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.

 

 

 

Can you up load that entire photo.  Great pic.

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.

 

No, you want to force people to make the decisions that you want them to make. I'm all for density and I love public transit and if we had a better system I would use it more but I will never just choose to get rid of my car. There is a balance. It's not about "making the costs of driving cars reflect what they should be". It SHOULD BE about putting other modes of transportation on a level playing field. You can raise other modes of transportation up without trying to make it so difficult for people to drive cars that they choose not to or (more likely) avoid your area altogether. I know few people who choose not to OWN a car. I know people who choose not to USE a car as much (and I wish we had better and more extensive public transportation so that I didn't have to use my car as much). But I was born and raised in the hood, where not having a car wasn't something that people chose to do willingly and it wasn't a reflection of some conscious Eco-friendly mentality, lol. I'm not riding a bicycle to everywhere and I worked hard every car I've ever had so you'll pry my car keys from my cold dead hands. But again, here is the difference in mentality. I believe it should be about making public transportation a more attractive option, not making car driving a less attractive one (especially when there are a lot more people that feel like me about it and not you)

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.

 

No, you want to force people to make the decisions that you want them to make. I'm all for density and I love public transit and if we had a better system I would use it more but I will never just choose to get rid of my car. There is a balance. It's not about "making the costs of driving cars reflect what they should be". It SHOULD BE about putting other modes of transportation on a level playing field. You can raise other modes of transportation up without trying to make it so difficult for people to drive cars that they choose not to or (more likely) avoid your area altogether. I know few people who choose not to OWN a car. I know people who choose not to USE a car as much (and I wish we had better and more extensive public transportation so that I didn't have to use my car as much). But I was born and raised in the hood, where not having a car wasn't something that people chose to do willingly and it wasn't a reflection of some conscious Eco-friendly mentality, lol. I'm not riding a bicycle to everywhere and I worked hard every car I've ever had so you'll pry my car keys from my cold dead hands. But again, here is the difference in mentality. I believe it should be about making public transportation a more attractive option, not making car driving a less attractive one (especially when there are a lot more people that feel like me about it and not you)

 

This should be a discussion for another thread. Perhaps here? http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7852.1435.html

The point isn't that this new WHD development should eliminate parking garage space options entirely for future residents, but that they should reduce the parking space-per unit allotment compared to a large-scale apartment development in, say, Beachwood.... and that reducing this allotment would significantly reduce the cost of the project which makes sense in such an urban pedestrian and transit friendly location.

It's always surprises me when someone tries to design a development, a street or a neighborhood with a modicum of balance for different ways to access it that it is perceived as forcing the users of the most expensive form of transportation, driving, to give it up entirely. If we go from using our cars 90 percent of the time to 60 percent, how are we forcing people to give up their cars?? Our whole transportation universe in the USA is so distorted by all levels of government that it boggles the mind, and yet like the fish who don't notice the water they swim in, we Americans take such distortions without question. Well too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Motorists have had it their way for so long at the expense of all other modes of access that when a little bit of balance is brought back into the design of streets, parking and developments that the world designed for cars uber alles considers it an unnatural force.

 

Examples? The current use of the Superblock itself. The underpriced parking that forces non-motorsts to subsidize motorsts and causes the huge, city-destroying swaths of parking that this development will replace. Another is the gradual turns or timed traffic lights at intersections that speed cars through and puts pedestrians' lives at risk. Yet another is the multi-lane thoroughfares and single-use properties that require persons to get behind the wheel merely to cross said street. These are all the byproducts of a world that automakers sought decades ago and had codified into the zoning code, the uniform traffic code, or the FHWA's design standards. In the words of automaker Paul Hoffman in 1939: "If we are to have full use of automobiles, cities must be remade. The greatest auto-mobile market today, the greatest untapped field of potential customers, is the large number of city people who refuse to own cars, or use the cars they have very little, because it's such a nuisance to take them out. We must dream of gashing our way ruthlessly through built-up sections of over-crowded cities." For more on that history, see: http://www.davidmalda.com/wiki/index.php?title=Fighting_Traffic:_The_Dawn_of_the_Motor_Age_in_the_American_City&oldid=2351

 

For cities to provide actual choices in access, large developments such as this one must take the reverse approach -- to provide a significant customer base for its own retail offerings that can be accessed by walking, and for additional customers to reach it by a mix of driving, biking and riding transit. There is a growing base of data that I think you will find interesting. That data is showing that car-only developments are the most expensive, and those that offer choices of access are the most profitable approach for the developer.

