How does the height of the lofts building mesh with the surrounding area?

^ See the previous page.

Oi!  You hotheads need to check your "p"s and "q"s before you start slingin the old mud around!

 

Little Italy Development, LLC and Little Italy Redevelopment Corporation are two completely different entities.  I know, they sound VERY similar, but the former is a private, for profit "developer," who operates surface parking lots.  The latter is a non-profit community development corporation.  I'm not sure where LIRC weighs in on this project, but I don't think it's safe to say that their opinion is that of the private landowner adjacent to the proposed project.

 

Just wanted to clear that up...

So if they're both of the same mind regarding the Mayfield Lofts project, then what does it matter to whom my objection is directed? The only difference seems to be the spelling of their names. I do thank you for clearing that up, though.

^Unless I missed another post (quite possible), both 3231 and Map Boy mentioned that they don't know where the CDC stands, so we don't know if they're both of the same mind.

Yes, how/where did we determine what the LIRC position is?  If I missed it, I'd like to know!

 

To piggy back on the mud slinging, though (because you all know I love to), I understand how the adjacent landowner's input is important, because they are adjacent, but how can their master plan really have any bearing on the plans of an adjacent land owner to build out his/her own property?  Especially if they're not planning to provide an easement or have their property (which consists of lots of asphalt and paint) otherwise impacted by the development. 

 

CIA, on the other hand, offers a nice support document, but they are a stretch when considering neighboring properties.

Item #2 in the Little Italy Development letter seems to indicate it. You're right that we should wait to see what they have to say. But I guess I have come to expect outcomes that aren't favorable to urban sustainability here to the point that I misread your prior posting as saying the LIRC's opinion IS shared by the private landowner.

You're right about #2 in the letter, KJP, but until I've actually heard a response from LIRC, I wouldn't put too much weight on what the private Little Italy Development has to say about the CDC's master plan. 

 

I bolded the word "don't" in my previous post to make sure everyone reads it right!

Oi!  You hotheads need to check your "p"s and "q"s before you start slingin the old mud around!

 

Little Italy Development, LLC and Little Italy Redevelopment Corporation are two completely different entities.  I know, they sound VERY similar, but the former is a private, for profit "developer," who operates surface parking lots.  The latter is a non-profit community development corporation.  I'm not sure where LIRC weighs in on this project, but I don't think it's safe to say that their opinion is that of the private landowner adjacent to the proposed project.

 

Just wanted to clear that up...

 

But this doesn't let LIRC, -- or whoever the "legitimate" voice of LI may be -- off the hook.  You're contradicting yourself because LIRC absolutely should weigh in.  If indeed they are in disagreement with LI, LLC as not representing the 'voice' of LI regarding these project, then it is incumbent upon them to speak up, ... otherwise, they tacitly adopt LI, LLC's position which, as I said, is obstructionist, ridiculous and just plaint particularly given the tedious and thoughtful hard work of RTA, UCI, CWRU and the developers in finally coming up with an extremely potentially worthwhile development for U.Circle and the city at large.  That there is any confusion at all with a parking lot owner/developer, makes LI's collective voice all the more urgent, esp since, via the PD, this project is finally getting wide publicity and (rare) positive PD press.

 

Sorry Map boy, I'm not buying it.  We're approaching 1 month since that ridiculous letter rezoning app denial request.  Little Italy, like their bookend neighbors Hessler Ct, have a reputation as obstructionist project killers.  The long empty lot at Euclid-E. 115 and the un-relocated E. 120 Red Line station are evidence of these groups' handiwork.  So unless LI wants to alter this negative image, the time to speak is now.

 

What are you not buying?  The fact that Little Italy Redevelopment didn't write that letter?  I've said nothing to imply that LIRC either supports or opposes this project.  All I said is that we shouldn't assume that they agree with one letter or another until we've heard it from them.

 

I would think, based simply on the nature of urban development, that they would support it for a number of reasons and oppose it for others, all of which we've discussed here.  In the end, though, it is their responsibility to work with the developer, the supporters and the opposition to come to the best outcome possible.  I don't know if LIRC has voiced an opinion to date.  If anyone was at the meeting and knows if they were in attendance (which they should have been), I'd be curious to know what they thought. 

