I like the long elevation for its simplicity. The missed opportunity is the short end that faces the street. The building looks like it was designed with the long elevation facing a street, then was rotated 90 degrees with no extra thought given to how it fronts the street.

 

Other than that, I have little issue with it as a dense infill project.

Little Italy finding a balance between new development and preserving its historic feel

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/little-italy-finding-a-balance-between-new-development-and-preserving-its-historic-feel

16 minutes ago, KJP said:

Little Italy finding a balance between new development and preserving its historic feel

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/little-italy-finding-a-balance-between-new-development-and-preserving-its-historic-feel

Every neighborhood should do this. It will probably cut down on NIMBYism as opposed to making it harder for developers. It’s better to know expectations ahead of time, and I think residents and businesses will be less reactionary if they have put thought ahead of time into what they want to neighborhood to be like.

I've heard real estate developers call Cleveland the Wild West because many neighborhoods do not have development masterplans. So developers come in and try to develop what they think they should build and get pushback from residents who think they know what should be built. I would suspect that having development masterplans for each neighborhood would actually attract investment because developers would know what to expect and won't have to go through the wringer every time they submit a project.

@KJPGood luck given the legacy Cleveland suffers with its bloatedly oversized and inefficiently parochial City Council. Things can change though so I remain hopeful for your idea. 

Edited April 17, 20214 yr by ExPatClevGuy

Some neighborhoods do have master plans.

 

A man without hope is a man without life.

The Italian American Museum of Cleveland will be opening up at 12111 Mayfield Ave.

More info on their website: https://iamcle.org/about

Speaking of Italian American Museums...

 

Chef Boy-ar-dee (Hector Boiardi)  🏆 Original 💖 Beloved 🇮🇹 Italian-American 🍝 Chef 🇺🇸 War Hero (Innovation in feeding our troops overseas) 🏣 Clevelander!

Edited April 20, 20214 yr by ExPatClevGuy

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.

More available here: https://planning.clevelandohio.gov/landmark/agenda/2021/PDF/Landmarks-04-22-2021.pdf pages 75-98

I liked the original idea of getting a through street here. At least there is a through pedestrian path.

The street wall for the townhomes is a little intense.  Given that there is some space to work with in this project, this would have been a good opportunity to build townhomes that look and feel a little more like northeast brownstones in being slightly setback from the street, having the main living floor on the first floor (elevated a little off the ground), and using a short entry staircase into the first floor.

Edited April 22, 20214 yr by gg707

16 hours ago, viscomi said:

I liked the original idea of getting a through street here. At least there is a through pedestrian path.

I think it's good that there's no through street. E 123rd st is one way, so I think a lot of people would cut through there if they could. 

 

13 hours ago, gg707 said:

The street wall for the townhomes is a little intense.  Given that there is some space to work with in this project, this would have been a good opportunity to build townhomes that look and feel a little more like northeast brownstones in being slightly setback from the street, having the main living floor on the first floor (elevated a little off the ground), and using a short entry staircase into the first floor.

 

This looks like what we've got.  They are set back a little, and have short entry staircases.  They don't appear to have the first floor elevated slightly, though, which does do wonders for privacy in a densely built urban environment.

 

The design of the townhouses looks almost exactly like the townhouses being built on W. 19th St. on Duck Island.  I like the design, but am a little surprised to see it reused almost verbatim.

13 hours ago, gg707 said:

The street wall for the townhomes is a little intense.  Given that there is some space to work with in this project, this would have been a good opportunity to build townhomes that look and feel a little more like northeast brownstones in being slightly setback from the street, having the main living floor on the first floor (elevated a little off the ground), and using a short entry staircase into the first floor.

I agree with you. Would make it more inviting for sure. Anyone in the architecture world know why in general we don't build townhomes in that style anymore? Probably not the thread for that question, so please redirect as needed.

22 minutes ago, YO to the CLE said:

I agree with you. Would make it more inviting for sure. Anyone in the architecture world know why in general we don't build townhomes in that style anymore? Probably not the thread for that question, so please redirect as needed.

 

I'm not sure.  In some instances I think the tuck under townhomes are easier for having more units on narrow lots, but there are lots of cases where that isn't a concern and the traditional townhome style still isn't followed.

 

They don't have to look traditional in style either.  The mercury townhomes in Duck Island essentially follow the format of a traditional NE townhome, although they are very modern/Scandinavian(?) in exterior style.

 

 

I hear you guys.  Whoever is designing townhouses in Cleveland needs to travel a bit more.  I reckon that a typical brownstone plan requires some excavation and a basement foundation, which is expensive.  Although it is difficult to see, I'll bet that these townhouses are on slabs, have ground-floor rear-loaded garages, and that the principal entry is into a pointless "bonus room."  That seems to be Cleveland builders' modus operandi of late.

