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. *****

Author Topic: Cleveland Heights: Development and News  (Read 12138 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline BigDipper 80

  • Great American Tower 665'
  • ***
  • Posts: 796
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #360 on: September 28, 2017, 07:54:22 AM »
Inclined railway! ;)
I'm sure many UO'rs would be inclined to support that! :wink2:

It can play the most famous song written about inclined railways on the way down! Seems fitting, no?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW0W7j04iRQ[/youtube]
ďTo an Ohio resident - wherever he lives - some other part of his state seems unreal.Ē

Offline smith

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1255
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #361 on: November 29, 2017, 07:11:21 PM »
Severance Town Center isn't for sale, despite a report to the contrary

http://realestate.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2017/11/severance_town_center_isnt_for.html#incart_river_home

OK, so here's the thing.  I logged into CoStar this morning and saw an article in the local news section about Severance being for sale.  So I posted it to the Cedar Taylor Development Association Facebook page, which I run.  It was subsequently posted by several other local non-profits.  As I can't imagine the other non-profits get their real estate news from CoStar very often, I think I started the postings by local non-profits.  Not saying it led to @mjarboe writing this piece, but pretty funny regardless. 

Offline Foraker

  • Great American Tower 665'
  • ***
  • Posts: 665
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #362 on: November 30, 2017, 12:44:00 PM »
Severance Town Center isn't for sale, despite a report to the contrary

http://realestate.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2017/11/severance_town_center_isnt_for.html#incart_river_home

Since the Home Depot at Severance just renewed their lease this year, and the owners of Severance are marketing the Home Depot portion for sale,  I suspect that someone got carried away with the listing.  Looks like a simple error.



Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 49206
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #363 on: December 22, 2017, 11:34:25 PM »
Cleveland Heights has never had a preservation tax-credit project - federal or state. The College Club will be the first: https://t.co/r3spunjlvK
"Many Americans are willing to die for their country. But pay taxes for it? No way." -- Me.

Offline lafont

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1018
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #364 on: December 30, 2017, 01:04:20 AM »
Does anyone know what happened to the plan for the older, taller streetlights along Lee Road in the new streetscape stretch?  I was told about this by a workman many months ago -  all those poles (many of which are unattractively tilted) except for a few that are essential for the functioning of the new lights. Actually, I wish there were more of the decorative fixtures installed, as even with both sets of lighting currently used, the streets arenít all that bright. Also, what gappenedvto the planned new decorative light poles fir Cedar Fairnounr?

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 49206
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #365 on: January 17, 2018, 11:59:25 PM »
Council, developer to meet with CH-UH school board on Top of the Hill
http://www.cleveland.com/cleveland-heights/index.ssf/2018/01/council_developer_to_meet_with.html
"Many Americans are willing to die for their country. But pay taxes for it? No way." -- Me.

Offline Mendo

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #366 on: January 18, 2018, 08:57:32 AM »
I really hope this project works out for Cleveland Heights. They need some legit mixed use construction. The density would look great there.

Offline lafont

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1018
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #367 on: January 22, 2018, 11:00:00 AM »
Does anyone know what happened to the plan for the older, taller streetlights along Lee Road in the new streetscape stretch?  I was told about this by a workman many months ago -  all those poles (many of which are unattractively tilted) except for a few that are essential for the functioning of the new lights. Actually, I wish there were more of the decorative fixtures installed, as even with both sets of lighting currently used, the streets arenít all that bright. Also, what gappenedvto the planned new decorative light poles fir Cedar Fairnounr?
I now understand the decorative, "pedestrian" light poles are no longer to be installed in the Cedar Fairmount district, though I'm sure this type of additional (or replacement) lighting had been in the publicized plans.  As for Cedar Lee, I'm told there is still the plan for the tall (and often bent, etc.) streetlights to be removed except the few considered essential, but City staff cannot predict when.  Ideally there'd be none of these but more of the new ones - at least twice as many.

