Author Topic: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)  (Read 242327 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Scav

  • 574'-Carew Tower
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #175 on: September 14, 2010, 05:48:47 PM »
you know i have always imagined an urban community, maybe 5-10 storey highrises down there. just the right height so they are under the bridges. could be really incredible. add a few canals and you have one of the coolest urban neighborhoods in the entire U.S...
Cleveland is "a communal act of defiance against a nation's celebrity culture." Wright Thompson

Online Htsguy

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 2490
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #176 on: September 14, 2010, 06:17:10 PM »
^^Roads...I bet the sewers are the worse in the city....any development would require lots of help from the city for infrastructure improvements.

Offline pcforsgren

  • 367'-PNC Bank
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Cleveland Pride
    • Open Student Television Network
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #177 on: October 11, 2010, 05:30:26 PM »
For those with Crain's subscriptions, there is an article this week on the Flats and some momentum going in there:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20101011/SUB1/310119992/1071/TOC&Profile=1071

and a free podcast with some dicussion for those who don't have a sub:

http://e.ccialerts.com/a/hBMs2UGAJFIzoAJaUOuAYYiDvxX/ccl94-1

Offline pcforsgren

  • 367'-PNC Bank
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Cleveland Pride
    • Open Student Television Network
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #178 on: October 11, 2010, 05:45:42 PM »
Interesting article (I just read it) - they even tease (again) Scranton Road Peninsula and Forest City wanting to connect it to the casino. Other then that it discusses the towpath, some businesses moving in, and a short mention of the East Banks project, which it says is still stalled.

The most interesting quote is "Forest City didn't pay $2 million for this property in the 1980s to use it as a parking lot". 
Cmoooon mixed use riverfront development  :-D
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 05:46:34 PM by pcforsgren »

Offline Hts121

  • UO Supporting Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17800
  • It's still just like your opinion, man
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #179 on: October 11, 2010, 05:55:12 PM »
Thanks pcforsgren.  You might not have noticed that we now have a thread dedicated to flats development (non-FEB).
Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down.  Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

Offline pcforsgren

  • 367'-PNC Bank
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Cleveland Pride
    • Open Student Television Network
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #180 on: October 11, 2010, 05:57:10 PM »
Ah I did not.  I haven't been on the site in a while and missed the new thread.  I'll be happy to take this discussion over there.

Offline Confiteordeo

  • 665'-Queen City Square
  • ******
  • Posts: 843
  • It's Britney, b*tch!
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #181 on: November 20, 2010, 08:20:20 AM »
From Michael McIntyre's Tipoff column on cleveland.com this morning:

"The Children's Museum, which occupies a tired space in University Circle, is considering a move to the Powerhouse on the west bank of Cleveland's Flats, according to sources. It could be a smart move pairing the museum with a new aquarium planned for much of the Powerhouse space.

It's also possible that the museum will stay put and make major renovations. It's on a month-to-month deal with University Circle, Inc., which owns the current building.

The museum's financial picture has improved recently, giving it options."

http://www.cleveland.com/tipoff/index.ssf/2010/11/clevelander_joe_eszterhas_rips.html
Progress and prosperity.

Offline Hts121

  • UO Supporting Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17800
  • It's still just like your opinion, man
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #182 on: November 20, 2010, 10:00:48 AM »
Yeah... that location sucks, but I hope it stays in UC. 

I thought the proposal for the powerhouse aquarium had died.... or at least died down?
Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down.  Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

Offline ClevelandOhio

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #183 on: November 20, 2010, 10:39:59 AM »
I really hope that the Children's Museum does not move out of University Circle. It just wouldn't make any sense leaving that area filled with cultural institutions and life and progress for the West Bank of the flats. The Powerhouse can be confusing for some people to find, and sorry to say it but you have to drive through some pretty shitty stuff to reach it. University Circle just seems like the right place for them. And I don't see that aquarium ever happening, nor do I want it to.

Offline MyTwoSense

  • 40+ and Fly
  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 21066
  • back with a vengeance!
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #184 on: November 21, 2010, 04:45:56 AM »
I really hope that the Children's Museum does not move out of University Circle. It just wouldn't make any sense leaving that area filled with cultural institutions and life and progress for the West Bank of the flats. The Powerhouse can be confusing for some people to find, and sorry to say it but you have to drive through some pretty sh!tty stuff to reach it. University Circle just seems like the right place for them. And I don't see that aquarium ever happening, nor do I want it to.

