^ Ive always agreed with that. If a company really want a sprawling campus for some reason, Id rather they build it in Cleveland than in the suburbs. We've got plenty of room. Now I would hope in the future, the campus desire fades, which I think has already begun, but I would sure like to have some of those companies back that have left the city completely. Now that should not exist in Downtown. But I think there should be a designated place in the city for that type of buildings to cater to certain businesses desires.

 

Im not really seeing the suburban thing happening in midtown though, not with the techpark atleast. I know the article states that, but exactly is the major factor that makes this suburban? Cant be the zero setback or the access to public transit.

 

Im all for the commerce too.

^For me, the suburban feel is crystallized in this new Dunham estate that we're going to get (although there are several other things).

It serves up quite an irony...where are Northeast Ohio's finest Western Reserve homesteads?  Gates Mills, Hudson and inner-city Cleveland  :wtf:

 

It'll be interesting to see this all morph

I don't get a surbuban feel at all from either development.  Dunham has a rural feel and look to it.... as it intends for better or for worse.  The tech park gives off the impression of the early infancy of urban renewal..... maybe because that is what it is.  I don't think MidTown has peaked Chilli's interest just yet

Well I think the suburban word creates a bit of a stir, I totally understand the concept of it. I mean its suburban in style (the buildings could have surface parking and exist ast 2-3-4 levels) but has access to amenities that would attract top talent. Transit, etc.

 

Midtown is so HUGE, that if we could get it filled in first, thats better. Then we will worry about density.. We still have Carnegie and Chester to worry about.

 

Good news for midtown! Good news for all.

Midtown is so HUGE, that if we could get it filled in first, thats better. Then we will worry about density.. We still have Carnegie and Chester to worry about.

 

As much as I love me some density, this is probably the likely the course that things will take. And that's OK.

Right...we can't just start adding density when there are so many vacant or currently unusable spaces allover the city...especially around midtown and south. Fill in holes and density naturally happens.

I drove down Euclid today on a work errand from 76th to 30th.  Looks really nice now, well the facades at least.  Seems like there is a ton of renovation on the facades but most of the buildings look vacant.

 

That building across from Gallucci's is completely torn down now.

 

I actually saw two guys in ties walking East on the sidewalk with carryout.  That was weird, to see pedestrians on that stretch.

 

 

I feel that a high-tech project should be above the suburban office park format.

I feel that a high-tech project should be above the suburban office park format.

Not trying to be argumentative, but "feeling" and financial and design necessities are two different things.  I like most here think design standards should be raised, but at the same time, how can I really dictate someones financial status on a project?

Anyone in-the-know over whether Midtown is working with the District of Design?

 

I always thought the DOD was a cool idea. And even if Midtown develops a more "suburban type" personality, maybe at least some interesting art/design concepts can make it a more interesting place. It seems natural to me that the concept flow from Playhouse Square (art) and through Midtown (technology).

 

Reminder:

 

http://www.districtofdesign.com/about/what-is-the-district-of-design/

Right...we can't just start adding density when there are so many vacant or currently unusable spaces allover the city...especially around midtown and south. Fill in holes and density naturally happens.

 

Fill in holes with density.  Filling in holes with less-than-density results in just that.  Because A = A.

I feel that a high-tech project should be above the suburban office park format.

Not trying to be argumentative, but "feeling" and financial and design necessities are two different things.  I like most here think design standards should be raised, but at the same time, how can I really dictate someones financial status on a project?

 

Those parking lots don't come free.

I agree with James.  Let me make what may be a bad analogy, but I just planted some ground cover in a part of my lawn which doesn't get any sun.  Instead of putting all of the planters in one spot and hoping they spread from there, I spaced them (as the experts would tell you to do) over the entire area and they will fill-in much quicker and more naturally.  Point being, you can't force density.  When you do, you end up with density not ideal for an urban experience.... like the Clinic or Legacy Village.

@HTS121, EXACTLY! We all want more density, but we have to be pragmatic and not militant about this. We have to fix Midtown first before we can be picky. Being picky is a luxury. Once Midtown is stabilized, THEN we can be more selective about what goes there

And like I've said previously (including in this conversation), I don't mind the idea of having a neighborhood that has sprawling business campuses in order to compete with the suburbs. I'm a skyscraper kind of guy, personally, but like another person said, if a company is determined to have a sprawling campus, I'd rather them build it in the city instead of the suburbs. If the market dictates this, then you go with it. And as I've been saying from day one, its clear that this is HOW THEY WANT IT. Midtown is deliberately designed to be Cleveland's answer to the suburban business culture. I, for one, am ok with that. I wouldn't want to see this downtown, but for Midtown, why not? We need to be competitive. Let's face it, not everyone is density loving urbanites like most of us. But we want and need businesses and people. It would be painfully stupid to turn down a company interested in coming into or back into a city because we don't want them to build a "sprawling" campus. If Midtown is Cleveland's suburban business district, then so be it.

