Author Topic: Cleveland: Midtown Developments (Read 161907 times)

eurokie · « **Reply #945 on:** June 23, 2012, 05:35:21 PM »

Quote from: Htsguy on June 07, 2012, 02:54:49 AM

It is so easy and cheap to create pretty pictures.

Not entirely true. Architectural services on a project like this will be at least $10,000, not counting project management and AOR duties like construction management that would bring it up to 5-10% project cost (supposed to be 10% but architectural fees have been slashed nation-wide since the Great Recession).

This makes me really sad - I am heavily considering a new apt between here and downtown.

mrnyc · « **Reply #946 on:** June 24, 2012, 01:00:24 AM »

why are they tearing down 6611? whats going in its place?

McLovin · « **Reply #947 on:** June 24, 2012, 01:02:09 AM »

Quote from: mrnyc on June 24, 2012, 01:00:24 AM

why are they tearing down 6611? whats going in its place?

Grass

mrnyc · « **Reply #948 on:** June 24, 2012, 01:24:37 AM »

so another pointless teardown? ugh.

McLovin · « **Reply #949 on:** June 24, 2012, 01:38:36 AM »

Quote from: mrnyc on June 24, 2012, 01:24:37 AM

so another pointless teardown? ugh.

This is officially what's going there it's called "Dunham Greenspace" aka Grass.....
http://www.midtowncleveland.org/dunham-greenspace-district.aspx

8ShadesofGray · « **Reply #950 on:** June 25, 2012, 02:04:44 AM »

I'm all about reimagining vacant space ... But a Greenspace "District"? Wouldn't that just be a park? Haha.

327 · « **Reply #951 on:** June 25, 2012, 02:08:36 AM »

Buzzwords run amok.

McLovin · « **Reply #952 on:** June 25, 2012, 02:27:46 AM »

I have a feeling this Midtown rebirth will be a failed project

sooner · « **Reply #953 on:** June 25, 2012, 04:12:38 AM »

6611 coming down TODAY!

ink · « **Reply #954 on:** June 25, 2012, 04:24:37 AM »

Quote from: eurokie on June 23, 2012, 05:35:21 PM

Quote from: Htsguy on June 07, 2012, 02:54:49 AM
It is so easy and cheap to create pretty pictures.

Not entirely true. Architectural services on a project like this will be at least $10,000, not counting project management and AOR duties like construction management that would bring it up to 5-10% project cost (supposed to be 10% but architectural fees have been slashed nation-wide since the Great Recession).

Renderings are cheap relative to redevelopment costs.

yanni_gogolak · « **Reply #955 on:** June 25, 2012, 04:35:03 AM »

Quote from: ink on June 25, 2012, 04:24:37 AM

Quote from: eurokie on June 23, 2012, 05:35:21 PM
Quote from: Htsguy on June 07, 2012, 02:54:49 AM
It is so easy and cheap to create pretty pictures.

Not entirely true. Architectural services on a project like this will be at least $10,000, not counting project management and AOR duties like construction management that would bring it up to 5-10% project cost (supposed to be 10% but architectural fees have been slashed nation-wide since the Great Recession).

Renderings are cheap relative to redevelopment costs.

That's a very broad statement.

lafont · « **Reply #956 on:** June 27, 2012, 04:08:17 AM »

I was in my hometown, Rochester, NY, for a few days and the first thing I noticed when getting off I-490 and approaching West Main Street was the terrific new lights along West Main. Then the part of Main Street in central downtown has featured another style of wonderful decorative lightpolesf for over ten years. All are deep green with gold highlights. I'm quite disappointed Euclid Avenue planners chose what they did, considering what other cities have done with their Main Streets lighting. Ours are not ugly but not good contemporary design, imo, and certainly not attractive historical lighting. Or a combination. I mentioned this disappointment in my article on Euclid Avenue that appeared in AIA Cleveland's "The Voice" newsletter of 5/07.

jborger · « **Reply #957 on:** June 27, 2012, 04:12:38 AM »

Quote from: yanni_gogolak on June 25, 2012, 04:35:03 AM

Quote from: ink on June 25, 2012, 04:24:37 AM
Quote from: eurokie on June 23, 2012, 05:35:21 PM
Quote from: Htsguy on June 07, 2012, 02:54:49 AM
It is so easy and cheap to create pretty pictures.

