July 12, 20195 yr 40 minutes ago, Eastside said: "According to plans submitted to the city, the two five-story buildings would contain a total of 181 suites and the townhouse portion of the project would have 18." https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/nrp-group-plans-scranton-peninsula-project This is garbage.
July 12, 20195 yr This leaves MUCH to be desired; however there are a few things that are good. The parking is mostly behind and adjacent to the railroad tracks. The buildings have a consistent street wall against charter road. And because it will switch between townhouses and an apartment building, it will not be one long monotonous wall. If NRP provides a more logical grid of streets rather than parking-lot-streets, there could be a feel of a walkable neighborhood. And providing a street along the right of the development rather than parking would make it feel more like a complete block. I don’t care if they hide all the parking in lots to the rear behind the buildings.
July 12, 20195 yr 3 minutes ago, CbusTransit said: This leaves MUCH to be desired; however there are a few things that are good. The parking is mostly behind and adjacent to the railroad tracks. The buildings have a consistent street wall against charter road. And because it will switch between townhouses and an apartment building, it will not be one long monotonous wall. Even the Edison phase 2 NRP proposed last year had a parking garage instead of surface lots, and a lot more units. That project was ugly but at least had a decent site plan.
July 12, 20195 yr 3 minutes ago, Mendo said: Even the Edison phase 2 NRP proposed last year had a parking garage instead of surface lots, and a lot more units. That project was ugly but at least had a decent site plan. To be clear, I’m not saying this is a good development or site plan. I am just looking for something positive
July 12, 20195 yr Aside from the awful site plan, it astonishes me that a developer would propose so many courtyard units on a site with skyline and river views in nearly every direction.
July 12, 20195 yr Author 26 minutes ago, StapHanger said: Aside from the awful site plan, it astonishes me that a developer would propose so many courtyard units on a site with skyline and river views in nearly every direction. But will the sightlines be blocked by future development? It's not as if this site is next to the river or a greenspace that guarantees that future views will be unimpeded. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
July 12, 20195 yr 1 hour ago, gg707 said: I'm also not a big fan of this, although in trying to see the positive: (1) this is just an abandoned field, so several hundred residents is better; (2) this hopefully spurs some mixed use development on the other plots; and (3) the parking is largely shielded from street view and lines the train tracks. The problem with blocking the parking from street view is nice in some area. But this land is viewable from half the buildings downtown—which will have a view of a see of parking rather than an urban neighborhood. So much for my south-facing view improving. ?
July 12, 20195 yr 59 minutes ago, CbusTransit said: To be clear, I’m not saying this is a good development or site plan. I am just looking for something positive This is Cleveland - if something is utter horsesh!t, why bother? ? clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
July 12, 20195 yr This is so disappointing... the least they could have done was built underground parking like The Quarter has. This belongs in a suburb...
July 12, 20195 yr 2 hours ago, ryanfrazier said: This is garbage. I wish it was that good! My hovercraft is full of eels
July 12, 20195 yr I anticipated the reality of ~ThUnDeRbIrD~ would be a sad echo of the aspirational renderings but this site plan is still somehow worse than that.
July 12, 20195 yr What was the last time we had such a resounding negative response to a proposal? County HQ? MedMart? Casino garage and skywalk? The billboards at 4th and Prospect? Terdolph Park? Edited July 12, 20195 yr by sizzlinbeef
July 12, 20195 yr 5 minutes ago, sizzlinbeef said: What was the last time we had such a resounding negative response to a proposal? County HQ? MedMart? Casino garage and skywalk? The billboards at 4th and Prospect? Terdolph Park? Rockometer.
July 12, 20195 yr 17 minutes ago, surfohio said: Rockometer. Bite your tongue, that was a masterpiece!
July 12, 20195 yr 4 minutes ago, punch said: Bite your tongue, that was a masterpiece! Ha. It is a masterpiece compared to Thudbird.
July 12, 20195 yr 3 hours ago, ASPhotoman said: This is so disappointing... the least they could have done was built underground parking like The Quarter has. This belongs in a suburb... It belongs in the garbage!
July 13, 20195 yr Par for the course for NRP, and this is what happens when you have a cheap developer with in house architects.
July 13, 20195 yr These additional two renderings were on Stan's LinkedIn post but not in the article. At least it's density. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/another-developer-lines-up-project-near-resurgent-cuyahoga-bullard?articleId=6555529913720467457#comments-6555529913720467457&trk=public_profile_post
July 13, 20195 yr Wow, what a mistake if these get built. Its like these developers could care less about our city. I live in Tampa now and you should the amazing growth and beautiful buildings being built here Edited July 13, 20195 yr by jbee1982
July 13, 20195 yr 1 hour ago, smimes said: These additional two renderings were on Stan's LinkedIn post but not in the article. At least it's density. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/another-developer-lines-up-project-near-resurgent-cuyahoga-bullard?articleId=6555529913720467457#comments-6555529913720467457&trk=public_profile_post Woah, those are pretty grim... The basic site plan could be much better if they incorporated more townhomes to create a neighborhood feel. They could have some alleyways to create more intimate spaces, etc., rather than it just being two big apartment buildings surrounded by parking.