 

And you're right, clvlndr, that LIRC shouldn't just stand by and watch.  If they have a master plan in place (which they do) and they feel that this development meets with the community's established vision for the neighborhood, then they should be supporting it or helping to bring it into compliance with that vision.  If it runs counter to the community's vision, then they should step up and say why. 

 

As for the adjacent landowner being entitled to their opinion, well, that's just part of the process, both for landmarks review and zoning changes.  I wouldn't take that away from them, but I also wouldn't let it be the deciding factor.  By law, they are allowed time and a venue to respond.  Their opinion need not be heeded in order for the proposed project to be approved by the legislating body.  It may, however, bring up issues that the various boards will need to consider before moving forward with changes or approvals.

"request to... severely deny"

 

That's right up there with Demi Moore's attempts to "strenuously object" in A Few Good Men.

^^Map Boy, I agree w/ your sentiment that cooler head should prevail here.  I just hope, whoever is the legit voice for LI get out in front of this thing and, if as you state, this LLC guy is a for-profit man, at the very least, LIRC should calm him down so he won't shoot from the lip/hip.

 

I'm hoping your right and this is just part of the "comment" process for zoning.  I think we all realize how important projects like these are for the city, esp a part of town w/ so much going for it, already, as Univ. Circle/Little Italy.  And now that we've got RTA up and actually moving on this, it is the kind of lightening in a bottle no one wants to squander.

Oi!  You hotheads need to check your "p"s and "q"s before you start slingin the old mud around!

 

Little Italy Development, LLC and Little Italy Redevelopment Corporation are two completely different entities.  I know, they sound VERY similar, but the former is a private, for profit "developer," who operates surface parking lots.  The latter is a non-profit community development corporation.  I'm not sure where LIRC weighs in on this project, but I don't think it's safe to say that their opinion is that of the private landowner adjacent to the proposed project.

 

Just wanted to clear that up...

 

I was talking to some people yesterday who are VERY close to the RTA station project and I now understand why the two Little Italy organizations are against the Mayfield Lofts. A big reason is one of the concerns I had about -- it's dead at the sidewalk and doesn't do much to enhance street life between the RTA station and the rest of the Little Italy. And apparently this project would "complicate" plans for something larger and much more New Urbanist to be sought by LI LCC.

Does anyone know how the project was received at city planning?

if you check out this week's Landmarks meeting, there is another decent-sized townhouse development being proposed for Little Italy on Coltman Rd. They are only presenting their conceptual plan (meaning that they are a little bit away from securing permits and breaking ground). The Mayfield Lofts development is seeking final approval. Things are hopping on the other side of the tracks. Next up: UARD.

Thanks for the update.  I like the renderings for the Coltman townhomes.

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/photo/03132008/index.html

Thanks for the update.  I like the renderings for the Coltman townhomes.

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/photo/03132008/index.html

 

Thanks for the find. I'm no architecture critic, but I do know a breath of "fresh air" down there is welcomed by me.

The designs remind me of stuff I used to see planned in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I guess I'm too much of a Victorian traditionalist.

I love those renderings .. very cool and retro/modern. Awesome.

They actually aren't too bad.  But for Mayfield Lofts I'm glad they left the wood fence next to the building...  Seriously, why would anyone doing renderings keep that there?

I am impressed with the Coltman Rd. Townhouses.  I wish they had a little more transparency on the first floor.  I think it would make sense, too, if those are going to be workspaces along the street level.

I am impressed with the Coltman Rd. Townhouses.  I wish they had a little more transparency on the first floor.  I think it would make sense, too, if those are going to be workspaces along the street level.

 

 

I agree. I like them, but they seem to be lacking something on the first floor. Too much brick.  I think that they could benefit a bit more from some height. UC has a decent little skyline at night.

they are as high as you want townhomes.. 4 floors is definitely high enough. If they want to go any higher your gonna have to start building apartments.

 

lets talk first floor brick. I think its VERY well done. Think about it this way, if you have one room for your office, would you want people watching you 100% of the time? its a personal question as people are diverse enough im sure some said yes and no. so because not everyone really wants to be completely enclosed either, there was a great compromise in keeping what looks like a foot and a half tall glass pane stretched across the top of the space. this adds natural lighting and keeps the space both connected and disconnected. dont forget about the port window! i think it was well done in this regard. also, take a closer look and notice that only every other house has that brick first floor feature. half of them are a full glass window with some natural plants in front to screen the owner. I can see how you would find the use of brick confusing, however as the rendering is done, it looks to connect very well to the ground floor pathways and sidewalk. causing a nice flow of materials from bottom up moving from brick (work space) to window/wood (living space) to a rooftop deck (leisure space).

