Htsguy

^this is a really great townhouse project all around.

Unfortunately that seems to be so true in Cleveland (or maybe it is this administration). The planning commission is presented with these great visionary plans by staff, they are approved and 4-5 years later not a peep.

The initial renderings and description of the project was telling that this would be the case. I think there was some push back at the beginning, primarily because the project just seemed to pop up out of no where. However the push back was too little too late.

You mean dormitory building 😉

I cannot answer definitely but you can do a fair amount of damage at Cru in Moreland Hills.

But the 50 million donation is something to notice. Thank goodness for our foundations,

I cannot believe that somebody has not jumped on that parcel at E.118th and Euclid where the Finch pie in the sky proposal was (as a side, never imagined that it would get built when they proposed it...they don't seem to be one of those follow through companies...wasn't it also them who proposed that slender condo building on the Greenway-a perfect location for a condo-which also just faded away?). In my mind this is one of the most attractive parcels in UC location wise. It is way more convenient than Circle Square as it is right next to the amenities of Uptown and an easier walk to Little Italy, more of the CWRU and UH and the rapid station.

July 1968 would have been the Glenville riots. Could that have been a commercial section of Superior that then turned into a more residential section? Might even be where Superior hits Rockefeller Park.

Your point is 100% true. Still, it is embarrassing to compare the subway system of "the greatest city in the world" to those of other major metropolitan areas. Viewing videos of London's soon to be open new cross rail project just makes me drool. For what ever reason even London's old less modern stations seem more appealing than those of NYC.

I find that very interesting. Didn't know that about Baker either. I am always surprised that certain law firms do not have small seccond offices in University Circle to more easily service clients and estate planning clients in the Heights and farther east. The proposed Circle Square office building would be a great option for Class A space on the Circle.

Well it should be interesting to see what Nucleus turns into in the future if anything. Stark spent a hell of a lot for that land. Just as disappointing is that those buildings on the west side of E. 4th will continue to be even more of an after thought and will fall into further disrepair. If this Benesch development is true (which it appears it is), I would love to be a fly on the wall at Stark Enterprises. My experience with Bob Stark (former clients who contracted with him) is that he is very vocal expressing displeasure when things go wrong.

Actually a lot was built in the 70s and early 80s. Central National Bank, National City Bank, Bond Court, Bond Court Hotel, One Cleveland Center, Eaton Center, Diamond Shamrock, Park Center Apartments, State Office Tower, Justice Center just to name a few (note using old names)

That still does not explain Ken's sources which he has stated are very strong.

Given the responses Ken received from Columbus, Cincy and Dayton forum members it may be, with the October deadline, that there could be as few as 4 viable applicants, and 6 at the most. If Stark throws in the towel I only see two from Cleveland (Centennial and Bridgeworks), two for sure from Columbus, perhaps three, and I believe none from Cincy and Dayton

This would mean that Benesch would have to participating in this "plot" to a great extent (as well as Ken's sources). Given they are a law firm that would be interesting to say the least.

Isn't Benesch Stark Enterprises law firm? If the Benesch spokesperson is at the point where she didn't deny Ken's information I would think that Stark has known this for a while. It will be interesting to see if they actually submit a TMUD application. I would imagine leasing status would be a big consideration in the review process. Even more significantly, doesn't an applicant need to have more than 50% of financing in order to be a viable candidate. I would image that Stark has lost its financing now if Benesch is gone. So why even try for a credit at this point. I guess we find out at the end of October.

Thanks. Looks like the smaller office tower with the apartment building was submitted for approval back in 2019. If it was approved do they have to go back to planning now that the apartment building is no longer part of the plan? I would imagine they would and I don't think they have. And they certainly have no sought approval for a larger TMUD version that Ken keeps hinting about. Again I am concerned they are not farther along in the process as they try to get the credit but maybe I am making too big a thing. However, again they are in competition with other projects that might have more going for them in terms of an approval time line.

It has been so long but I don't think they received final approval of the first plan with the apartment building (I do remember the apartment going through design review at least). Maybe they did. In any event I cannot recall any approval at any level for the plan with just the smaller office building. Also you keep mentioning two different plans being out there currently...the one from before (again which I don't think has been completely through the process) and a bigger one if they win the credit which obviously has not been vetted because we don't even know what that is.

Here is another thing to munch on. @LlamaLawyerposted some of the criteria the tax credit authority is considering when reviewing applications. I know we all think Nucleus is a strong candidate but I wonder if they are not shooting themselves in the foot keeping their current plans under wraps and not having gone to the various boards for approval of current plans. This seems to be a big point with the agency and it apparently wants a detailed explanation of status (something as small as discussions with planning staff but full approval or a timeline for full approval would seems to be more impressive). I know they have been to planning commission on some level before (was it schematic?) but that was ages ago with a different idea. I am sure they can impress upon the authority that they can move quickly in this regard but given the competition it might be a concern or tipping point in favor of other projects.

@KJP noticed you posts in the Central and Southwest threads. With those in mind do you know how much in credits are available this round and whether the state actually has to award the full amount available?

As a follow up....Given the limited amount of credits per round/year I think a project has to be practically shovel ready in order to get any serious consideration (and have their financing ducks in order) for an urban credit. I don't really study the Cincy and Columbus threads in detail but I cannot think of that many projects that fit this definition right now in those cities (although again I could be wrong). Given I think only 3 Cleveland projects are going to get serous consideration this first round (Nucleus, Centennial and Bridgeworks) my best guess is that there are only 7-8 urban projects in the whole state that fit my shovel ready definition. Unfortunately that still might mean some are going to be out of luck.

Thanks for that deadline information. I was wondering when it was and was hoping it was sooner rather than later. And going back to my response to your post earlier today re: not that many project are CURRENTLY fighting for the credit this round in Cleveland (4 or less), Yes all the other projects suggested by Ken are possible application candidates but I doubt they are right now as they are very conceptual (some not even really announced even though we talk about them on the forum) so that was my original point. And unfortunately history has shown that one or more could simply disappear credit or no credit.

You know people keep saying this but I can only think of 4 Cleveland projects that are realistically in a position to seek a TMUD credit currently. 1. Nucleus 2. Centennial 3. Bridgeworks 4. 45 Erieview (maybe according to a Ken blog post) Maybe Circle Square which is already under construction. All others seem too conceptual at this point to be considered by the state at this point. There is probably a better thread for this discussion.

I am surprised he can get insurance for that building. Probably the typical situation that he has leverage in this regard because he gives them so much business due to his extensive real estate and business holdings

No they do not have an absolute right to take but they probably have a strong case.