Jump to content
Map Boy

Cleveland: Ohio City: Development and Construction

Recommended Posts

On 2/13/2019 at 10:32 AM, Sammy Voz said:

The 2 bridges between this site and the Ohio city retail area are a killer for walkability to an existing entertainment district. Same going east to Tremont with no real direct walkable route. The closer you get to the merger of the railways and highways into downtown, the more islands of land like this you get. I think options like this make sense in this area since it doesn't seem to be too appealing for private investment. It's on a major bus route as well which hopefully will help mobilize these residents.

The land between Duck Iskand and the rest of Tremont is sort of a bummer too - small as it is. Even that single parking lot on West 25th in Ohio City on the west side of the street distrupts the flow of shops.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, the RTA board isn't voting on the proposed sale/lease of their Columbus Road land at today's meeting. 

Edited by KJP

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StapHanger said:

 

Ugh, exactly as feared. Given the grade change, it's hard to imagine a developer proposing anything other than parking down there, unless their arm is twisted.

 

In a normal city, when a public amenity like this is being planned, there would be accompanying changes to land use regs that would make clear the types of development the city will permit or wants to see alongside it. It's increasingly frustrating seeing proactive planning either totally ignored by the city or outsourced to expensive outside consultants. Every booster bro loves comparing projects like this to the high line (which is dumb to begin with), but no one pays attention to the intense public planning effort that went into the land use regulations surrounding the high line.

 

With the amount of backlash this is seemingly receiving, and if something does get developed, I don’t know how or why anyone would support garages facing the parkway. Seems like the below grade area would be reserved for public use. I don’t see parking flying in design review. McCormack seemingly would be against that as well. And if RTA were really to seek the best design possible for the building I don’t think they would allow a developer to do that either. I also don’t see RTA wanting a 1-to-1 parking arrangement either in the building because that would fly in the face of TOD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 7:49 PM, w28th said:

And another dead zone along West 25th is cemented until this thing can be torn down in 40 years...

Didn't Nestle already set the tone for this area though? They brought "build to the sidewalk" to the extreme. It may as well be a prison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Redline Greenway, and RTA's TOD development are two parallel ideas, each with no thought given to the other.  The Greenway folks believe that absolutely no development should happen on the RTA land.  RTA's TOD plan is to wedge the Greenway between two chainlink fences.  I wouldn't expect anyone to back down or think about how to get the most out of both things happening in coordination with each other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, X said:

The Redline Greenway, and RTA's TOD development are two parallel ideas, each with no thought given to the other.  The Greenway folks believe that absolutely no development should happen on the RTA land.  RTA's TOD plan is to wedge the Greenway between two chainlink fences.  I wouldn't expect anyone to back down or think about how to get the most out of both things happening in coordination with each other.

Agreed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, X said:

The Redline Greenway, and RTA's TOD development are two parallel ideas, each with no thought given to the other.  The Greenway folks believe that absolutely no development should happen on the RTA land.  RTA's TOD plan is to wedge the Greenway between two chainlink fences.  I wouldn't expect anyone to back down or think about how to get the most out of both things happening in coordination with each other.

 

I think that planners over at RTA have pretty good heads on their shoulders. Whether anyone listens to them (or they have the resources) is another question. They're pretty intelligent and have put forth some pretty good projects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

RTA doesn't truly care about TOD imo. If they truly did they would be trying to leverage development at their station that has the most TOD potential, Superior station. 

 

Why would you say the Superior station...I. e Cleveland ? W 25ths rider ship is twice as high as Superior’s. It’s near the bottom of their ridership for red line. Tower city, stokes, west park, west 25th, and w 117th are their 5 highest used stations. Superior is 13th-14th out of their 18 redline stations for usage. Plus the Superior station is in EC and isn’t developing at nearly the rate that OhC is (it’s dead). 

Edited by imjustinjk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, StapHanger said:

It's increasingly frustrating seeing proactive planning either totally ignored by the city or outsourced to expensive outside consultants. Every booster bro loves comparing projects like this to the high line (which is dumb to begin with), but no one pays attention to the intense public planning effort that went into the land use regulations surrounding the high line.

