CleveFan

Thanks Murray Hill, for the link to an a very interesting article on possible huge-scale future development in Portland in your April 15 post - I'd love to see Cleveland in a similar reality soon - just wondering if we'll see a "crane in the sky" as a result of the CityMark "Superblock" project during the RNC (I thought that was a specific timetable goal for CityMark) - any update on that project?

I've really enjoyed looking at those great graphics by W28 and Sizzlin' Beef showing the proposed new high rise construction in the city from two perspectives. On Sizzlin' Beef's graphic - Does the blue-highlighted building to the far right represent the PHS Apartment tower? And if the shorter tower of Nucleus is 304 feet high - I think it should be almost exactly the same height as 55 Public Square (300 feet). Also, I wondered if the taller of the buildings in the Weston Superblock, in both perspectives, represents the proposed 38 story tower - if so, I wonder if it should be a little taller - but I see it is consistent in both Sizzlin' and W28's versions. Do we know the exact height of the tallest Weston tower? One last question - shouldn't the Federal Court House Tower look a little taller since it is only 10 feet shorter than the Justice Building? I think that because of the great height of Key Tower, particularly ( along with the TT and 200 PS) that we really need a couple of 500+ feet towers to really change the impact of our skyline. We already have 23 skyscrapers with between 20 and 29 stories - and 3 others over 30 stories - but even a dynamic building like the Hilton, at 32 stories, can get a little lost, from certain perspectives. After reading the forum tonight, it seems as if the projected future skyline might be more elusive than I thought, since "515" may be waiting for more state funding $ and the PHS project looks like it will be only an improved parking lot for awhile. Of course, if we get Nucleus on the scale originally presented, it's a game changer and hopefully, that major tower on Public Square comes to fruition very soon.

As someone who is very interested, but certainly not "in the know", I'm a little confused - I've been hearing about how capacity is almost 100% for available apartments downtown with a waiting list of close to 2000 - seems like the city has incredible momentum - yet it also seems like this was somewhat of a heavy lift to interest developers even with the lure of a possible 30 story apartment tower. Is that a fair perception - and, if so - is/was hesitation due to something specific about the property or something very nearby - -or is it something more fundamental in the Cleveland market? (I ask understanding that this may still be good news and may lead to a big project in the semi-near future) Seems like PHS would be a very trendy address to have, but I wonder what you folks with expertise on the topic think.

Thanks so much KJP!! Very informative post showing which project is which in that skyline view. Hopefully, a good bit of that skyline becomes reality closer to 2020 - the latest Nucleus news suggests a possible late 18/ early 19 opening and the superblock seems fairly certain by then as well. I know we're still guessing about what will happen on the Jacobs lot and I can't help wonder if anything close to the scope of the Ameritrust project could still happen. As for the Hippodrome Tower - I would love to know more about that project - haven't heard much of anything previously.

Very interesting graphic, from the "ranking of cities thread" from W28 and KJP showing us the possible future skyline of Cleveland - if all of the proposed projects materialize. And if they do, wow - it really creates a big-city look. It would be great if the buildings in that graphic could be labeled, for those of us who are not experts - if that can be done, it would be most appreciated. Reading through some recent posts in the thread, I noticed the comparisons to the last comparable building boom, by decade. Turns out that the 20's yielded 8 major high rise buildings, the 30's produced 4 (including, of course, the Terminal Tower) and then there was a 27 year drought until the late 50's produced 2 major buildings. There were 7 built in the 60's, including Erieview, and 13 in the 70's, featuring the dreaded Justice Tower. The 80's gave us 6 bigs, including 200 Public Square. There were 6 major high rise projects in the 90's, featuring the Key Tower, plus the R&RHF. Since 2000, we've added four major high rise buildings, including the new Hilton. Let's hope the rest of this decade actually results in the next building boom - seems like we're on the verge.

Big picture - relief! There was some speculation in this forum that the project might not happen at all - that rumor seems now to be put to rest - As were some others, I'm also wondering about the reduction by 70,000 SF of office space. The Stark Enterprise website still had the old numbers (200,000sq office space) up as of today, April 6. I would think the CoreNet presentation is the updated, correct number. And if a hotel is no longer part of it- seems it would be a significant downsizing in the height and mass of Nucleus. Very curious to see if a new design is revealed at the presentation.