 

At least that is how I stand. Wether or not the designer was intentional with his use of materials, we never know, however my gut points to yes. (and yeah, my gut can point! haha  :lol:)

 

also notice the horizontal (and sometimes vertical) wood screening on the stairwell. That is a nice touch because it adds a sweet sweet level of privacy/shade and also reinstates the whole materials progression idea from bottom to top.

 

and thats about the best i can do as an 18 year old with 6 months of architecture at the university of cincinnati. was my time worth it?  :drunk: :drunk: :drunk: :drunk:

ryanscav:  i enjoyed your analysis from the architectural perspective.

 

I really like the look and apparent functionality of this design, esp the fourth floor covered decks.  Looking at the architects website http://dimitarchitects.com , I see the principal, Scott Dimit, led the design of the Brownstones at Derbyshire (clv hts), which, IMHO, is the best example of creative re-use (old church) combined with new con, that I've seen in Clev+inner ring.  I really like the Derybshire project all around, including use of greenspace and addition of smaller (1 bed) units.  I think it'd be great if more condo projects in Clev included in-law suites on the lower level (like EcoVillage townhomes) as a means of providing rental options in the neighborhood.  Also, with all the churches closing in NEO, would be great to see a few converted to housing with Derbyshire as the benchmark!

the mayfield lofts building is ok, they didn't really try too hard on the design end, but its a good fit.

 

otoh wow the coltman development is striking. check out those rooftops. very cool. nice take ryanscav thx.

 

Little Italy condos deserve zoning approval

Posted by Steven Litt/Plain Dealer Architecture Critic

April 25, 2008 12:31PM

 

 

One would think that the modest condominium tower proposed for a long-vacant lot on Mayfield Road in Cleveland's Little Italy neighborhood would be cause for rejoicing.

 

But that's not how it has been received in the community. Critics continue to raise objections, even though the project would bring fresh life to a dark and scary-looking corner of the neighborhood...

 

more at: http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2008/04/little_italy_condo_project_sho.html

wah wah, "it would be taller than the church"? So flippin' what. I understand that Holy Rosary is a huge part of the community, but to be against a building because it would be taller than a church is absurd. Grow up Little Italy, change is coming, and its been happening for years (as reflected in your last census where less than 20% claim Italian ancestry).

I agree. It's ridiculous to stop this project over that.

From uhhospitals.org:

 

Resident Salary 2007 - 2008:

 

Residents are paid according to their level of training as follows:

Post-Graduate Year -1 $41,850.00

PGY-2 $43,851.00

PGY-3 $45,232.00

PGY-4 $46,770.00

 

The building will contain 17 condos with two- or three-bedroom units, selling for $250,000 to $400,000.

 

He said he expects that the apartments will be snatched up quickly by interns and residents at nearby University Hospitals and the Cleveland Clinic.

 

Not fricking likely, given those resident salaries.  Isn't one of the more important rules of development to "know your target market"?

 

 

With tax abatement and reduced rate financing, a resident with a partner who makes a comparable salary would be able to afford the $250,000 range.

The key line in this article:

 

Perotti said the zoning code would make sense in a suburb, but not on a busy city street where virtually all other buildings -- filled with apartments and offices set over restaurants, cafes and galleries -- come right up to the sidewalk.

 

 

Cleveland's zoning code is ridiculous given its existing built form, and what qualities make for desirable urban development.  Come on, form based zoning!

Was driving down Edgehill the other day and noticed "something going on" just west of the townhomes that line the cliff (that were built about 10 years ago).  The work was being done closer to the older houses near the curve just before the intersection of Murray Hill and Cornell.  Curious if this is just some utility work or the construction of a house or houses.  I just got a fleeting glance but it looked like they were bracing the cliff for more homes (but I could be wrong).  Anybody have any information?

From what I know, it's a singly home being built - by Lillian Kuri, I'm fairly certain.  Unless someone can correct me?

Approved!

