Author Topic: Cleveland: Demolition Watch (Read 202292 times)

bizbiz · « **on:** January 10, 2006, 03:00:00 PM »

Does anybody have the latest on the demolitions taking place in Cleveland?? I saw 2 different ones taking place today (1/10/06) but neither makes sense.

The first is the large block of Euclid Avenue between E. 55-E.60th, which was previously planned for demolishing to help develop the Euclid Corridor. However, what is the reason for bringing down every single structure in that segment of land.. I mean, they tore it ALL down, not just the front units, but any previously standing structure is now gone. The pile of rubble is clearly visible from Euclid, E. 55th St, or Carnegie.

The second is an additional demolishing at the Cleveland Clinic where the new heart center is being built. As most know, the old parking garage was torn down in May, to make way for the new structure, but they began tearing down an additional part of the Cleveland Clinic adjacent to the site sometime in the last several days. The building I am referring to is at least 9 stories high, and it's part of what I believe is the 'F building'. Any idea what this is all about??? The people at the Cleveland Clinic were all watching out the windows as if this was a shocker. It shocked me too, since I thought the demolition stage was finished nearly 8 months ago.

3231 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 10, 2006, 04:06:39 PM »

There is a thread about the Euclid Ave demolition. Your thoughts echo what others have mentioned.

Clinic: Without a map, I can only guess about this latest demo. I know that the Clinic is planning on buliding a new buildgin just behind and off to the side of the new heart center. The Clinic has a lot building plans.

Another huge demo project that you didn't mention is on E. 105 near MLK. The last two buildings for the West Quad have been torn down over the past few weeks. It appears that only the foundation remains. Dump trucks are hauling the rumble away.

MayDay · « **Reply #2 on:** January 11, 2006, 01:08:17 AM »

wimwar is correct - that's the site of the new Glickman Urology building. To put this in perspective - the cost of the expansion at the art museum is around $250,000,000. Along with the new heart center, the construction at the Clinic is more than twice that!

.....
New building will house Cleveland Clinic Urological Institute
Jul 21, 2005
Urology Times E-News

The Cleveland Clinic has announced a new campaign to raise funds for the construction of a new $60 million, state-of-the-art building on its main campus to house the Glickman Urological Institute. The Glickman Pavilion will comprise more than 200,000 square feet designed to provide for future expansion. The Institute will occupy the building's top floors, together with related programs in nephrology and dialysis.

Ground is scheduled to be broken next spring.
....

3231 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 11, 2006, 01:17:26 AM »

I heard that the church closest to the heart center (see MayDay map) has received a handsome offer from the Clinic for its land. Those are two very pretty churches--would the Clinic tear it down?? I wouldn't doubt it.

MayDay · « **Reply #4 on:** January 11, 2006, 01:50:03 AM »

They wouldn't need that land if they would learn how to design buildings appropriate for an urban setting (i.e. does the Cole Eye Institute need a huge swath of Chemlawn fronting Euclid?). Hell, they could even go out on a limb and learn how to build something taller than 12 stories!

KJP · « **Reply #5 on:** January 11, 2006, 01:57:29 AM »

It's nice that the Cleveland Clinic decided to stay in the city when, in the 1950s, it seems that everything else was suburban-bound. But I've never understood why the clinic feels the need to bring the suburbs to the city with its building designs? Problem is, no one has the guts to stand up to them and tell them to stop building suburban bunkers. Maybe Peter Lewis could.....

3231 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 11, 2006, 01:59:46 AM »

The Cole is the worst, but the Taussig is not far behind. What a large waste of space! They are in a squeeze for land, so it begs the question of when they discovered this shortage. The new Heart Center is a breakthrough--a portion of it will actually touch the sidewalk!

blinker12 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 11, 2006, 02:09:14 AM »

Yeah, though the Heart Center is still going to look like it flew in from Solon. Cleveland Clinic architecture = puke.
Bizbiz, check out http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=5235.0
for a discussion of the E. 55th demolitions, and some photos I took of the buildings shortly before they were ripped down. What a crying shame.

3231 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 11, 2006, 02:14:02 AM »

Part of the Clinic's plans are to make Chester the front door of the entire complex. They want to create a blvd from Chester that ends at the new Heart Center. My drawing shows a straight line connecting the streets, but the Clinic would have a curved line that reflects the curve of the cancer center (they own the land where the drugstore and gas station are, so those would be torn down to make space). Also, there will be an addition to Parking Garage #1 that will double its size. Lastly, the Clinic is looking at building another 4,000 car garage somewhere on its campus.