One University Circle is planned to be 234 feet high, according to a recent P.D. article. Reserve Square's two towers, finished in 1973, are each 266 feet high. The Crittenden, finished in 1996, is 195 feet high.

Thanks FreeThink for the link back to your brilliant April 3, 2015 post where you propose the Harborside Theater - great graphics, you've got it all figured out. Obviously, seating for 100 is really tiny and would preclude any real significant musical experiences there. I wonder if instead of a perfectly circular theater - it could be circular only on the south side and open up/fan out on the other 3 sides to accommodate at least a few hundred people, which is still smaller than many junior high auditoriums. (Your April 3 post beautifully illustrates the space limitations of the area) Maybe this is fantasty, but would there be any possibility to land fill the southern most section of the harbor between the science museum and the rock hall to create a bigger space for a real theater?

The City Design Review Committee made a great call on this one! As Dave68 said, these new features were "uninspired add ons" (at best!) The new "stage" looks like something you'd see at a county fair, set up for some high school band to play at. The "Long Live Rock" sign looks cheap and tacky - I don't know maybe they thought they were creating a Cleveland version of the "Hollywood" sign - but it just doesn't work. The goal of making the plaza vibrant and having people there is great! But the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame is a world-class and unique attraction and developing it should not be done on the cheap. If " a stage" is added, it should be an actual venue where people can go and sit down and watch a major act perform. Can that element be located on the front plaza in front of the entrance - no - maybe there's enough area on the west side of the building ... the big problem is that the hall is just disconnected from any kind of shopping, dining and fun places (other than the Science Hall, of course) As a result, people "go in" and "go out. The new development on the lakefront and the pedestrian bridge should greatly help enliven the area...but I, for one, am happy that these new design features are going to be rethought.

I also find the "Long Live Rock" sign super tacky - At least the plastic plants have been removed. What the rock hall needs is to embody the art it stands for - rock n roll. The building itself looks way cool. But the live, performance element of music should be much more integrated into the space and the experience. I know they give concerts in the first floor "lobby" area at times - but I think the missing element has always been the lack of a real concert hall for live performances at the RRHF. I could imagine an outdoor theater with the Hall itself and the lake as a backdrop. I don't think folks living in the forthcoming condos/apartments on the lakefront would mind that in the summer.

I watch most of the CAVS Games on TV (and come to some when I'm in town). I don't know if just's me but recently (I guess that means a lot of this season) it seems like there's kind of a "lower energy level" in the crowd - at least in the part that one sees in the first ten rows or so from the court. It seems the crowd has gotten used to the idea that "it's championship or bust" for the Cavs very quickly - and they almost seem a little bored (kind of like a typical LA crowd at a sporting event) half the time. What happened to that go-crazy, Cleveland-rocks intensity? I see more of it in other buildings in the NBA - definitely Golden State (I know, they're special) but places like Oklahoma City and Toronto as well..... anybody else feeling that, or am I getting the wrong impression watching on TV?

The pics on the PORT website look really cool! I hope it's going to wind up looking that way.

What a great year to have a mild winter - Public Square is shaping up to be a real gem for the city! I wish there was no bus lane going through the middle of it - perhaps that can change in the future - I don't know if they did some kind of traffic study that determined it was needed - it just doesn't seem like it would've been such a big deal to route the buses around the square, but I'm sure there are people well informed on whether that was absolutely necessary. I loved Steven Litt's comment that the unification of the square makes the empty northwest lot even more noticeable. Oh would I love to see that 4th skyscraper on the square someday soon. I'm thinking that the forthcoming WHD Superblock will take care of some that void. By the way, when does construction begin there?

Thanks to Paul in Cleveland and Musky for awesome shots of the Hilton. Flew into Hopkins the other night - had a great view going right over downtown and the light strip on the Hilton really stood out - next to the Key, Terminal and "BP" Tower (and RR Hall of Fame) it was the most striking feature from above. I think it will become an immediate signature of Cleveland's skyline at night. Made me wish that the Erieview Tower could be lit on top - I think that would really expand the perceived size of downtown at night for the national TV audience watching Cavs games and other big events.

Great to hear about this new building! What's the reason for the zoning restriction of 115 feet high and is that for a certain kind of apartment building? Seems like a number of projects might have grown taller if not for that restriction - Thanks to any forum person who can explain.