 

Little Italy condos win approval

Posted by Steven Litt/Plain Dealer Architecture Critic

April 29, 2008 14:38PM

 

The controversial condominium tower proposed by developers Tim and Edward Perotti for Mayfield Road at East 119th Street in Little Italy won approval Monday at the Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals.

 

"There was a lot of drama," Tim Perotti said. "It wasn't until the end (of the meeting) that we felt like we were going to win the day."

 

The board voted to accept the six-story, $6 million project as it was, without requesting design changes, even though some residents in Cleveland's Little Italy neighborhood felt the building would be too high and too bulky for its site...

 

more at: http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2008/04/little_italy_condos_win_approv.html

 

 

Cool. I hope his final design is better than his first one. Gotta have that street-level retail, coffee shop, etc. considering its location next to where the RTA station will be located.

Check out the proposed new Coltman Road Townhouses, 1850 Coltman Road, on the Cleveland Landmarks Commission agenda....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/photo/050808/index.php

 

Question is, how many parking spaces do these townhouses need? Two parking spaces are in each townhouse's garage, with two more head-in parking spaces on the street. Why the head-in spaces?? Teach the kids how to parallel park -- or walk -- for crying out loud.

^If you zoom in on the really small/gray writing on the site plan, I think it says that the "head-in" parking spaces are "privately controlled parking".  I suppose that explains it?

Bringing in the dough

Credit crunch does not stymie Little Italy developer’s plans

By STAN BULLARD

4:30 am, December 8, 2008

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20081208/SUB1/812059933/1072&Profile=1072#

 

http://27coltman.com/

 

With most plans for real estate development stored in the deep freeze until credit markets thaw, a proposed $10 million townhouse project is cooking in Cleveland’s Little Italy, near University Circle.

 

Taking its name from the planned number of townhouses and its Coltman Road location, the 27 Coltman project has snared something that eludes many developers today: construction financing. Cuyahoga County records show the project proposed by Little Italy Preservation Partners LLC recently received a $5 million loan from KeyBank.

 

Ask Andrew Brickman how he and his two partners secured a construction loan at a time when lenders are super wary, and he credits the win to the project’s “location, quality of product and vision.”

 

Partner Justin Campbell describes the location as the “cultural epicenter of Cleveland.” It is in the dynamic Little Italy neighborhood, within 900 steps of the landmark Presti’s Bakery on Mayfield Road and just east of the city’s concentration of cultural, educational and health care institutions at University Circle.

 

Moreover, the project borders the University Circle rapid transit station, which the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority plans to replace as part of a $4 million project designed to garner transit-oriented development nearby. The new HealthLine bus-rapid line connecting the Circle and downtown Cleveland also is next to the site’s triangular point at Coltman, East 119th Street and Euclid Avenue.

 

The project consists of two- to four-bedroom townhouses ranging from 1,700 to 3,400 square feet and costing between $299,000 and $499,000 each. Designed by Lakewood architect Scott Dimit, 27 Coltman will have a contemporary look with eco-friendly bamboo floors, granite countertops, large windows and wide open rooms.

 

Mr. Brickman, Mr. Campbell and their partner, contractor Nathan Barrett, are doing 27 Coltman as an encore to their last joint venture, the Brownstones of Derbyshire in Cleveland Heights. That 30-unit project, launched in 2006, is sold out, with its most expensive unit snagging a price of $750,000.

 

Townhouse and condominium projects may be the dreariest category in Northeast Ohio’s beleaguered residential real estate sales reports, but Mr. Brickman said his trio has another thing in its favor: economic incentives.

 

Buyers who work for University Circle institutions are eligible for a buyer incentive program that provides a grant for as much as $15,000, which can serve as a down payment. Buyers also are eligible for KeyBank’s urban assistance mortgage program that slices one-and-a-half percentage points from typical 30-year mortgage rates. There also is Cleveland’s most potent incentive: 15 years of residential property tax abatement.

 

Even so, the office-broker-turned-residential-developer is aware of the risks in today’s bleak climate.

 

“I’m glad we only have to sell 27,” Mr. Brickman said. The developers plan to start work on the site by month’s end.

 

In today’s lending environment, “securing financing for a condominium project is something to be very proud of,” said Mark Jablonski, a principal of Great Lakes Resources of Cleveland. Mr. Jablonski draws on a background as a bank lending analyst and Ernst & Young real estate consultant to do studies for city neighborhood groups and to develop urban shopping centers for his own portfolio.