 

To be fair, in this situation there have been 2 significant planning efforts (Duck Island Neighborhood Plan and the Market District TOD plan) in the past few years with lots of public feedback/meetings that specifically called for townhouse developments on this land. The TOD plan predated the Red Line Greenway effort, but the Duck Island plan specifically incorporated the trail. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, imjustinjk said:

 

Why would you say the Superior station...I. e Cleveland ? W 25ths rider ship is twice as high as Superior’s. It’s near the bottom of their ridership for red line. Tower city, stokes, west park, west 25th, and w 117th are their 5 highest used stations. Superior is 13th-14th out of their 18 redline stations for usage. Plus the Superior station is in EC and isn’t developing at nearly the rate that OhC is (it’s dead). 

That's my point. To boost ridership you should build the area around it. The station right now is surrounded by dead zones or single use fast food chains. To Garner foot traffic those abandoned homes can be torn down into multi use apartments with retail at the bottom and the same goes for the parking lots. That would definitely skyrocket the ridership. In East Cleveland you have to take control of the development yourself because no one else will. 

 

To bring it back on topic, if RTA was serious about TOD imo they would have proposed TOD in an area where land is cheap and the layout is perfect for TOD. If they can't/won't get anything built there then hoping they build something on land as complicated as this Greenway proposal is a pipe dream. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^I should have been more specific: the high line planning effort culminated in a major rezoning that ensured some basic building form characteristics for the expected rush of development.  Were there any public policy changes that resulted from the Market District TOD and Duck Island planning efforts, or were they primarily community visioning exercises?  

 

It's possible the flaky discretionary gauntlet of design review, spot zoning, and variances can get us to the same place, but it would be swell if the city could sometimes get out ahead of these things with ex ante rezonings to cut to the chase. Maybe they have in this case and I'm wasting keystrokes.

Edited by StapHanger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StapHanger said:

^^I should have been more specific: the high line planning effort culminated in a major rezoning that ensured some basic building form characteristics for the expected rush of development.  Were there any public policy changes that resulted from the Market District TOD and Duck Island planning efforts, or were they primarily community visioning exercises?  

 

It's possible the flaky discretionary gauntlet of design review, spot zoning, and variances can get us to the same place, but it would be swell if the city could sometimes get out ahead of these things with ex ante rezonings to cut to the chase. Maybe they have in this case and I'm wasting keystrokes.

 

All of Duck Island went through rezoning last year to match the master plan that was put together a few years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

That's my point. To boost ridership you should build the area around it. The station right now is surrounded by dead zones or single use fast food chains. To Garner foot traffic those abandoned homes can be torn down into multi use apartments with retail at the bottom and the same goes for the parking lots. That would definitely skyrocket the ridership. In East Cleveland you have to take control of the development yourself because no one else will. 

 

To bring it back on topic, if RTA was serious about TOD imo they would have proposed TOD in an area where land is cheap and the layout is perfect for TOD. If they can't/won't get anything built there then hoping they build something on land as complicated as this Greenway proposal is a pipe dream. 

 

The issue with this is that RTA doesn’t have the resources to spur development, and nobody wants to develop around this area. They could give the land they own around the station for free, but nothing will happen. If you look at West Park, however, you’ll see it has higher ridership, but also a lot of potential to be developed. There’s a lot of dead zones on immediately around West Park, but the area is fairly stable. RTA would be smarter to invest time and funds into the West Park area than Superior or a similar station to Superior. But this is getting of-topic. I think that W 25th-W 65th area have real possibilities of development and boosting ridership, especially in the immediate future. 

Edited by imjustinjk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, StapHanger said:

^^I should have been more specific: the high line planning effort culminated in a major rezoning that ensured some basic building form characteristics for the expected rush of development.  Were there any public policy changes that resulted from the Market District TOD and Duck Island planning efforts, or were they primarily community visioning exercises?  

 

It's possible the flaky discretionary gauntlet of design review, spot zoning, and variances can get us to the same place, but it would be swell if the city could sometimes get out ahead of these things with ex ante rezonings to cut to the chase. Maybe they have in this case and I'm wasting keystrokes.

 

They rezoned most of Duck Island last year. I just saw this, so I haven't had time to read through it. See the last page for a map of the changes (which includes an urban form overlay for the RTA land).

