August 31, 20213 yr According to the common pleas court docket a lot of interesting "stuff" going on in the David Watson lawsuit in connection with the newest project on the Woodhill Supply site. UCI has already filed a motion to dismiss (one of the grounds being Watson does not have standing which I believe is correct) and Watson has filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (the hearing on the motion is Aug 31) to stop construction on the site which apparently began last week which was a big surprise. I wonder how construction is proceeding because the briefs indicate that the closing on the sale of the property was suppose happen on July 5 but did not happen because the developer could not close on financing because of Watson's lawsuit (appeal of the BZA variances). However, shortly thereafter building permits were issued to UCI and construction has commenced (apparently just the erection of a construction fence and some minor excavation to date). I guess my question is who is actually doing this work and incurring the costs of construction? What is clear is that UCI and the developer are being more aggressive this go around with this tactic rather than waiting for the litigation to resolve. This is obviously putting more pressure on Watson. It is interesting to note that in one of the briefs it is mentioned how Watson lost time and time again in connection with the prior litigation but ultimately won because all the delays wore out the developer and caused costs to sky rocket making the project unfeasible. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
August 31, 20213 yr Indeed it will. A building permit was issued for the apartment building on Aug. 19. Geis is the GC. I may follow up with an article tomorrow afternoon. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
September 14, 20213 yr From now on, I'm going to be publishing articles on the new site. Articles posted on the old site will redirect you to the new site..... Court orders Little Italy housing construction halted By Ken Prendergast / September 14, 2021 Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael J. Russo issued a preliminary injunction yesterday against parties involved in the development of the long-vacant and neglected Woodhill Supply site, 1862 E. 123rd St. in Cleveland’s Little Italy. The development is a $15 million mix of townhomes and an apartment building. However construction continues as terms of the injunction have apparently not been met. For Russo’s order to take effect, two complainants initiating the case would have to first file a $200,000 bond with the court. The bond had not been filed as of midday today, court records show. NEOtrans also visited the development site today and noticed that construction appears to be continuing. READ MORE https://neo-trans.blog/2021/09/14/court-orders-little-italy-housing-construction-halted/ "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
September 14, 20213 yr 7 minutes ago, KJP said: From now on, I'm going to be publishing articles on the new site. Articles posted on the old site will redirect you to the new site..... Court orders Little Italy housing construction halted By Ken Prendergast / September 14, 2021 Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael J. Russo issued a preliminary injunction yesterday against parties involved in the development of the long-vacant and neglected Woodhill Supply site, 1862 E. 123rd St. in Cleveland’s Little Italy, with a $15 million mix of townhomes and an apartment building. However construction continues as terms of the injunction have apparently not been met. For Russo’s order to take effect, two complainants initiating the case would have to first file a $200,000 bond with the court. The bond had not been filed as of midday today, court records show. NEOtrans also visited the development site today and noticed that construction appears to be continuing. READ MORE https://neo-trans.blog/2021/09/14/court-orders-little-italy-housing-construction-halted/ Thanks for the reporting.
September 26, 20213 yr On 9/14/2021 at 4:33 PM, KJP said: Court orders Little Italy housing construction halted By Ken Prendergast / September 14, 2021 Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael J. Russo issued a preliminary injunction yesterday against parties involved in the development of the long-vacant and neglected Woodhill Supply site, 1862 E. 123rd St. in Cleveland’s Little Italy. The development is a $15 million mix of townhomes and an apartment building. However construction continues as terms of the injunction have apparently not been met. For Russo’s order to take effect, two complainants initiating the case would have to first file a $200,000 bond with the court. The bond had not been filed as of midday today, court records show. NEOtrans also visited the development site today and noticed that construction appears to be continuing. READ MORE https://neo-trans.blog/2021/09/14/court-orders-little-italy-housing-construction-halted/ Ultra-nimbyism---filing lawsuits? Do David D. Watson and Susan C. Stone, the people who filed the case, who live at 1876 E 120 St by the project have any chance at succeeding? I certainly hope not.
October 4, 20213 yr For those misguided people who fought the Baricelli apartment development claiming it was going to destroy the historic fabric of the neighborhood...please compare the two houses next door to the apartment and explain to me which of the three buildings are improving the neighborhood. Keep up your properties and don't slowly destroy them with cheap alterations and maybe you have an argument.
