PLEASE READ!!!

***** ALL users will have to request a password reset BEFORE you will be able to log into the forum. See the thread in the forum issues section for further instructions. If you have issues with this, email us at admin@urbanohio.com. Also, check your spam folder. *****

We are still having a lot of users try to log on before resetting your password. You will continue to get an error until you reset your password!!

Author Topic: Cleveland: Little Italy: Development and News  (Read 2509 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45317
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #30 on: September 13, 2007, 08:42:34 AM »
My initial reaction is:  why have the garage entrance fronting Mayfield? Why not put it to the rear and put a leasable space on Mayfield. If the Red Line station is relocated here, then I would think this would be a perfect place for a small, commuter-oriented retailer (newstand, bodega, dry cleaner, coffee shop, etc.).

I'm also not sure why this building wasn't proposed to be located right at the corner of Mayfield and East 119th Street. It appears to be set back from East 119th. Why not put it at the corner and offer a highly visible leasable location at the corner? I see pull-in parking is offered on East 119th (maybe for guests?). Is there something preventing the parking from being put on the east side of the Mayfield Lofts?

Don't get me wrong. This is a huge improvement over what's there now and I would consider living there. But I don't think the design fully capitalizes on current and future opportunities.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2007, 08:44:16 AM by KJP »
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline w28th

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #31 on: September 13, 2007, 09:24:02 AM »
Excellent to see this move forward on a very important site in the connection between UC and Little Italy.
I couldn't agree more with KJP's critique however. And the aesthetics are also pretty uninspired. 
The "Little Italy" signage resembles an Olive Garden sign.  Would be interesting to see something a little more along the lines of the contemporary "CINCINNATTI" text in it's skyline.  I mean, you're going to have FOA & MVRDV in eyeshot, get crazy with it Lowenstein Durante.

Offline MayDay

  • Administrator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 10307
    • Cleveland Skyscrapers
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #32 on: September 13, 2007, 09:41:39 AM »
I can live with the facade although it's a little bland, though I agree that the garage should be moved to the rear.

I hope to god that signage is a joke. I know I usually try to offer constructive criticism, but it's just not possible here - it's garbage and has no place being there. As w28th pointed out, you have some seriously amazing and over-the-top projects adjacent to this site, and you're slapping up some ridiculous script signage?

Offline w28th

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #33 on: September 13, 2007, 12:24:49 PM »
I wonder how much the 1st grader that did the finger paint renderings was compensated.

Offline FerrariEnzo

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #34 on: September 13, 2007, 01:25:59 PM »
Fianly that project on mayfield is moving ahead, I rememeber I made a thread about it awhile back and it just stagnated.  Atlast!  Great coverage KJP.  Looks great and will help keep little italy bustling, now maybe we can tunnel mayfiel under little italy and make it pedestrian....

Offline JeffreyT

  • Rhodes Tower 629'
  • ***
  • Posts: 494
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #35 on: September 13, 2007, 01:50:00 PM »
I honestly thought that the sign was just still there and the project is dead.  I agree with the critiques, but WOO-HOO!

Offline Map Boy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4192
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #36 on: September 13, 2007, 01:58:08 PM »
In response to critiques from KJP and others (because this was my initial reaction when I saw this too), this project is on an island, surrounded by property that is also privately owned.  While it looks like they could easily just have their tenants drive up E. 119th Street and park in the rear, that is not the case.  The City vacated E. 119th Street some years ago and it is now owned by a private parking lot operator, who manages several hundred spaces along this stretch.  So, as much as I hate the new curb cut on Mayfield and the use of the first floor sidewalk frontage on this high volume pedestrian route for automobiles, well, there may be no project without it.

I'm not sure what negotiations they've attempted with the parking lot folks, either to purchase an easement or to lease spaces from them, but that's something that I hope has been or will be discussed.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2007, 01:59:04 PM by Map Boy »

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45317
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #37 on: September 13, 2007, 02:18:26 PM »
According to the City Planning Commission's interactive map and the County Auditor, the parcel for the Mayfield Lofts is owned by Constance Perotti. And the vacated East 119th Street and the parcel behind it is owned by Norfolk Southern. That includes the small strip between the former East 119th and the parcel on which Mayfield Lofts would be built. So that explains why the building isn't being proposed up the old street corner, or no rear entry to the garage is proposed. Doesn't mean I like it.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline Map Boy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4192
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #38 on: September 13, 2007, 02:39:44 PM »
The county's got some bad data on there.  I notified them a while back, but what can you do?

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45317
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #39 on: September 13, 2007, 07:46:31 PM »
Who owns the East 119th parcel?
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline 3231

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6451
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #40 on: September 13, 2007, 08:00:33 PM »
I believe that the Coyne contingent owns it.  Mapboy, is my memory correct?