Offline lafont

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1018
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #368 on: January 22, 2018, 11:02:57 AM »
Does anyone know what happened to the plan for the older, taller streetlights along Lee Road in the new streetscape stretch?  I was told about this by a workman many months ago -  all those poles (many of which are unattractively tilted) except for a few that are essential for the functioning of the new lights. Actually, I wish there were more of the decorative fixtures installed, as even with both sets of lighting currently used, the streets arenít all that bright. Also, what gappenedvto the planned new decorative light poles fir Cedar Fairmount?
I now understand the decorative, "pedestrian" light poles are no longer to be installed in the Cedar Fairmount district, though I'm sure this type of additional (or replacement) lighting had been in the publicized plans.  As for Cedar Lee, I'm told there is still the plan for the tall (and often bent, etc.) streetlights to be removed except the few considered essential, but City staff cannot predict when.  Ideally there'd be none of these but more of the new ones - at least twice as many.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 49206
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #369 on: February 23, 2018, 08:36:22 PM »
Originally Published: February 23, 2018 2:59 PM Updated: 24 minutes ago
Top of the Hill deal lands approval from Cleveland Heights
By Stan Bullard

A pact with Indianapolis-based Flaherty & Collins for a $75 million project to develop the city of Cleveland Heights-owned Top of the Hill site has cleared a key hurdle.

The suburb's city council approved legislation authorizing city manager Tanisha Briley to sign a development agreement with the developer, according to a news release the city issued Friday, Feb. 23.

The move, the city said, means the project may proceed to the design and construction planning phase.

MORE:
http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20180223/news/152981/top-hill-deal-lands-approval-cleveland-heights
"Many Americans are willing to die for their country. But pay taxes for it? No way." -- Me.

Offline Mendo

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #370 on: February 24, 2018, 10:12:05 AM »
From the article:

Quote


Indianapolis developer Flaherty & Collins told Cleveland Heights city leaders that this project in Fisher, Indiana, is similar to what it might be able to construct on the 4-acre site in the suburb.

Something like this would be great on the site. Hopefully though some part can have some real height. A 3 story building only would be a little anticlimactic.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 49206
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #371 on: March 13, 2018, 08:32:22 PM »
"Many Americans are willing to die for their country. But pay taxes for it? No way." -- Me.

Offline Mov2Ohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #372 on: March 14, 2018, 12:32:21 PM »
From the article:

Quote


Indianapolis developer Flaherty & Collins told Cleveland Heights city leaders that this project in Fisher, Indiana, is similar to what it might be able to construct on the 4-acre site in the suburb.

Something like this would be great on the site. Hopefully though some part can have some real height. A 3 story building only would be a little anticlimactic.

It also wouldn't take advantage of the views of the city and lake over the trees lining Cedar Hill.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 49206
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #373 on: March 14, 2018, 10:58:03 PM »
Sad to read that there was an eight-story building on the Top-Of-Hill site, originally an apartment building. It would be even sadder if they could not find a way to construct a modern version of it.

Two development projects move Cleveland Heights master plan forward
http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/breaking-ground/TopoftheHill031318.aspx
« Last Edit: March 14, 2018, 11:04:15 PM by KJP »
"Many Americans are willing to die for their country. But pay taxes for it? No way." -- Me.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 49206
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #374 on: June 13, 2018, 09:36:50 AM »
"Many Americans are willing to die for their country. But pay taxes for it? No way." -- Me.

Offline Htsguy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2664
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #375 on: June 13, 2018, 10:10:07 AM »
So many impediments for this site including the easement which supposedly put the nail in the coffin of the last attempt to develop this lot.  Glad to see they are still trying but reading between the lines so many issues have to be worked out that by the time this happens we could be in a down cycle which could dash the development once again. 

I am going to try to attend the scheduled Top of the Hill community meeting next week which is mentioned in the article.  Hopefully that is much further along.  The last community meeting was Sept 2017.

Offline Foraker

  • Great American Tower 665'
  • ***
  • Posts: 665
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #376 on: June 13, 2018, 10:44:05 AM »
So many impediments for this site including the easement which supposedly put the nail in the coffin of the last attempt to develop this lot.  Glad to see they are still trying but reading between the lines so many issues have to be worked out that by the time this happens we could be in a down cycle which could dash the development once again. 

