^yeah I think 80 story building would be a bold move.  Did you smoke your breakfast today?

 

Ok, perhaps not 80, but certainly more than a little 12-story building. this is the ONLY office construction in UC. At least 40-50 stories.

 

off topic!  lets get back to discussing something more bold on the site, like an 80-story building....  (puff, puff)

^While I don't know if the traffic issue is that much off topic (if you want to see off topic go visit the Cincy Street car thread...no wonder it is like a billion pages long) but it is kinda dull.  More interested in any thoughts about likelyhood of financing and how these two developers over the next year are going to solicit tenants and deal with multiple entities  (City of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, UH, UCI, CIA, RTA, the Little Italy powers) to coordinate and get this done.

Given a decades-long track record of favoring the automobile, I think this last concern is completely valid, particularly as some of these arguably questionable auto-oriented decisions aren't exactly ancient history (permitting the removal of a historic block for a casino valet station without ground-level presence comes to mind). Traffic can be a good thing. Pedestrian focus and mass transit focus clearly are a good thing. But only if our elected officials, appointed officials, traffic engineers, developers, etc. understand that more parking and wider streets are not necessarily a good thing. Guess I'm just interested to see how the powers-that-be will react to such a high volume of proposed parking with very little street-level presence and partially connected by an overhead walkway.

 

In case people haven't seen it, the City, NOACA and UCI completed a Mayfield Road street-scape plan a couple years ago, when development of Lot 45 was clearly contemplated: http://www.noaca.org/ucilittleitaly.pdf  For what it's worth, it looks like a great plan.

 

Also, one of the benefits of the MOCA construction cam is the clear view it provides of that stretch of Mayfield. As far as I can tell, it is congested for about half an hour every day.  I don't mean to discount the inconvenience this subjects people to, but designing your road network around that half hour tends to leave behind a lousy landscape for the other 23.5 hours of every day.

In a word: nervous.  You know the saying about too many chefs and the quality of the stew... I'm also nervous about Coral, whose past cut'n run behavior with past projects, notably Shaker Square, has me nervous... That said, I'm nervous but not worried (splitting hairs, eh?).  This is in part for my infinite confidence and respect for Chris Ronayne, who has both amazing creative urban sensibilities as well as the drive and diplomacy to get difficult projects both started (ie Flats East Bank, when Jane was mayor) and done (ie, Uptown a few blocks away).  I also like Michelle Jarboe-McFee's article's reference regarding the "bullish" posture developer Tony Panzica is taking towards this project; hopefully Panzica's drive will help this project survive any shakiness of Coral -- remember, Ronayne/UCI carefully sifted through several proposals and selected what they believed was the most solid...  I'm also encouraged by the implementation of tax-increment financing, which has long been proposed as a smarter, more reliable means of financing large scale projects of this kind... Again, this bespeaks creativity with an eye toward results....

 

And even though I've been tough of Jackson for being aggressive on certain long term urban programs, like TOD (which this most certainly is), he's shown, with the Medical Mart and Flats East Bank to quietly Shepard difficult, vexing large scale projects to fruition... I'll give him that.

I'm also nervous about Coral, whose past cut'n run behavior with past projects, notably Shaker Square, has me nervous...

 

Please expand on this.

I don't really care about traffic.  It is what it is.  If traffic is heavy people will adjust.  I will say that it has taken me about 20 minutes (if not more) to get from Mayfield and Ford to Mayfield and Murray Hill.  This is about .5 miles so I could indeed have walked that distance about twice as fast.

 

I would think that the Little Italy powers would be very supportive of this development.  This project would be within easy walking distance of the Little Italy business district making it an accessible lunch spot.

^yeah I think 80 story building would be a bold move.  Did you smoke your breakfast today?

 

Ok, perhaps not 80, but certainly more than a little 12-story building. this is the ONLY office construction in UC. At least 40-50 stories.

 

 

lol, although that would be lovely, I would rather have that big of a building in Downtown :-D, 15-20 stories would be great for me haa

I'm also nervous about Coral, whose past cut'n run behavior with past projects, notably Shaker Square, has me nervous...

 

Please expand on this.