July 13, 20195 yr This is the type of development you see in N. Virginia, Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Austin, etc. If the parking was hid on say the 2/3/4 level and there were added units this would not look so bad.
July 13, 20195 yr 1 hour ago, marty15 said: This is even worse with the renderings. Holy smokes this is ? Agree. The more I think about this proposal, the angrier it makes me. I’m hoping that whatever public review process / city permits this has to go through will shoot it down hard. I think I prefer the barren wasteland that it is now - at least then we can dream about the potential. Once something is built, that’s the way it will be forever. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
July 13, 20195 yr Hopefully they do this in phases, if at all. I can see the townhomes being fine in the future. To me, townhomes imply walkable area. There is nothing walkable there and won’t be for at least 3-5 years. So that is hard to do first. The other part is pure dreck. It looked like they used an old version of MSPaint to size things up of how much they might be able to fit on that plot of land. More units, more money. I’m thinking if they are first movers on Scranton, planning commission will push for better. You don’t want other developers to think your bar is that low to build tenements or particle board palaces.
July 13, 20195 yr To provide a healthy walkable neighborhood, you need density. So in that way this plan is a plus. However, small inner courtyards like this are basically a waste of space and detract from neighborhood vitality. That plus the surrounding sea of parking makes this an incredibly inhospitable place for pedestrians. A building surrounding an inner parking garage is second only to underground parking. But, underground parking is exceedingly expensive and probably not viable lower than the river level. Expand each apartment to where the parking is now and surround with walkable greenspace. On the inside, put a multistory parking garage to hold the same number of spots. Ideally, cap the garage with a large greenspace. For an example, look at Flats East Bank. Keep the townhomes, they provide sufficient density and they hide the parking spots inside of them.
July 13, 20195 yr Is there a mechanism for the city to wholeheartedly sink a project? I nominate this for a planning commission veto!
July 13, 20195 yr 35 minutes ago, smimes said: To provide a healthy walkable neighborhood, you need density. So in that way this plan is a plus. However, small inner courtyards like this are basically a waste of space and detract from neighborhood vitality. That plus the surrounding sea of parking makes this an incredibly inhospitable place for pedestrians. A building surrounding an inner parking garage is second only to underground parking. But, underground parking is exceedingly expensive and probably not viable lower than the river level. Expand each apartment to where the parking is now and surround with walkable greenspace. On the inside, put a multistory parking garage to hold the same number of spots. Ideally, cap the garage with a large greenspace. For an example, look at Flats East Bank. Keep the townhomes, they provide sufficient density and they hide the parking spots inside of them. It's just odd - the entire idea to build up a neighborhood there to insight, creativity, and vision, then this proposal is just the opposite of that.
July 13, 20195 yr 29 minutes ago, YABO713 said: It's just odd - the entire idea to build up a neighborhood there to insight, creativity, and vision, then this proposal is just the opposite of that. I totally agree that the current proposal is completely beefs it. Density can coexist with parking. Here's my ms paint version of what this development should be. The superimposed apartment building is the Westchester Rockville Station Apartments. https://www.equityapartments.com/maryland/rockville/westchester-rockville-station-apartments https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0792566,-77.1391146,274m/data=!3m1!1e3
July 13, 20195 yr Author Yes, I hate the plan, but I doubt they'll pay for structured parking if they don't have to. Not with all of that land available. If many were clamoring for land there and/or Cleveland commanded higher rents, I could see it. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
July 13, 20195 yr 3 hours ago, GISguy said: Is there a mechanism for the city to wholeheartedly sink a project? I nominate this for a planning commission veto! I suppose they could withhold tax abatement. I'm not sure if they would run into any due process issues though.
July 14, 20195 yr From a quick look, the site is zoned General Industry, and per the zoning code, those zones prohibit residential development. So NRP is going to need the city on board to get a rezoning through. Edited July 14, 20195 yr by StapHanger
July 18, 20195 yr Some good news https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2019/07/developer-withdraws-scranton-peninsula-proposal-after-committee-rips-design.html My hovercraft is full of eels
July 18, 20195 yr 4 minutes ago, roman totale XVII said: Some good news https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2019/07/developer-withdraws-scranton-peninsula-proposal-after-committee-rips-design.html Holy crap, some of that commentary- those folks on the committee were not holding back! Quote Committee member Jayme Schwartzberg said the NRP proposal, the first for Scranton Peninsula reviewed by the body, could set the tone for future development along the riverfront there. She said the project could act like the hub in a spoked wheel, but that instead, it resembled “a black hole” that could never have any relationship to anything around it.