Seems like the smart thing to do would be to split the site around the easement.  Two smaller projects provide fewer consequences of one failing to work out.  Trying to do Big Projects and hoping for a home run is riskier.  And the rumor I heard last time is that the owner of the easement wouldn't allow any construction above the easement either.  So you might as well put a sidewalk over the easement and call it a day.

While I'm also excited to see what is going on with Top of the Hill, I would prefer to see separate developers execute smaller projects within the overall plan, or have the plan executed in smaller phases than having one giant project.  (And I'd love to see wider sidewalks and a Euclid-Heights or Fairmount-type median along Cedar in the Cedar-Fairmount business district -- Cedar is too wide for a pedestrian-centered neighborhood)

Offline smith

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1255
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #377 on: June 20, 2018, 09:44:37 AM »
Hey all - I, along with some partners, will be buying the old firehouse at Silsby and Lee and it is available for lease... PM me if you know anyone interested.

The fire pole is still in there!

Offline Htsguy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2664
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #378 on: June 20, 2018, 09:50:29 AM »
^good luck, it is a wonderful building in a great location
« Last Edit: June 20, 2018, 11:39:59 AM by Htsguy »

Offline Htsguy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2664
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #379 on: June 20, 2018, 11:22:05 AM »
I attended the Top the Hill Development community meeting last night.  About 100 people in attendance.  The format was an hour or so long quick presentation by various people involved with project (nothing really in depth by anybody-city development director, principal from the developer, parking expert, traffic expert etc) and then there were 4-5 stations dealing with different aspects of the development where one could then go and ask questions.  I only stayed for the first part.  Should have stayed for the break out session since I probably could have uncovered more detailed information and also gleamed the thoughts and concerns of the residents.

 I am pretty disappointed at this point.  This is an iconic location in Cleveland which should have been developed years ago.  What they are proposing (about an 80 mil dollar development) is pretty mediocre in my opinion.

In a nutshell:

They just finally signed the development agreement and emphasized that they still had not even came up with a conceptual design (although they seemed to have given a lot of thought to siting) let alone a final design for review.  They diplomatically kept saying they wanted community input in regards to the design which was one of the purposes of the meeting.

That said, it appears the highest it will go is 5 stories (4 floors of apartment over retail).  I am very disappointed in this.  This location should have a 12-14 story building at the point to take advantage of the superior views of UC and downtown.  My impression is that cost is driving this decision rather than neighborhood objections  (although I could be wrong)

The concept on paper right now is 250-275 apartments (no condos), 15,000-20,000 square feet of retail along Cedar, a 550 space parking garage in the middle (5 stories) with a number of courtyards.

They could not talk enough about parking.  I could tell it is a major concern.  Almost 50% of the presentation dealt with it.  I don't know if this "pressure" is coming from the city, neighbors or the developer.  They want to replace the 200 or so current spaces as well as deal with the needs of the new development.  Depressed that there is such a focus on parking in a dense neighborhood within a 5 minute walk of a rapid station and on a coupe of bus lines.  In fact, while they have not come up with a design yet (just some preliminary siting) the are already talking about moving the parking garage closer to the point where most of the apartments will be because residents wont want to walk that far (maybe 30 yards-REALLY).

Again no design, but for purposes of the presentation they flashed some pictures from their development portfolio.  What was really funny is that they kept emphasizing that this was just for visualization purposes and said please don't start to go nuts over what you see.  It was like they were almost ashamed of what they have built around the country.  For good reason if you take a look at their website.  I am wondering if they haven't already got some subtle blow back about the quality of their work.  Just speculation.

They talked about perhaps doing a transitional design-a more historical look closer to Nighttown that slowly got more modern as you proceed down Cedar towards the point.  Not really a bad idea if they could pull it off.  My fear as this particular firm, given cost restraints, won't be able to. 

Time line:  Final design towards the end of 2018, start construction second quarter of 2019 with completion 1st quarter of 2021.  All these date were said with a wink.  Add 6 months to a year. 