The problem, as is almost always the case, is that people want their parking- preferably attached.  So you end up with a ground floor garage instead of a basement that's 1/2 story below ground and a 2nd floor main living space instead of a 1st floor living space 1/2 floor up.  The alternatives have their issues- I'm not sure detached garages are very marketable in this day and age, and an attached garage that is ground level and therefore doesn't line up with either the half story up 1st floor or half story down basement would be a bit of a mess in terms of practicality for the resident.

10 minutes ago, X said:

The problem, as is almost always the case, is that people want their parking- preferably attached.  So you end up with a ground floor garage instead of a basement that's 1/2 story below ground and a 2nd floor main living space instead of a 1st floor living space 1/2 floor up.  The alternatives have their issues- I'm not sure detached garages are very marketable in this day and age, and an attached garage that is ground level and therefore doesn't line up with either the half story up 1st floor or half story down basement would be a bit of a mess in terms of practicality for the resident.

It's always the parking. Older brownstones could have small apartment at half-ground level with the main floor right above it. But people want their parking.  

On 4/22/2021 at 11:52 AM, Henryefry said:

I think it's good that there's no through street. E 123rd st is one way, so I think a lot of people would cut through there if they could. 

 

That's right, I forgot 123rd was one-way the same direction as Coltman. It's nice they kept a way for pedestrians to cut through though. Although I hate needlessly curving paths. I never understood why that's a design fad. 

38 minutes ago, viscomi said:

That's right, I forgot 123rd was one-way the same direction as Coltman. It's nice they kept a way for pedestrians to cut through though. Although I hate needlessly curving paths. I never understood why that's a design fad. 

123rd is actually two ways as it passes this development, it turns into one way a little more south, right near where it bends toward Mayfield.

At Landmarks Commission earlier today: 1934 E 123rd St. Demolition of a single family home to be replaced by 5 townhomes. The existing home is in pretty bad condition with a lot of alterations over time, so not too big of a loss for the neighborhood. No vote today, just feedback to improve the project and come back later.

Wish the front was a front!

At Landmarks Commission earlier today: 1934 E 123rd St. Demolition of a single family home to be replaced by 5 townhomes. The existing home is in pretty bad condition with a lot of alterations over time, so not too big of a loss for the neighborhood. No vote today, just feedback to improve the project and come back later.
http://cdn.urbanohio.com/monthly_2021_05/Capture1.PNG.edf36fa7fc3636dae578b9fdb21c6aec.PNG
http://cdn.urbanohio.com/monthly_2021_05/Capture2.PNG.fbdd412e205ca9fe42e9f422559b84e2.PNG

Wasn't there just a big uproar from planners about these slot townhomes being allowed in the city?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

13 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Wasn't there just a big uproar from planners about these slot townhomes being allowed in the city?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
 

There was

Not bad. Considering how chopped up the "single family home" actually was, I wonder if we are actually gaining any units with this? Definitely a step up in quality at least. It still shocks me just how chopped up some of these houses in LI are. I was running a search for someone at work today and the property I was investigating in LI was listed in county records as being constructed as a two-family. The results today showed that there are currently SEVEN separate units.

2 minutes ago, PoshSteve said:

Not bad. Considering how chopped up the "single family home" actually was, I wonder if we are actually gaining any units with this? Definitely a step up in quality at least. It still shocks me just how chopped up some of these houses in LI are. I was running a search for someone at work today and the property I was investigating in LI was listed in county records as being constructed as a two-family. The results today showed that there are currently SEVEN separate units.

This is so true.  That is why it drives me nuts when those fighting new projects in LI use the attack line that the developer is ruining the historical fabric of the neighborhood.  That ship sailed decades ago when the usually absentee landlords chopped up the houses and enclosed porches with aluminum siding among other travesties only to make a buck.

3 hours ago, PoshSteve said:

Not bad. Considering how chopped up the "single family home" actually was, I wonder if we are actually gaining any units with this? Definitely a step up in quality at least. It still shocks me just how chopped up some of these houses in LI are. I was running a search for someone at work today and the property I was investigating in LI was listed in county records as being constructed as a two-family. The results today showed that there are currently SEVEN separate units.

 

That's the kind over-subdividing that happened during the Great Depression that turned Hough, Glenville and other east-side neighborhoods from a middle- to upper-class areas into communities under stress for 20 years before the Great Migration, lack of planning, landlord abuses and redlining pushed those areas into the abyss. Not saying that's going to happen here, but such overcrowding of homes that weren't designed for so many people virtually guarantees those houses won't survive such mutilation and over-use.