And like I've said previously (including in this conversation), I don't mind the idea of having a neighborhood that has sprawling business campuses in order to compete with the suburbs. I'm a skyscraper kind of guy, personally, but like another person said, if a company is determined to have a sprawling campus, I'd rather them build it in the city instead of the suburbs. If the market dictates this, then you go with it. And as I've been saying from day one, its clear that this is HOW THEY WANT IT. Midtown is deliberately designed to be Cleveland's answer to the suburban business culture. I, for one, am ok with that. I wouldn't want to see this downtown, but for Midtown, why not? We need to be competitive. Let's face it, not everyone is density loving urbanites like most of us. But we want and need businesses and people. It would be painfully stupid to turn down a company interested in coming into or back into a city because we don't want them to build a "sprawling" campus. If Midtown is Cleveland's suburban business district, then so be it.

 

But "midtown" and "suburban business district" are two different things.  Yes, a midtown is a thing.  By putting a suburban business district where your midtown should be, you forgo having one all.  Can't put it in the suburbs, or in Tremont or something, because midtown is specifically the area between downtown and uptown.

 

There are advantages to this unique position that the current plan squanders.  For example, Midtown sits between two major employment centers.  Setting it up as yet another employment center is redundant and prevents synergy.  This is an awfully long and important stretch to tilt so heavily toward any one use.

 

Regardless, midtown is by definition a part of the city's core.  Developing it in an anti-urban fashion establishes a long-term structural problem.  Is this really what the core of a major city should look like?  How does it compare to others?  What does it say about our city and about our pride in it?   

It says a helluva lot more about our pride in the City than leaving that enormous stretch of Euclid lined with abandoned and delapidated buildings for the foreseeable future.

 

And it is not redundant and doesn't prevent synergy because it is providing a completely different employment atomosphere than Downtown and UC

Right...we can't just start adding density when there are so many vacant or currently unusable spaces allover the city...especially around midtown and south. Fill in holes and density naturally happens.

 

Fill in holes with density.  Filling in holes with less-than-density results in just that.  Because A = A.

 

I agree that the hot neighborhoods should fill holes with density. Downtown and University Circle should be mid to high rise naturally.  There's less space. Ohio City, Tremont, Detroit Shoreway should be dense, but can't support high rise and doesn't really fit in to their neighborhood characteristics. Midtown cannot support extremely high density just yet.  If it could, we would see it and we would not see old industrial buildings that could be amazing with a little design and a lot of money destroyed. Let's get some success stories, aka what's happening right now, and we will see more investment in the area.

Yeah this one gives a good perspective.

 

 

 

Figured I'd test the braintrust at UO with this question.  Posted is the plan courtesy of ClevelandOhio.  Next to it is a very simple redesign, in fact it's barely that.  I simply put the station at the sidewalk and then cut the depth of the building about 15% and made it front more of Euclid.  The parking is still there, but there's less of it in front.

 

Here's my question: aside from the possibility that there are floor plans that require certain dimensions to the building (which is seldom the case) why wouldn't you (as a planner, architect, or councilman) have the guiding principal in your decisions be to make plans (especially on Euclid) as urban and dense as possible -- always.  Of course this street is mostly vacant right now with little foot traffic, but if you have an OUNCE of aspiration for your city you'd imagine that plans TODAY need to match the ideal for tomorrow. 

 

If 30 years from now the police station has a small parking deck in the back, has leased the lots and is flanked on either side by new developments of retail, commercial and residential ( :drunk: I know that's a big dream) then wouldn't it be odd that the streetscape hits a random tree lined setback at the police station?  And isn't it easier to just build the city today how we envision it tomorrow (if it's a matter of a few feet of setback?)

 

 

In the end I realize there is not one single vision for the city (or for what "urban" means).  Euclid may not need to be like 5th Ave or Michigan Ave, but instead might offer a unique "Cleveland" urban street.  But can anyone think of a reason why the Default M.O. for something like this isn't "build it so it fits in with the ideal long term" especially if that can be done without new costs?

