February 17, 201213 yr 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) Expected attendance is 10,000-20,000 per day. His number may not be that far off.
February 17, 201213 yr Saw this on Facebook. Via Jennifer Coleman: For you folks interested in the proposal to convert several floors of the May Co. bldg into a parking garage, here's an update: This project was presented in Downtown/Flats Design Review Cmte this morning. The project was so incomplete in key details such as: 1. No discussion with the Ohio State Preservation Office was initiated (the building is a Federal Landmark); 2. A traffic study is absolutely needed to determine the vehicular impact onto Prospect Ave.; 3. The effect of exposing the terracotta & window framing to exterior conditions was not studied 4. The entry into the garage & new ramps inside as presented were problematic. The committee also stated that having the historical windows removed on floors 2-5 is unacceptable and ideally the bays facing both Euclid & Prospect should be office/residential. The project was tabled until more discussion with the OHPO and a traffic study is submitted to the city (both will take some time).
February 17, 201213 yr Thank you ClevelandOhio. This is great news that city officials are listening and understand how wrong this development project has been thought out
February 17, 201213 yr Thank you ClevelandOhio. This is great news that city officials are listening and understand how wrong this development project has been thought out They read Urban Ohio and realized how big of a mistake it would be. :wink:
February 17, 201213 yr Deep breaths, people. Perhaps next time we should wait for the City to actually consider a PROPOSAL prior to the meltdown? FCE could propose painting the TT purple, but that doesn't mean it is actually going to happen.
February 17, 201213 yr But meltdowns are so therapeutic in relieving the general stress of our everyday lives. :) "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 17, 201213 yr I don't see the issue with getting bent out of shape about such a proposal. The real problem is the system that is in place. If the owner of the building really wanted to turn it into parking the current review boards and committees really have no impact. Shouldn't the CDC of the neighborhood or the CITY PLANNING COMMISSION be approaching owners of such significant structures and assist them in finding the highest and best use for the building, historic tax funding, finding investors, etc, instead allowing the laziness of most developers determine what our city is? This should be a basic function of these public entities instead of playing defense to such terrible uses for the 50% of the urban fabric that we currently retain, no? As ridiculous as it is, this developer is content with putting forth little effort to make money on his initial $11,000,000 purchase of the building. What if there were an arm of the City that works with owners to investigate each property, find what it would take to make a positive impact on the city, and fill the owner's pocket book at the same time? Just seems like that could be a more powerful position for the city as opposed to depending on the limited impact of Landmarks and Design Review.
February 17, 201213 yr Thats a NO from the planning commission: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/02/cleveland_city_planning_commis.html
February 17, 201213 yr ^Good to hear. I don't think the CPC really has any legal authority based on design review alone to demand more than better windows on the facades, but hopefully the property owner wants to play nice. Hopefully they're just beginning to figure out what to do with the building and are still open minded to using tax credits. And I definitely disagree with Hts121: much better to begin raising a stink now then waiting till after a proposal has already morphed into a financed/designed project. And as far as I can tell design review would have been the ONLY chance the city and public would have to weigh in on this proposal.
February 17, 201213 yr Allow me to clarify my comments. I have no problem with anyone criticizing the proposal or jumping down the throats of those who made it. The meltdown I was referring to was coming from the folks who took this as a done deal with a complicit/corrupt City Hall getting ready to do a ribbon cutting ceremony.
February 17, 201213 yr I don't see the issue with getting bent out of shape about such a proposal. The real problem is the system that is in place. If the owner of the building really wanted to turn it into parking the current review boards and committees really have no impact. Shouldn't the CDC of the neighborhood or the CITY PLANNING COMMISSION be approaching owners of such significant structures and assist them in finding the highest and best use for the building, historic tax funding, finding investors, etc, instead allowing the laziness of most developers determine what our city is? This should be a basic function of these public entities instead of playing defense to such terrible uses for the 50% of the urban fabric that we currently retain, no? As ridiculous as it is, this developer is content with putting forth little effort to make money on his initial $11,000,000 purchase of the building. What if there were an arm of the City that works with owners to investigate each property, find what it would take to make a positive impact on the city, and fill the owner's pocket book at the same time? Just seems like that could be a more powerful position for the city as opposed to depending on the limited impact of Landmarks and Design Review. W 28th, I couldn't agree more. I actually emailed some people I know at the city (and others I don't know) about being more proactive with high profile building like this. I realize that the owners need to find a way to make a return on their investment with this building, but as we have seen from this proposal and what we have read, they have approached the whole idea rather cluelessly (they didn't have anything in order that showed they knew what they were doing). That is the perfect indication to me that there needs to be a proactive approach from the city to demonstrate how a good plan, something that would be beneficial to the city, could be encouraged. The city could demonstrate the variety of incentives that are available to help make such a plan happen. I mean there are grant and loan programs as well as the state and federal tax credits. The city certainly needs to be more proactive here.