 

Sorry, I meant Cedar Center.

^Actual Coral did have some grand plans for Shaker Square when they bought it back in 2004 (well before the recession) and did not follow through on the majority of them...new condo construction and a parking garage.

 

Also did not follow through on the redevelopment of downtown Solon after getting the whole city hyped up about it (although the recession had much to do with this).

 

And Ceder Center...blah.

getting way off topic but saying a developer failed to follow through is one thing.  Not being able to get financing for your project or having the market conditions change in the middle of your plans is another thing.

lol, although that would be lovely, I would rather have that big of a building in Downtown :-D, 15-20 stories would be great for me haa

 

Yeah, 20-stories would be reasonable. this thing has an 8-story parking garage--it almost dwarfs the office 'tower'---which is only about 40 taller. it will look kinda silly and will fill up so fast they're gonna wish they had built it taller.

 

a tower here is not really in competition with downtown. if you're a bio medical or educational or cultural firm, you probably don't want to be downtown and if you can't get space nearby UC, you'll probably head east. Likewise if you want to be downtown, you won't want to be 'remote' in UC. they are different markets.

 

Let's save the speculation for a highrise for another thread. Thanks!

^Actual Coral did have some grand plans for Shaker Square when they bought it back in 2004 (well before the recession) and did not follow through on the majority of them...new condo construction and a parking garage.

 

Also did not follow through on the redevelopment of downtown Solon after getting the whole city hyped up about it (although the recession had much to do with this).

 

And Ceder Center...blah.

 

You're right Htsguy, Coral didn't follow through on these initiatives.  But IIRC (I could be wrong), Coral bought Shaker Sq. from Adam Fishman and his group (Centre Point?) a few years after Fishman had bought and upgraded the Square.  It was Fishman who had unrealistic goals for the Square, trying to make it compete with Beachwood Place and Legacy.  And within a few years the Square lost new, key tenants Fishman brought in: Wild Oats market and Joseph-Beth Booksellers, which rented nearly the entire NE quadrant and, ironically, abandoned Shaker Square to consolidate in Legacy Village.  I'll give Coral credit for a more realistic approach to what an TOD urban oasis like Shaker Sq should be -- the Square is in a very good place right now under Coral with a small vacancy rate on the Square itself and with a thriving Dave's Market (in Wild Oats) as well as a number of busy moderate and high-end restaurants in each quadrant.  Coral recently relocated from Cedar Center to Shaker Square.

 

Yes, the Cedar Center debacle is cause for concern, but I'll give Coral credit for righting a failing Shaker Square ship that was handed to them by Fishman even in spite of Coral's condo promises which,  in fairness, may have had a lot to do with the Stock Mkt Crash/RE collapse of 2008 more than anything.

 

So I'm trusting that UCI took all this into consideration before choosing Coral as joint developer for Intesa.   

 

And I'll bet that Coral's staff is reading this thread and seeing the concerns being shared. While there may be some motivation from that,  there is nothing they can do about the past. I suspect they know how important and visible this new project is, and are keenly aware of the trust that's been placed in them by UCI. If success is its own reward, it will certainly be demonstrated here.

Question:

What exactly was Coral's plan for SS?

^I ran across a good PD article from 2004 when I googled "Coral Shaker Square" which details many of their plans when they "recused" the square.  I agree they did stabilize the square after the failed national chain ambitions of the previous owner but for what ever reason did not follow through with much noted in the article. 

 

I do have a vague memory of somebody wanting to build residential on the parking lot behind the former Booksellers but cannot recall if that was in Coral's plans or the previous owner.  I also believe other new construction was proposed around the square.

 

I like the idea that they are partnered with Panzica as I really do respect the company.

^I ran across a good PD article from 2004 when I googled "Coral Shaker Square" which details many of their plans when they "recused" the square.

 

Don't ya mean "rescued"?

^yes..thank you

In fairness to Coral, I don't think they ever "promised" a condo development in the lot behind the CVS; I think they just mentioned it as a possibility (and showed a crude rendering) to demonstrate that they were interested in being ambitious and creative.  I believe their acquisition of the square was through a city-controlled process (the city owned a lot of the debt from the earlier redevelopment), so salesmanship was expected.  Even then, I didn't really expect to see that condo project ever happen...