X · « **Reply #9 on:** January 11, 2006, 08:19:18 AM »

It's a shame that the Clinic's "front door" can't be on Cleveland's "main street". I have a site plan of the garage, East 93rd St. Boulevard, and a new building to be built on the Eastern side of the Boulevard. It's a PDF, so I can't post it, but I will post a link when I can figure out where I got it.

Also, I don't know if anyone noticed, but yet another historic commercial building was demolished on the north side of Euclid, just a couple of blocks east from the buildings being demolished between East 55th and East 60th. So, is the point of the Euclid Corridor to create faster, better access to the empty fields that used to make up Cleveland's main street?

MayDay, do you subscibe to the "Urology Times", or were you just browsing?

MayDay · « **Reply #10 on:** January 11, 2006, 08:22:35 AM »

Nyuk nyuk - it was the first item on a Google search for "Glickman, Urology".

blinker12 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 11, 2006, 08:33:08 AM »

Quote from: X on January 11, 2006, 08:19:18 AM

So, is the point of the Euclid Corridor to create faster, better access to the empty fields that used to make up Cleveland's main street?

Apparently. And it's depressing, because I thought we as a city had finally gotten over that mentality of "tearing down to build up." The legacy of urban renewal -- i.e., speculative demolition -- is a sea of surface parking in the very heart of the city. And frankly, I don't have much more hope for the newly empty lots on Euclid.

Uh oh, somebody call the doctor -- my Clevelanditis is kicking in.

KJP · « **Reply #12 on:** January 11, 2006, 10:04:35 AM »

I suspect that was the doing of RTA Deputy General Manager Michael Schipper, who prefers to demolish things when he doesn't get his way.

bizbiz · « **Reply #13 on:** January 11, 2006, 10:15:58 AM »

I'm very curious about this whole development situation for the Cleveland Clinic's new gateway entrance. Just west around E. 88th between Euclid and Chester, that townhouse village is ready to expand another block over, slowly closing in on the Cleveland Clinic. With a garage expansion, and new entrance off the busy Chester, wouldn't retail or commercial or anything for the lord's sake become attractive? Even the north side of Chester could become desirable.. anyone want to make a list of all the development/proposals/plans for the Cleveland Clinic?? As odd as it sounds, CC has intrigued a number of us it seems..

CleveChiNola · « **Reply #14 on:** January 13, 2006, 02:45:18 PM »

There has to be some psychology to hospital architecture. Solid, sturdy, harmless...boring.

Or am I wrong?

3231 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 13, 2006, 03:00:42 PM »

Hospitals are very complex places that must stress health, functionality and safety over other things. I would think that there are only a certain sect of architects that do hospital work. Have you ever heard of Frank Gehry designing a new hospital?? I am not defending the Clinic's choice..

Bizbiz,

There is a nascent effort that is looking at development just north of Chester (we may be hearing more about this in the coming months). And, its been reported that Zaremba is looking at a 500-unit development between E.79th and E.71 on Euclid. Considering the new zoning district in that area, its hard to see how it wouldn't be mixed use. Create more density and the retail will come. The frustrating thing about hospitals is that they often have huge cafeterias inside them that keep workers nestled inside the walls.

blinker12 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 13, 2006, 03:07:13 PM »

This is a bit off topic, but Wimwar, do you see Church Square being redeveloped into something more pedestrian- and transit-friendly anytime soon? I'm imagining not, considering it was just put up about a decade ago, but one can always hope.

the pope · « **Reply #17 on:** January 14, 2006, 08:03:00 AM »

i always like saying this, probably too much, but in 25 years, the neighborhood known as fairfax will ceast to exist, and will only be known as "the clinic"

X · « **Reply #18 on:** January 14, 2006, 08:26:54 AM »

Maybe. I read somewhere that The Clinic will be building its first building south of Cedar sometime soon. But I think most of their construction will be between Carnegie and Chester. They have alot of land they can build on to their East, North, and West. They could also go North into Hough's Upper Chester neighborhood, although it would be politically unpopular. I think it would be harder to do the sort of land acquisition they want to do in Fairfax.

3231 · « **Reply #19 on:** January 14, 2006, 08:29:16 AM »

The Clinic doesn't want to spread itself thin. Operationally, it is not a good path to go down if they sprawl out. They are want to keep all new construction as close to their core as possible.

3231 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 14, 2006, 08:32:19 AM »

Quote from: blinker12 on January 13, 2006, 03:07:13 PM

This is a bit off topic, but Wimwar, do you see Church Square being redeveloped into something more pedestrian- and transit-friendly anytime soon? I'm imagining not, considering it was just put up about a decade ago, but one can always hope.