February 17, 201213 yr Thats a NO from the planning commission: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/02/cleveland_city_planning_commis.html I am VERY glad to see the Planning Commission show some balls and stand up for the rights of Cleveland's greatest buildings. I've said it before, buildings often only outlive their owners, but their countries and kingdoms too. They need to be respected at least as much as the rights of their individual owners. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 17, 201213 yr Now watch them come back and sue over lost revenue because they weren't given the same treatment as the casino garage.
February 17, 201213 yr Doubt it. Much different circumstances. What they would have to prove, I believe, is that the CPC's denial of their plans deprived them of any economically viable use for the property. It is not enough to simply show that the denial deprives them of their most economically beneficial use.
February 18, 201213 yr Words cannot describe how awesome Jennifer Coleman is. Jennifer is on the Landmarks commission and they played no part in this decision. Tony Coyne is star of the day.
February 18, 201213 yr Allow me to clarify my comments. I have no problem with anyone criticizing the proposal or jumping down the throats of those who made it. The meltdown I was referring to was coming from the folks who took this as a done deal with a complicit/corrupt City Hall getting ready to do a ribbon cutting ceremony. Well just look to the past, it wouldn't be too hard to believe such a proposal would move forward.
February 21, 201213 yr It's a horribly dumb proposal... And if they want more parking, preferrably mixed use, there's that ugly surface lot (fortunately much smaller than the WHD sea of surface lots) at E. 4t & Prospect.
April 11, 201213 yr CBRE is listing the May Co. building as for lease right now, but based on their Flyers it does not seem that the office floors of the Building are available. Most of the space appears to be in the 2025 Ontario Building. Here is the listing: http://looplink.natl.cbre.com/xNet/Looplink/Profile/Profile.aspx?stid=cbre7&LID=17596134&LL=true&UOMListing=&UOMMoneyCurrency=&RentPer=PY&SRID=2519597993 and the flyers: http://www.loopnet.com/Attachments/4/A/1/4A1A007F-7195-48DE-B6D4-6EC0512A45A3.pdf http://www.loopnet.com/Attachments/D/E/7/DE7E2EB7-39C9-4DF8-9830-2462FBC0771B.pdf
April 11, 201213 yr The 2025 Building would be a perfect hotel! A small property like the Lowes, Sofitel, W, Conrad, St. Regis, JW Marriott would do great there.
April 11, 201213 yr "Parcel C", the Prospect side of the May Co., is 30,000 sq ft. That's just the right size for a Dave's Supermarket! I can dream, right?
April 11, 201213 yr Haha...we need a few more residents for that. This is what I was talking about in another topic...forgot about this thread. They have been clearing this out for about a month and just put up the for lease banner a few days ago. Beautiful space!!!
April 11, 201213 yr from an adapitve reuse POV, the MAY company building is to large. for that matter the Block between euclid and prospect is too large, this maens you iwll have to add atriums to get light to the interior of the building. or... you can cut the building in two and put a street there. effectively making the large building into two medium size building more appropriate for mixed use redevelopment.
April 13, 201213 yr :o I will make a Sketchup of my idea when I have time. the idea is that in the early part of the 20th century Cleveland's blocks were consolidated into mega block, block like the what the may company building and the WTC in NYC sit on, the new idea is to bisect the the mega block with roads and side walks to make the scale of the blocks more human. more walkable, more accessible. If the logical retrofit of the may company building is into housing, you simply do not have enough windows to make this concept work, even if you added skylight,( which would drastically reduce the leaseable space of the building), it sitl may not be enough light to make it marketable. My idea would be to tear down the Garage on prospect, and Ontario, (its coming down regardless). bisect the may company building maintaining the facades on both Prospect and Euclid, but opening the space in the middle with direct access to Ontario and though to Prospect. providing an opportunity for development on the corner of prospect and ontario, now surrounded on all four sides with light, and road access. I think it is the best way to preserve this landmark, other than converting it back into a department store.