I think this city needs more forward thinkers at its helm...thank you for this!

^^ My guess: Security

We are, afterall, still in the post 9/11 era of making "high-profile" buildings as secure as possible. Has anyone seen the actual elevations with details showing (trees, bollards, etc)?

That's my take

 

I think this city needs more forward thinkers at its helm...thank you for this!

 

Yes thank you.  I try to figure ways to reword what 327 continually trys to and apparently fails to get across, and you did it just about as good as anybody could have done while looking at it in a slightly different manner.   

 

For some reason many people here also seem to place an either/or or everything/nothing approach (picky/do things how ever half assed you want because we are desperate and therefore shouldnt have any standards or expectations), and yet you nailed it with "but if you have an OUNCE of aspiration for your city"......  Something that 327 has basically been saying over and over.   

 

 

Accepting certain realities (both practical and legal) and planning accordingly in no way means that you don't have an ounce of aspiration for your city.  In my mind, that descriptor would better fit someone who wants to wait and wait and wait and wait for decades upon decades for the slight possiblity that some urban utopia will magically pop out of the ground in an area of the city which has no current market demand for lower Manhattan style density.  Should that day come, I am supremely confident that the costs of knocking down an office park or a police station will not stand in the way of progress.

 

@Hts121, again I agree. It is insane to say "I don't want [insert developer name here] to spend their money in a neighborhood that was blighted and vacant because they don't build to my exact preferred specifications. I'd rather wait and let the place stay vacant for another 20 or 30 years." That's insane. That kind of militant attitude will ensure that some neighborhoods will stay vacant and blighted. Every neighborhood is not downtown, Ohio City, Tremont, University Circle and not every neighborhood can grow into those neighborhoods. Its absurd, absolutely absurd to be upset about this. Now if this was University Circle? Yell to the rooftops. But its not.

 

Its an either/or because it IS an either/or. For Geis and the companies interested in being in Midtown, its EITHER build what they are looking for OR they aint coming. Its really that simple. So right now, for Midtown, it IS either/or.

I agree with James.  Let me make what may be a bad analogy, but I just planted some ground cover in a part of my lawn which doesn't get any sun.  Instead of putting all of the planters in one spot and hoping they spread from there, I spaced them (as the experts would tell you to do) over the entire area and they will fill-in much quicker and more naturally.  Point being, you can't force density.  When you do, you end up with density not ideal for an urban experience.... like the Clinic or Legacy Village.

 

In order for this to be a valid analogy, whatever you covered your lawn's bald patch with must also specialize in kill the rest of the grass and creating more bald spots where previously there was good, thick lawn. Even if it was tough to keep mowing, started to look a little rough without any rain or watering, etc etc...

Accepting certain realities (both practical and legal) and planning accordingly in no way means that you don't have an ounce of aspiration for your city.  In my mind, that descriptor would better fit someone who wants to wait and wait and wait and wait for decades upon decades for the slight possiblity that some urban utopia will magically pop out of the ground in an area of the city which has no current market demand for lower Manhattan style density.  Should that day come, I am supremely confident that the costs of knocking down an office park or a police station will not stand in the way of progress.

 

 

I call this the "Sim City Fantasy," of which there is far too much of on these forums.  It's nice to dream, but let's be realistic.  Without any sort of economic miracle jumpstart Cleveland will continue to reinvent itself.  In 1950 we were a powerhouse.  Today 2/3 of the cranes in North America are in Dallas building high rises on the prairie.  Its our reality today and we have to make the best of it.

Density occurs because more people want to be there. People want to be someplace because the area has gone from being distressed, to stable, to attractive. The larger the area where the economic condition has improved, the better. As vacant buildings and empty lots fill in, businesses in that area succeed and as people feel more secure, the word gets out and more want to be there. Parking lots starting filling with decks and more offices, housing, etc, you get more density.

 

As much as I would have loved to have to see the abandoned warehouse next to Dunham's be converted to a high-density apartment building, why would anyone want to live there? Other than Gallucci's, what else is around there? There's no restaurants, no drug stores, no banks, there's nothing. That area is so devoid of basic services, that everyone will have to travel 10-20 blocks just to survive.

 

Some of us seem to feel that creationism is a viable concept when it comes to restoring neighborhoods. That might work if we had a dynamic economy, but we can't have one when all these neighborhoods are so ravaged and have so many people who lack marketable workplace skills. Unless we discover gold or even shale gas under Cleveland, we have to evolve this recovery into stabilization, then to dynamism over many decades. Cities, like life, change through organic evolution.