 

Bringing it home

Keith Brown, founder of the Progressive Urban Real Estate brokerage of Cleveland, which has a focus in urban homes, sees 27 Coltman’s allure.

 

“If it’s going to work anywhere, it’s going to work there,” Mr. Brown said. “You’ve got all the job growth at University Circle that brings people into Cleveland who can buy without having to sell their home here first. You can walk to Little Italy restaurants and drive to nearby grocery stores.” Moreover, due to its urban location, the project has less recently constructed townhouse competition than in outlying suburbs, Mr. Brown said.

 

The developers also have devised a novel way to overcome a marketing challenge for the project — namely, that the site is visible from Euclid but far enough from Mayfield to miss the busy weekend dining trade. They’ve just completed a model center in a Mayfield storefront. With a new bamboo-wood storefront on the outside and bamboo floors and trendy furniture on the inside, the center lacks the stacks of carpet and tile or faucets typical in builder sales centers.

 

“We wanted to do something different from the traditional sales center,” said Mr. Brickman, who already lives in Little Italy. The tony sales center with a plasma screen PowerPoint displaying the project’s selling points reflects the work of Mr. Campbell, who owns Brandtechnique in Solon, a consultancy in branding for the upscale market.

The web site and design of these condos is stunning, in my opinion.

they are ok.  but master bathrooms with one sink and no tub are not a good design in my mind.

The web site and design of these condos is stunning, in my opinion.

 

It's definitely one of the better developer web sites.  I like the design overall, but I am not a fan of the mostly blank ground floor front facade....what's up with that?  Is it a privacy thing to have only those little windows up high?  Can't they just put up curtains or blinds like the rest of us?

Whats the distance in separation from these units and circle 118.  This is exciting stuff

^Not much distance at all- Circle 118 is just on the other side of the RTA/freight tracks and Euclid, immediately to the NW of this project.

Circle 118, along with this project and the redesigned RTA station will make this a really cool little area!

I am not a fan of the mostly blank ground floor front facade....what's up with that? Is it a privacy thing to have only those little windows up high? Can't they just put up curtains or blinds like the rest of us?

 

That's a common feature of a lot of recent construction.  I think it's to create a sense of privacy and security.  Seems geared more toward local suburbanites than those looking for a traditional rowhouse.  I also hate the little landscape buffer around everything... but there's a lot to like about this project and I'm optimistic.     

I am not a fan of the mostly blank ground floor front facade....what's up with that?  Is it a privacy thing to have only those little windows up high?  Can't they just put up curtains or blinds like the rest of us?

 

That's a common feature of a lot of recent construction.  I think it's to create a sense of privacy and security.  Seems geared more toward local suburbanites than those looking for a traditional rowhouse.  I also hate the little landscape buffer around everything... but there's a lot to like about this project and I'm optimistic.     

 

Its like that in many new construction townhouses in various cities.  NOT just Cleveland.  :roll: :roll:

The issue with the townhouses is that the first floor is predominantly taken up by garage and mechanical, not the type of thing you want a ton of windows into.  It's nice if you can create an entry on a half level between the ground floor and the first floor to give some sense of relation to the pedestrian.

Its like that in many new construction townhouses in various cities. NOT just Cleveland.   :roll: :roll:

 

Undoubtably, but they also get other new projects with traditional styling.  Check out the Columbus E Gay St thread.  Why can't we do something like that once in a while?  Plus, other cities haven't torn down as much of their original building stock.       

The issue with the townhouses is that the first floor is predominantly taken up by garage and mechanical, not the type of thing you want a ton of windows into.  It's nice if you can create an entry on a half level between the ground floor and the first floor to give some sense of relation to the pedestrian.

 

I hear ya, but for these units, the front room on the ground floor is described on the floorplans as work/sudio- it's not garage or mechanical.  The room is going to be dark no matter what because it's under the terraces, but those tiny high windows make the ground floor streetscape look more cheap motel than luxe condo.  From http://27coltman.com/:

 

hey now.

 

those are pretty groovy looking.

 

they have kind of a throwback 60's jet age vibe.

 

and that's the way to put the roof to use!!!

 

no worries mr. brickman, they'll sell just fine.