10 hours ago, KJP said:

 

That's the kind over-subdividing that happened during the Great Depression that turned Hough, Glenville and other east-side neighborhoods from a middle- to upper-class areas into communities under stress for 20 years before the Great Migration, lack of planning, landlord abuses and redlining pushed those areas into the abyss. Not saying that's going to happen here, but such overcrowding of homes that weren't designed for so many people virtually guarantees those houses won't survive such mutilation and over-use.

 

Two (presumably) Italian families back in the day, versus seven (likely) student apartments now.

 

I do have to wonder if that’s a very big difference in space per person.

32 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Two (presumably) Italian families back in the day, versus seven (likely) student apartments now.

 

I do have to wonder if that’s a very big difference in space per person.

 

Good point. Perhaps the difference is the duration of occupancy and thus the desire to care for the dwelling?

6 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Good point. Perhaps the difference is the duration of occupancy and thus the desire to care for the dwelling?

 

Based on my experience in the dorms and as a brief interim landlord, I would say yes to this.  Emphatically.

 

52 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Two (presumably) Italian families back in the day, versus seven (likely) student apartments now.

 

I do have to wonder if that’s a very big difference in space per person.

 

Little Italy has been creating its own micro apartments this whole time!! 🙂

 

I think you're spot on with the large family sizes back in the day compared to 1-2 college students per room. 

 

.

Edited May 28, 20214 yr by MuRrAy HiLL

Old Pool hall (and old Primo Vino too I if recall correctly) on E. 124th and Mayfield has new life as the Borgata Bar:

 

https://www.facebook.com/Borgata-Bar-100758398183377/

Edited May 29, 20214 yr by MuRrAy HiLL

47 minutes ago, MuRrAy HiLL said:

Old Pool hall (and old Primo Vino too I if recall correctly) on E. 124th and Mayfield has new life as the Borgata Bar:

 

https://www.facebook.com/Borgata-Bar-100758398183377/

Does that mean the WXZ Development condo project on the old Primo Vino site is dead?

4 hours ago, Htsguy said:

Does that mean the WXZ Development condo project on the old Primo Vino site is dead?

Oh wait I’m half wrong....the Borgata Bar is at 12501/12503... Primo Vino was 12511.  Incorrectly remembered the block as one connected building.

 

 

You can see both buildings in this picture. (And personally haven’t heard anything about the WXZ proposal in years).

 

Edited May 30, 20214 yr by MuRrAy HiLL

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wkyc.com/amp/article/sports/mlb/indians/rocky-colavito-cleveland-indians-statue-little-italy/95-20f0385b-27ea-4717-9c0d-be9b9e202eda

Holy Rosary external renovations:

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/270286469787124/permalink/1939800189502402/

 

 

Edited June 4, 20214 yr by MuRrAy HiLL

DING DING DING.  Guess who's back (and not in a good way)?  Mr David Watson.  He appeared at this mornings Board of Zoning Appeals meeting where the new Woodhill Supply project was seeking some routine variances.  Objecting strenuously to the apartment portion of the project (had no issues with the town homes).  Even more ominous was the next speaker, his attorney from Tucker Ellis 

 

Recall Watson basically was responsible for the death of the previous project at this site (even though he lost at each level of the process the developer just threw in the towel when the matter was pending in the Court of Appeals where  Watson would have probably lost as well).

 

The variances where granted unanimously.  Also recall this project passed in Landmarks and has the support of UCI, the ward Councilman and the Little Italy CDC after the developer worked diligently with them and made many alterations to the project.

 

Interestingly, I don't think Watson spoke before Ladmarks which had the power to kill the project.  That said I see appeals and lawsuits hovering over this project which of course will delay it.  The city and developer again will probably have a strong case.  Let us hope the developer has more back bone this time and can stomach the delays due to litigation.

Edited June 7, 20214 yr by Htsguy

I hope the developer sues him for damages.

6 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

DING DING DING.  Guess who's back (and not in a good way)?  Mr David Watson.  He appeared at this mornings Board of Zoning Appeals meeting where the new Woodhill Supply project was seeking some routine variances.  Objecting strenuously to the apartment portion of the project (had no issues with the town homes).  Even more ominous was the next speaker, his attorney from Tucker Ellis (who has a very punchable face in my opinion).

 

Recall Watson basically was responsible for the death of the previous project at this site (even though he lost at each level of the process the developer just threw in the towel was the matter was pending in the Court of Appeals where  Watson would have probably lost as well).