What is so shitty?  I'm sure the people in Stonebridge wouldn't appreciate their neighborhood being referred to as "shitty".  And why is University Circle so "right" for this museum? 

Pairing it with an aquarium is good synergy and can be a catalyst for further growth and connectivity of the lake/river front districts.

I love the CM but it's location is a deterent in relation to the other museums.  I suggested they move to 105/west quad area.

my 2      Please Sell Crazy Someplace Else....We Have Excess Inventory Here!!

Offline ClevelandOhio

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #185 on: November 21, 2010, 09:25:07 AM »
Stonebridge is a really nice development but it is pretty much secluded to the superior viaduct. That area as a whole is far from being strong. University Circle neighborhood is growing and lots is going on. Its by other museums. I dont believe the aquarium in the powerhouse will ever happen. And I also believe that if the Children Museum moved to the west bank, they would lose visitors.

And Im trying to think in a Moms point of view. Driving down Washington Avenue isn't the best. You have the homeless on that one corner. You also have a strip club nearby.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2010, 09:47:53 AM by ClevelandOhio »

Offline TMH

  • 408'-Kettering Tower
  • **
  • Posts: 176
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #186 on: November 21, 2010, 11:15:24 AM »
"And Im trying to think in a Moms point of view. Driving down Washington Avenue isn't the best. You have the homeless on that one corner. You also have a strip club nearby."

I am so tired of this suburban attitude. Everyone wants the world to look like Disney World.  Where are all of the urban people?

Online X

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7377
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #187 on: November 21, 2010, 11:36:18 AM »
You may be tired of it, but if you want things to be successful, you better take it into consideration.

Offline ClevelandOhio

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #188 on: November 21, 2010, 11:43:06 AM »
You may be tired of it, but if you want things to be successful, you better take it into consideration.

Exactly, its not my point of view necessarily but I can see what is realistic. And I dont see putting the Children's Museum on the west bank of the flats is.

Offline peabody99

  • 771'-Terminal Tower
  • *******
  • Posts: 1157
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #189 on: November 21, 2010, 02:05:30 PM »
once again people have the attitude the flats should be sewer, a dumping ground of "undesirable" (not my words )people and only seedy businesses. If people want something better they are told they never should have moved there in the first place (if they are a resident) and like this thread indicates, the thought of even bringing something positive is met with negativity. Heaven forbid junior cast his gaze upon a homeless person on the way to the museum. I shudder to think of it.

Online TBideon

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 2943
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #190 on: November 21, 2010, 02:58:43 PM »
Not sure why people are getting a chip on their shoulder about this.  It's laughable that the museum would move out there, and we all know it.   

Offline KJP

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38243
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
    • All Aboard Ohio
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #191 on: November 21, 2010, 03:07:37 PM »
If you don't think a place is good for kids, then change it. Urban land use isn't an uncontrollable function of nature.
"Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all others." Winston Churchill

Offline TMH

  • 408'-Kettering Tower
  • **
  • Posts: 176
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #192 on: November 21, 2010, 08:21:23 PM »
My problem with this discussion is the same as most discussions involving downtown Cleveland.  It is always led by the suburbanites.  We should have more parks with benches, etc.  Where are the urban people in these discussions.  Do you think anyone in NYC is talking about how moving a museum downtown is a bad move?  To move the Children's museum to the powerhouse is a great idea.  The current space is terrible and this would be an incredible improvement. 

For all the people talking about how bad the west bank of the Flats is, when was the last time you were there?  Do you even know that it is a thriving entertainment area with bars, restaurants, and thousands of apartments/condos?  This thread is starting to read like Cleveland.dumb. I am getting really tired of the constant misconception about downtown Cleveland.

Offline Etheostoma Caeruleum

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 2290
  • Fish worship... Is it wrong?
    • Quality Chatter!
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #193 on: November 21, 2010, 09:30:58 PM »
^ Agreed. And this is coming from someone with a naturalist background! 
This city desert makes you feel so cold....
Its got so many people but its got no soul...
And its taken you so long...to find out you were wrong..
When you thought it held everything. -- Gerry Rafferty, "Baker Street"

Offline mikel

  • 468'-Scripps Center
  • ***
  • Posts: 238
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #194 on: November 21, 2010, 09:38:18 PM »
I wouldn't call the West bank of the flats "downtown."  I wouldn't really call it a thriving entertainment district at the moment either.  I think that almost everyone on here is an urbanite or else they would not already be here.  I also think that University Circle is a very urban environment already and I don't think that moving it to the flats would really make it more "urban."  All that said however, the powerhouse is a cool space and maybe being closer to the west side would be an asset for them.  It would be more accessible to the highway too.  I think the powerhouse could work but it would be nice to have something else nearby to bring a little more life to that area if the children's museum does decide to move.