Not entirely true. Architectural services on a project like this will be at least $10,000, not counting project management and AOR duties like construction management that would bring it up to 5-10% project cost (supposed to be 10% but architectural fees have been slashed nation-wide since the Great Recession).

Renderings are cheap relative to redevelopment costs.

That's a very broad statement.

But accurate.

lafont · « **Reply #958 on:** June 27, 2012, 04:25:26 AM »

This photo gives the idea of the wonderful lights along Main Street in Rochester, NY's central district:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbwendover/260150033/#

lafont · « **Reply #959 on:** June 29, 2012, 02:13:57 AM »

So what's going on with the Frost Building? Instead of making a good effort to remove the red paint from the brick on the Euclid side they're covering over the entire wall with new pale yellow brick? They're just adding pieces that would jut out? I imagine the former, though I had expected the painted brick to be cleaned. How odd to cover it all over, and the extra layer can be seen from the facade. Are any of the other sides painted (no, I can't see the building while I write this....)?

lafont · « **Reply #960 on:** July 02, 2012, 02:59:54 AM »

Frost building brick kinda' funny.... Facade on side street yellow brick, north side red brick, west side facing Tavern also red brick, I assume, and I can't be sure if south side was yellow (facing street) or red brick (because side of bldg.) but I'm guessing it was red before painted brighter red. Now it's becoming yellow brick, again. Like I said, terribly odd they're creating an entirely new brick wall.
Btw, I notice the new apartment building going up with the matching twin facade will not be same window arrangement as teh '20s twin has. The main thing is that the facades facing Euclid match; just seems a little funny the majority of both twins will have different exteriors. But then, no reason for the new construction to entirely copy the '20s building if there are good reasons to make changes.

I came across photos in my Euclid Avenue collection of two impressive, relatively highrise apartment bldgs. that used to be on Euclid just to the east of the "Frost" building. Such a shame they were demolished in the late 1970s, and for NOTHING, really....

X · « **Reply #961 on:** July 02, 2012, 04:01:09 AM »

Only the street side has "facing" bricks, the yellow ones, because that is that only side that we are supposed to see of the building. The rest should be covered by other buildings.

lafont · « **Reply #962 on:** July 03, 2012, 12:35:04 AM »

That's the usual situation but in this case I'm not sure there had been anything else between building and Euclid. All the more strange with building an entirely new wall of yellow bricks. I don't really go along with it.

I suppose many of you have seen the front-page PD article today regarding the new park....

StrapHanger · « **Reply #963 on:** July 03, 2012, 01:10:49 AM »

Yeah, this one:

Dunham Tavern Museum aims to boost visibility, traffic through park project in Midtown Cleveland
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/07/dunham_tavern_museum_aims_to_b.html

No real surprises in here. I just hope their expanded park plan is at a higher taste level than they've shown to date.

dave68 · « **Reply #964 on:** July 03, 2012, 06:24:48 AM »

On Cleveland's Planning Commission's July 6th agenda is the 3rd District's Police Station for Chester Ave.

Htsguy · « **Reply #965 on:** July 03, 2012, 06:38:56 AM »

^This looks like a new design, although it has been so long since I viewed the first renderings I am not sure. I hope they build up to the sidewalk as, if I recall correctly, the first plan had a pretty significant setback and (not sure) may even have had parking in the front.

Not crazy about the windows. Would like to see more renderings.

