Cleveland is the biggest joke of a city when it comes to parking.  There is not that big of a demand to be downtown to warrant all this parking.  Is there any other city in this country (minus the obvious sprawly ones) that have destroyed their downtown like Cleveland has other than Detroit?  This is pathetic!

 

There are at least 10 "sprawly ones" for every nice urban city in this country.

I admittedly wasn't thrilled to hear about this conversion myself, but after reading the tumblr article on the precious page I am more open to the idea. If you haven't read it yet you should

That article is not what is planned for The May Company Building.  If it were I might be more open to the plan. Instead the developers are planning to make at least 4 stories of the structure into parking front to back.  And again nobody is asking why they are building an additional parking structure next to 2 existing ones. The existing May Company structure is not planned to come down.  The storefronts in that space are being renovated for The Tilted Kilt.  How many historic buildings do we need to lose for the purpose of parking.

 

how many spots is this?  Would it be enough to affect values in surface lots?

how many spots is this?  Would it be enough to affect values in surface lots?

 

Interesting thought.  Hate it, but these are to types of developments we;d need to eventually phase our beautiful Downtown parking lots.

A slight off topic question. Are The Planning Commission members appointed or elected?  Thanks and then back on topic

 

Appointed. Some are appointed by the mayor, some by city council.

Without the building being landmarked, I'm not sure how much the Planning Commission can do about the overall plan.  It seems as if people get confused about a PC's level of discretion.  There are limitations and there most certainly is recourse available when those limitations are exceeded.

 

But I really have a hard time understanding why the glass would have to be removed or even why that would be preferable.

^Glass removal would, presumably, lower maintenance/operation costs, and improves air circulation for the benefit of parkers.  I don't think the planning commission weighs in at all for as-of-right projects, so they have zero relevance at this point.  Where they've dropped the ball, IMHO, is not amending the city's zoning [2] years ago to add some discretion to parking projects.  This stuff isn't rocket science and is the norm in in at least some other cities.

 

Well let's hope design review at least puts it foot down about the glass.

 

It's still mind boggling to me that that even the floor space facing public square is more valuable as parking garage than it is as office space.  Though I suppose it could be all or not=hing depending on the location of elevators and fire stairs, mechanical systems, etc.

I admittedly wasn't thrilled to hear about this conversion myself, but after reading the tumblr article on the precious page I am more open to the idea. If you haven't read it yet you should

 

Can you provide the link to the Tumblr?

BTW, if you want to see what a downtown department store looks like as a parking garage, go see the Halle's Annex between Huron and Prospect. The windows were removed and, at night, it has the appearance of a building that is always under renovation.

Is the May Company Building a designated landmark, and if so, would the Landmarks Commission have any say here on removal of the glass?  The more I think about this project, the more upset I become. 

Not a landmark per my understanding.  Don't get too upset yet.  It is just a proposal at this time.  Do we even know if they have financing lined up?  Just as we shouldn't get too excited when things like Stark's WHD plan are tossed out there, we should't get too down about this kind of idea.  FWIW, I have a hard time believing they will be allowed to remove the glass..... I think the City will fight them on that.

Ya know, just when you think things are starting to turn around in this city these lazy developers from some sh.t hole in Florida come around with horrible ideas like this.  I just don't get it.

Not a landmark per my understanding.

 

You sure?

 

It is not on this 10-year-old list....

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/landlist.htm

 

May's Cleveland headquarters building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1974:

http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/All_Data.html

 

It is also therefore referenced here, which means the National Park Service may have a say in this....

http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/ohioeriecanal/may.htm

No.  Not sure.  Are all buildings registered on the NRHP automatically entitled to landmark status with the CPC?

I only checked the "M"s last night, but unless it's listed under a different name, it's not a locally designated landmark: http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/landlist.php?first=M (I'm pretty sure this list is up to date)

 

The National Register carries no meaningful protection, unless it's the federal government who is acting (not the case here).