April 13, 201213 yr ^What do you mean that that garage is coming down regardless? Your concept makes complete sense from an architectural standpoint, but I doubt it comes close to making sense economically at this point. Might just be that housing isn't the logical retrofit for this building given the structural interventions it would require.
April 13, 201213 yr I think it is the best way to preserve this landmark, other than converting it back into a department store. Although that would likely make the building ineligible for historic tax credits, which are a major source of capital for a project like May, and many times the only way to get projects like this done.
April 13, 201213 yr ^What do you mean that that garage is coming down regardless? Your concept makes complete sense from an architectural standpoint, but I doubt it comes close to making sense economically at this point. Might just be that housing isn't the logical retrofit for this building given the structural interventions it would require. The garage is unsuitable for modern needs, there was a reason it was not used for the welcome center, it is very old and is reaching the end of it's useful life. I don't think anyone is interested in spending the money needed to upgrade the structure. can you see it standing another 2 decades at the current state of investment in it? If it does not make sense now maybe it will in the future. I think the halle building makes more sense to develop first, than the may company building. plus I don't like idea of providing anymore incentive to adding more surface lots to the East 4th district.
April 13, 201213 yr I think it is the best way to preserve this landmark, other than converting it back into a department store. Although that would likely make the building ineligible for historic tax credits, which are a major source of capital for a project like May, and many times the only way to get projects like this done. are you sure about that? not saying you are wrong but to me preserving the facades and historic elements should be the priorty not the non hsitroical layout of the building.
April 13, 201213 yr I think it is the best way to preserve this landmark, other than converting it back into a department store. Although that would likely make the building ineligible for historic tax credits, which are a major source of capital for a project like May, and many times the only way to get projects like this done. are you sure about that? not saying you are wrong but to me preserving the facades and historic elements should be the priorty not the non hsitroical layout of the building. With historic tax credits, there is never certainty until the proposal is formally reviewed, but it is my guess that this would be a challenging proposal.
April 15, 201213 yr 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. Yep. A strong master plan.
April 15, 201213 yr no more parking. http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/03/parking-mandates-stymy-development-in-cincinnatis-urban-neighborhoods/ we have more than enough already. do you have any idea how much parking surrounds public square. I'd guess over 1500 spaces within a 2 min walk of the square. NO MORE PARKING.
April 16, 201213 yr Not a bad idea. Most discussion I had heard was to cut out the middle of the building, but like an interior courtyard. I like this idea at least as much.
April 19, 201213 yr Two points about the May Company building from a recent Crain's article at http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20120416/SUB1/304169987&template=mobile entitled "Changes ahead for already-remade downtown real estate": - The owner of the May Company building is deciding on whether to create apartments or a hotel on the empty upper floors of the building. - There's a number of interested parties for retail spaces along Prospect in the May Company building, mostly convenience and food-store operators.
April 24, 201213 yr Tilted signage! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 24, 201213 yr ^haha, that was an accident, but as it is the Tilted Kilt, I'm going to leave it. :-D
April 24, 201213 yr Are they officially opened now, or are they just having a soft opening/friends and family thing. Drove by last night and it was packed.
April 24, 201213 yr They keep having open auditions...where there men there also? Every time I see it packed...it's women lol.
April 24, 201213 yr ^Not Irish! Great... An Irish version of Hooters! They keep having open auditions...where there men there also? Every time I see it packed...it's women lol. You kids know I love to go off topic, but lets keep this on topic, considering we've had a lot of this discussion in the restaurant thread.
April 24, 201213 yr A few things I'd love to see in the ground floor of the May Co building on Prospect: http://g.co/maps/6pp8p It seems like a pretty large space (b/w titled Kilt and Flannery's) High End retail - I know, in my dreams but any retail would be great A live music venue - for local artists, which I think is lacking downtown Melt - although there's plenty of restaurants this would get plenty of business there and it's a local attraction
Create an account or sign in to comment