 

Midtown is a good place to start this.

I don't think the building next to Dunham could have been residential right now for the reasons KJP mentioned, but why not something like Hemingway's Tech Park down the street?  Yes, I understand they're going for a suburban office park feel, (because people like huge parking lots?) but I think that's when people say, "Why are you tearing down something that could be reused and building something brand new down the street?"

Who has ever chosen to live in a suburban industrial park?  If we build it out as an area people don't want to live in, we face an uphill battle in reaching this second stage everyone keeps expecting.  There's no logical connection between building a suburban industrial park and generating residential demand for the same exact area.  I'm just not sure how that particular A can ever lead to that particular B.  In fact, the relationship would seem to be that A precludes B.  So if B is the desired result, then A is a bad plan.  Are there any examples of this happening elsewhere?  Do people colonize suburban industrial parks, in city or otherwise, because that environment appeals to them?

I think the recent discussion on how to develop has been enlightening.  I think a poll on the subject would be interesting, as people are surprising me with some of their responses.

 

Anyhow, I'm curious about one thing. Midtown is right in between the downtown of a major American city and one of the most prestigious hospitals in the world. Is it really that crazy to demand a certain level of design for current projects? At the very least Euclid Ave should have elevated criteria, if it doesn't already.

 

 

Who has ever chosen to live in a suburban industrial park?  If we build it out as an area people don't want to live in, we face an uphill battle in reaching this second stage everyone keeps expecting.  There's no logical connection between building a suburban industrial park and generating residential demand for the same exact area.  I'm just not sure how that particular A can ever lead to that particular B.  In fact, the relationship would seem to be that A precludes B.  So if B is the desired result, then A is a bad plan.  Are there any examples of this happening elsewhere?  Do people colonize suburban industrial parks, in city or otherwise, because that environment appeals to them?

 

Isn't that what I was just saying? There isn't much around there to support a high density neighborhood.

 

But I wouldn't call an area with a grocery store, a historical museum, an elementary/high school as an industrial park. It's probably closer to an industrial park than a neighborhood. But Midtown isn't all one thing or another. I'd like it to continue with that theme as it continues to add stuff. But it's going to come slowly and not as dramatic as we might want. Like life.

I think the recent discussion on how to develop has been enlightening.  I think a poll on the subject would be interesting, as people are surprising me with some of their responses.

 

Anyhow, I'm curious about one thing. Midtown is right in between the downtown of a major American city and one of the most prestigious hospitals in the world. Is it really that crazy to demand a certain level of design for current projects? At the very least Euclid Ave should have elevated criteria, if it doesn't already.

 

It does.  It just doesn't have urban utopia design criteria and certain people will complain about any project which doesn't meet that standard.  Keep in mind that this also is just one project.  It's not like Euclid Avenue is being built out like Alpha Dr. or Beta Dr. in Mayfield, which is what I consider to be a surburban office park.

 

Certainly, nobody has ever chosen to live "in" a "surbanan office park" if that is what they insist on calling it for lack of a better term.  People do live in close proximity to such uses however.  I have lived here for a long time and I have yet to meet the person who wants to live in MidTown given the status quo conditions.  Monumental mistakes were made long before any of our times..... we can't go back and undo what was done.  Nor can we afford to continue to wait IMHO.  We have to react to current market demands and hope that the market evolves through the spread of momentum east from Downtown and west from UC.... which won't occur to any significant extent until those two employment and residential centers have been fully built out.

The status quo at the time of the BRT project was a relatively clean slate.  Certain building-block amenities existed at that time, like Gallucci's and the Agora, while the neighborhood's unique positioning is a constant.  The city put forth a plan involving a high percentage of industrial/office land use.  Development has taken place in accordance with that plan, including a couple of housing projects whose restrictions (homeless and elderly) do not facilitate marketability or growth.  The city also put forth a plan to place a mental hospital right at Euclid and 55th. 

 

All of the city's actions arise from, and support, the premise that Cleveland's midtown is undesirable and unsuitable for the general population to live in.  I for one feel that this is the worst possible approach for the city to take.  Our goal should be to eliminate the barriers between us a desirable future, not to enforce them or codify them.  Similarly, I think the idea that nothing good can happen elsewhere in the city until downtown and uptown are "done" is needlessly self-limiting.  For one thing, those are the two most expensive areas to develop.         