 

Please, willyboy or someone else, chime in if I'm wrong.

 

BTW, if you want to see what a downtown department store looks like as a parking garage, go see the Halle's Annex between Huron and Prospect. The windows were removed and, at night, it has the appearance of a building that is always under renovation.

 

To wit:

(http://tinyurl.com/828w78r)

 

And for McLovin, here is the Tumblr post that ClevelandOhio linked to above, which, again, is NOT the plan currently on the table.

 

This

http://cryptocleveland.tumblr.com/post/1481096113/on-shared-parking-and-the-may-company

The National Register carries no meaningful protection, unless it's the federal government who is acting (not the case here).

 

That's unfortunate.

 

To wit:

(http://tinyurl.com/828w78r)

 

 

Or this (seems we have the same ideas without checking to see who else might have them!)...

 

Want to see what a pretty building looks like as a parking garage? Here, its better than the average parking garage but it still aint pretty and definitely not desirable or even acceptable for the May Company building with its location and history.

 

http://g.co/maps/3k79x

Lol, ClevelandOhio wins!  My heart was racing too much last night to read carefully.  I seriously had trouble falling asleep, I was so annoyed by this news.  By the way, nice work to dave68 for noticing this on the agenda, and to you KJP for frequently posting things you see on different agendas.  Gives us a little bit of a chance to lobby design review before Friday.

The National Register carries no meaningful protection, unless it's the federal government who is acting (not the case here).

 

Or any federal money will be used (not the case) or historic tax credits are sought (could be the case).

Not a landmark per my understanding.  Don't get too upset yet.  It is just a proposal at this time.  Do we even know if they have financing lined up?  Just as we shouldn't get too excited when things like Stark's WHD plan are tossed out there, we should't get too down about this kind of idea.  FWIW, I have a hard time believing they will be allowed to remove the glass..... I think the City will fight them on that.

Thank you for the clarification; at least there is still hope. I would rather see it sit empty.  :x

I know nothing about the engineering of the building or  parking garages in general for that matter, but it does seem strange to me that the floor plates can handle such a usage.

I know nothing about the engineering of the building or  parking garages in general for that matter, but it does seem strange to me that the floor plates can handle such a usage.

 

Actually, parking demands less structure than an office building because the way cars' loads are distributed (4 point loads).

Cleveland is the biggest joke of a city when it comes to parking.  There is not that big of a demand to be downtown to warrant all this parking.  Is there any other city in this country (minus the obvious sprawly ones) that have destroyed their downtown like Cleveland has other than Detroit?  This is pathetic!

 

There are at least 10 "sprawly ones" for every nice urban city in this country.

 

Would you qualify Cleveland as "nice?"  I realize cities like Jacksonville and Indianapolis have nothing on Cleveland, but outside of those types of cities and cities more on the level of Cleveland; has any other city destroyed their downtown more with parking and decisions like this other than Detroit?  That's a serious question, not a smart remark or anything.

The National Register carries no meaningful protection, unless it's the federal government who is acting (not the case here).

 

Or any federal money will be used (not the case) or historic tax credits are sought (could be the case).

 

Sorry.  Ink is correct here.  While the building would qualify historic tax credits for the an exterior renovation (which I would have liked to have seen, and could use), they certainly couldnt be used for this.   

I was assuming private financing without tax credits in this case.  But just to be clear, when you say historic tax credits couldn't be used for "this", do you mean this exact plan, with the window removal, or more broadly, any conversion of this building to parking structure?  In other words, would eligibility for the historic tax credits hinge only on the facade or or would the change of use come into play too?

^Historic tax credits do not limit use as a parking structure, although the rehab work (facade and interior) would have to meet federal standards. Many other buildings that have received tax credits have had a parking element.

Keep it to the May Company Building, please.  We're all tired of discussions constantly being pulled off into some overarching philosophical discussion.  If you want to do that level of pontification on a constant basis, you need your own blog.