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/zoning/2018/Map2586.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the perfect situation for a requirement on development here to provide  0 off street parking spots? RTA can do that right? The block clubs would lose their shirt though. However it would be a good place to show that the world continues to work without off street parking, especially next to a heavy rail station. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was public input into the Duck Island plan, but the townhouses on the RTA land was a very unpopular feature.  NIMBY sentiment certainly doesn't always win out, despite some people's contentions.  Personally, I've always been of the opinion that well thought out development and greenspace will complement each other, but that's a middle ground few want to stand on.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

RTA doesn't truly care about TOD imo. If they truly did they would be trying to leverage development at their station that has the most TOD potential, Superior station. 

 

Absolutely incorrect. TOD is a primary goal of the agency.  It is fair to suggest that their execution of that goal leaves something to be desired or that their experience is still lacking, however there is no lack of desire.

 

I'll have a blog posting on this Columbus Road project.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Litt's article suggested that the developer works with the Metroparks/Rotary for a high quality design facing the Greenway, which IMO is a reasonable ask.

 

I wonder if this will end up a townhome project. The article says there is a 30 foot drop-off to the bottom of the hill. That's a substantial amount of fill and retaining for potentially 60-70 townhomes. And the developer would have to pre-sell a bunch of them before starting construction. It would make more sense as an apartment building with below grade parking.

 

Edited by Mendo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was annoyingly presumptuous for assuming the city didn't rezone this land (thank you @3231 and @Mendo for setting me straight), but as far as I can tell, the rezoning didn't really add anything special relating to the greenway. Just put the site in a multifamily use district. No form-based overlays or special off-street parking restrictions to prevent the rear of the site from being nothing but garages, driveway, and fences. Here's another document showing the map changes:  http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/zoning/2018/Map2586.pdf

 

Anyway, this site won't make or break the greenway, so I won't get too hung up on it, but wish I had more confidence we'd see something especially well designed. 

 

Question for @X , is the on-street parking on this part of Columbus fairly well used? Or do you think it could handle more cars without disrupting too many existing residents?

Edited by StapHanger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what the development will be, but RTA's plan going back to 2013 was to have townhouses on the site. RTA went with the assumption that any developer of these TOD-townhouses would also want to include one or two garage spaces 😞 . Because of the grade change and design considerations, it made more sense to put the townhouse garages on the back to avoid a mega-block of 30 front-loaded garage doors and corresponding curb cuts.  They were told that the City would never approve a project where you'd have up to 30 drivers backing out of the driveway and into a busy arterial road (Columbus Rd) each morning.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't like the idea of garage doors lining the greenway, we shouldn't get carried away in assuming its going to be just a trail completely sandwiched between the tracks and a driveway. In the article and the graphics, the narrowest the greenway right of way will be is 22.8ft. That's still pretty wide. If the trail is the width of the towpath, that would still leave alot of buffer space on either side. The train tracks do not go directly up to that right of way either, and I wouldn't imagine a driveway built directly along the other side. For comparison, in measuring on Google Maps, the Lake Link trail through Stonebridge measures between 14 and 40 ft wide, with most of it being about 30ft. That trail has buildings completely lining it for nearly the entire length.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, X said:

The Redline Greenway, and RTA's TOD development are two parallel ideas, each with no thought given to the other.  The Greenway folks believe that absolutely no development should happen on the RTA land.  RTA's TOD plan is to wedge the Greenway between two chainlink fences.  I wouldn't expect anyone to back down or think about how to get the most out of both things happening in coordination with each other.

 

Sad...but true.   They should be working together as we all know that the weather here isn't always conducive to riding or walking to downtown, so people who choose to live on the greenway would also find their TOD spaces beneficial on days that mother nature refuses to cooperate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, StapHanger said:

I was annoyingly presumptuous for assuming the city didn't rezone this land (thank you @3231 and @Mendo for setting me straight), but as far as I can tell, the rezoning didn't really add anything special relating to the greenway. Just put the site in a multifamily use district. No form-based overlays or special off-street parking restrictions to prevent the rear of the site from being nothing but garages, driveway, and fences. Here's another document showing the map changes:  http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/zoning/2018/Map2586.pdf

 

Anyway, this site won't make or break the greenway, so I won't get too hung up on it, but wish I had more confidence we'd see something especially well designed. 

 

Question for @X , is the on-street parking on this part of Columbus fairly well used? Or do you think it could handle more cars without disrupting too many existing residents?

