I think the 668 comparisons are off-point.  Yes, 668 was in bad condition, but it was not the sore thumb this building is unless you looked directly at it.  As unfortunate as it is, this building is MidTown's black eye..... its surroundings were destroyed, its facade was ripped off, and the only developer even floating the idea of a re-use quickly backed out.  In its present state, it looms over the neighborhood like a dark storm cloud and only contributes to the perception that its condition is representative of the City as a whole.  It is THE lasting impression of MidTown for those that don't follow the neighborhood's progress as closely as we do.

 

If you go back in time and don't destroy the density of that area through other demolitions, don't rip off its facade, and give me some glimmer of hope that it can be re-purposed sometime in the next decade, I would change my tune.

 

That said, I will take its current state over what Dunham is proposing.  A public park would be agreeable, but a 'pasture' is not on my wish list.

Rather interesting, but a total shame, that Dunham Tavern probably started off in a pasture, and to a pasture it shall return...  Only took 125 years or so.

Rather interesting, but a total shame, that Dunham Tavern probably started off in a pasture, and to a pasture it shall return...  Only took 125 years or so.

 

Actually, 170 years. The tavern was built in 1842 (a previous home was built on the site in 1824). But your point is well-taken.

KJP - of course you're exactly correct in that all these ideas are just everyone's opinion.  I also agree with Hts121 in that this building is the focal point of those who want to point out negative things in Cleveland in general and Midtown specifically, unfortunately.  I'm just saying that a structurally sound building with height and density shouldn't automatically be considered for demolition.  Yes, I understand no developers are (currently) interested, and the one who did show interest has now backed out, but we've seen how quickly a market can turn both up and down. 

 

Thanks for everyone's comments on these and the other threads; I'm a long-time follower and construction insider who will try to post more often in the future. 

Thanks for everyone's comments on these and the other threads; I'm a long-time follower and construction insider who will try to post more often in the future. 

 

Great! I would welcome that.

KJP - of course you're exactly correct in that all these ideas are just everyone's opinion.  I also agree with Hts121 in that this building is the focal point of those who want to point out negative things in Cleveland in general and Midtown specifically, unfortunately.  I'm just saying that a structurally sound building with height and density shouldn't automatically be considered for demolition.  Yes, I understand no developers are (currently) interested, and the one who did show interest has now backed out, but we've seen how quickly a market can turn both up and down. 

 

Thanks for everyone's comments on these and the other threads; I'm a long-time follower and construction insider who will try to post more often in the future.

 

I am right there with you on this building.  If you read my comment at the top of this page, that's pretty much how I feel.

Regarding that "1842" year, I've researched the Tavern, for the Guide to Cleveland Architecture, and was told by a Tavern employee the 1824 structure was added to and remodelled. I believe it's in there - was not replaced and thus the sign is acceptable.

Regarding that "1842" year, I've researched the Tavern, for the Guide to Cleveland Architecture, and was told by a Tavern employee the 1824 structure was added to and remodelled. I believe it's in there - was not replaced and thus the sign is acceptable.

 

Thanks!

public square group to open office, indoor skate park in midtown

 

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/forgood/publicsquaregroup021612.aspx

 

Public Square Group, a nonprofit organization that promotes skateboarding and skate parks as tools for redeveloping urban neighborhoods, engaging youth in positive activities and promoting active lifestyles, is opening an office and indoor skatepark in the MidTown neighborhood of Cleveland.

 

A little something has started on this one across from tech park and the second building is nearly complete as well just east of the tech park.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jjames0408/6814677878/#

Thanks!

From this month's cle mag:

 

 

 

After owning the Agora Theatre and the surrounding property for more than 25 years, you’d think Henry “Hank” LoConti’s decision to hand the cherished concert club over to MidTown Cleveland would be a heart-wrenching one. But to hear LoConti tell it, donating the property, which is valued at $6 million, to the neighborhood development corporation is his way to ensure the Euclid Avenue landmark has a future.

 

“We let it go because I’m very close to what is happening at MidTown,” LoConti says. “I see all the changes, and this area where the Agora [is located] is just sitting there. Talking to [MidTown Cleveland executive director Jim Haviland], I got an idea for what the plans are, and donating the Agora and the offices to them works better for both of us.”

 

In 1985, LoConti bought the one-time home of the Metropolitan Theatre as the new spot for his Agora Theatre, after the original location was damaged in a fire. With the property’s large main theater and smaller ballroom, the Agora continued its tradition as a hot spot for live music. Indie rockers the Strokes, rap icon Jay-Z and classic rocker David Bowie are just a few of the big names that played the club during its run.

