Can anyone figure out which building this is? That address doesnt come up in Google Earth.  I am assuming it is somewhere in the Euclid Ave vicinity.

Can anyone figure out which building this is? That address doesnt come up in Google Earth.  I am assuming it is somewhere in the Euclid Ave vicinity.

 

I wonder if it's East 64th Place/Ceylon Court that's along and south of the east-west railroad sidings between Euclid and Carnegie.

^I'm guessing it's the warehouse at the NW corner of Ceylon and 65th.  There's an old sign for "Hill Floral Products" outside the gate to the parking area.

Here's another potential housing conversion....

 

3101 EUCLID AVE

CLEVELAND

Sales Date 4/7/2016

Amount $1,750,000

Buyer THE INSPIRION GROUP, LTD

Seller CRYSTAL KINGDOM DEVELOPMENT, LLC

Deed type LIMITED WA

Land value $412,500

Building value $81,000

Total value $493,500

Parcel 103-06-029

Property Office buildings 3 or more stories (elevator)

________

 

This is the building that sold last month.....

 

http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/19580001/3101-Euclid-Ave-Cleveland-OH/

 

Is that a rendering? It looks nothing like that. It's currently abandoned (or was) and with a silver/glass facade. (Also, incredibly boring to photograph inside.) Can't wait to see what this becomes!

Euclid Avenue land deal could bring a hotel to Midtown, on Cleveland's Health-Tech Corridor

By Michelle Jarboe, The Plain Dealer

on May 18, 2016 at 2:17 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Another hotel proposal is popping up in Cleveland, this time in a somewhat unlikely place: Midtown, in the heart of the Health-Tech Corridor.

 

An investor group wants to build an "upscale economy" hotel on the north side of Euclid Avenue, between East 69th and East 70th streets. Under legislation approved early this month by Cleveland City Council, the city could sell long-vacant land there to the investors for a $12 million hospitality project.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/05/euclid_avenue_land_deal_could.html

Sounds good.  Although, toward the end of the article, there's some discussion over whether this should take up the whole block.  It's hard to imagine an appropriately urban hotel design that would even come close.

 

There's also discussion of the environmental cleanup costs (500k-1m) encumbering this parcel.  How many parcels in Cleveland have this?  Is it a primary factor in all the vacancy?  Maybe it's cheaper to wait for the private sector to pick up all those bills, or maybe there's another Superfund needed to make these parcels marketable. 

 

This is land the city itself is trying to sell, and it's filthy.  Not a good look.  Plus, money developers have to spend on remediation is money they can't spend on the building.  And now the baseline for the land value is low, so the city loses taxes in the long term.  We'd be better off paying upfront for the cleanup.  Then it's also a jobs program-- everybody wins!

I still see it as a win win the way it is. Instead of the city paying for the cleanup themselves, and then selling the land for a market price, they sell it for a dollar and the private company spends the money on the cleanup instead of the land. Granted, I have no idea how much the land would cost after cleanup, and we only have a rough estimate on cleanup costs. I actually think it works better, because the city isn't paying for cleanup without the risk of not being able to sell the land after all the expense.

 

Plus this land becomes productive and the city makes tax money off of it.

The developer is clearly willing to clean up the land itself if the city sells it to them for $1 or the deal wouldn't be on the table to begin with. So what's the problem? And as far as less tax revenue to the city, it owns the land currently and there's nothing on it. So tax revenue from something is always > tax revenue from nothing

Sounds good.  Although, toward the end of the article, there's some discussion over whether this should take up the whole block.  It's hard to imagine an appropriately urban hotel design that would even come close.

 

The article says no such thing.  It does say that the councilperson thinks the block could support additional development on the other end, towards Chester.

 

"The block is big enough to support a larger development. Dow, the councilman, said additional construction might be possible closer to Chester. But he stressed that the project, whether it's only a hotel or something more, shouldn't displace anyone, including the few remaining homeowners."

"The block is big enough to support a larger development"  Obviously, so why bring it up?

 

"Dow, the councilman, said additional construction might be possible closer to Chester"  Might be possible?  Of course it is.  Why is he framing this in terms of limitations?  He's also setting up a fight about those houses for no apparent reason.  As far as we know, nobody has proposed to eliminate them.  There's no need to draw battle lines or preemptively curtail redevelopment.  He should be happy that another hotel wants to be in his ward after the last go-round.