Offline X

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9568
    • Western Reserve Meadery
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #41 on: September 13, 2007, 08:05:58 PM »
I wonder what will happen when the Little Italy NIMBY's get a crack at this.  I would think a six story building will send them into a collective conniption fit.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45317
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #42 on: September 13, 2007, 08:08:31 PM »
Maybe some of the old-timers. But who lives in Little Italy these days? Isn't it mostly students and other younger people?
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline 3231

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6451
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #43 on: September 13, 2007, 08:08:50 PM »
I wonder what will happen when the Little Italy NIMBY's get a crack at this.  I would think a six story building will send them into a collective conniption fit.

edit:  the adjacent landowner, not the LI cdc, is against the project. I really don't know what the LI cdc says, but I can guess.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2007, 10:08:47 AM by 3231 »

Offline the pope

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5771
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #44 on: September 13, 2007, 08:13:35 PM »
Maybe some of the old-timers. But who lives in Little Italy these days? Isn't it mostly students and other younger people?

I recall a PD article maybe a year or two ago, where since the 1990 Census, the %Foreign Born or those claiming Italian ancestry has plummeted from around 45% to below 20% in the full 2000 census. Other parts spoke towards massively changing demographics, specifically regarding age and country of origin.

Offline 3231

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6451
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #45 on: September 13, 2007, 08:16:03 PM »
Regarding Little Italy:

Lillian Kuri (one of Cleveland's greatest assests) is building a green townhouse on Edgehill just down from the Edgehill townhomes.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45317
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #46 on: September 13, 2007, 10:15:10 PM »
I forgot about the CDC's letter. It, and the CIA's, appear below...


____________________

« Last Edit: September 13, 2007, 10:16:40 PM by KJP »
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline jam40jeff

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4404
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #47 on: September 13, 2007, 11:01:19 PM »
Nice...I love how side-by-side the CIA letter makes the already weak CDC letter look like a pile of dog shart.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45317
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #48 on: September 13, 2007, 11:17:11 PM »
Little Italy CDC folks need to put more thought into this. To me, it's a simple question: What's the highest and best use for land adjacent to a relocated rapid transit station? The answer is: something with density, preferably mixed use.

People who would like to use the Rapid in Cleveland don't because their biggest complaint seems to be that it doesn't go where they want it to. So put some destinations they'd want to go to/from next to Rapid stations and/or relocate the stations. This Mayfield project does both.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline clvlndr

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6368
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #49 on: September 14, 2007, 01:35:28 AM »
I agree w/ KJP's assessment of Mayfield Lofts and the garage-on-street concept, though it is not w/o precedent.  Ironically, the similar sounding Larchmere Lofts, a few years ago, did the same thing.  And now, across the street from lively Boulevard Blue, passersby get the pleasure of looking through garage windows to look at cars.  Street-facing garages, with their ped-interrupting driveways are the antithesis of mixed-use street development...

... as to Little Italy's LI-LLC letter: boy, I really don't like the sound of it.  Sounds like, once again, we may be headed to some sort of showdown.  I sure wish, for once, we could get all the principals singing from the same sheet of music... I'm wondering, though, if Little Italy really wants to intergrate with U.Cir or just wants to be obstructionist?  To straight out ask for a denial of rezoning, w/o negotiation, as well as attempt to make RTA's relocation to LI plan sound speculative when RTA is obviously moving forward to relocate in LI makes me highly suspicious of the LI-LLC's motives here.

New demographic or not, it certainly wouldn't be the 1st time for LI; not by a long shot... If LI has a master plan, then show your hand ... or step aside.

Offline punch

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #50 on: September 14, 2007, 11:49:43 AM »
How does the height of the lofts building mesh with the surrounding area?

Offline Florida Guy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #51 on: September 14, 2007, 12:01:40 PM »
^ See the previous page.

Offline Map Boy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4192
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #52 on: September 14, 2007, 12:20:45 PM »
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...
« Last Edit: September 14, 2007, 02:19:23 PM by Map Boy »

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45317
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #53 on: September 14, 2007, 12:32:31 PM »
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.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline StapHanger

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8446
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #54 on: September 14, 2007, 01:02:05 PM »
^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.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2007, 01:27:06 PM by StrapHanger »

Offline Map Boy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4192
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #55 on: September 14, 2007, 01:25:42 PM »
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.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45317
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #56 on: September 14, 2007, 01:43:56 PM »
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.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline Map Boy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4192
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #57 on: September 14, 2007, 02:21:39 PM »
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!

Offline clvlndr

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6368
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #58 on: September 14, 2007, 09:57:35 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2007, 10:03:05 PM by clvlndr »

Offline Map Boy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4192
Re: Cleveland: Little Italy Developments
« Reply #59 on: September 17, 2007, 01:11:39 PM »
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.