 

But after the House of Blues opened downtown in 2004, the Agora didn’t attract the same level of talent, and it ultimately faded from the concert circuit. LoConti is convinced that with upcoming renovations such as new floors and the reopening of the Euclid Avenue entrance, the Agora can again be a vital live-music venue.

 

He says he’ll be involved in overseeing the renovations and hiring someone to book bands. Plus, the people behind the Umami Moto food truck have just opened a new restaurant called The Hipp in the building to serve the neighborhood’s lunch crowd. (See page 68 for our interview with The Hipp owner Jae Stulock.)

 

“By fall, we’ll come back strong in terms of booking shows,” LoConti says. “I want to get more shows into the theater. I hope most of the renovations are done by the time the building turns 100 years old in March of next year. I don’t know of too many theaters that are 100 years old and still standing, especially with the history of this place.”

 

Today I noticed the RTA mural is no longer on the monstrosity just to the west of Dunham Tavern. Is something finally going on there?  Does anyone know what happened with the possible sale to either Dunham or that developer? I don't think the mural was in poor condition, not that I studied it that much, and it was the one redeeming visual quality of that horrendous-looking highrise, and now it's the blank wall.  Sure hope this means something positive like either the building will go soon or, even better, something decent will be done with it. Meanwhile it's good to see the progress with the far smaller building just to the east of the Tavern. Hope they get tenants to occupy it soon, including commercial as advertised.

^I am not 100 percent sure but I think Dunham purchased the property recently (with the intent to tear it down).  I do know that the deal with the mentioned developer fell through and I believed this allowed Dunham to step in.  I would imagine somebody can confirm or correct this.

According to the fiscal officer's website, Dunham Square Land, LLC, owns 5 parcels (with a total of 6 buildings) on that block, with the most recent transfer happening in March 2011. Judging by number of buildings they own on a block without a lot of buildings around, I would guess they do have that building ... but if they do, they've had it for over a year? Confusing.

Awesome, I can't wait for Dunham to turn it into greenspace that no one will ever go to.

For Euclid Avenue..........  green space > perpetual brownfield

^I am not 100 percent sure but I think Dunham purchased the property recently (with the intent to tear it down).  I do know that the deal with the mentioned developer fell through and I believed this allowed Dunham to step in.  I would imagine somebody can confirm or correct this.

 

It is actually a pretty crazy and disturbing story. Let me just say that Pace's development had all the letters of intent that it needed and that Dunham Tavern, or someone associated with it, was able to secure at the last moment the RTA-owned facility thru a technicality (for lack of a better term). 

Plans for new 3rd District police station in Cleveland: Whatever happened to ...?

Published: Sunday, May 13, 2012, 10:00 AM

John C. Kuehner, The Plain Dealer By John C. Kuehner, The Plain Dealer

 

 

Whatever happened to plans to build a new Third District police station in Cleveland? The project has yet to be designed by a yet-to-be selected engineering firm.

 

In September 2010, Economic Development Director Tracey Nichols said that the city was on a tight deadline to complete financing for constructing a new station. But it was not until February of this year that City Council adopted an ordinance to allow Nichols to enter into an agreement with MidTown Cleveland Inc. to spend up to $600,000 for architectural and engineering designs for a new Third District station on Chester Avenue near East 55th Street.

 

MidTown hired Scaparotti Construction Group to review the designs. A design team will be selected later this month and the project is expected to go out for bids in late summer. Groundbreaking could be late this year, Assistant Economic Development Director Anthony Thornton said.

 

The agreement with the non-profit MidTown makes it possible for the project to receive low-interest loans and grants, as well as tax credits. MidTown would then lease the building to the city, which lacks the bonding capacity to borrow for the project, estimated in 2010 to cost nearly $15 million.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/05/plans_for_a_new_third_district.html

The article says no design has been given but the PD released one 2 years ago it was alright.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/07/cleveland_developer_work_out_u.html

Looks great! For Solon....

Do we have zoning requiring set backs? And people are just too lazy to fight it?

That "thing" was awful when it came out two years ago and is getting only more awful with age.  Hopefully there will be a new and better design.

 

Indeed it is even awful for Solon, and that is saying a lot given the state of architecture in that fair city.

It doesn't bother me. The design is fine to me. I think it's clear (or should be clear) that Midtown is explicitly going after a suburban style of development. From the Midtown Tech Park to this, it's clear that they WANT this style of development to be Midtown. I don't know if I'm opposed to that. I wouldn't want this in downtown or University Circle but it's my personal opinion that every neighborhood should have its own unique characteristics. So if Midtown is our neighborhood of business parks and suburban style development, then I'm okay with that. I don't want to see that everywhere, though.