That is a HUGE parking garage....

 

EUCLID CORRIDOR DESIGN REVIEW

EC2016-010 – Victory Center/Dealer Tire Parking Garage New Construction: Seeking Final Approval

Project Address: 7012 Euclid Avenue

Project Representatives: Mark Crowder, Welty Building

Allan Pollack, Welty Building

Chuck Ignatz, Graelic

Laura Englehart, KJK

Note: this project received Conceptual Approval on April 1, 2016.

 

 

 

 

Thus alleviating the need for any surface lot in Greater Cleveland? That looks larger than the garages attached to Las Vegas casinos!!!!! I didn't know Dealer Tire was such a happening place.

I'm guessing that it's sized to accommodate parking for two additional buildings on the other half of that back lot.

Dealer Tire makes a lot of money. Seriously, more money than you'd ever expect and their bonuses are crazy. So, people were willing to keep them in the city no matter what it took. Hence the big parking garage.

God, I want more structures built to the street, but this things needs a strip of shrubbery and a strip of lawn near the sidewalk.

Please, something to create a kind of transition from the street that's less raw than that horrid wall of slats. 

I hope that they redevelop midtown correctly. As a poster previously mentioned the east side of Cleveland proper could really use more trendy and vibrant neighborhood outside of U.C and Little Italy. Being the gap between Downtown Cleveland and University Circle this could create miles and miles of vibrant activity all the way from Downtown to 118th and Euclid. As I mentioned in the past one of Cleveland's biggest problems is that it doesn't connect and that really kills momentum. I understand that they are making this the "Health-Tech" corridor but that doesn't mean that it can't be vibrant.

 

With the new zoning overlay discussion, trying to make sure dead zones are a thing of the past this is the perfect time to strike. Retail and restaurants on the ground floors of office buildings, and some residential. For residential that doesn't have ground floor retail, try to avoid a 668 euclid situation and place some sort of thing that makes that floor look inviting and busy. Midtown is essentially a clean slate and if done right Euclid avenue can be vibrant from Downtown to the limits of University Circle.

That is a HUGE parking garage....

 

EUCLID CORRIDOR DESIGN REVIEW

EC2016-010 – Victory Center/Dealer Tire Parking Garage New Construction: Seeking Final Approval

Project Address: 7012 Euclid Avenue

Project Representatives: Mark Crowder, Welty Building

Allan Pollack, Welty Building

Chuck Ignatz, Graelic

Laura Englehart, KJK

Note: this project received Conceptual Approval on April 1, 2016.

 

 

 

 

What happened to the city wanting to avoid building dead zones? This is a HUGE dead zone, as well as an ugly one. Even Cleveland Clinic created a garage with some sort of pedestrian activity. Sheesh.

^ True. This design was stolen from the 1970's.

I hope that they redevelop midtown correctly. As a poster previously mentioned the east side of Cleveland proper could really use more trendy and vibrant neighborhood outside of U.C and Little Italy. Being the gap between Downtown Cleveland and University Circle this could create miles and miles of vibrant activity all the way from Downtown to 118th and Euclid. As I mentioned in the past one of Cleveland's biggest problems is that it doesn't connect and that really kills momentum. I understand that they are making this the "Health-Tech" corridor but that doesn't mean that it can't be vibrant.

 

With the new zoning overlay discussion, trying to make sure dead zones are a thing of the past this is the perfect time to strike. Retail and restaurants on the ground floors of office buildings, and some residential. For residential that doesn't have ground floor retail, try to avoid a 668 euclid situation and place some sort of thing that makes that floor look inviting and busy. Midtown is essentially a clean slate and if done right Euclid avenue can be vibrant from Downtown to the limits of University Circle.

 

As I've said before, that's just not what this area is designed to be. Deliberately. They DONT want it to be a "trendy" neighborhood. They want it to be business park centric to compete with the suburbs. That's clearly their strategy. I'm not necessarily opposed to it (I believe that you should be able to find everything that u find in the suburbs in the city as well as things that you cannot find in the suburbs). I would like more vibrancy. Obviously it doesn't hurt to have that. But it doesn't necessarily mean that they are building midtown "wrongly" if they don't. They're building it differently

At least this is being stuck down a side street, instead of on Euclid. And it only takes up the one side of the block, allowing room for future buildings that can interact with the street better. They easily could have made this make the whole rest of the block perpetually useless.