ClevelandOhio · « **Reply #966 on:** July 03, 2012, 06:44:24 AM »

Htsguy · « **Reply #967 on:** July 03, 2012, 06:45:57 AM »

^Checked out another rendering on the Planning Commission site. It is apparently built to the sidewalk except for what appears to be a small strip of grass in front but, unfortunately, is surrounded by parking lots which are also build to the sidwalk on either side of the building. It looks almost like an island in a sea of parking.

Edit: The photo Cleveland posted is the rendering I was referring too. Blah.

ClevelandOhio · « **Reply #968 on:** July 03, 2012, 06:54:52 AM »

Yeah this one gives a good perspective.

jjames0408 · « **Reply #969 on:** July 03, 2012, 07:58:58 AM »

This parking doesn't bother me that much. Nothing worthwhile is going by the tracks and the western side lot is quite small.

gotribe · « **Reply #970 on:** July 03, 2012, 08:21:21 AM »

Quote from: Htsguy on July 03, 2012, 06:45:57 AM

^Checked out another rendering on the Planning Commission site. It is apparently built to the sidewalk except for what appears to be a small strip of grass in front but, unfortunately, is surrounded by parking lots which are also build to the sidwalk on either side of the building. It looks almost like an island in a sea of parking.

Edit: The photo Cleveland posted is the rendering I was referring too. Blah.

Yeah, but it's a police station, not a mixed use development. Nothing to exciting should be expected out of a police station when it comes to parking. The last thing we need is a cruiser on the 5th floor of a parking garage.

KJP · « **Reply #971 on:** July 03, 2012, 12:34:39 PM »

Not bad for a police station. At least they built it several stories tall and on the sidewalk of a major thoroughfare. I can't complain.

Beats the hell out of what was there before (vacant, weed-strewn lot) and what was there before that (an abandoned dairy that became a defacto homeless shelter that homeless advocates actually had the gall to want to save as in that condition as a shelter!).

simplythis · « **Reply #972 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:32:30 AM »

Exactly where on Chester is this 3rd district Police HQ going? Is it near Chester/E.55?

jam40jeff · « **Reply #973 on:** July 04, 2012, 09:23:21 AM »

Yes, about halfway between E. 40th and E. 55th on the north side of Chester.

327 · « **Reply #974 on:** July 05, 2012, 04:32:11 AM »

The new rendering is better. The parking isn't ideal, but I agree that if we're going to have that, it's well placed next to the RR tracks.

inlovewithCLE · « **Reply #975 on:** July 05, 2012, 06:39:00 AM »

I agree with the comment that its a police station, not a mixed use development. I'm not really that concerned about the layout of the parking lot of a police station. For what it is, I like the look of it. It'll be a pretty good looking station

ClevelandOhio · « **Reply #976 on:** July 05, 2012, 07:05:12 AM »

Quote from: StrapHanger on July 03, 2012, 01:10:49 AM

Yeah, this one:

Dunham Tavern Museum aims to boost visibility, traffic through park project in Midtown Cleveland
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/07/dunham_tavern_museum_aims_to_b.html

No real surprises in here. I just hope their expanded park plan is at a higher taste level than they've shown to date.

This article now has a rendering.

http://media.cleveland.com/business_impact/photo/dunham-conceptual-park-planjpg-a738465ff41069db.jpg

KJP · « **Reply #977 on:** July 05, 2012, 10:32:17 AM »

All I can say is I hope that attracts some density on the west side of 66th and the east side of 69th.

I like how they updated the graphic with the two-story MidTown Tech Park that Geis built across the street.

jborger · « **Reply #978 on:** July 06, 2012, 06:20:43 AM »

It's possible Dunham plan could spur more development for residential or office because it could be seen as a nice perk to be able to walk to. But overall, I'm skeptical.

jjames0408 · « **Reply #979 on:** July 06, 2012, 10:45:54 AM »

I'd like to see more detail...from what they published it is very uninspiring.

News:

Author Topic: Cleveland: Midtown Developments (Read 161907 times)