October 6, 20213 yr Judge rules in favor of city, Little Italy development By Ken Prendergast / October 6, 2021 A Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court judge has ruled that two residents of Cleveland’s Little Italy neighborhood lacked the standing and evidence to sustain an appeal challenging the development of a nearby apartment building. Judge Michael J. Russo dismissed the lawsuit, allowing construction at the former Woodhill Supply, 1862 E. 123rd St., to restart. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2021/10/06/judge-rules-in-favor-of-city-little-italy-development/ "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 6, 20213 yr 56 minutes ago, KJP said: Judge rules in favor of city, Little Italy development By Ken Prendergast / October 6, 2021 A Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court judge has ruled that two residents of Cleveland’s Little Italy neighborhood lacked the standing and evidence to sustain an appeal challenging the development of a nearby apartment building. Judge Michael J. Russo dismissed the lawsuit, allowing construction at the former Woodhill Supply, 1862 E. 123rd St., to restart. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2021/10/06/judge-rules-in-favor-of-city-little-italy-development/ That's great news! Happy to see some self-interested NIMBY's attempting to stop progress and development in the city lose in court.
October 6, 20213 yr Nice. Russo really let him have it in the ruling too. I quite enjoyed reading all that.
October 11, 20213 yr On 10/6/2021 at 7:17 PM, PoshSteve said: Nice. Russo really let him have it in the ruling too. I quite enjoyed reading all that. Ironically, the late Joe Russo (very recently deceased judge) and Dave were college friends, IIRC.
October 11, 20213 yr Edited October 11, 20213 yr by X Not in any conceivable way was that related to Little Italy development news, and just looking for trouble.
October 12, 20213 yr 5 hours ago, E Rocc said: Ironically, the late Joe Russo (very recently deceased judge) and Dave were college friends, IIRC. Michael Russo was the judge
October 12, 20213 yr 10 hours ago, Htsguy said: Michael Russo was the judge So was Joe, I thought they were related, maybe not.
October 12, 20213 yr 2 hours ago, bjk said: And are they related to Basil Russo? I don't think so. At least I do not believe Joe is related to Basil. Russo is a very common Italian sur name. Edited October 12, 20213 yr by Htsguy
October 12, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, E Rocc said: So was Joe, I thought they were related, maybe not. What I was getting at was that Michael was the judge in the Little Italy lawsuit not Joe so no possible conflict of interest if David Watson was/is a friend of his. My original post was in response to your response to Posh Steve's post if any of that makes sense.
November 6, 20213 yr To my knowledge, Mr. Watson did not file an appeal by the end of business today in his opposition to the Woodhill site development. This is important. From my last article.... They have 30 days from the date when Russo’s opinion was publicly filed to appeal it. Russo rejected Watson’s and Stone’s lawsuit and ended the preliminary injunction via a 15-page opinion filed Oct. 5. And to further cement things, the the University Circle Inc.-owned properties were transferred a couple weeks ago to new owners. The townhouses parcel nearest to Watson's home transferred to Knez Homes' Triban Investments LLC and the apartments parcel transferred to Woodhill Coltman Partners LLC. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 6, 20213 yr 19 hours ago, KJP said: To my knowledge, Mr. Watson did not file an appeal by the end of business today in his opposition to the Woodhill site development. This is important. From my last article.... They have 30 days from the date when Russo’s opinion was publicly filed to appeal it. Russo rejected Watson’s and Stone’s lawsuit and ended the preliminary injunction via a 15-page opinion filed Oct. 5. And to further cement things, the the University Circle Inc.-owned properties were transferred a couple weeks ago to new owners. The townhouses parcel nearest to Watson's home transferred to Knez Homes' Triban Investments LLC and the apartments parcel transferred to Woodhill Coltman Partners LLC. The clerk’s office has been slow recently, so we have to wait until Monday to be sure. Sometimes something gets filed on Friday and doesn’t show up on the docket till Monday. If we don’t see anything on the docket Monday, safe to say the suit is done.
November 7, 20213 yr There is also a recently granted joint motion releasing the injunction bond. This is probably further evidence that Watson negotiated something with the opposing side which most likely included a promise not to appeal or I doubt the City of Cleveland would have joined in such a motion.