Considering how much vacant and seriously underused land there is in Midtown and in Cleveland in general, this is probably the least of the city's worries. If it was in more space-constrained areas, like UC, or Ohio City...

Considering how much vacant and seriously underused land there is in Midtown and in Cleveland in general, this is probably the least of the city's worries. If it was in more space-constrained areas, like UC, or Ohio City...

 

Ugh.....Nestle on W 25th. What a street killer.

This is the long vacant building next to WEWS.

 

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-cuyahoga/apartments-retail-planned-for-vacant-midtown-cleveland-high-rise

Literally the most boring abandoned building to explore. Ever.

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2016/06172016/index.php

 

EC2016-020 – UH Rainbow Center for Women & Children New Construction: Seeking Schematic Design Approval

Project Location: East 59th Street and Euclid Avenue

Project Representatives: Chris Petrow, Moody Nolan

Jon Guldenzopf, Moody Nolan

Linda Hulsman, UH

 

 

 

 

That's pretty bad.

Not sure if I like this. Maybe my expectations are too high. I thought the purpose of installing the right of way BRT was to spur high density development, yet we are still getting these low density structures with large swaths of land going to automobile parking. Some will say development is development (which it seems to be achieving to a degree) yet why then the need for the money spent for the transit corridor. I'm fairly certain West-siders would have welcomed such a transit project and  used it to its full potential. Just look at all the proposed projects on the near west side that are looking for variances to the code requiring X # of parking spots (often looking to provide zero spots).

I thought this was a parking garage at first glance lol. Reminds me of a 60s/70s building.

Not sure if I like this. Maybe my expectations are too high. I thought the purpose of installing the right of way BRT was to spur high density development, yet we are still getting these low density structures with large swaths of land going to automobile parking. Some will say development is development (which it seems to be achieving to a degree) yet why then the need for the money spent for the transit corridor. I'm fairly certain West-siders would have welcomed such a transit project and  used it to its full potential. Just look at all the proposed projects on the near west side that are looking for variances to the code requiring X # of parking spots (often looking to provide zero spots).

 

I agree with you for the most part. However Zoning only calls for for three stories I believe and market conditions don't exist to support the density we would all like to see. That's the reality.

 

I really hate how the land in midtown is being used...

 

The city could at least have some form of retail or some type of pedestrian generating idea to make parts seem active. I understand the vision they are going for, but this is still a city, not chagrin Highlands, WE NEED ACTIVITY.

 

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

The "city" doesn't build retail.  They can zone for what is NOT allowed, but there is little legal precedent for requiring land uses be included in a development project, and even less chance such a thing would survive legal scrutiny, assuming they didn't just drive developers away first.

Even when it's forced, it ultimately fails as it's not using available market forces to drive demand, but government bureaucracy. See: City West in Cincinnati, Park Duvalle in Louisville [...]

I really hate how the land in midtown is being used...

 

The city could at least have some form of retail or some type of pedestrian generating idea to make parts seem active. I understand the vision they are going for, but this is still a city, not chagrin Highlands, WE NEED ACTIVITY.

 

We've seen the city provide loans and grants to retail and residential developers. Perhaps in the future there can be resources made available for smaller developments contingent upon urban friendly design principles.

We could also offer tax incentives similar to those used to influence the residential market.  Markets are for real but they're not set in stone, they're manipulated constantly.  And Cleveland has no problem building retail space when it wants to, e.g. medical mart and public square cafe. 

 

The issue here is an overt desire to avoid proper urban development in Midtown, in order to attract employers as quickly as possible.  Some think that's a great idea, others find it short sighted.  Regardless, this development pattern is not an irresistible force of nature.  It's just one choice among many and our leaders have pushed hard for it. 

