choosing city life over other options.

It's interesting to get some more historical context to the Warehouse District, especially for those of us whose memories do not go back very far. The attached PD article from April 1971 is quite an interesting read about the district. It talks about lack of development on the parking lots, the prospect of the building the Justice Center (they actually thought it would spur development in the neighborhood :|), the founding of the city Landmarks Commission, as well as a proposal about relocating the Greyhound Station to the WHD. Everything is cyclical, huh?

 

"'Cleveland has a great history and tradition and there is no reason why they should not be honored,' said [Councilman John Cimperman]. In the meantime, the Warehouse District remains downtown's gnawing question mark or, as parking lot owner Tom Constantine says, 'Cleveland's sleeping giant.'"

 

Let's hope that, 44 years later, the "sleeping giant" is now actually waking up.

Live and let live-- no amount of available parking prevents anyone from residing there, walking there, or using transit.  What's important is we finally have a "there" to talk about.  As projects like this make city life more viable, we'll see more people choosing city life over other options.

 

Not true. Each parking space in a structured deck adds an average of $30,000 to the cost of the project and thus increases the cost of living there. Look up Location Efficient Mortgages. It's also why University Circle Inc. is urging developers to limit the amount of parking in their developments. The planned apartment building at Euclid and East 116th won't have ANY parking, and UCI is urging Intesa to reduce the amount of parking in their proposed development.

Major urban developments like this are not just for residents, they're for everyone.  The same goes for downtown (and uptown) on the whole.  I want as many people as possible to visit downtown, shop there, gamble, people watch, whatever.  I want those people to feel welcome and feel included.  And if they need to get there by car, I'm not going to hold it against them.  We might squabble if they insist on surface parking but that's about it. 

And I get that. But your comment was that there is no amount of parking that prevents someone from living there -- and I'm disagreeing with you. Parking spaces aren't free and it's the residential and commercial tenants who will pay for them. If you oversupply the parking, you end up pricing tenants out of being able to be a part of your development. You also don't want to under-supply parking or you limit the number of people who will want to be a part of your development either as financiers, tenants or as customers. If you under-supply, you'd better have nearby alternatives to on-site parking and/or as a developer it helps to have experience with knowing the magic number of fewest spaces you can get away without harming your development's ability to succeed in various settings and markets.

Your analysis hold for anyplace where parking is included in the rent, which is to say, not Downtown. Downtown residents pay for parking separately, if they need it.  It is often one of the most profitable portions of the development.

How many downtown Cleveland housing developments were built with publicly accessible parking?

How many downtown Cleveland housing developments were built with publicly accessible parking?

 

Well, Reserve Square, for one. But that garage is a total dump.  :roll:

 

 

^^Reserve Square and Crittenden Court both have publicly accessible parking, right?  I think the Statler Arm's garage is public as well.

KJP is very accurate in his comments.

Well, Reserve Square, for one. But that garage is a total dump.  :roll:

 

 

But it was the cat's ss[/member] in the 1970s. Park Centre was an incredibly exciting development when it opened -- two high-rise market-rate towers above a pad of multilevel parking with a green roof and a grocery store and restaurants on the ground floor. It was a big-time development. The excitement we've all shown for Weston's development is what I remember my father showing for Park Centre in the early 70s.

 

 

 

If developments shouldn't include parking for economic reasons, maybe the city could build its own decks instead.  That approach is not unprecedented.  Ultimately the parking will get paid for, through user fees combined with rents or with taxes.  It seems like the issue here isn't just one of cost, but perhaps also a desire to cause a parking shortage for its own sake.  And while I think I understand the motivation behind that, I don't believe it's a good idea at this stage.

I doubt you'll see few if any city-built parking decks for a long time. The city is trying to de-emphasize driving and promote walking, biking and transit because they produce higher net fiscal impact on the city's budget. But there may yet be a privately funded parking deck built in this area, somewhere along West 3rd Street. One has been discussed for the past year to address parking shortages for the Medical Mart, Justice Center and other nearby uses. Add to that the large number of spaces that will be lost for many years as each phase of construction of Weston's development will take about two years. If each phase follows right after the next (probably unlikely as some phases may overlap), then some of the parking in the superblock will be lost for eight years.

 

I have to wonder if Weston will build a parking deck before anything else associated with its new development, either within the superblock or next to it -- such in the lot he owns on the NW corner of West 3rd and St. Clair? Ironically, that's the same lot I saw construction workers replacing drains on Nov. 14:

 

 

 

 

Oh, and speaking of parking lots. May these RIP...

 

 

I'm glad to hear this.  Clevelanders are sometimes a little too fearful to give up, or even de-emphasize, their car usage and, concomitantly, developers and lenders seem skittish about building and lending to projects that cut down their parking-per-unit allotment.  Hopefully this new Weston development will signal a paradigm shift regarding Cleveland's downtown/dense neighborhood parking lot/space needs.  One of the main objectives people look for when opting to live attractive, dense urban environments like downtown areas is the convenience of being able to walk (bus, train, cab/Uber, etc) to key places like employment, entertainment, food (stores and restaurants), without driving ... so why is clutching the Tin Lizzie so paramount?

 

Superior is such a wide street it sometimes seems like it's a physical barrier to walking to-from the WHD from the downtown core.  It would be nice, though probably unrealistic financially, to develop tunnel access from the Weston development to RTA's Tower City transit hub.  I sure wish Public Square re-designers had, had the balls to close off through Superior traffic which would have made the new PS completely car free.  Downtown would survive this.  The evidence?  Even with the current torn up conditions of the Square during its redevelopment, downtown has been able to adjust to traffic moving about the Square's perimeter.  Why couldn't this be a permanent thing?