OK guys, let's get back onto the topic of THIS development.

Weston, Citymark Capital Unveil Plans for 3 Million SF Mixed-Use Project in Cleveland

POSTED ON NOVEMBER 24, 2015 BY CHRISTINA CANNON IN MIDWEST, MIXED-USE, OHIO

 

CLEVELAND, OHIO — Weston Inc. and Citymark Capital have unveiled plans for a 3 million-square-foot mixed-use development in Cleveland. The five-acre area is currently occupied by parking lots that will be converted into luxury apartments, retail facilities, restaurants and green spaces. The development will include 1,200 residential units with a rooftop bar, deck and pool; approximately 100,000 square feet of retail space; green spaces and covered garage parking.

 

The project will be built in fours phases. Phase I will include 352 units, 22,000 square feet of retail and 390 parking spots. Developers hope to break ground on Phase I in the spring of 2016. The first phase is slated for completion in the summer of 2017.

 

- See more at: http://rebusinessonline.com/weston-citymark-capital-unveil-plans-for-3-million-sf-mixed-use-project-in-cleveland/#sthash.zcLSiHE9.dpuf

 

 

Shaping the superblock: Plan for downtown apartment towers was long time coming

November 29, 2015 UPDATED 5 HOURS AGO

By STAN BULLARD   

 

Plans for a multimillion-dollar development of a flotilla of apartment towers surfaced for the sea of parking lots northwest of Public Square in downtown Cleveland after decades of subsidiary status and failed projects allowed the area between West St. Clair and West Superior avenues to come into its own.

 

The focus for decades was on the eastern side of the property at West Third Street to provide parking for nearby, Public Square-facing developments, while old buildings on the west end of the block fell one by one to age, disrepair and demolition. Simultaneously, the concept of downtown living was going from experiment to mainstream as 19th century warehouses and garment factories in the Warehouse District became loft apartments.

 

Chris Ronayne, president of University Circle Inc. and former Cleveland planning director, said the site weighed on his conscience as an opportunity for redevelopment of downtown to make a splash with great scale — or to remain a missed opportunity.

 

“We thought it might become a first-inning pitch for what downtown could become,” Ronayne said. “Instead it’s being played out in the middle innings.”

 

Certainly it’s a big change from how the site was seen in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

 

MORE:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20151129/NEWS/151129821/shaping-the-superblock-plan-for-downtown-apartment-towers-was-long

 

Plans for a multimillion-dollar development of a flotilla of apartment towers surfaced for the sea of parking lots northwest of Public Square in downtown Cleveland after decades of subsidiary status and failed projects allowed the area between West St. Clair and West Superior avenues to come into its own.

 

The focus for decades was on the eastern side of the property at West Third Street to provide parking for nearby, Public Square-facing developments, while old buildings on the west end of the block fell one by one to age, disrepair and demolition. Simultaneously, the concept of downtown living was going from experiment to mainstream as 19th century warehouses and garment factories in the Warehouse District became loft apartments.

 

 

Thanks for posting this.  This sheds some interesting information on the history of the site(s) and how this really came together over time.  This definitely leads me to believe that this is going to be worked on sooner rather than later.

Some of us can't access the article. Can someone paste it on here?

Some of us can't access the article. Can someone paste it on here?

 

It's free to sign up for an account on Crains. I was able to access it and I don't have a paid subscription

Oh OK. I thought I had to pay. Thnx.