November 7, 20213 yr A contractor's rep told me they aren't looking forward to doing foundation work in the winter but, then again, they were also expecting not to be doing any work this winter. They expected this case to drag on into next year at least. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 6, 20213 yr Progress at Woodhill Supply - only 6 years after the fire(12-3-21) Rocky Baricelli Inn Apartments 2087 Random Road
December 7, 20213 yr 18 hours ago, X said: I love the Baracelli Inn project! Would have been better with the original additional floor, but I agree that it is a great project and it looks really good. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
December 9, 20213 yr Little Italy’s largest townhouse project in a decade By Ken Prendergast / December 8, 2021 So far in the 21st century, Little Italy has seen a large townhouse development get built roughly every decade. With past townhouse developments happening in 2001 and again in 2010, Little Italy is overdue for another. One of Northeast Ohio’s largest homebuilders is getting ready to fill that void. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2021/12/08/little-italys-largest-townhouse-project-in-a-decade/ "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 9, 20213 yr 14 hours ago, KJP said: Little Italy’s largest townhouse project in a decade By Ken Prendergast / December 8, 2021 So far in the 21st century, Little Italy has seen a large townhouse development get built roughly every decade. With past townhouse developments happening in 2001 and again in 2010, Little Italy is overdue for another. One of Northeast Ohio’s largest homebuilders is getting ready to fill that void. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2021/12/08/little-italys-largest-townhouse-project-in-a-decade/ Wish they would cover the big central parking lot -- solar panels, greenspace, some pergolas, something to break up that expanse of heat-absorbing asphalt.
December 9, 20213 yr I wonder why we aren't seeing more new developments with solar? Obviously it would be more expensive initially, but that cost would easily be made back. You could even charge a premium to the rent for a place with solar/batteries (clean energy, no reliance on CPP). If I were looking to rent someplace, I would gladly pay more to live without the threat of the inevitable CPP outages. Edit: this probably is better off being discussed in another thread (sorry about that). Edited December 9, 20213 yr by PoshSteve
December 9, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, Foraker said: Wish they would cover the big central parking lot -- solar panels, greenspace, some pergolas, something to break up that expanse of heat-absorbing asphalt. Here's the most recent site plan, approved by landmarks, bza etc. which shows the addition of permeable pavers and some additional landscaping islands in the parking lot. Intention was to soften the space.
December 10, 20213 yr 6 hours ago, babysfirstxmas said: Here's the most recent site plan, approved by landmarks, bza etc. which shows the addition of permeable pavers and some additional landscaping islands in the parking lot. Intention was to soften the space. Hey, they added pavers! Who wants to hang out in the parking lot?! 😜
December 10, 20213 yr 12 hours ago, Foraker said: Hey, they added pavers! Who wants to hang out in the parking lot?! 😜 It's clearly not ideal but neither is the 1:1 parking ratio required by the city. You add more green space, pergolas, etc. you're losing parking spaces and not hitting your ratio. Solar panels are expensive and you don't get that back in rents.
December 10, 20213 yr 37 minutes ago, babysfirstxmas said: It's clearly not ideal but neither is the 1:1 parking ratio required by the city. You add more green space, pergolas, etc. you're losing parking spaces and not hitting your ratio. Solar panels are expensive and you don't get that back in rents. Absolutely. I'd eliminate the required parking (at least in areas like this that are so close to a rapid station) and either add green space or cover the parking. But that probably means I'd make a lousy developer (if the metric for success is profit).
December 10, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, Foraker said: Absolutely. I'd eliminate the required parking (at least in areas like this that are so close to a rapid station) and either add green space or cover the parking. But that probably means I'd make a lousy developer (if the metric for success is profit). The metric for staying in business is profit.
December 10, 20213 yr 21 minutes ago, E Rocc said: The metric for staying in business is profit. Because no non-profit is in "business" Cleveland Clinic.
December 10, 20213 yr 12 minutes ago, Foraker said: Because no non-profit is in "business" Cleveland Clinic. Not in private residential real estate, there aren't.
December 10, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, E Rocc said: Not in private residential real estate, there aren't. OK, sure, I don't know of any "private" developers who are nonprofit. But there are nonprofits that do real estate developments that are successful and do not turn a profit. They're successful because they meet a community need and are great places where people want to live. This development in Little Italy is nice, but the large open parking area is a scar on what otherwise looks like a pleasant place to live. I understand, the developer wants to make a profit and the city requirements make this many parking spaces necessary. My point is that it could be better -- that probably but not necessarily means less profit unless the city reduces/eliminates the parking requirements given the location and alternatives for transportation. If the developer didn't need as many parking spaces, maybe she can build more units and nicer covered parking or more green space as an amenity and make higher profits. Without a large central parking area, maybe the units are even more attractive and the developer could charge higher prices. "Better" does not necessarily mean "not enough profit" to be successful.