I doubt it. I think that its completely rented out and making $. While its not pretty, it will be transit friendly considering that the ECTP will drop people off at the front door. Its unfortunate that they built it. It really cuts off Beacon Place from any possible expansion to the West and its design effectively discourages any interesting retail uses.

blinker12 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 14, 2006, 08:39:48 AM »

I'm not sure anything with a sea of parking in front of it is transit-friendly, and certainly not pedestrian friendly. I suppose replacing/revamping it will be a project for our generation.

FerrariEnzo · « **Reply #22 on:** January 16, 2006, 03:09:01 AM »

Funny you should mention because on Euclid on 59th ish behind all those nice boarded up buildings they are all being torn down, I hope not the facade.

FerrariEnzo · « **Reply #23 on:** January 16, 2006, 03:11:15 AM »

Wow I jsut read the rest of the posts and notice how late I am... haha

Map Boy · « **Reply #24 on:** January 22, 2006, 02:41:55 PM »

I'm kind of afraid to ask what's going on here, but I suppose it could be something good:

The former Peterson's Nut Company on Carnegie, just east of 9th.

(photo credit goes to YSOH)

I'd like to think that this is one of the more premier development sites in the region, considering its proximity to major freeways, Jacob's Field, the Q, Cleveland State, Downtown, an east/west bridge, and a major local thoroughfare. Oh, and there's a hotel across the street.

3231 · « **Reply #25 on:** January 22, 2006, 02:51:59 PM »

Due to its proximity to Jacobs Field, maybe they are just creating more surface parking space. I hope not.

X · « **Reply #26 on:** January 22, 2006, 03:01:10 PM »

I've heard from credible sources that that will be parking lots for awhile, with the possibility of being redeveloped in the mid-term future as a midrise condo building. On Seneca, just behind this building there is a 1920's era industrial building currently used for parking that will be demolished as well, with the same set of plans (parking maybe housing later).

Map Boy · « **Reply #27 on:** January 22, 2006, 03:08:50 PM »

With the quiet, brick street and the historic and scenic cemetery just north of this site, I was hoping for some housing on that side as well. I understand the transitional use as a parking lot, but I really hope that it doesn't get stuck in that state for too long... as we can see all over town, it's tempting to just sit on that income for decades!

smackem81 · « **Reply #28 on:** January 22, 2006, 03:22:01 PM »

^^
Most of the buildings around there are kinda decreped and in bad shape. I personaly wont miss them. Just because its old, dosent allways mean its worth saving, even if its becoming parking. Way I see it, makes for less demand for parking further out from the stadium that could be used for something better; I am thinking of the parking around E 14 and prospect.

What would be really slick is (pending the inevidable protests of the people that fight for nonsense causes) if they were to take all the graves put them in lake view, knock some more openings in to the graveyard, spruce up the landscaping a bit, then make it a park. The grounds arent really well kept up, its falling apart, homeless mess the place up, homless break into the vaults sleep there.

Its just not functioning as a cemetary real well, a park would be nicer.

the pope · « **Reply #29 on:** January 22, 2006, 03:58:04 PM »

^lakeview cemetary has a hard enough time maintaining its older gravesites. Every cemetery does, and the last thing they would want is another source to drain their limited income.

brtshrcegr · « **Reply #30 on:** January 23, 2006, 10:47:21 AM »

X, you refer to a building just behind the Peterson Nut remains thats also slated for demolition as being on Seneca...are you thinking of Sumner Ave.? If so, I'm sorry to hear that b/c of some personal connections to that place.

X · « **Reply #31 on:** January 23, 2006, 07:08:45 PM »

Yes, Sumner. It is the parking garage building, not the building that used to be an entertainment complex.

theguv · « **Reply #32 on:** January 24, 2006, 05:34:43 AM »

i learned the following gem at a recent city planning commission design/review meeting

it is illegal by city ordinances for a developer to demolish a building and replace it with surface parking. the developer has up to one year to develop a plan for the site and can appeal for one more year. if the site has not begun development within two years of the demolition date, then the city has the right to revert the site to greenspace.

i'd like to find out more about this ordinance, so if anyone finds more info, please post it.

3231 · « **Reply #33 on:** January 24, 2006, 05:37:59 AM »

^I thought that we had an ordinance like that.

the pope · « **Reply #34 on:** January 24, 2006, 06:55:37 AM »

^yes, and please forward it to detroit

News:

Author Topic: Cleveland: Demolition Watch (Read 202292 times)