Offline ClevelandOhio

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #195 on: November 21, 2010, 09:51:34 PM »
I've heard the people at Lolly the Trolley talk about how people have a hard time finding the powerhouse. We all know where it is so it seems silly to us but most of the people who do go on lolly the trolley or go to the Children's Museum live in the suburbs and do have a hard time getting to and navigating the westbank of the flats.

Online TBideon

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 2943
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #196 on: November 21, 2010, 10:30:49 PM »
As of now, University Circle has a kind of momentum that is rare and remarkable when you consider the fact that we are a poor city in the middle of a long suffering rust belt in the middle of a global depression.  It just doesn't make any sense to move the Children's museum from it's well situated area to the Flats.

 Despite the city's love of the word 'district', we only really have two true ones:  Theater and Arts.  The others are really just districts in name only.  Why support moving one of the staples of our arts district (my term for UC) to the Flats which has a more adult allure right now and the foreseeable future.  Why play musical chairs because of (let's be honest guys) doubtful project for an aquarium?   Why support stepping on UC's momentum?

Keep the museums nice and close to each other.   Keep UC a complete destination for museum hopping for people who want to hang around there all day. 


Offline ClevelandOhio

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #197 on: November 21, 2010, 10:36:57 PM »
As of now, University Circle has a kind of momentum that is rare and remarkable when you consider the fact that we are a poor city in the middle of a long suffering rust belt in the middle of a global depression.  It just doesn't make any sense to move the Children's museum from it's well situated area to the Flats.

 Despite the city's love of the word 'district', we only really have two true ones:  Theater and Arts.  The others are really just districts in name only.  Why support moving one of the staples of our arts district (my term for UC) to the Flats which has a more adult allure right now and the foreseeable future.  Why play musical chairs because of (let's be honest guys) doubtful project for an aquarium?   Why support stepping on UC's momentum?

Keep the museums nice and close to each other.   Keep UC a complete destination for museum hopping for people who want to hang around there all day. 



Nicely put! thats what ive been trying to say

Offline shs96

  • 771'-Terminal Tower
  • *******
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #198 on: November 21, 2010, 11:25:45 PM »
Stonebridge is a really nice development but it is pretty much secluded to the superior viaduct. That area as a whole is far from being strong. University Circle neighborhood is growing and lots is going on. Its by other museums. I dont believe the aquarium in the powerhouse will ever happen. And I also believe that if the Children Museum moved to the west bank, they would lose visitors.

And Im trying to think in a Moms point of view. Driving down Washington Avenue isn't the best. You have the homeless on that one corner. You also have a strip club nearby.

How do you get to University Circle?  And what do you pass along the way?

I understand your point, but you're passing the same things when you're a mom going to University Circle, Playhouse Square, Progressive Field, Browns stadium, etc.  I pass the same things going to work downtown everyday.  And St. Malachi's Sunday church service is still very highly attended by people of all ages...and in case you didn't know, that's the source of all the homeless people who live in the shelter and come by to get food.

If you don't think the powerhouse is a good location for this, fine.  But that reason is pretty silly.

Offline shs96

  • 771'-Terminal Tower
  • *******
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #199 on: November 21, 2010, 11:29:19 PM »
I've heard the people at Lolly the Trolley talk about how people have a hard time finding the powerhouse. We all know where it is so it seems silly to us but most of the people who do go on lolly the trolley or go to the Children's Museum live in the suburbs and do have a hard time getting to and navigating the westbank of the flats.

And people who don't come downtown have trouble finding W 6th, the Justice Center, E 4th and other major downtown places.  I know this because as I am walking my dogs in the west bank people stop and ask me for directions to these places all the time, and I instruct them how to get back up to W25th and Detroit, over the bridge, and to wherever they are going.