The one person who said some have a "Sim City" attitude is so true. The fact of the matter is this: market forces determine what gets put where. Yes, planning has a ton to do with the initial strategy, but plans mean nothing if there's no one willing to put money behind it. One can complain about the Midtown strategy all day long, but smart people with a lot of money are building here and its attracting companies there. The demand is high for the Midtown Tech Park, that's why they keep expanding.

 

If you have the money, you make the rules. Its just that simple. Companies want to be in the Midtown Tech Park. Developers want to build things like that. Why? BECAUSE of the proximity of the Clinic and University Hospitals. Companies in this field would want to be close to the Clinic and UH for obvious reasons. That's called DEMAND. There's a demand for health and tech companies to be close to our health institutions so developers see the demand and respond to it. Its just that simple. The Midtown plan didn't come out of thin air. So people can gripe about it all day long, but you can choose militancy or progress. In this instance, you can't have both.

What I find amusing about all these SimCity references is that all you control in that game, with respect to any given parcel, is the zoning.  You can't make anything happen; you can't even communicate with the algorithm determining what gets built there. 

 

Real world local governments have a lot more control over what goes where than anyone playing a SimCity game.  So to suggest that someone advocating a policy change is "playing SimCity" just makes no sense.  SimCity is a game.  It has nothing to do with the actual public decisions we're discussing here. 

What I find amusing about all these SimCity references is that all you control in that game, with respect to any given parcel, is the zoning.  You can't make anything happen; you can't even communicate with the algorithm determining what gets built there. 

 

Real world local governments have a lot more control over what goes where than anyone playing a SimCity game.  So to suggest that someone advocating a policy change is "playing SimCity" just makes no sense.  SimCity is a game.  It has nothing to do with the actual public decisions we're discussing here. 

 

Understood completely 327.

 

But you have to admit there is an awful lot of comments on this site that are wishful thinking.  Much like Sim City, the posters think they can click on a "square" in midtown and a building will shoot up out of it. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I would love for Euclid Ave to be another Michigan Ave with towers linking downtown to U Circle, but I'm also a realist.   

Folks, this isn't the place for "what if" thoughts - get it back on topic.

I forgot to mention....I drove by the apartment building that burned on Euclid across from Aldi and they have finally started rebuilding the structure.  Also, the storefront renovation across from Midtown Tech Park has started renovation.  I'll try to get some pics soon.

Real world local governments have a lot more control over what goes where than anyone playing a SimCity game.  So to suggest that someone advocating a policy change is "playing SimCity" just makes no sense.  SimCity is a game.  It has nothing to do with the actual public decisions we're discussing here. 

 

 

Agreed, and I've noticed on the UO boards that at times people get upset or criticize others for sharing their opinions.  I'd just like to point out that's not only unfair but against the spirit of a forum. 

 

I posted an image last week of the proposed police station and then an alternative that simply moved the building against the sidewalk and traded some depth for additional street frontage.  Those aren't fantasy ideas, it's something that the city can absolutely do (be it through changing regulations that they themselves set, or simply requesting a new design).  Regardless when I talk about aspiration I'm talking about vision and planning.  Does one building's physical appearance mean the adjacent blocks will become a vibrant urban neighborhood?  Of course not, but over time 1 building's C+ development turns into a series of C+ buildings and eventually a C+ neighborhood.

 

Some have mentioned they are "fine" with the building as it is, and that in the future if the economics behind development lean toward new construction, razing the building will not a problem.  I disagree.  Developing requires an intricate dance to balance the costs and funding, and the cost of razing a building on site might be the straw that breaks the camels back.  Also, that police station should absolutely be a part of the fabric of the street in 30 years whether or not Midtown is bustling. 

 

 

My entire point, and my overall wish for the city we all come here to debate, discuss and celebrate -- is that the small things our decisions makers control, be they: architectural details (think: Marriot in University Circle mild redesign after rejection by committee), interaction with the street (read: zoning and building regulations which our leaders CONTROL), and development of pedestrian friendly v. auto friendly policies -- are part of an overall lens or perspective that has long term vision for the city.

 

 

It will take the economy, change in lifestyle taste from locals, and animal spirits to make Cleveland's Euclid Corridor (and adjacent neighborhoods) as vibrant as levels unseen for 50 years -- but the City's leaders do have significant power to direct and focus those forces once present.  I'm not playing Sim City, but rather sharing in this forum's debate on what is and what could be: Cleveland.

