McLovin

I will never understand the people's thought processes back then.

Really don't understand your quote about retail (that it is time we take the plunge). You make it sound as if a central committee is deciding whether or not retail expands downtown rather than market conditions. I understand market conditions determine it. I'm not saying grab an Armani or Burberry but I'm sure there are local retailers that can be had. I'm not saying lets make this Michigan Ave. because I know that our market can't hold it but I'm sure there are some quality shopping stores that are local stores like a geigers that are willing to test the market as well.

Also was retail at the bottom mentioned? EDIT: Nevermind I see they mention patios lining the first floor. This sounds like restaurants going in here though. I wouldn't be opposed to them but would prefer a mix of shopping here with this brand new development. I believe it's time to take that plunge. I would much rather spend my time downtown shopping then searching through various suburban malls.

If they don't have to match then the design could vary a bit as urbanophile mentioned. The design looks too stale due to all the buildings having all the same/very similar design. I just personally like buildings that incorporate a mixture of materials they just look more interesting imo everything else about the site layout I enjoy.

I believe that the tower is that tall because if I'm not mistaken that is the Jacobs lot in front of it in one of the renderings. Which I think was done so that when something gets built it doesn't look out of place. I may be wrong but that's how I saw it. I do agree that the design could use some variation.

Excited for the project because those parking lots made my eyes bleed! I like that it's built to the street with what seems like parking that is hidden behind the buildings well. I do feel the building design can be done better to tie in better with the historical neighborhood. I do like that the heights of the buildings match or are close to the ones across the street from them. It allows the heights to vary while not looking out of place. Also I'm pumped about the 23 story building! Overall I'm excited about this project I just want the design to tie in better with their surroundings.

When I look at the Steelyard Commons, I get a feeling of a severance town center part two. Not due to literal design but due to the fact that they contain(ed) virtually the same stores outside of Target and a few miscellaneous ones (Phase One). Not really a bad thing just a random observation.

Thus the reason for my question about a dedicated "Urban Cleveland" site Edit: I'm also surprised how Cimperman knows nothing about it I'm sure he does, as do others, as KJP said up thread. People know what's going on here. I go back to what I said about a month ago. A reliable source had told me that a developer wants something out of the ground by years end, but he couldn't say anything else. All he did say was this particular developer is starting to become more active downtown, and it's not Geis. Could it be K&D?

Is it not possible for a rooftop patio? Like green house tavern or Red Steakhouse? If the business is going to be there I think this is a great option if possible.

Exciting.....................................but seriously Dollar General builds A LOT of stores.

The 118 Flats design is just so dated imo

I believe branding is too important in America for that to work. Although it could be a quality casino if it has a "Generic Name" aka one without a Caesars endorsement etc. people will look at it as lower quality casino. They probably will say "it wasn't good enough to have a big name endorse it so why should I go?"

Agreed, I hope they brand it with something original and unique to Cleveland, and don't slap on a generic casino chain branding. It always felt like a missed opportunity to renovate a beautiful art deco building by laying down yards of horse shoe carpet. Outside of the carpet I believe that the renovation turned out beautifully. The carpet doesn't really bother especially for what the building is getting used for (as well as I don't pay it much attention when walking).

We need more--not less--tall bldgs....if anything even one more would balance out the other three. I believe that is a great height to create a nice dense downtown, look at Cincinnati they don't try to get super talls and they have a great dense skyline, probably the most dense in Ohio. Great architecture is very important, which this project has. I feel like even though this would be our fourth skyscraper, we are not New York or Chicago so skyscrapers don't come along often and we would be waiting years for our 5th, 6th, 7th etc. I believe 30 story buildings would be easier to come by (at least more so than a skyscraper) and fill in our downtown nicely (if done correctly). I don't want to take this off topic (I'm not sure if I am) so I will just leave it here to prevent a tangent.

Although I love the NuCLEus development, I am losing interest in the tall 50+ story model office building. I believe our skyline is too vertical with no balance, the buildings seem to drop off to much and has too many gaps depending on the angle in which you view it. I'd much rather have two 25-30 story office buildings with retail at the bottom, maybe with the hotel mixed with them. I know it may not be a popular view but our skyline imo is too vertical and skinny and lacks great density. This would be the perfect step towards changing that. EDIT: I believe another reason I feel like the height is too tall is due to its location. The buildings on prospect are lower rise compared to other streets. Starting at the aforementioned height would allow the skyline to have more density, while allowing future projects to be taller without new/old buildings looking out of place. Just a personal opinion.

^ Love the density from that angle!

I mean you do have the W.O Walker building to the side of it on stokes and the high rise next to MLK library across on stokes as well so that's something.

Uh, right. Cause the sign will be the main concern. :roll: Smart remark wasn't necessary. At all. I understand how bad an empty office building is. Since we were talking about looks and appeal having your tenants on display means that if they begin to flee an already tacky sign will look worse.

More national names downtown = :clap:

What will be bad is if/when the tower becomes outdated and tenants pull out that sign will just look worse.

I don't know why I think this but I feel as though the added signage at the top of the building has to do with the almost completed Hilton. I view it as them trying to ensure that their stands out. Before the Hilton they were the nicest hotel in that small area around the mall.

If there was a list of top cities that tore down historic/architectural gems, I bet Cleveland would be top 5. Sad.

I'm kind of shocked to see Chicago on the list. For such a popular and large city I would expect it to be the other way around. I know they had population drops but I thought they turned it around as of late.

I'm late but they hit a home run with CSA but struck out with this building.

Two things. Looking at the story I saw a shot of the North Coast Harbor station when they were trying to give an idea as to where this station would be. So would the station close if this is built? Secondly I saw the upkeep that greyhound and Amtrak does with there stations and RTA doesn't do the best job either so I wonder and a little concerned as to who would be in charge of upkeep because none are very good at it. This is a very important project imo so keeping it looking great is important.