 

The variances where granted unanimously.  Also recall this project passed in Landmarks and has the support of UCI, the ward Councilman and the Little Italy CDC after the developer worked diligently with them and made many alterations to the project.

 

Interestingly, I don't think Watson spoke before Ladmarks which had the power to kill the project.  That said I see appeals and lawsuits hovering over this project which of course will delay it.  The city and developer again will probably have a strong case.  Let us hope the developer has more back bone this time and can stomach the delays due to litigation.

 

Thanks for the information - but maybe leave the punchable face comments to a forum where some of us aren't close with the individuals you'd like to assault. 

 

FWIW Watson is the worrrsssssttttt. 

2 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

Thanks for the information - but maybe leave the punchable face comments to a forum where some of us aren't close with the individuals you'd like to assault. 

 

FWIW Watson is the worrrsssssttttt. 

 

Dave was a college friend.   He's a pretty assertive guy like his dad was in public fora, but unless he's changed massively (it *has* been more years than I like to admit) he's pretty reasonable in informal settings.  

Multi-family projects in Little Italy neighborhood win landmarks commission nods

 

Two multi-family projects in Cleveland's Little Italy neighborhood won historical appropriateness approval from the Cleveland Landmarks Commission on Thursday.

 

Carmen Iammarino, a developer and the owner of the first project, and Kevin Oliver of Oliver Architecture are proposing to build a duplex and eight parking spaces behind a duplex at 2137 Murray Hill Rd.

 

Plans for both the first- and second-floor apartments show three bedrooms, one full and one half-bathroom and a large kitchen/living area. Each apartment has 1,145 square feet of space.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cleveland/news/2021/06/24/multi-family-projects-in-little-italy-approved.html

 

Nice to see some new "missing middle" projects like this. Now days everything is either SFHs, townhouses, or large apartment buildings. Duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes are key to building back density in the neighborhoods.

Well  here we go again.  On July 2, 2021  David Watson filed an appeal in the Common Pleas Court due to the Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals granting certain variances for the second Woodhill Supply site project in Little Italy.

 

This of course is not a surprise as he and his attorney objected to the variances at the Board level (only person as far as I can recall).  Also recall he did the same thing in connection with the first proposal way back when and even though he lost at every level the developer gave up as the case continued to drag out so he basically won even though he lost.  It did not help that the case went back and forth from the Court of Appeals to the CP court because the first lower court order, while in favor of the city, was procedurally flawed dragging things out.

 

Without getting technical, I doubt that Watson even has standing to bring this appeal.  This was an issue in the first case (among other things) but the Court of Appeals never ruled on this issue because the case was dropped.

 

Unfortunately this looks like a 2 year delay at a minimum because I am sure Watson will appeal all the way to the Supreme Court (similar to Dunham Tavern).  I hope the developer hangs in there this time.

 

 

Edited July 12, 20213 yr by Htsguy

Website for the Baricelli apartments is now live:

https://www.baricellicle.com/floor-plans/

Those are some pretty high rents. Is that on par with other new developments in Little Italy? Also, flipping through the gallery, they're not gonna really say out front "Baricelli inn HOUSING" are they? "Housing" sounds so institutional or CMHA.  https://www.baricellicle.com/gallery/

5 hours ago, tykaps said:

Website for the Baricelli apartments is now live:

https://www.baricellicle.com/floor-plans/

 

Wow.  Those are some LA level rents right there.  I have a 2 bed, 2 bath with a loft in the Windsor Village area of LA right next to a nice park and some of those 2 bed rents are more than I pay.

Look pretty similar to the asking rents at LaCollina on Mayfield Road.  How well has that project rented (it looks like they were offering deals so maybe not that great).

5 hours ago, Htsguy said:

Look pretty similar to the asking rents at LaCollina on Mayfield Road.  How well has that project rented (it looks like they were offering deals so maybe not that great).

La Collina has been fully leased for the most part. I believe there's just one empty unit at the moment out of 32.

Unless you count retail which still hasn't been fully leased. Just one out of three spaces.

Baricelli Inn Apartments (8-1-21)

 

 

 

 

2119 Murray Hill Apartments

 

 

Fribley Commons Renovation

 

 

 

1940 E 124th Place

 

 

Via 126 - 3 Townhouse Development

 

 

2087 Random Road

From Sept. 10, 2020

 

In other Landmarks Commission news involving Little Italy, the commission approved a statue commemorating Cleveland Indians baseball legend Rocky Colavito. The statue would be installed at Anthony Brescia (Tony Brush) Park, 12002 Mayfield.

 

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2020/09/little-italy-demolition-okd-development.html