^ Or just narrow and resurface Superior Ave to make it less hostile and more inviting to pedestrians. That'd be a lot cheaper than a tunnel.

^ Or just narrow and resurface Superior Ave to make it less hostile and more inviting to pedestrians. That'd be a lot cheaper than a tunnel.

Agreed.  I don't think it's necessary to close off Superior to traffic, completely.  But making it narrower would make a lot of sense.  Closing off streets to vehicular traffic also makes it uninviting, or prohibitive, to cyclists.  At that rate, you may as well replace the road with a sidewalk, or a walking path being that you're only promoting pedestrian activity.  Many great urban cores are loaded with streets, more so than Cleveland in fact.  They just tend to be much narrower.  The WHD lots span from 6th to 9th.  Where are 7th and 8th?  Not there.  In many cities, especially east coast, those roads would be there, rather than just paper roads, making the width of Superior much more palatable as a grand avenue with residential side streets pouring off of them. 

 

I know this is for a different thread, and I am digressing, but the though of closing 4th for Nucleus aggravates me because we will lose any north/south road between Euclid and Carnegie, and 9th and Ontario.  That to me is not very urban.  That to me is synonymous with big box retail development in a Medina County farm field with ingress and egress from one main arterial road.  Combines with the sprawling venues of Progressive field and the Q, this does not create any urban fabric whatsoever.  Sorry for  the tangent, but it seemed to apply to the discussion a bit. 

Regarding the Stark building and the older Hawley Hotel.

 

 

I'm assuming that building is much older than it looks, but just has an ugly facade on top, like the Schofield did. Anyone know if that's correct?

 

 

There used to be a wall of 5-story buildings there.  The Hawley Hotel is now that craptastic parking structure.

 

If the jail and lower buildings portion of the Justice Center are ever demolished, this could be a brand new intersection for Downtown Cleveland combined with the Weston project.

 

 

Even if you meticulously plan your life to minimize driving, and you have the ideal worksite plus the resources to live wherever you want, you will still need to drive sometimes.  Many people don't have the luxury of even trying to drive less.  We can't change that by closing roads or banning parking, but we eventually can change it with projects like this one.  We could reach the goal of car-free living even quicker if more developments in the city focused on walkability and mixed-use.  We're getting there!

So which project breaks ground first, Weston or NuCLEus?

^True.  I'm not saying everybody should abandon their cars (hell, there are many, many Manhattan apts with garages and parking).  The point is that the the percentage of parking spaces per unit can and should be reduced for such newer downtown Cleveland apts.  Also I still think the walking environment in/around this new development would be greatly enhanced by closing Public Square to traffic completely.  There would be fewer cars simply because through-route drivers would have to detour around PS.

So which project breaks ground first, Weston or NuCLEus?

 

From my limited construction management knowledge, this Weston project is far ahead of NuCLEus at announcement in late 2014 as an architect and construction manager are both already selected. NuCLEus didn't soil sample until spring 2015 if I recall correctly. Weston Phase 1 is more of a residential focused project with limited neighborhood retail space whereas NuCLEus contains hotel, office, retail, and residential components.

I'm also willing to bet that Weston is going to break ground before Nucleus. If I recall correctly, they predicted that construction for the first phase will begin in early 2016. I am guessing that Nucleus will break ground some time after the RNC.

I'm wondering if the Weston development puts any additional pressure on Stark to get NuCLEus underway?  I know the projections for apartment rentals overall are favorable, but given the sheer volume of units in Weston's project, does that make it tougher for Stark to get his financing secured?  Thankfully, Stark has a good anchor tenant for the office component (Benesch) and the connections in retail, which seems to be a much bigger part of NuCLEus than with Weston.

^ right. I think they can both succeed because they're both different in their own way.

Welcome, JohnSummit!

Did the city document all the buildings that were torn down over the years in the Warehouse District? I would love to see what architecture was deemed worthy to destroy

 

Anything Victorian was deemed ugly or unnecessarily extravagant in the mid-20th century. So there's that.

Anything Victorian was deemed ugly or unnecessarily extravagant in the mid-20th century. So there's that.

 

Yeah, which to crazy to think about. Back in the mid-20th century there were even plans to take down the Soldiers and Sailors Monument because it was too Victorian

I will never understand the people's thought processes back then.

I think this is where I disagree the most with the sentiment of UO. I support public transportation, I believe in it and I think it needs more funding. But you're not going to force people out of their cars, I wouldn't get rid of my car even if I had an option to do so and I think it's counterproductive to try to get others to. I'm an urbanist and I still believe that people need a place to park so I can imagine what the sentiment is among people who don't give a damn. We can do both. We can build developments and still not force the rest of the world to ride bikes everywhere, cause if I got a choice, I ain't getting around on a damn bike, lol. Just saying

I think this is where I disagree the most with the sentiment of UO. I support public transportation, I believe in it and I think it needs more funding. But you're not going to force people out of their cars, I wouldn't get rid of my car even if I had an option to do so and I think it's counterproductive to try to get others to. I'm an urbanist and I still believe that people need a place to park so I can imagine what the sentiment is among people who don't give a damn. We can do both. We can build developments and still not force the rest of the world to ride bikes everywhere, cause if I got a choice, I ain't getting around on a damn bike, lol. Just saying

 

You're thinking about it the wrong way. I don't want to "force" anybody out of their cars. But I think we should be building our cities in a way that makes denser living and public transit usage more feasible for more people. Also, we should make the costs of driving cars reflect what they really should be and stop subsidizing car use and road building so heavily. I'm not anti-car, but I am for leveling the playing field and building cities that are more sustainable.