December 10, 20213 yr 1 minute ago, Foraker said: OK, sure, I don't know of any "private" developers who are nonprofit. But there are nonprofits that do real estate developments that are successful and do not turn a profit. They're successful because they meet a community need and are great places where people want to live. This development in Little Italy is nice, but the large open parking area is a scar on what otherwise looks like a pleasant place to live. I understand, the developer wants to make a profit and the city requirements make this many parking spaces necessary. My point is that it could be better -- that probably but not necessarily means less profit unless the city reduces/eliminates the parking requirements given the location and alternatives for transportation. If the developer didn't need as many parking spaces, maybe she can build more units and nicer covered parking or more green space as an amenity and make higher profits. Without a large central parking area, maybe the units are even more attractive and the developer could charge higher prices. "Better" does not necessarily mean "not enough profit" to be successful. I agree that the large parking lot is an ugly scar, but the reality is that a dedicated parking space is an amenity that the median tenant/buyer wants, particularly for market rate housing. So there's a good chance we'd have this parking lot, even without city requirements. If the development didn't have parking the pool of people interested would be smaller, thus lower demand, and lower rents/prices. :/ Personally, I'd like to see dedicated parking area reduced by making use of the third dimension, either building up or down, but that would probably eliminate the developer's margins.
December 10, 20213 yr Its a giant property the entire lower level could be parking underground---and it would only need to be one level not going down two levels. Cost would be minimal. The garage could serve all the units in all the bldgs. I agree with @Ethan--that most people will want to have off-street parking, or may look for an apt/townhouse somewhere else.
December 10, 20213 yr 28 minutes ago, Pugu said: Its a giant property the entire lower level could be parking underground---and it would only need to be one level not going down two levels. Cost would be minimal. The garage could serve all the units in all the bldgs. I agree with @Ethan--that most people will want to have off-street parking, or may look for an apt/townhouse somewhere else. Going underground is not a minimal cost for parking. It's extremely costly.
December 11, 20213 yr 4 hours ago, babysfirstxmas said: Going underground is not a minimal cost for parking. It's extremely costly. How costly? I'm talking one level that sits below all the bldgs.
December 11, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, Pugu said: How costly? I'm talking one level that sits below all the bldgs. So costly that few do it unless they can't avoid with a surface lot. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 11, 20213 yr ^It's more costly than NOT doing it, sure. But what real cost does it add to a 4-5 story project?---less than 2% or so? That 2% is offset by a far nicer project that can in turn increase rents a bit returning the 2% increase costs to net zero (or actually be positive). The existing parking space could then be a green spot, a swimming pool, some tables, or even another or deeper (away from the street) building increasing the number of units (and therefore revenue) or maybe even space for one small street-facing coffee shop that would be as much an amenity to the community as it would be to all the residents. Or even ALL of these options.
December 11, 20213 yr How so? What's the cost in not doing it? A visual disdain for something doesn't deliver a financial burden to us. Here's what I've learned -- building surface parking is least expensive. Next most expensive is above-ground parking structures. And even more expensive is below-ground parking. Cleveland's soil conditions have a pretty high water content and are often unstable. Earth moving, shoring up neighboring soil and structures, drainage/pumping/lifting systems, building four solid concrete walls, stairwells and elevators, plus subterranean ventilation systems to remove vehicle exhaust is a lot more expensive to build and operate than building open-sided garages that naturally "breathe" and drain water thanks to good ol' gravity but still require stairwells and costly elevators. And surface parking requires no walls, ceilings, elevators, stairs, ventilation, etc. Just pavement and some drain tiles or permeable pavers. We are very good at spending other people's money on this forum. Developers know a lot more about their business than we do. Having covered it as a reporter, I've learned that the margins in real estate in Cleveland are small. So any expense that can be avoided is avoided. And if it can't, such as with above-ground decks, developers often tap public subsidies in order to make the numbers work. Seldom are below-ground decks even considered by the people who know the business and do this stuff for a living. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 11, 20213 yr 52 minutes ago, Pugu said: ^It's more costly than NOT doing it, sure. But what real cost does it add to a 4-5 story project?---less than 2% or so? That 2% is offset by a far nicer project that can in turn increase rents a bit returning the 2% increase costs to net zero (or actually be positive). The existing parking space could then be a green spot, a swimming pool, some tables, or even another or deeper (away from the street) building increasing the number of units (and therefore revenue) or maybe even space for one small street-facing coffee shop that would be as much an amenity to the community as it would be to all the residents. Or even ALL of these options. I would agree.... IF it was only 2%. Underground parking spaces are not that cheap. They've always been expensive to build, and a bit more now considering current material costs and Cleveland's construction costs. For a one-story deep lot (it gets more expensive, the deeper you go), you're looking at maybe $35,000 to 40,000 per space. Woodhill has 80 surface parking spaces. At an estimated $37,500 per space, that's $3,000,000. The estimate KJP gave for the whole project is $15,000,000 (including townhomes which have their own parking garages). It'd be closer to 20%, maybe even more. And don't forget that building a park or some other amenities on top would be additional costs on top of everything. Edited December 11, 20213 yr by tykaps