Yeah, I'm going to go with Htsguy on this one.  Even putting urban design aside, that thing is just a stupid pale box jazzed up with a triangular jut towards the street.  Kind of epitomizes the lazy, artless architecture that's now the norm for public buildings.  Didn't use to be that way.  No reason it has to be.

On the way into work today, I saw some new trees were planted down the middle of Chester between aprox E.55th and E.85th.  There were only a few planted, but a few additional holes waiting for trees!!!

 

Now if they could just repave Chester ...  :wtf:

And build stuff along it....

 

Speaking of, the Ferchill Group is thinking about building some residential and retail, including a grocery store along Chester West of 105, east of 55th. Ferchill is doing Circle East Apartments, they did Park Lane Villa and also did the Westin Book-Cadillac renovation in Detroit.

And build stuff along it....

 

Speaking of, the Ferchill Group is thinking about building some residential and retail, including a grocery store along Chester West of 105, east of 55th. Ferchill is doing Circle East Apartments, they did Park Lane Villa and also did the Westin Book-Cadillac renovation in Detroit.

 

I think your confusing the Ferchill Group with the Finch group who is doing Circle East and did Park Lane.  Ferchill did do Book Cadillac and a nice project in Pittsburg but nothing in Cleveland for a while, which is unfortunate since it is their home town.. 

And build stuff along it....

 

Speaking of, the Ferchill Group is thinking about building some residential and retail, including a grocery store along Chester West of 105, east of 55th. Ferchill is doing Circle East Apartments, they did Park Lane Villa and also did the Westin Book-Cadillac renovation in Detroit.

 

I think your confusing the Ferchill Group with the Finch group who is doing Circle East and did Park Lane.  Ferchill did do Book Cadillac and a nice project in Pittsburg but nothing in Cleveland for a while, which is unfortunate since it is their home town.. 

 

You're right!. It's the FInch Group that's looking at Chester Ave.

Mov2Ohio, did you hear about some recent life to this project?  We actually have an UO project page for this project (or a predecessor proposal by Finch) in the Abandoned Projects category: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,13381.0.html

Ferchill did do Book Cadillac and a nice project in Pittsburg but nothing in Cleveland for a while, which is unfortunate since it is their home town.. 

 

I remember hearing the owner/president of Ferchill (John?) give a talk to the ambassador group of the Downtown Cleveland Alliance a few years back.  It sounded like he had a real chip on his shoulder for the way things are handled here in Cleveland politically when it comes to development, which is why he hasn't done anything here for a while.  Odd selection for a speaker, I suppose...

Yeah I remember the same thing.  I know he didnt get along with I believe Mike White and then he had somewhat soured on Cleveland and only looked at projects elsewhere, but I would have thought by now maybe they would have come around.....  If Cleveland had a proactive Mayor, he would be trying to rebuild somekind of relationship there.   

^After observing Ferchill for over 20 years, and to be kind, he likes to talk a lot but very often does not follow through.  Again to be kind (I guess if you read between the lines I have never been a big fan).

It doesn't bother me. The design is fine to me. I think it's clear (or should be clear) that Midtown is explicitly going after a suburban style of development. From the Midtown Tech Park to this, it's clear that they WANT this style of development to be Midtown. I don't know if I'm opposed to that. I wouldn't want this in downtown or University Circle but it's my personal opinion that every neighborhood should have its own unique characteristics. So if Midtown is our neighborhood of business parks and suburban style development, then I'm okay with that. I don't want to see that everywhere, though.

 

I cannot fathom how suburban-style development would ever be OK for a major city's main corridor.  The powers-that-be are suburbanizing this city at a breathtaking pace, and even though it violates every principle and value we hold dear, area urbanists are pretty much OK with this.  I may never understand.  While it's difficult to watch the city take so many wrong turns, it's even harder when these missteps are encouraged by all sides.  It's almost as if urban density has no constituency here.

^Exactly, I thought there was even a zoning overlay to prevent the type of development that's happening there.

 

 

Not sure if the development along Chester was the Chester 82, but probably. This was recently they mentioned it, like early April.

I believe that overlay was a big part of Midtown's current problem.  It demanded suburban layouts and usage patterns for most of the corridor.  It's not like we weren't warned, it's not like there was any big secret... it's just that the plan for Midtown is overtly suburban, and it rolled through with nary a peep of opposition.

It demanded suburban layouts and usage patterns for most of the corridor. 

