Jump to content

Featured Replies

Communism is back, baby.

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Views 195k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • 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 Litt

  • The Woodhill Site Redevelopment goes before Landmarks tomorrow. 80 apartments, 80 parking spaces, and 17 townhomes along with a dog park, playground, and sculpture garden.

Posted Images

A Cleveland dingbat!

If this was on Mayfield or Murray Hill I'd say no way.  But Random's always been kind of.......well, you know.

Fits in as well as the awful Case dorms from the 1960s and 70s nearby.  Would love to see pictures of what was lost to make those monstrous blocks on north and south campus 50 years ago.

Fits in as well as the awful Case dorms from the 1960s and 70s nearby.  Would love to see pictures of what was lost to make those monstrous blocks on north and south campus 50 years ago.

 

That's where I lived for a semester and a half LOL, I had a Murray Hill Road address.  Edgehill/Cornell was always considered the borderline between the campus and LI.

  • 4 weeks later...

I don't remember seeing these posted anywhere else and I looked back to Pg 21 of this thread. Is this a newly proposed project? This is from a Zillow listing...

 

BUILDING

1898 E 123rd St

Cleveland, OH 44106

2 For Sale  5 Off Market

2 BEDROOM$379,900

4 BEDROOM$549,900

 

https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/pmf,pf_pt/41.511376,-81.597846_ll/globalrelevanceex_sort/41.516973,-81.592573,41.506368,-81.611027_rect/15_zm/

 

ISyrnovg3elek21000000000.jpg

 

ISuw890uf5xi791000000000.jpg

 

ISyz15konwmbrc1000000000.jpg

 

ISmq6xhnbxol791000000000.jpg

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

^KJP, check page 20 of the thread...it appears the design has changed.

 

Are these finally ready to go?

 

By the way, what ever happen to the modern condo proposal for the  Primo Vino site right by this project?

I knew I should've gone back just one more page!

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

  • Author

That Random Road development looks like a US embassy in a ME nation aka a fortress. 

It seems like Little Italy is on the cusp of booming when it comes to residential infill at the current moment.  What does Quattro's site look like now next to Tony Brush Park?  Is 12302 Mayfield Road under site prep?  I know there is a hold up with the project next to the LI Red Line station.  It seems like in the next two years there will be so many more residents on the border of Little Italy and Uptown.

A few from Little Italy today. Couldn't get a good shot of Quattro, but it's going vertical.

 

EDIT: sorry, I thought I had reduced them in size. I'll work on that later today.

IMG_20180111_143055.thumb.jpg.225576d6796da2d806ef197ee7c1c501.jpg

IMG_20180111_143059.thumb.jpg.93698116af9837c9eaa6f0849065644b.jpg

IMG_20180111_143103.thumb.jpg.002b3b6eda31470b2e048279429669e4.jpg

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

Update on the zoning litigation involving Visconsi's proposed apartment project on the Woodhill Supply site.

 

On Jan. 9 2018 the common pleas court again ruled in favor of the Zoning Board.  Recall this is the second go around at the common pleas level.  The CP court ruled in the Board's favor and against Coltman Townhouse resident David Watson more than a year ago and he appealed.  Unfortunately the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Watson in a 2-1 decision (not on the merits but due to a procedural error by the CP court which I will not get into) and sent it back to the CP last May.  Watson now has 30 days to appeal again which I am sure he will do, so it will probably be another 6-8 months before this is resolved.  The briefing should go quickly as the issues have been briefed countless times between the CP court and the 1st go around in the Court of Appeals.  I still believe the Board has a good case and will win on the merits at the appellate level.  However, as I expressed before, I wonder if Visconsi is getting tired of this whole thing (may be part of Watson's strategy), or changed circumstances since the announcement might just kill this very large project.

 

^ This is some BS.  I hate NIMBYs

^ This is some BS.  I hate NIMBYs

 

Another reminder that selfish hyper-individualism has more power than the greater good in the USA.

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

Any chance the developer can counter-sue for damages from the delay?

Any chance the developer can counter-sue for damages from the delay?

.... To put this into risk-reward perspective, my firm represented someone on a similar claim last year...

 

$57,000 in legal fees.