Just an fyi, it is against forum rules to post articles in their entirety (except for press releases); doing so is also a federal copyright violation. What *is* permitted is the title and author, the first paragraph (3-4 sentences) and then the link to the original article. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.

That Crain's piece KJP posted was a good read. I hadn't known before that the Ameritrust tower would have involved development of much of this superblock site not only with parking, but with apartment buildings too.

Oh OK. I thought I had to pay. Thnx.

 

There are other ways to access it without registering. But if you really want to follow NE Ohio business news, and especially Cleveland developments, registering for a free Crain's account is certainly worth the price of admission. :)

MANY MANY (38) graphics at the following link. Posting only 20 images....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2015/12102015/index.php

 

Cleveland Landmarks Commission

CITY HALL - ROOM 514 - 9:00 AM

AGENDA - December 10, 2015

 

Warehouse Historic District Case 15-081

Weston Development

New mixed-use construction Master Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should the new weston developments be posted in a separate thread?

I'm very surprised the building proposed to be built closest to Public Square is THAT tall -- 37 stories. If you believe that buildings should scale up as they get closer to the square, then they just put a lot of pressure on Jacobs to top out even higher. Or maybe they just don't care about stuff like that? Or maybe Weston knows something we don't about Jacobs' intentions??

^I don't think there's any sort of master logic as to building heights here. I guess the availability of views helps determine lease values, but generally speaking, developers are gonna build what they can and want to build.

 

That said, given the presumed uncertainty about what will be built on that Jacobs lot, I'm surprised that tower on the SE corner of the superblock isn't closer to Superior to ensure views of public square. I loathe corner plazas for their own sake, but seems to make especially little sense for this project. That's a lot of prime frontage and view corridor to give up for pedestrian circulation.

Can anyone render that 37 story building into the skyline? I would but I don't really have the skills.

^I don't think there's any sort of master logic as to building heights here. I guess the availability of views helps determine lease values, but generally speaking, developers are gonna build what they can and want to build.

 

I dunno, Strap. Weston appears to show a lot of sensitivities to the surrounding environment.

 

Can anyone render that 37 story building into the skyline? I would but I don't really have the skills.

 

The three 24-story buildings should also be standouts from the west and south sides, and off course from ferries arriving from Canada!

^Oh, sorry, I mean no master logic between different developers and projects. Weston clearly has a well thought-out scheme here among its own phases/buildings within the four corners of its site. Except, maybe, for the views of Public Square from that one big tower. I don't get that part.

 

It's also weird how the last rendering you posted shows a pedestrian route carved out of the corner of the Jacobs lot. Probably just artistic license by a third party renderer, but awfully presumptuous!

 

[Edited for typo]

I wouldn't get too hung up on the height of the three future-phase towers.  I'd bet they will go up or down to match their best estimates of demand for each phase.

I'm pretty excited by the plan to have below grade parking as part of the project. We talk all the time about the need to hide the parking, warp it in retail or other uses, or just settle for a multi level garage to take out the need for a surface lot and add some height. But below grade is where it should be at. Out of sight and out of mind. Great job Weston!

I wouldn't get too hung up on the height of the three future-phase towers.  I'd bet they will go up or down to match their best estimates of demand for each phase.

 

Despite the wisdom of this statement, who doesn't like to imagine things? I took the tallest building and tried my hand at Sketch Up. Not the easiest task in the world as I would find out.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's my take on it! :)

I wouldn't get too hung up on the height of the three future-phase towers.  I'd bet they will go up or down to match their best estimates of demand for each phase.

 

Despite the wisdom of this statement, who doesn't like to imagine things? I took the tallest building and tried my hand at Sketch Up. Not the easiest task in the world as I would find out.

 

 

My favorite rendering view. That infamous gap finally can potentially get filled! My only thing is if/when the Jacobs lot gets built on the Weston building unfortunately will get blocked (most likely). Glad to see the gap gone though thanks!