 

New construction planned for 7410:

 

EUCLID CORRIDOR DESIGN REVIEW

 

EC2012-029 – Dozanti - Midtown Brakes New Construction

Project Address: 7410 Carnegie Avenue

Project Representatives: Brian West, Cleary Building Corp.

      Dan Dozanti, Midtown Brakes

 

So is something to be demolished for this?

 

 

Doesn't like there is anything to be demolished where that is going.

@Burnham_2011, its funny you say that people get attacked for giving an opinion as if that only comes from one side. Those of us that believe in being "reasonable" and "realistic" are told that we have no vision or we're uninspired. There's a certain segment here on UO that are a bit militant. They only want THEIR vision for Cleveland and any other vision is wrong. I'm not saying that's you, but there's a loud minority on UO that appear to feel that way.

 

Myself and people that agree with me see in Midtown people who want to spend their money developing an area that has desolate, abandoned areas in it. Some of us are not willing to wait years (and possibly decades) for the circumstances to be just right to give us EXACTLY what we want.

 

My grandmother says "sometimes you got to take the bitter with the sweet". We can't always get EXACTLY what we want. That's what the debate was about here. It was about some here acting like development in Midtown is a bad thing because its not EXACTLY what they want. That's foolish to me and, apparently, some others on UO too. That's what its about. Most of us would prefer density laced development in Midtown. There's no market for it there right now. Like it or not, there isn't. There IS, however, a market for what they're building. There's a demand for what they're building. And, as another commenter said, I'd rather have them build it here than in the suburbs so we can see even MORE money and jobs leave. Aren't you tired of us just giving these things away? I am. I want jobs, money and opportunity in Cleveland. If I have to take a suburban tech park to get it done, so be it. That's called pragmatism. Taking the bitter with the sweet.

 

And on the police station, personally, I'm not that concerned about it because its a POLICE STATION. Not much you can do with it. Its not mixed use. Its a practical building with a practical purpose.

Sharing ideas publicly invites public scrutiny. I haven't seen any attacks, and if I did, I will delete them. The more someone shares their ideas and beliefs, the more you get used to hearing negative and positive feedback. If you don't like the negative feedback, change your ideas, your means of presenting them or your audience.

Regarding the Erie Square apartment complex - yes, construction has been going on for many weeks and the past week or so it got to the fourth and final floor level. I can see the design of the windows, etc. isn't the same but that's okay.  MUCH better new design/floor plan, with facade and front section matching those of unscathed building, than complete demolition and starting over - if even.

New construction planned for 7410:

 

EUCLID CORRIDOR DESIGN REVIEW

 

EC2012-029 – Dozanti - Midtown Brakes New Construction

Project Address: 7410 Carnegie Avenue

Project Representatives: Brian West, Cleary Building Corp.

      Dan Dozanti, Midtown Brakes

 

So is something to be demolished for this?

 

It doesnt look like from pictures on the planning agenda.  And look we have reverted back to pole barns for midtown...

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2012/08032012/index.php

 

^ Naw, just throw up some arborvitae all around that, or some forsythia and it will look just wonderful.

:wave:

That needs some serious help. OY...step in the wrong direction.  I hope they don't cave due to a vacant lot being filled. 

That needs some serious help. OY...step in the wrong direction.  I hope they don't cave due to a vacant lot being filled. 

 

I know one person on here thinks they should cave (because "it is an either/or" "take it or leave it" (no negotiation!), since it would fill an empty lot and therefore we shouldnt have any kind of requirements or expectations because we are desperate.  We certainly shouldnt be pushing for any kind of standards whatsoever :wink:.   

 

And certainly surf, the Arborvitae and forsythia should make up for it..  maybe throw in a couple of honey locust for good measure.

 

(To think of all the design review that I sat on where CVS or Walgreens (etc) wanted to come in and build a cinder block building with a parking lot in the front, the first thing they nearly ALWAYS propose, since many communities dont realize that is typically their tactic but not their expected outcome, therefore thats what these communities end up with.  I think (and hope) most realize by now that they just need to be told that they have to do better and they will (well except for the desperate ones, because "it is an either/or situation").

 

Just as a suburban developer needs and typically seeks guidance when building in a city... 

This is also obviously a very rough moch-up. It doesn't show the relationship to the street or anything like that.

This is also obviously a very rough moch-up. It doesn't show the relationship to the street or anything like that.

 

Or straight out of a page in the catalogue!

 

At least we do know tht it would "be built as a post frame building, finished with steel roofing and siding for a pole barn commerical look"