 

No it didn't.  You may be due for a re-read of some earlier pages of this thread where we unequivocally showed you otherwise.  It's clearly not worth relitigating for the 3rd or 4th time though.

It demanded suburban layouts and usage patterns for most of the corridor. 

 

No it didn't.  You may be due for a re-read of some earlier pages of this thread where we unequivocally showed you otherwise.  It's clearly not worth relitigating for the 3rd or 4th time though.

 

Alternatively, it's possible that you're still wrong about that.  One thing we did unequivocally establish is that you and I take very different approaches to this issue.  And that's OK.  But please stop being so insulting.  Posts like that have no place anywhere.

^^^well.... it is kind of hard to argue when we have seen all of these structures built in MidTown over the past 3-4 years with hundreds and thousands of parking spaces and man-made lakes in the front...... and all of those office parkways in which the only interaction with Euclid is the sign at the front listing the various occupants of the structures built along those new parkways no closer than 1/2 mile in..... and don't forget about the suburban style shopping mall near 55th...... or the new cul-de-sac roads with gated entrances directly off Euclid popping up each day it seems

I definitely apologize for the tone of that post, you're right that it was jerk-y and unbecoming.  I guess I'll just leave the ball in your court to show the text in the "overlay" that you think requires suburban site planning.  There are links to the part of the zoning code containing the "overlay" earlier in the thread.  And for anyone wondering what's we're talking about, in anticipation of the HealthLine, the city rezoned the blocks on either side of Euclid between 55th and 79th street with the stated intent of promoting better urban design.  There are essentially three or four new zoning districts that apply only to this part of the city.  It's not literally an "overlay," which means something slightly different, but that name just kind of stuck.

The thing speaks for itself.  Those in charge of it have been overt in their desire for Midtown to compete directly with suburban industrial parks, and the usage pattern is very similar to the light industrial corridors of southern Cuyahoga County.  Examples include Solon Road and several areas along Route 82.

 

Though mixed use and high density residential are nominally included, they're minimized and placed near the suburban retail plaza at 79th.  Existing neighborhood assets like a grocery and a theater are surrounded with secured single-use complexes, clustered together with ample parking and main entrances in the rear.  Yes the parking is also in the rear, which is desirable from an urban perspective, but this arrangement is hardly anything we'd call transit-oriented.

I don't think you're really talking about the overlay per se, but rather the cumulative planning effort, the city's backbone to hold developers to the zoning requirements, and the preferences of the developers themselves.  I'm sure it sounds niggling, but laying the development pattern in Midtown all on the overlay is terribly misleading, IMHO.  I don't mean to put words in your mouth, so if you really do see very objectionable things in the actual zoning text that comprises the overlay, I think they would be a nice, albeit technical, discussion for the zoning thread.  And I'm always up for that :)

I guess I'll just leave the ball in your court to show the text in the "overlay" that you think requires suburban site planning. 

 

JMO..... but if an answer to this without overly generalized conclussory statements of opinion can not be given, I think its finally time after 3+ years to put this puppy to rest.  At least let's not allow our board to give off the impression that some code or written requirement "demands surburban style development" in MidTown.  Either that or create a new thread.

Strap, that's an upthread reference if there ever was one.  I tore that document apart, gave page cites and everything. 

 

And you're right, there's more to it than just the overlay, which is indeed a silly thing to call it.  I'm just saying the overlay didn't help a whole lot, and I suggest it was created with the intention of advancing, rather than opposing, a suburban ideal for Midtown.

 

Hts121, it's an easily accessible public document.  People can read it.  The fact that your interpretation is different than others' doesn't sound like a particularly strong argument for telling people to shut up about it.  What if I've been right this whole time?  Have you even paused to consider that, while hammering out all those snappy zingers?  Look at your post history.  How many of them are aggressively postured toward other forumers?  Knock it off.

 

Whether the public planning of Midtown developments requires a separate thread from the outcomes of that planning is far beyond my station to determine.  But I'm not sure what that leaves for this thread, discussion wise.  It's not a photo thread, and discussions about news articles are likely to venture into the how's and the why's.  If not, then what discussion is there to have?     

^I could be wrong, but I think you focused your venom upthread on the master plan, not the zoning.  The master plan is just pretty pictures that officials may or may not make discretionary decisions in light of; it has no legal force.  The overlay is part of the zoning code and is an enforceable city statute.  I think you may have conflated them upthread too.

 

I'm sure this sounds like distinction without a difference to some people, but I think Hts121 explains perfectly why it matters. There are many reasons why Midtown may not be developing into high density mixed use awesomeness, but I don't think the zoning code is one of them. The city is not putting major legal barriers in the way here.