 

It is very well used when Velvet Tango Room or Forest City Brewery are busy, or during market times on Saturday.  Otherwise, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps some angled parking underneath units. So some units might have covered parking others might have angled garages. Have a lane going down to access from the Wiley intersection.  It would be interesting to see if it could go vertical ala the river south condos in Rocky River and not really even use the frontage on Columbus in order to keep as much in a more natural state.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, viscomi said:

Is this the perfect situation for a requirement on development here to provide  0 off street parking spots? RTA can do that right? The block clubs would lose their shirt though. However it would be a good place to show that the world continues to work without off street parking, especially next to a heavy rail station. 

 

This is a great point.  I can just see the conversation... "We don't want parking facing Columbus or the Trail!" "Ok, we'll build without parking then" "No way! Then we'll have nowhere to park!"

Always found it funny how those who own properties without parking insist that all new properties must be built with lots of parking.

Edited by RMB
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many of you will be pleased with the recommended developer (a local company) and especially the architect (a global firm). While I don't know what their plans are, I would be very surprised (and disappointed) that this would be just a row of pricey townhouses, given the team involved. And you may find just as interesting who one of the rejected applicants was.

 

If you want to learn more or share your opinions on whether this site should be developed, I encourage you to go to the Duck Island Block Club meeting on March 5 at 6:30 p.m. at Forest City Brewery.

  • Like 5

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RMB said:

 

This is a great point.  I can just see the conversation... "We don't want parking facing Columbus or the Trail!" "Ok, we'll build without parking then" "No way! Then we'll have nowhere to park!"

Always found it funny how those who own properties without parking insist that all new properties must be built with lots of parking.

 

Harbor bay wants to do less than 1-to-1 parking for their apartments. It’ll be interesting to see where they end up with that. I’m hoping that ends up being the case. I know that Aspen place down the road at W 65 doesn’t have a garage, but that’s a different type of project, so I’m not sure if it’s directly relatable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleveland+Vibrator+site1.jpg

 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2019

Ohio City mixed use project may feature downtown ad firm

 

An exciting mixed-use development is in the works for the Hingetown section of Cleveland's Ohio City neighborhood, according to multiple sources. Although still in a preliminary stage, the development's concept at this point involves putting the offices for a fast-growing downtown company on the lower floors of a new building with apartments on the upper floors.

Two sources say the site is 2828 Clinton Ave., the current location of one of the region's most well-known and oft-photographed businesses -- the 94-year-old Cleveland Vibrator Company which will relocate from the site. The downtown company seeking to move to the site is The Adcom Group, a full-service marketing and communications firm, according to two other sources.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2019/02/ohio-city-mixed-use-project-may-feature.html

  • Like 3

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Columbus developer buys Cleveland land, plans apartments"

https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/columbus-developer-buys-cleveland-land-plans-apartments

 

https://www.cleveland.com/expo/life-and-culture/g66l-2019/02/a8c1f90c9a7243/rta-redline-greenway-development-prompts-clash-of-positive-values-steven-litt.html

 

If you cannot access the article, I've noticed it is accessible via a google search.

Edited by X
separated the two links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eastside said:

 

Are the block clubs still upset about the Franklin circle Casto development? That whole intersection needs some help. I’m glad somebody wants to invest in it. Dexter Pl should be vacated. It’s a pointless street. That little park or whatever it is needs some sprucing up. Also the giant clinic parking lot 😞

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course this is going to be game changer for Ohio City.

 

Just curious...Litt's article states that the developer hopes to break ground in the third quarter of this year which is not far off.  Has anyone seen any evidence of tenant relocation (even something small like a moving sale) yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2019 at 5:02 PM, freethink said:

^^I think Carnegie might be one those...

 

Next blog article is done. All I have to do is get the OK from a source and hit the "publish" button. Hopefully tomorrow.... Correction: it's going to have to wait until March 5. But I suppose I could give you all a little tease in the meantime. This is NOT a rendering of the development. But it is of a similar project/setting (can anyone guess where/what this is?) and it's from the architect who is part of the recommended development team, so this rendering MIGHT give some insight as to their plan.

Atlanta Beltline trail.jpg

Edited by KJP
  • Like 1

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Some quick sleuthing suggests that image is from some Perkins+Will master planning work for the Belt Line (in Atlanta).  Looking very forward to hearing more about your info!

Edited by StapHanger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...