December 11, 20213 yr 8 minutes ago, tykaps said: I would agree.... IF it was only 2%. Underground parking spaces are not that cheap. They've always been expensive to build, and a bit more now considering current material costs and Cleveland's construction costs. For a one-story deep lot (it gets more expensive, the deeper you go), you're looking at maybe $35,000 to 40,000 per space. Woodhill has 80 surface parking spaces. At an estimated $37,500 per space, that's $3,000,000. The estimate KJP gave for the whole project is $15,000,000 (including townhomes which have their own parking garages). It'd be closer to 20%, maybe even more. And don't forget that building a park or some other amenities on top would be additional costs on top of everything. Thanks for real numbers--that helps. Okay, that is a big jump. Given that real estate projects should return value in about 10 years, at $37,500 per space that is $312.50 per month over ten years, meaning the rent would have to be $300 more per month to break even. That's a little steep, but not too crazy if the amenities or beauty offered was nice enough. That's if you want to cover all costs in 10 years.
December 11, 20213 yr 14 minutes ago, Pugu said: Thanks for real numbers--that helps. Okay, that is a big jump. Given that real estate projects should return value in about 10 years, at $37,500 per space that is $312.50 per month over ten years, meaning the rent would have to be $300 more per month to break even. That's a little steep, but not too crazy if the amenities or beauty offered was nice enough. That's if you want to cover all costs in 10 years. Yep. It may require a lot of money, but it is definitely doable. But for the developers of this project, it's just a lot smarter and safer of an investment not to bother. The site is big enough for surface parking, and their target demographic is not the luxury market that will pay an extra $300/month for their parking to be underground with amenities on top. Hopefully someday culture will change, transit will improve, and we won't even need to bother adding that many spaces.
December 11, 20213 yr 16 hours ago, KJP said: How so? What's the cost in not doing it? A visual disdain for something doesn't deliver a financial burden to us. Here's what I've learned -- building surface parking is least expensive. Next most expensive is above-ground parking structures. And even more expensive is below-ground parking. Cleveland's soil conditions have a pretty high water content and are often unstable. Earth moving, shoring up neighboring soil and structures, drainage/pumping/lifting systems, building four solid concrete walls, stairwells and elevators, plus subterranean ventilation systems to remove vehicle exhaust is a lot more expensive to build and operate than building open-sided garages that naturally "breathe" and drain water thanks to good ol' gravity but still require stairwells and costly elevators. And surface parking requires no walls, ceilings, elevators, stairs, ventilation, etc. Just pavement and some drain tiles or permeable pavers. We are very good at spending other people's money on this forum. Developers know a lot more about their business than we do. Having covered it as a reporter, I've learned that the margins in real estate in Cleveland are small. So any expense that can be avoided is avoided. And if it can't, such as with above-ground decks, developers often tap public subsidies in order to make the numbers work. Seldom are below-ground decks even considered by the people who know the business and do this stuff for a living. I have a saying I've always tried to apply at work (I write a lot of procedures): "It always sounds easy to someone who doesn't actually have to do it."
January 11, 20223 yr I have been wondering for a long time what is going on with the re-development of the Primo Vino site in Little Italy given that we first heard rumblings as early as 2014 and the restaurant has been closed for quite some time. On occasion I will even post inquires in this thread and receive no response. It looks like there may finally be some movement. There is a concept presentation going forward at the next Landmarks meeting this Thursday, The agenda item suggests the proposal may be different from the one put forward before the commission in 2014. I guess now that the owner, WXZ, is finishing College Club up the hill in Cleveland Hts. it can focus on this site as its next project. It is not a big development company and I can understand how it would not want too much on its plate at one time. Hope Primo Vino is as top notch as College Club. Edited January 11, 20223 yr by Htsguy
January 13, 20223 yr Primo Vino retail/condo development was presented to Landmarks for conceptual feedback and boy is it sharp. Could probably use a little tweaking on the top-although what do I know, I got a C in art class-but is clearly on a higher level than we are use to seeing, especially the quality of materials. Has the potential of becoming a Little Italy landmark. Of course the commission had its claws out but it could have been worst.
Create an account or sign in to comment