 

EDIT: Random observation, looking at this photo I just realized that our downtown can really only expand east, at least when it comes to high rises and super talls. Of course there are sections such as the flats and lakefront where buildings can be built (ex. E&Y building) but east is the only direction where the expansion really has the largest amount of potential. It isn't really restricted by bridges (west), water (north and south/west). This isn't really relevant but I've never sat and realized how restricted downtown expansion is until now. Just wanted to say that, okay I'm done now.

Here's my take on it! :)

Looks amazing, thanks!

 

 

Interesting how these renderings still have the old east bank flats buildings.  Is that the Basement I see.

 

Since the tallest structure is noted as parcel D or possibly phase 4, I'm hoping there aren't any future economical declines that halt that part of the project.

I love a well written Master Plan. This one is pretty good. I would like to have seen a shadow study. And with all the details shown, I lighting plan would have been cool to see, too. Regardless, I love it!

I love Weston's plans!

Nice to skim through these well-thought out plans. Only thing missing are the potential lake views from A1, B2 and C1. They should be pretty nice.

Thanks ASPhotoman, and Welcome!

 

Here's my take on it! :)

I wouldn't get too hung up on the height of the three future-phase towers.  I'd bet they will go up or down to match their best estimates of demand for each phase.

 

Despite the wisdom of this statement, who doesn't like to imagine things? I took the tallest building and tried my hand at Sketch Up. Not the easiest task in the world as I would find out.

 

 

What happened to the top of the Key Tower??

Does anyone know when they will begin building this project? Are the renderings the final representations of how the buildings will actually look like? Seems strange how three of the buildings basically look the same.

Does anyone know when they will begin building this project? Are the renderings the final representations of how the buildings will actually look like? Seems strange how three of the buildings basically look the same.

I highly doubt what we see for the towers will be the final project. IIRC, they're going to start early next year on the St. Clair side.

These are definitely place holder buildings. They might be slightly indicative of the overall general aesthetic but they look like nothing more than placeholders for the sake of accompanying the more detailed lower buildings and public spaces.

If they are planning on breaking ground in early 2016 (of course I will believe that when I see it) shouldn't that have something detailed by now at least for the St Clair portion as they will have to go through the whole design review process

They very well might already. These renderings could be older, based on an old schematic design, done previously before a more detailed design was finished, etc. There's nothing stating the towers in these renderings are the most up to date version of what they have.

 

Creating all those graphics was likely a long process and more than likely were based on whatever was completed at the start of their  creation which could have been months ago.

It's amazing they kept all this under wraps with no more than Ken's sleuthing coming up!

^I also recall some vague hints from other posters

When i look at the renderings, would it not make more sense to place the low-rise with the green roof where the tallest tower is placed?  If Jacobs builds a tower of substantial height, the views fom the tallest tower looking east would be totally blocked

When i look at the renderings, would it not make more sense to place the low-rise with the green roof where the tallest tower is placed?  If Jacobs builds a tower of substantial height, the views fom the tallest tower looking east would be totally blocked

 

Welcome to living in a City.

I understand that....i live in nyc.  However, my question stands.

I agree with MD88PILOT but for different reasons. Superior Ave. is a major street, and the plans basically ignore it as such. I think it would be a big improvement if the taller tower switched places with that low-rise that faces Superior. It would be a good impression for those driving into the city from over the Detroit-Superior bridge.

When i look at the renderings, would it not make more sense to place the low-rise with the green roof where the tallest tower is placed?  If Jacobs builds a tower of substantial height, the views fom the tallest tower looking east would be totally blocked

 

Similar objections made when the AmeriTrust tower was supposed to be built with its parking garage on the northeast part of these parcels.  A separate office high-rise structure was proposed for the location you mention.  Objections were that there would be a ''canyon'' issue on W 3rd.  Of course, that was 25 years ago and your point is still valid.

Is a canyon effect in the heart of the city a bad thing?

^ No.

 

When i look at the renderings, would it not make more sense to place the low-rise with the green roof where the tallest tower is placed?  If Jacobs builds a tower of substantial height, the views fom the tallest tower looking east would be totally blocked

 

 

That's easy... design a building with a hole in it

"Mmm, doughnuts."