$74,000 in damages

^does the loser have to pay the legal fees in addition to the damages or are the fees the burden of the person bringing the case?

 

^In the United States, the general rule (in fact it is referred to as the American rule) is that each party bears his own legal fees in most circumstances.  There are exceptions and they are usually statutory.  For example in a statutory federal civil rights action known as a Section 1983 action, the winning party may be (and most of the time is) awarded attorney fees.  Another example would be a finding that the action brought is frivolous (again statutory or pursuant Rule 11 of the Civil Rules of Procedure).

 

The Little Italy Visconsi matter is an appeal of a finding of the Board of Zoning Appeals.  I am pretty sure each party bears it's own costs.  Moreover it is not a damages case.  Watson is simply looking to over turn a finding of the Zoning Board which allowed the Visconsi project to proceed.

Three new single-family homes planned at 1977-1979-1981 East 126th Street by XYZ Development:

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/agenda/2018/crr01-29-2018.pdf

 

"WXZ Development Incorp., owner, proposes to erect a 28’ x 60’ four story frame single family residence with attached garage"

 

Even with the garage that's a BIG house!

Remember: It's the Year of the Snake

  • 3 weeks later...

That was one (of a few!) of the City's typos.  It should read 34', not 60'.

✌︎??✚?☭????

Welcome, Kimolos.

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Looks like the Visconsi Woodhill Supply project is dead as reflected in certain filings in the Court of Appeals.  Despite winning at all levels (and with a good chance of winning in the Court of Appeals in my opinion), Visconsi gave notice to the court that it is not pursuing its option to purchase the property. 

 

As I feared, despite having a questionable case, looks like the plaintiff townhouse owner wore the developer down with three years of litigation (or the developer decided that market forces change during this period of delay or maybe possible financing just dried up).  I hope Watson enjoys his continuing view of urban blight.

Looks like the Visconsi Woodhill Supply project is dead as reflected in certain filings in the Court of Appeals.  Despite winning at all levels (and with a good chance of winning in the Court of Appeals in my opinion), Visconsi gave notice to the court that it is not pursuing its option to purchase the property. 

 

As I feared, despite having a questionable case, looks like the plaintiff townhouse owner wore the developer down with three years of litigation (or the developer decided that market forces change during this period of delay or maybe possible financing just dried up).  I hope Watson enjoys his continuing view of urban blight.

 

F***ing NIMBYs

Looks like the Visconsi Woodhill Supply project is dead as reflected in certain filings in the Court of Appeals.  Despite winning at all levels (and with a good chance of winning in the Court of Appeals in my opinion), Visconsi gave notice to the court that it is not pursuing its option to purchase the property. 

 

As I feared, despite having a questionable case, looks like the plaintiff townhouse owner wore the developer down with three years of litigation (or the developer decided that market forces change during this period of delay or maybe possible financing just dried up).  I hope Watson enjoys his continuing view of urban blight.

 

What were the grounds for the lawsuit?

^challenging approved zoning variances.

^challenging approved zoning variances.

 

Why doesn't the city just rezone the land?  Wouldn't that negate the lawsuit from a neighboring property owner since the city has the right to control its zoning?

In a partial victory, the Woodhill Supply buildings were recently demolished and the site cleared. It is ready for development by the next challenger who will hopefully find a way to appease or otherwise neutralize the NIMBY.

 

But if I was Visconsi, I wouldn't sell just yet. I'd go onto his property in the middle of the night and plant seeds for the highest-pollinating vegetation there is, then let nature take its course with high pollen counts and lots of bees.

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

^ I'm so spiteful that I would propose the most obnoxious use that falls within the currently allowable zoning. 

If a property owner believes that a development will decrease his property values, is there really something wrong with using all avaliable legal means to prevent it?

If a property owner believes that a development will decrease his property values, is there really something wrong with using all avaliable legal means to prevent it?

 

Belief is a long way from evidence. When belief wins in the absence of evidence (either way), I have a teeny problem with that.

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

If a property owner believes that a development will decrease his property values, is there really something wrong with using all avaliable legal means to prevent it?

 

Belief is a long way from evidence. When belief wins in the absence of evidence (either way), I have a teeny problem with that.

 

It wasn't merely "belief" though.  He had legal grounds. 