All the agreements are signed including that which is necessary with the school board but no discussion whether financing was in the bag.  Did not seem to be an issue but who knows.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2018, 11:40:33 AM by Htsguy »

Offline mu2010

  • Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #380 on: June 20, 2018, 11:41:26 AM »
They could not talk enough about parking.  I could tell it is a major concern.  Almost 50% of the presentation dealt with it.  I don't know if this "pressure" is coming from the city, neighbors or the developer.  They want to replace the 200 or so current spaces as well as deal with the needs of the new development.  Depressed that there is such a focus on parking in a dense neighborhood within a 5 minute walk of a rapid station and on a coupe of bus lines. 

I always try to raise my hand and ask about transit connections in those situations, just to remind everybody that it exists.

Offline Foraker

  • Great American Tower 665'
  • ***
  • Posts: 665
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #381 on: June 20, 2018, 01:14:44 PM »
I am pretty disappointed at this point.  This is an iconic location in Cleveland which should have been developed years ago.  What they are proposing (about an 80 mil dollar development) is pretty mediocre in my opinion.

Thanks for the summary.   I was there as well and the other thing that I heard was that they have now ruled out trying to woo a hotel to the site in view of what they expect to be intense competition from hotels "down the hill" in University Circle.  And I think financing is still up in the air and is expected to be finalized at the "Closing" in early 2019.

The slides from the presentation are now on the website.
http://www.clevelandheights.com/988/Top-of-the-Hill

I stuck around after the presentation to visit each of the stations.  I think the city people are pretty excited about getting all the initial agreements signed.  The architects were talking to people about what they would like to see, so they were gathering some input.  They think that they will finalize the massing and have some initial design ideas to show the community in the fall for more input before the design is finalized.  Lots of residents in the area (including at the Buckingham Apartment Building (now condos) in the middle of the development) worried about parking, both during and after construction.  The side streets already are seeing a lot of overflow parking from the Euclid Heights Building's filled parking lot (Barrio's success, plus The Fairmount, and BW3 and Aladdin's across the street).   The parking consultant seemed very knowledgeable.  I also overheard some concern that the development should include some public green space. (I can't imagine where on this site -- but maybe the city can find somewhere else in the neighborhood that could be set aside as a public park.)

I managed to spend more time talking to the traffic planners and I liked them; they seemed to have some interesting ideas that they were still planning to model to see how they would work.  I made some suggestions for pedestrian and public transit amenities -- but we'll have to wait and see.  From the outline of the site that the developer is focusing on, my impression is that anything outside of that development boundary may be coming out of the city's budget for this project. As usual, that might not be as generous as we'd like.

I didn't think to ask about a taller tower at the point, but I did hear some people telling the architects that they were glad that the buildings weren't going to be so tall right next to the existing buildings. 
Your comment about the desirability of a taller building at the point led me to look for a statement from the city about height restrictions in this area and I found it -- from the Staff Report at the bottom of the website linked above:

Quote
Below are building height guidelines, though (A) is flexible to promote creative and unique designs:
A. portions of building within 50' of adjacent multi-story building should generally not exceed adjacent building height by more than 15'
B. maximum building height shall not exceed 150'
C. maximum building height shall not exceed 1/2 the distance to any ďAĒ Single-Family district property (including property across Cedar Road from the site).

So I think it would be fair to provide some feedback to the architects requesting that the "creative and unique design" needed at the entrance to Cleveland Heights at the point should include additional height.  The city may be reluctant to let the building go too high since the Buckingham building is only 4 stories, but maybe we could get another floor or two of height right at the point, stepped up from whatever is adjacent the Buckingham.


PD's report:
https://www.cleveland.com/cleveland-heights/index.ssf/2018/06/top_of_the_hill_designs_shown.html#incart_river_index
« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 11:42:47 AM by Foraker »

Offline Htsguy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2664
Re: Cleveland Heights: Development and News
« Reply #382 on: June 20, 2018, 02:50:07 PM »
^thanks for the additional information and input.  While I believe that there should be something iconic and moderately tall at the point, I don't think that even if some city officials believe it would be a good idea they are up for such a battle (even if it is only a vocal minority in the neighborhood) and are just happy that the parking lots are finally being developed.