The Observation Deck

Quoting from the City's 2016 Annual Report:

"Concurrently, the City has begun the process of interviewing developers to reimagine an entire city block at the former hospital site across the street from the new Family Health Center. The redevelopment of the 5.7
acres is a once-in-a-50-year opportunity that will likely become a new mixed use development with tens of millions in post construction value."

Some questions arise:

1. How much public financing or tax incentives will be used for this new development?

2. How are these "tens of millions" better than the millions spent on charity care each year under the previous contracts with LHA?

3. Aren't we really talking about new "post construction value" offsetting a vast net loss at this location?

4. Anybody think that the bond investors might want to know that a former LHA board member and former mayor is on one of the bidding teams for the project?

I have said from the very beginning that it appeared that Armond Budish and the Cuyahoga County Courts were involved with this entire scandal.

Right now, I believe that Council and Mr. Summers and Company believe that their backs are being covered by Cuyahoga County and possibly even some at the State Government level.

Many times, myself, and others, have listed agencies that persons could contact, including the FBI to send in evidence, etc., against these clowns.

They all seem to be pretty scared, as it appears Mr. Summers has the Deck monitored 24/7.

Tick tock, tick tock, I hope and believe that their time may be running out.

Lori Allen _ wrote: They all seem to be pretty scared, as it appears Mr. Summers has the Deck monitored 24/7.

Just to be clear, that would not be unwelcome, and I'm sure JOB agrees.

Dan OMalley wrote:The 25th is the correct date. I will ask that it be added to the calendar - thanks for catching it.

It has been posted. Good to see.

Council, Summers and Company, Armond Budish, Cuyahoga County Court system, and even our ex-county leader, all in bed together. It appears that Fitz is expanding his list of bed buddies!

Folks, the contract is set in stone and already signed. There is no competition for this property.

Meg Ostrowski wrote:

Knowing that nothing built on this property will replace the revenue and value to the community that the hospital provided, it is difficult to embrace either of these proposals. But leading up to tomorrow night’s special joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board, I wanted to elaborate on my earlier video post.

I disagree with the Carnegie proposal’s suggestion that the architecture is “seamlessly woven into the current context of the neighborhood.” In contrast, I see it sticking out like a sore thumb with its chaotic collage of contemporary architecture alongside “iconic hospital design elements.” This application is insulting to the legacy of the hospital that cared for generations of residents and those that fought to save it. The thought of seeing this complex (which my neighborhood refers to as “The Belle-agio” with its “fully furnished short term rental housing”) not just once but double as reflected in the bare panels of the adjacent Cleveland Clinic Family Health Center leaves me feeling dispirited.

I find the scale and architecture of the Casto/North Pointe proposal more appropriate, tasteful and subtle, better complimenting the neighborhood, business district and new Family Health Center.

Either way it's still a "bitter pill."

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

dl meckes wrote:Let's not get our knickers in a twist about Lakewood Towne Centre, because there already exists Lakewood Town Center. It was an exciting project. It was going to be like the Gold Coast, with big mixed use buildings that would bring residents downtown.

http://www.thecoralcompany.com/properti ... wn-center/

Let's not forget, glass walkways to take people to and from the hospital, and all of the high end shopping in DowntowN, Lakewood.



They talk big, but their dreams always turn to strip malls.

.

My God. Joann Fabrics is listed as an anchor & it has been gone since 2011.....the above is from their website in 2017???

Lakewood's Jo-Ann Fabrics to close April 11 | cleveland.com

http://www.cleveland.com/.../2011/03/la ... to_cl.html

Mar 16, 2011 · LAKEWOOD-- The Jo-Ann Fabrics at the City Center Plaza is closing its doors for good April 11. After 25 years of service to residents, employees have no ...(don't need the whole article.)

The thought of seeing this complex (which my neighborhood refers to as “The Belle-agio” with its “fully furnished short term rental housing”) not just once but double as reflected in the bare panels of the adjacent Cleveland Clinic Family Health Center leaves me feeling dispirited.

Belle-agio.

Below are details about tonight's meeting. It does not appear that there will be an opportunity for public comment.

FROM THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD'S WEBSITE:

Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and the Architectural Board of Review

July 25 @ 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm – Lakewood City Hall Auditorium

AGENDA

Roll Call

Opening Remarks

PRESENTATION OF PROPOSALS

Carnegie Management and Development -

Presentation of the Round Two Downtown Development Proposal.