^Historic tax credits do not limit use as a parking structure, although the rehab work (facade and interior) would have to meet federal standards. Many other buildings that have received tax credits have had a parking element.

 

Thanks. Sorry to keep asking about this, but is it even conceivable that a near total conversion from office/retail to parking could meet federal interior standards for interior work?  I understand that some parking is often crucial to support rehab projects, but that seems distinct from this case.  I'm just trying to figure out if tax credits would still be on the table for this particular project.

^Historic tax credits do not limit use as a parking structure, although the rehab work (facade and interior) would have to meet federal standards. Many other buildings that have received tax credits have had a parking element.

 

Thanks. Sorry to keep asking about this, but is it even conceivable that a near total conversion from office/retail to parking could meet federal interior standards for interior work?  I understand that some parking is often crucial to support rehab projects, but that seems distinct from this case.  I'm just trying to figure out if tax credits would still be on the table for this particular project.

 

I would say it is possible, but would be a challenge. It would depend on the specific building, the parking needs, the remaining interior fabric, etc.

^Historic tax credits do not limit use as a parking structure, although the rehab work (facade and interior) would have to meet federal standards. Many other buildings that have received tax credits have had a parking element.

 

Thanks. Sorry to keep asking about this, but is it even conceivable that a near total conversion from office/retail to parking could meet federal interior standards for interior work?  I understand that some parking is often crucial to support rehab projects, but that seems distinct from this case.  I'm just trying to figure out if tax credits would still be on the table for this particular project.

 

Given that the project would have to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation to qualify for Federal tax credits, it doesnt seem to me, with that level of alteration on the interior that it would (and the removal of exterior windows would not qualify). 

 

I will have to look at some other circumstances, because buildings that have had their historic interiors severly altered or removed (by previous owners) can still qualify for the Federal Tax credits (Schofield), but I believe that there needs to be an element of "retaining a floor plan or circulation pattern" and I wouldnt imagine doing that for a car would qualify :|.

 

Because the idea is to encourage "rehabilitation" of the property, there is an allowance for appropriate alterations that ensure the efficient and contemporary use of the structure (typically meaning adaptive reuse from one use to another, as in office to hotel or housing), and I have seen many arguments for some unconventional changes in use succesfully made, and interpretations can and do vary, but I just really think this one would be stretching it. 

 

Aside from using the Federal credit, the building owner of a National Landmark can plan to do what they want on their own dime, but then its dependent on local regulations etc. 

Was it mentioned, is the building a locally designated landmark or in a local district?  Im guessing there is nothing in the zoning code that would prevent such a thing...  (there it would likely be encouraged (*that was for 327)).       

 

   

^Thanks for the color on the tax credits.  Thelocal stuff is covered in a little more detail up thread, but in brief, parking appears to be an as-of-right use in that zone and the building is not locally landmarked, so design review (i.e, hopefully begging for windows) is the only place for public input.

May Co. building owners eye parking conversion; cars could fill 4 floors of historic Cleveland store

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Banking on demand from the casino and other downtown projects, the owners of the May Co. building hope to turn four floors of the historic department store into a parking garage.

 

For years, developers and architects have eyed the eight-story building, at 200 Euclid Ave., for apartments, hotel rooms, offices and entertainment venues.

 

Now plans submitted to the city of Cleveland show another proposal: Nearly 750 parking spaces, between ground-floor retail and upper floors that might become housing and offices.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/02/may_co_building_owners_eye_par.html

We all wanted Downtown to be more of a destination. Well folks, this is it. This is the result.

 

Bizarro World. We're in it.

Vomit.

327, you're on notice - next time it happens, it'll result in a suspension. Your post following this is an exception (and I agree with you, May Co. building as parking = vomit)

 

 

OK.  My opinion of the news item is well summarized by the post that just says "vomit."