Offline shs96

  • 771'-Terminal Tower
  • *******
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #200 on: November 21, 2010, 11:31:30 PM »
Not sure why people are getting a chip on their shoulder about this.  It's laughable that the museum would move out there, and we all know it.   

Because you're stating your opinion as if it was definitive fact.

Offline MyTwoSense

  • 40+ and Fly
  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 21066
  • back with a vengeance!
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #201 on: November 22, 2010, 10:38:49 AM »
Stonebridge is a really nice development but it is pretty much secluded to the superior viaduct. That area as a whole is far from being strong. University Circle neighborhood is growing and lots is going on. Its by other museums. I dont believe the aquarium in the powerhouse will ever happen. And I also believe that if the Children Museum moved to the west bank, they would lose visitors.

And Im trying to think in a Moms point of view. Driving down Washington Avenue isn't the best. You have the homeless on that one corner. You also have a strip club nearby.

Do you mean, a white woman, from the Suburbs, who hasn't been downtown in a while and has a preconcieved notion that the inner city is a bad place??
my 2      Please Sell Crazy Someplace Else....We Have Excess Inventory Here!!

Offline Foraker

  • 629'-Rhodes State Tower
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #202 on: November 22, 2010, 01:28:55 PM »
Cleveland's Children's Museum really does not compare well to Children's Museums in Cincinnati, Indianapolis, or Pittsburgh.  A new building would be a good start.  The Powerhouse is not the easiest to get to, but IF an aquarium and some other child-friendly places came to the Powerhouse it could work out well in the long run.

Offline jborger

  • examiner.com, twitter, blog
  • 665'-Queen City Square
  • ******
  • Posts: 774
  • Now living in Detroit Shoreway
    • Jeremy Borger from Cleveland, Ohio
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #203 on: November 22, 2010, 02:33:14 PM »
My problem with this discussion is the same as most discussions involving downtown Cleveland.  It is always led by the suburbanites.  We should have more parks with benches, etc.  Where are the urban people in these discussions.  Do you think anyone in NYC is talking about how moving a museum downtown is a bad move?  To move the Children's museum to the powerhouse is a great idea.  The current space is terrible and this would be an incredible improvement. 

For all the people talking about how bad the west bank of the Flats is, when was the last time you were there?  Do you even know that it is a thriving entertainment area with bars, restaurants, and thousands of apartments/condos?  This thread is starting to read like Cleveland.dumb. I am getting really tired of the constant misconception about downtown Cleveland.

I've lived downtown for 4 years and currently live on the East Bank of the Flats, overlooking the river.  My windows face the Powerhouse and I agree it's a bad location for the Children's Museum to relocate to.

TMH, I'm all for prepping up the city, but you'll going a little far in calling it a (currently) "thriving entertainment area".  Yes, there are things like - the Improv Comedy Club, Shooters, Christie's, Larry Flynt's Hustler Club, Harbor Inn, Powerhouse Pub (male strippers on Thursday nights!) Flat Iron Cafe, etc.  But none of these things scream "Bring your children here!"  You seriously can't see why University Circle is a better place for a Children's Museum than the Flats?  UC is a hub of museums.  The Flats is a hub of adult entertainment.

I'm not even saying "moving a museum downtown is a bad move".  Get rid of the Coast Guard and put the Children's Museum next to the Rock Hall.  But acting like different parts of downtown aren't better for certain projects than others is just ignorant.

Offline MyTwoSense

  • 40+ and Fly
  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 21066
  • back with a vengeance!
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #204 on: November 22, 2010, 03:08:53 PM »
My problem with this discussion is the same as most discussions involving downtown Cleveland.  It is always led by the suburbanites.  We should have more parks with benches, etc.  Where are the urban people in these discussions.  Do you think anyone in NYC is talking about how moving a museum downtown is a bad move?  To move the Children's museum to the powerhouse is a great idea.  The current space is terrible and this would be an incredible improvement. 

For all the people talking about how bad the west bank of the Flats is, when was the last time you were there?  Do you even know that it is a thriving entertainment area with bars, restaurants, and thousands of apartments/condos?  This thread is starting to read like Cleveland.dumb. I am getting really tired of the constant misconception about downtown Cleveland.

I've lived downtown for 4 years and currently live on the East Bank of the Flats, overlooking the river.  My windows face the Powerhouse and I agree it's a bad location for the Children's Museum to relocate to.