I see Midtown generally as an attempt to compete with suburban business parks and suburban employment centers in the region. I, for one, am perfectly ok with that. I do understand the consternation of some with this plan but as I've said before: this is a feature, not a bug of the midtown development system. This is exactly what they want. I personally don't have a problem with it (as I've said before, my philosophy is that in addition to having unique urban environments that there should be nothing that the suburbs have that the city does not also have) but people shouldn't be surprised when midtown developers build low density, auto oriented, suburban style buildings. It's deliberate

I see Midtown generally as an attempt to compete with suburban business parks and suburban employment centers in the region. I, for one, am perfectly ok with that. I do understand the consternation of some with this plan but as I've said before: this is a feature, not a bug of the midtown development system. This is exactly what they want. I personally don't have a problem with it (as I've said before, my philosophy is that in addition to having unique urban environments that there should be nothing that the suburbs have that the city does not also have) but people shouldn't be surprised when midtown developers build low density, auto oriented, suburban style buildings. It's deliberate

 

I thought that was the purpose of the Opportunity Corridor? Or before that, Emerald Parkway off Grayton by the airport? Or before that, Hinckley Industrial Parkway next to the Jennings Freeway? Or before that, Industrial Parkway off Puritas/West 150th?

I see Midtown generally as an attempt to compete with suburban business parks and suburban employment centers in the region. I, for one, am perfectly ok with that. I do understand the consternation of some with this plan but as I've said before: this is a feature, not a bug of the midtown development system. This is exactly what they want. I personally don't have a problem with it (as I've said before, my philosophy is that in addition to having unique urban environments that there should be nothing that the suburbs have that the city does not also have) but people shouldn't be surprised when midtown developers build low density, auto oriented, suburban style buildings. It's deliberate

 

I thought that was the purpose of the Opportunity Corridor? Or before that, Emerald Parkway off Grayton by the airport? Or before that, Hinckley Industrial Parkway next to the Jennings Freeway? Or before that, Industrial Parkway off Puritas/West 150th?

 

Was thinking the same thing................

I see Midtown generally as an attempt to compete with suburban business parks and suburban employment centers in the region. I, for one, am perfectly ok with that. I do understand the consternation of some with this plan but as I've said before: this is a feature, not a bug of the midtown development system. This is exactly what they want. I personally don't have a problem with it (as I've said before, my philosophy is that in addition to having unique urban environments that there should be nothing that the suburbs have that the city does not also have) but people shouldn't be surprised when midtown developers build low density, auto oriented, suburban style buildings. It's deliberate

 

I thought that was the purpose of the Opportunity Corridor? Or before that, Emerald Parkway off Grayton by the airport? Or before that, Hinckley Industrial Parkway next to the Jennings Freeway? Or before that, Industrial Parkway off Puritas/West 150th?

 

Was thinking the same thing................

 

Agreed.  It's a ridiculous waste of our Main Street, and of the new transit line we built there.  The concept is a good idea but the choice of location is so wrong that it becomes a bad one.

Maybe Midtown Inc. can try to do a better job linking up different businesses and smaller projects and combine them to make dense multi-use projects a reality. It makes things more complex and will most take longer but I think its worth it. Its not like this hasent been a waste-land our entire lives (for most of us) anyways.

 

I don't agree that we should try to compete with suburban office parks by emulating them. We should be a city. If a city is how you want to live your life.. then come on over if not then there is plenty of low density options outside city. There is literally only one place to have our city and that's in our city. If not on Euclid Ave, then where?? If not near the important E55 intersection, then where?? I understand this might be the vision of a few, in higher positions but that doesn't make it not flawed.

 

Maybe Midtown Inc. can try to do a better job linking up different businesses and smaller projects and combine them to make dense multi-use projects a reality. It makes things more complex and will most take longer but I think its worth it. Its not like this hasent been a waste-land our entire lives (for most of us) anyways.

 

I don't agree that we should try to compete with suburban office parks by emulating them. We should be a city. If a city is how you want to live your life.. then come on over if not then there is plenty of low density options outside city. There is literally only one place to have our city and that's in our city. If not on Euclid Ave, then where?? If not near the important E55 intersection, then where?? I understand this might be the vision of a few, in higher positions but that doesn't make it not flawed.