I believe that overlay was a big part of Midtown's current problem.  It demanded suburban layouts and usage patterns for most of the corridor. 

 

So this is an incorrect statement.  I will cease my "aggressive posture", unpin my ears, and wipe the foam away from my mouth now that we have that settled.  Carry on...

^I could be wrong, but I think you focused your venom upthread on the master plan, not the zoning.  The master plan is just pretty pictures that officials may or may not make discretionary decisions in light of; it has no legal force.  The overlay is part of the zoning code and is an enforceable city statute.  I think you may have conflated them upthread too.

 

I'm sure this sounds like distinction without a difference to some people, but I think Hts121 explains perfectly why it matters. There are many reasons why Midtown may not be developing into high density mixed use awesomeness, but I don't think the zoning code is one of them. The city is not putting major legal barriers in the way here.

 

To summarize, I'm not sure why we would expect outcome B, C, or D when those with discretionary authority have stipulated a clear preference for outcome A.  The city, through its Midtown Inc affiliate, says it wants Midtown to develop into an industrial/commercial "tech park" to compete with those in the burbs, and it releases a thorough plan detailing how each parcel is to be used to that end. 

 

How many developers are going to spend their own money developing a competing plan for the same area?  Strong headwinds, to put it mildly, especially if the city's plan is not compatible with much else.  It may not constitute a legal barrier per se, but I would argue that really is a distinction without a difference, and I did not find the explanation you're referencing to be persuasive.  If the city is actively pursuing a certain sort of development for a given parcel, that is as prohibitive to alternatives as any actual legal barrier would be. 

 

Much of my point rests on just how incompatible the city's plan is with "high-density mixed-use awesomeness"... so if you're picturing apartment developers itching to build a high rise amongst a sea of tech-fortresses, and worrying primarily about whether the zoning is favorable, then we're really not on the same page.

"I did not find the explanation you're referencing to be persuasive.

 

Like so many other explanations - time to take it to PM, folks.

It doesn't bother me. The design is fine to me. I think it's clear (or should be clear) that Midtown is explicitly going after a suburban style of development. From the Midtown Tech Park to this, it's clear that they WANT this style of development to be Midtown. I don't know if I'm opposed to that. I wouldn't want this in downtown or University Circle but it's my personal opinion that every neighborhood should have its own unique characteristics. So if Midtown is our neighborhood of business parks and suburban style development, then I'm okay with that. I don't want to see that everywhere, though.

 

I cannot fathom how suburban-style development would ever be OK for a major city's main corridor.  The powers-that-be are suburbanizing this city at a breathtaking pace, and even though it violates every principle and value we hold dear, area urbanists are pretty much OK with this.  I may never understand.  While it's difficult to watch the city take so many wrong turns, it's even harder when these missteps are encouraged by all sides.  It's almost as if urban density has no constituency here.

 

I STRONGLY disagree with that statement. As I said before, all neighborhoods in this city shouldn't look the same. They should all have different characters, and if Midtown is the city's resident suburban development then so be it. As shown by the companies moving into the Midtown Tech Park and the rumored companies signing letters of intent, there is clearly a demand for it. I'm a supporter of high density, urban style development just like most here, and I generally recoil at most styles of suburban development. But I can't get myself worked up about this style of development in midtown, especially when its a deliberate part of a strategy. The businesses that moved to or are interested in moving to Midtown want that style of development. I want those employees here. I want those companies here. I want those tax dollars here. I love urban development, but to expect every neighborhood to be designed in the same way is not only absurd but its impractical. I want the city to be competitive. That's what drives my philosophy. Period. So if one neighborhood is designed to compete with the suburban tech parks then fine. Its a means to an end. The end is to get more people working and living in the city, be it in urban neighborhoods like downtown and University Circle or in a suburban style development like Midtown. My focus is wanting the city to be competitive. Period. If your focus is different, then we just have a difference of opinion.

^In fairness, while I guess I'm more willing to "settle" than 327, I'm not too keen on anything goes auto-centric stuff on our signature avenue, along a major transit investment and in an area that might poised for something better long term. I just don't think it's been as bad as 327 makes it out to be so far.

 

327, I didn't mean to rehash disagreements over the broader planning direction of Midtown, where I readily concede reasonable minds may disagree. I totally respect your point of view on that topic.  I was just trying to set the record straight specifically with regards to the zoning "overlay," which is its own discrete thing.  I hope to see it replicated in way or another in other parts of the city, so it's hard not to responds when it gets casually misrepresented.