TMH, I'm all for prepping up the city, but you'll going a little far in calling it a (currently) "thriving entertainment area".  Yes, there are things like - the Improv Comedy Club, Shooters, Christie's, Larry Flynt's Hustler Club, Harbor Inn, Powerhouse Pub (male strippers on Thursday nights!) Flat Iron Cafe, etc.  But none of these things scream "Bring your children here!"  You seriously can't see why University Circle is a better place for a Children's Museum than the Flats?  UC is a hub of museums.  The Flats is a hub of adult entertainment.

I'm not even saying "moving a museum downtown is a bad move".  Get rid of the Coast Guard and put the Children's Museum next to the Rock Hall.  But acting like different parts of downtown aren't better for certain projects than others is just ignorant.

jboroger, you're thinking in an antquated way.
 
Who says those things CANNOT all work together.  Any child going to the museum or aquarium would not be going to the establishments listed earlier.
 
Again, this is a perfect example of people saying, "x wont work here or there because of Y", because they cannot look outside the box.
 
We as a city claim we wont more and want to emulate (ie use their best practices), to a degree, cities with various thriving districts/neighborhoods.
 
However, we want white wash everything and expect a clean slate (suburban thinking) for every development.
 
Part of the problem with greater Clevelands youth and people in their mid 20-30's is they've rarely seen diversity and have been shelter from any sense of urbane living.
 
However, they go to another city like NYC, Boston, Philly & DC and claim those cities are so great when we have the same opportunities for greatness here.  The foundation is already laid.
 
I still dont understand why some "mom" would be affraid to go to the powerhouse?  Is she affraid to see reality?  People of differen incomes?  Ethnic backgrounds?  Grit?  Is she affriad that if she doesn't see a McMansion she'll be out of place?
my 2      Please Sell Crazy Someplace Else....We Have Excess Inventory Here!!

Offline Hts121

  • UO Supporting Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17800
  • It's still just like your opinion, man
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #205 on: November 22, 2010, 03:14:22 PM »
I think the Aquarium and the Children's Museam should both go on the lot north of CBS.  They would both be projects the PA could build off of in its attempt to develop that land.  I don't care much for the Powerhouse option (for both the aquarium and the museam) and I can't really think of an ideal place in UC.
Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down.  Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

Offline MyTwoSense

  • 40+ and Fly
  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 21066
  • back with a vengeance!
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #206 on: November 22, 2010, 03:31:41 PM »
I think the Aquarium and the Children's Museam should both go on the lot north of CBS.  They would both be projects the PA could build off of in its attempt to develop that land.  I don't care much for the Powerhouse option (for both the aquarium and the museam) and I can't really think of an ideal place in UC.

I think they would de well on the west side of CBS.  reduce a lane of traffic and that parking lot, enhance the gardens and you've got a winner.
my 2      Please Sell Crazy Someplace Else....We Have Excess Inventory Here!!

Offline Hts121

  • UO Supporting Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17800
  • It's still just like your opinion, man
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #207 on: November 22, 2010, 03:44:45 PM »
I think the Aquarium and the Children's Museam should both go on the lot north of CBS.  They would both be projects the PA could build off of in its attempt to develop that land.  I don't care much for the Powerhouse option (for both the aquarium and the museam) and I can't really think of an ideal place in UC.

I think they would de well on the west side of CBS.  reduce a lane of traffic and that parking lot, enhance the gardens and you've got a winner.

Back on topic!
Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down.  Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

Offline Vulpster03

  • 574'-Carew Tower
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #208 on: November 29, 2010, 05:04:18 AM »
The Downtown Self Storage Building has a new owner and he has been busy with transforming the upper floors with a lot of remodeling. It looks really nice, and I went to a party there last month. I believe the self storage component will stay, but the upper floors will now be artists' space. Future plans include a coffee shop on the ground floor and a green roof. http://downtownselfstoragecleveland.com/

Online StrapHanger

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 7590
Re: Cleveland: Flats Developments (Non-Stonebridge or FEB)
« Reply #209 on: November 29, 2010, 08:56:16 AM »
^Cool!  That building is an awesome slice of old school Flats.
"Cleveland, as you see, is not an apple, but a bunch of grapes each of which has its own particular pattern-some large, others small, some round, others long and narrow, some sweet, others sour, some sound, others rotten throughout."  -Howard Whipple Green, 1932

Remove Ads