 

I just disagree philosophically. I want the investment, I want the people. And I realize that not every business/individual wants to work/live in what I would consider to be an ideal urban environment but would still locate in the city if there's things that are at least competitive with what they are used to. I want those folks just as much as I want people who want to walk, ride bikes or take public transportation to work. I want it all. And I think our city is big enough to have different areas that offer different things to different people. I get that people don't like it. It's not my ideal plan for development in that area. But I was at the tech park the other day and it's packed. I see other development in the area and it's packed. It's working. I'm for whatever works

^^Midtown is a bit player. You're talking about independent institutions and developers who each want full site control and ownership, and with extremely low land values, there's nothing stopping them.  327 is right that we could induce certain amenities or land uses with deep enough subsidies, but I don't think loose things like better coordination or even zoning are going to get us real far.

 

In case anyone wants to flesh out 327's point about financial inducements, maybe we can do it in the "Spending priorities" thread, because it's an issue not specific to any neighborhood: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=30452.0

This is a three story building built directly up to the sidewalk with parking behind.  I think it's a pretty decent stab at "urban" in an area where land values don't yet support high density.  Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, people.

^^The city, through Midtown Inc, has made clear what the community wants here.  We want a suburban office/industrial park.  Apart from telling developers they'll face minimal red tape if they follow that path, it also signals that anything built there is likely to be surrounded by that, which in turn dissuades anything different from ever being proposed.

 

This is the nature of a Master Plan.  By specifying one future, it necessarily makes others less likely.  Do CDCs and Master Plans have dictatorial authority over developers?  Of course not, but the alternative extreme isn't true either, they do have an effect so it matters what they say.  It might just be random coincidence, but so far multiple developers have fallen exactly in line with Midtown Inc's published agenda.  That tells me it's working, and makes me wonder what a better plan might have accomplished.

This is a three story building built directly up to the sidewalk with parking behind.  I think it's a pretty decent stab at "urban" in an area where land values don't yet support high density.  Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, people.

 

Agreed. And the design isn't detailed enough for me to form a hard opinion of it. But it does show what UC's architect is considering conceptually.

About 50 more of these and Midtown might be ready to support high-density infill with retail components.

My issue isn't the massing or site plan, it's that fugly Euclid facade. That blank wall that folds down from the roof over part of the Euclid frontage is ick.

About 50 more of these and Midtown might be ready to support high-density infill with retail components.

Exactly!  Just east of here in UC, the CCF started building ugly building after ugly building about 20 years ago.  By increasing the workforce density of the neighborhood, it allowed for developers to start building things like Uptown, One University and all the other great stuff over there.  Midtown obviously will take even more work before we get there.

I see Midtown generally as an attempt to compete with suburban business parks and suburban employment centers in the region. I, for one, am perfectly ok with that. I do understand the consternation of some with this plan but as I've said before: this is a feature, not a bug of the midtown development system. This is exactly what they want. I personally don't have a problem with it (as I've said before, my philosophy is that in addition to having unique urban environments that there should be nothing that the suburbs have that the city does not also have) but people shouldn't be surprised when midtown developers build low density, auto oriented, suburban style buildings. It's deliberate

 

I thought that was the purpose of the Opportunity Corridor? Or before that, Emerald Parkway off Grayton by the airport? Or before that, Hinckley Industrial Parkway next to the Jennings Freeway? Or before that, Industrial Parkway off Puritas/West 150th?

 

And don't forget Johnston Parkway and Shoreway Commerce Park either ;) 

About 50 more of these and Midtown might be ready to support high-density infill with retail components.

Exactly!  Just east of here in UC, the CCF started building ugly building after ugly building about 20 years ago.  By increasing the workforce density of the neighborhood, it allowed for developers to start building things like Uptown, One University and all the other great stuff over there.  Midtown obviously will take even more work before we get there.

 

I wish to lodge a formal complaint with whomever enforces this rule of economics, because they're letting everyone break it except Cleveland. 

 

CWRU, UH and CCF have been major employment centers for decades... and yet, not only are we required to ignore basic urban design principles for several more decades, we're also required to waste a fortune on dozens of awful buildings.  Meanwhile those cheaters Up North are going straight from vacant lots to quality urban design-- with trains-- even though their city is worse off in every other way.  It just isn't fair.  The invisible hand hates us!