CASTO and North Pointe Realty -

Presentation of the Round Two Downtown Development Proposal.

Adjourn

I'm here. It looks like sheets of paper are available for questions and comments. Bryce Sylvester just announced each developer's presentation will be followed by 20 minutes for questions from the audience. He is detailing this now:
- all questions to be provided in writing
- some will be answered this evening
- all questions are to be posted on city web site later

City site also has a page for submitting questions: http://www.onelakewood.com/downtownRFQ/

The meeting is being live-streamed, we're told, and will in any event is to be posted later.

The Tristan Rader campaign is planning to post some live updates on Twitter, fwiw, and I'll try to post a further update or two here, also. https://twitter.com/TWRader

Carnegie just finished. Lot of material, I may see what media end up reporting, and then supplement.

Probably the theme of most frequently revisited contention was their proposal's plaza, and the relationship between it and Detroit Avenue. Criticism of this came from both the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board, mostly to the effect that the development felt separate from Detroit Ave rather than part of it. One person suggested that possibly the row of trees along the plaza's edge might contribute to that issue (but someone else felt that the whole development already has insufficient green space, so…).

There was also a fairly pointed audience question about respect for the historic character of Lakewood. Carnegie mostly replied that they interpreted that part of the development goals differently, and to a great extent said that they just wanted to do something new/different more. So.

Oh, and one Carnegie slide included a line about "expand the footprint," which someone later said they shouldn't have included; they are in discussions with some other area property owners but those are confidential for now.

Exciting stuff.

mjkuhns wrote:
Oh, and one Carnegie slide included a line about "expand the footprint," which someone later said they shouldn't have included; they are in discussions with some other area property owners but those are confidential for now.

Game. Set. Match. Fitz-Carnegie are...in like Flynn.

The meeting lasted until almost quarter-past 9. So, just a few notes on the second half, and then I'll review tomorrow.

The Casto / North Point session felt like an entirely different meeting. I think they were more ready for this presentation, but even the questions felt different. There really didn't seem to be any sore points about their proposal, to compare with Carnegie.

Probably the only real thing people seemed to question Casto about, in the sense of doubt rather than curiosity, was their proposal that all housing would be rental. They said they could be flexible on this, but that all-rental was their recommendation. (I'll also add that neither developer seemed to be anticipating affordability to be a factor in their residential properties. I'm not sure they were even given this as a criteria, though.)

They also got questioned, more mildly, about the absence of any clear reflection of the hospital building in their plans. They basically admitted that they struggled with that, and suggested that "being a public resource" was their offering in terms of continuity. I sense that few people minded because their proposal seemed to achieve an overall "fits in with Lakewood" character more than Carnegie's.

Personally, I found a lot to like about this proposal… except that they had a lot less to say about replacing lost economic output, than Carnegie did.

Oh, and asked if they were also looking to land additional property in the area, they replied "we're always exploring."

There's more on Twitter. I will try to review my notes, tomorrow, and add anything that seems noteworthy.

Brian Essi wrote:

mjkuhns wrote:
Oh, and one Carnegie slide included a line about "expand the footprint," which someone later said they shouldn't have included; they are in discussions with some other area property owners but those are confidential for now.

Game. Set. Match. Fitz-Carnegie are...in like Flynn.

"Expand the footprint", "which someone later said they shouldn't have included."
I get the rebuke. Carnegie came too close to telling the truth, too close to transparency.
Can't have that. Not here. Not now.

"Expand the footprint". Encroach into the neighborhood.
Grab as much as you can. Grab as much as the Planning Commission will stomach. Promise them anything upfront, in the end it will mean nothing.
That's the Drug Mart experience.
That's Summers/Siley 101.

I feel like I ought to detail this "expand the footprint" line a bit further.

This phrase was actually on one of Carnegie's slides. A lot of people wondered about that, including me. During the questions-from-the-public part, the Carnegie team were asked about this. One of them answered "Some times I say some really stupid things," then went on to provide the limited explanation which I've related above. I was probably paraphrasing this when I suggested someone "said they shouldn't have included" that line.

Though that did seem like what the Carnegie guy was saying, in effect: that shouldn't actually have been mentioned. All the more odd that it was on a slide, not a stray remark. Anyway.