From Michelle's article posted above:

 

Plans for the May Co. project show 734 parking spaces on floors two through five of the building. The windows might be removed to provide ventilation, and steel guardrails would be placed on each floor, behind the white terra-cotta facade.

 

OK.  With that, I think everyone can take a deep breath.  Always start a negotiation by asking for something you know you can't get.  These folks just appear to have taken that strategy to the extreme. 

 

 

I am probably one of the more 'ehhh' people on here when a building is proposed for demolition or conversion, but holy god, this is a terrible idea. Worst I've seen. I agree - the building is sound, let it sit empty if this is the only proposal.

Being out of state, is the current May Company parking structure still in use. If so I believe the developer owns this along with the department store building.  Is there a reason that this much parking is necessary?

 

Being out of state, is the current May Company parking structure still in use. If so I believe the developer owns this along with the department store building.  Is there a reason that this much parking is necessary?

 

You wouldn't think considering the parking structures that are in the area for the stadiums in the Gateway District (plus the surface lot), the new "Visitors Center", and god forbid people walk from the biggest sea of parking lots in any downtown in the country... The Warehouse District.  Also, isn't the casino planning to have a shuttle service type deal as well?  I certainly hope that all this parking is to make way for construction of the $600 million second phase.  Because I don't see demand at all downtown for this amount of parking they have planned.

Archangel, I'm with you. I was, frankly, an eye-roller at the Columbia building hubbub, but this May Company plan - and exposed parking levels -  is ridiculous.  May Co. spacious floors would make a good prison, too. Maybe somebody should float that idea.

Ok, after reading that article and the comments from the developer, I take back what I said about this being some response to the parking needs for students at Tri-C.  It has nothing to do with Tri-C.  And won't be done tastefully.  And will destroy the Prospect storefronts.  They may as well remove the sidewalks from prospect on both sides of the street on that block.

from the article:  The windows might be removed to provide ventilation, and steel guardrails would be placed on each floor, behind the white terra-cotta facade.

 

Gee that will be an attractive site from Public Square.  Casino patrons better use Euclid to get to E. 4th because walking down Prospect will be like trying to cross Chagrin and Warrensville Center with cars coming at you from all directions.

^ Thats why they will have to build a skywalk from the May Company Building to East 4th street. And once there, the skywalk can then enter each restaurant separately.  This way people can walk from the casino to east 4th without ever having to go into our 12 months of terrible weather, walk past our pedestrian unfriendly driveway street know as prospect, in which they had no part in creating, or ever have to walk on East 4th, allowing the city to open it up to vehicle traffic again! Perfect world!  :-P

 

Casino patrons better use Euclid to get to E. 4th because walking down Prospect will be like trying to cross Chagrin and Warrensville Center with cars coming at you from all directions.

 

Chagrin and Warrensville Center = approximately 20,000 vehicles a day

 

Prospect and Ontario = approximately 6,000 vehicles a day

 

 

I doubt the number will triple

 

(source: NOACA)

^Ok I stand corrected.  I wasn't talking in literal terms with that analogy.  I guess I should have researched for a true factual analogy.

Ridiculous concept and something that should never be allowed to happen on Public Square.  You want parking?  Put it in the middle of the building, but keep the Prospect and Ontario sides as is for offices or residential.  Just had to get my initial opinion out there.

I still say redo public square and put a parking garage underneath it. Like Mall A. You gain alot of hidden parking spaces in the middle of downtown, next to the casino, and it could make other lots less desirable.

WTF is with this town and its God D! obsession with parking!!!!! There is more space for cars don't won than people and ultimately it will be a scenario of "Parking for what???"

Archangel, I'm with you. I was, frankly, an eye-roller at the Columbia building hubbub, but this May Company plan - and exposed parking levels -  is ridiculous.  May Co. spacious floors would make a good prison, too. Maybe somebody should float that idea.

 

If that allowed us to then tear down the Justice Center, then count me in favor of the May Company-Jimmy Dimora Prison Facility.

 

Still better than a parking garage.