I think that the new development at Voinovich Park will only enhance the Rock Hall - as iconic and sleek as the hall is - it looks so isolated and sometimes even lifeless over there - the more development around it the better. I agree with 327 that it was a poor location - but now that's it there love to see it have some modern company

Shaking my head at the few "brilliant" comments on Cleveland.com tonight calling the new KSU architecture building "ugly" and complaining about a NY architecture firm designing it. As a Kent graduate, I'm happy that the University is moving forward boldly - I think the building makes a statement - in a great way - that feels very 21st century, while still having some of the classic elements of a "hall of academia." The building is definitely in a strategic, commanding position as you approach the University from the campus. It will probably create quite a positive first impression for a lot of visiting seniors who are considering Kent. The town itself definitely has an energy right now - new buildings and momentum. Definite upgrade from what it was just a few years ago. Wish we had a little more dynamic vision happening at Cleveland State.

A great listen! Some interesting updates and some unexpected insights from Steven Litt. We all realize how galvanizing and game-changing RNC 2016 is for Cleveland - but the look beyond and the plans and possibilities for post-RNC Cleveland are possibly even more exciting! Thanks for sharing this, KJP!

Way cool that my first post (about Jennifer Coleman's comments about Nucleus design "on top") prompted some insights from you heavy hitters in this forum. I see that some of you like the flat roof of Nucleus - and others definitely don't like it. What I've been noticing looking at those now-familiar sketches of Nucleus, released last January - is that in the sketches showing the complex from the ground up, without other higher buildings in it, the project seems totally modern, edgy and self-contained - it just seems to work so successfully on its own. However, in the sketches that show Nucleus in the Cleveland skyline, from a bit more of a distance, there is a real contrast between it and the "elegance" of our skyline, particularly from the Terminal and Key Towers. The Design Commission said they were concerned about "the dialogue between the towers" and I happen to think that's a great point. I happen to love the modern architecture of Nucleus and I'm all in for it - but I do think the overall shape of the main tower of Nucleus has a stark (sorry) rectangular shape that feels "heavy" on top. In its dimensions "above the bridge" its not dissimilar from the often-hated Justice Center, though it is a bit less bulky. And I'm not saying that "a crown" is the answer - but I do wonder if the Nucleus tower was just a little less bulky (and I'd love to see that square footage transferred into some even higher floors) would the flat roof be any kind of concern? I know it's a bit of an extreme comparison, but 432 Park Avenue, now the tallest building in Manhattan, has a flat roof and its dimensions are certainly dramatic and elegant. In NY, Nucleus would "fit right in" because of the sheer number of buildings over 600 feet - in Cleveland, with only three towers over 600 (at present) the impact and aesthetic of the new tower will be monumental, for decades. Of course, this is a great "problem" for us to have opinions about - the final design of a new skyscraper! I do wonder if the Commission's recommendations mean that Stark has to come up with any revision - or if, in the end, they just get to have their opinion...

Thanks Punch - I agree with Lockdog that the Hilton looks amazing (and it looks like we have more of that coming with the Warehouse District Project) - reason for my question: the January 16, 2015 article by Steven Litt (I believe) quoting Jennifer Coleman on Nucleus design: "Coleman said in Thursday's and Friday's meetings that she was concerned about what she viewed as the abrupt termination of the tall apartment tower with a flat roof. She said she wanted the designers to consider modifying the design to create more of a visual dialogue with the tops of the city's three existing skyscrapers – the 1931 Terminal Tower, the 1985 BP Tower and the 1991 Key Tower, the tallest U.S. building between Philadelphia and Chicago. "It was one of the first things I thought" about the design, review committee member Thom Geist said at Thursday's meeting. "The top is flat and it just stops. Otherwise, I love it." So that's why I wondered if there was any word about possible "tweaks" to the design ...

First timer here - not an architect, just a "fan" - always great stuff from the regulars here! Question - Cleveland Planning/Design Commission said they wanted some changes to the look of Nucleus - that the design was more suitable to a city with many skyscrapers like NY/Chi - it seems they were concerned about the dramatic contrast between the big 3 and Nucleus. I'm wondering if/when we'll see the revised design. Also, I wonder if any of you has any ideas for how to "tweak" the design, if that is actually happening.