July 18, 20195 yr 2 minutes ago, GISguy said: Holy crap, some of that commentary- those folks on the committee were not holding back! At least we can be somewhat assured the committee is adamant in realizing how the entire look of the peninsula will appear to the rest of the city in the future by seeking a cohesive vision. Do we think now the developers will go back to designing something more indicative of the Thunderbird proposal? It sounds like the committee was hoping/waiting for something more along the lines of that, not the "black holes" proposed in this design...
July 18, 20195 yr What NRP proposed was far worse than our already low expectations of them. Glad to see the city feel the same way. The entire peninsula needs a master plan to guide how these projects are going to relate to each other. Just selling it off in large chunks to different developers will inevitably lead to a mess.
July 18, 20195 yr 3 minutes ago, Mendo said: What NRP proposed was far worse than our already low expectations of them. Glad to see the city feel the same way. The entire peninsula needs a master plan to guide how these projects are going to relate to each other. Just selling it off in large chunks to different developers will inevitably lead to a mess. To propose this garbage site plan after the "aspirational plan" released by Geiss was rather sadistic.
July 18, 20195 yr 5 minutes ago, surfohio said: To propose this garbage site plan after the "aspirational plan" released by Geiss was rather sadistic. Agreed. I hoped they would aim higher than just 200 units on 7+ acres of land. A parcel that size is begging to be broken into phases.
July 18, 20195 yr From the article: "Pechota said after the meeting that he didn’t expect intense criticism for the project, but that his firm would work to improve the design." The criticism came as a surprise?? ? Sooo, the taste level is so low they don't even know how much of an abomination their (thankfully withdrawn) proposal is? clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
July 18, 20195 yr I am presently surprised that the committee basically echoed what we brought out here: "Committee members said the NRP design looked as if it were plopped on the site without any relation to its surroundings, that most of the ground around the apartments would be occupied by parking, and that it looked like a suburban development, not part of a potential urban neighborhood." That is a relief. But now let's hope they stick to their guns and make sure they are just as strict on anything developed going forward.
July 18, 20195 yr On 7/12/2019 at 1:59 PM, CbusTransit said: This leaves MUCH to be desired; however there are a few things that are good. The parking is mostly behind and adjacent to the railroad tracks. The buildings have a consistent street wall against charter road. And because it will switch between townhouses and an apartment building, it will not be one long monotonous wall. If NRP provides a more logical grid of streets rather than parking-lot-streets, there could be a feel of a walkable neighborhood. And providing a street along the right of the development rather than parking would make it feel more like a complete block. I don’t care if they hide all the parking in lots to the rear behind the buildings. My sentiments exactly. From a bird's eye perspective it looks terrible but from a street level not so much. These are narrow parking spaces that could be covered with trees or some green roof.
July 18, 20195 yr It would be nice if they built this up, expanding the city and taking full advantage of the river. Kind of like Chicago.
July 18, 20195 yr 1 minute ago, Htsguy said: Wow there are other smart people in the city who are not members of UrbanOhio? How do we know they aren't members of UrbanOhio?
July 18, 20195 yr 1 hour ago, MayDay said: From the article: "Pechota said after the meeting that he didn’t expect intense criticism for the project, but that his firm would work to improve the design." The criticism came as a surprise?? ? Sooo, the taste level is so low they don't even know how much of an abomination their (thankfully withdrawn) proposal is? He should become a member of this forum for appropriate guidance.
July 18, 20195 yr I know Aaron very well, and he does put all his efforts into his developments nationwide. This may have come back somewhat underwhelming, but I will disagree with the urban fabric comments. That's a joke. If there's one area in Cleveland that is not urban, this is it. There's one way in and one way out with no "fabric" or potential for "fabric". Anything done on Scranton Peninsula is a suburban lifestyle center built next to the city. Aesthetically can it be pleasing, sure, but from a spill over perspective this has very little potential.
July 18, 20195 yr 1 minute ago, Jenny said: I know Aaron very well, and he does put all his efforts into his developments nationwide. This may have come back somewhat underwhelming, but I will disagree with the urban fabric comments. That's a joke. If there's one area in Cleveland that is not urban, this is it. There's one way in and one way out with no "fabric" or potential for "fabric". Anything done on Scranton Peninsula is a suburban lifestyle center built next to the city. Aesthetically can it be pleasing, sure, but from a spill over perspective this has very little potential. No offensive but I adamantly disagree with you. This area is in the heart of the city (hell it is where Cleveland was founded) and has incredible potential. No joke,
Create an account or sign in to comment