 

Belief in an adverse outcome is certainly sufficient to take action to prevent it.  On a macro level, that's called "politics".

 

If we want wealthy people to live in the city, we have to expect them to take action to impact their immediate surroundings.

If a property owner believes that a development will decrease his property values, is there really something wrong with using all avaliable legal means to prevent it?

 

No, there isn't.  But in this case the means in question should not have been available.  A major city's zoning code should allow for normal urban developments to go forward without requiring variances.  Different story if the proposal was for a slag heap or the site was in Grafton.

 

It wasn't merely "belief" though.  He had legal grounds. 

 

Belief in an adverse outcome is certainly sufficient to take action to prevent it.  On a macro level, that's called "politics".

 

If we want wealthy people to live in the city, we have to expect them to take action to impact their immediate surroundings.

 

He didn't have legal grounds. He was defeated at every legal turn. He was a greater nuisance than the developer who sought to improve a long-blighted site.

 

I hope someday a developer has the cajones to counter-sue a NIMBY by claiming his/her lawsuit(s) is a nuisance and preventing the developer from improving a neighborhood's quality of life.

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

Why doesn't the city just rezone the land?  Wouldn't that negate the lawsuit from a neighboring property owner since the city has the right to control its zoning?

 

I was thinking the same thing. Cleveland has been actively looking to rezone certain areas for denser residential/mixed use construction. The vast majority of rezoning is from semi and regular industry to multi-family to block potential industrial use where they don't want it, like along the towpath in Tremont and Flats. This fits that mold quite well, to encourage dense multi-family along a major transit corridor.

If a property owner believes that a development will decrease his property values, is there really something wrong with using all avaliable legal means to prevent it?

 

Belief is a long way from evidence. When belief wins in the absence of evidence (either way), I have a teeny problem with that.

 

It wasn't merely "belief" though.  He had legal grounds. 

 

Belief in an adverse outcome is certainly sufficient to take action to prevent it.  On a macro level, that's called "politics".

 

If we want wealthy people to live in the city, we have to expect them to take action to impact their immediate surroundings.

 

Good grief. If we want wealthy people to live in the city, we have to let developers build places for them to live. This guy may be in his legal right to file nuisance suits, but he's an a-hole for doing so.

Website is up for La Collina: http://lascolinas.resident360.com/amenities/

 

That website drives me nuts, but it's pretty par for the course with apartment websites these days: stock pictures of pretty people laughing and drinking coffee and hanging out.  Pictures that have nothing to do with the development except sell the illusion that, yes, you too can be like these people if only you rent here. 

 

Give me pictures of the actual building any day!

It's oh so SoDoSoPa.

  • 4 weeks later...

"Quattro" condos going up quickly:

 

41417400151_432bd75d0b_b.jpg

 

41417402511_92f6d4631f_b.jpg

 

With "Centric" looming in the background:

 

41374791662_dda0eccda8_b.jpg

 

Foundation and infrastructure being done in the hole of the future "La Collina:"

 

41374801492_e5c0515c70_b.jpg

  • 4 weeks later...

La Collina apartments on Mayfield

32169815_10155822896047862_1033243263106023424_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=d112cd45c1ca20549dbfb49d2b0c5999&oe=5B9759FD

 

Quattro condominiums next to Tony Brush Park

32191575_10155822896117862_5760918867681476608_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=131b274d7e8c1dc5d0130db901625ef9&oe=5B9CA210

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

I was having a drink at Toli last Thursday when I heard a local refer to that construction as "as good for the neighborhood as an abortion clinic"

 

I engaged him and asked why, and he said "because pretty soon this neighborhood won't be any different from anywhere else."

I was having a drink at Toli last Thursday when I heard a local refer to that construction as "as good for the neighborhood as an abortion clinic"

 

I engaged him and asked why, and he said "because pretty soon this neighborhood won't be any different from anywhere else."

 

Which development? La Collina or Quattro (or both)?

 

Some neighborhoods do get loved to death. I would love to live in Little Italy but my chance of getting into a sub-$200,000 home of good quality has likely passed me by. But the community can ensure that the new developments that come to the neighborhood offer the unique kinds of designs and goods/services/foods that the neighborhood is famous for, just more of it to serve a growing population.

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.