 

Will be interesting to see Coral's plans for the towers evolve.  No doubt they'll be watching Uptown to see how leasing progresses for those units, and negotiations with possible office tenants and CIA will shape a lot of it too.  Given MRN's success finding retail tenants, I'm hopeful that part will be a piece of cake for Coral.

In fairness to Coral, I don't think they ever "promised" a condo development in the lot behind the CVS; I think they just mentioned it as a possibility (and showed a crude rendering) to demonstrate that they were interested in being ambitious and creative.  I believe their acquisition of the square was through a city-controlled process (the city owned a lot of the debt from the earlier redevelopment), so salesmanship was expected.  Even then, I didn't really expect to see that condo project ever happen...

 

Will be interesting to see Coral's plans for the towers evolve.  No doubt they'll be watching Uptown to see how leasing progresses for those units, and negotiations with possible office tenants and CIA will shape a lot of it too.  Given MRN's success finding retail tenants, I'm hopeful that part will be a piece of cake for Coral.

 

I dont recall that either and they never really had national chains.  the few they that leased space were crappy!

Some new graphics and renderings from Bialosky.....

 

 

Does the architect know that Mayfield goes "under" the tracks? Or does this show what would be part of the underside, including trees under the bridges?  :|

 

 

 

Interesting "slice" image. The slice is north-south. The view is to the southwest....

 

Man would that be sweet.  X our fingers that the complex financing package falls into place.

Man would that be sweet.  X our fingers that the complex financing package falls into place.

 

I am shocked it took nine hours for someone to comment on the graphics!

Good find. Thanks for posting!

Does anybody know if this would be Coral's most singularly significant project (in terms of cost) or have they tackled bigger developments in the past?

No, it's their biggest.  By quite a bit, but keep in mind they are partnering with Panzica also.  Still going to justify that big of an investment, I predict a scaled back version

Whoa... Massive!

why so much parking?

 

this is my only complaint

why so much parking?

 

this is my only complaint

 

Probably to make the bankers happy.

I hope they figure out something better for that south lot than just a straight up parking garage.  And for chrissakes, enough with the skybridges.  Every freakin' development in this city in the last couple years has to throw in a skybridge?

I hope this project happens.

 

I hope they figure out something better for that south lot than just a straight up parking garage.  And for chrissakes, enough with the skybridges.  Every freakin' development in this city in the last couple years has to throw in a skybridge?

 

Agree on everything

I hope they figure out something better for that south lot than just a straight up parking garage.  And for chrissakes, enough with the skybridges.  Every freakin' development in this city in the last couple years has to throw in a skybridge?

 

Some retail frontage on Mayfield would be nice. If they building this as a straight up parking garage with a grassy strip separating its pedestrian-inaccessible facade from Mayfield's sidewalk, I'm going to bring a bunch of wood, nails and paint out there and put up a fake Rock Ridge along that sidewalk!

 

why so much parking?

 

this is my only complaint

 

Probably to make the bankers happy.

 

Banks don't care about parking, tenants do.  Try and build an apartment building or office that doesn't offer 1 space per apartment or 1 space per employee and see how well it gets leased.  I don't care if there is a transit stop right out front, this is Cleveland, not Chicago.  That parking is also required to produce revenue to fund the project.

 

As far as the project getting built, current estimates for the project as shown in renderings was right around $100million.  Current lending environment are maybe 60% loan to value.  Add in another 10-20% of equity investment and it's still well short....  take out a component of parking and you come up even shorter on financing.  Additional financing challenges stem from fact that UCI owns the land and is retaining it, just leasing it for the project.  So from a lender's standpoint, if the project goes belly up, they cannot foreclose on the land, only the building... 

^ but isnt case backing the 'student housing' portion of this project? if so, that chops off some worry as it will be supported finacially by the college.

 

if no, then what exactly is meant by student housing? is it private apts merely suggested to be for case students by the developer? or will they be official student housing apts? hopefully the latter so it will help offset costs for coral & the other developers.

 

Banks don't care about parking, tenants do.  Try and build an apartment building or office that doesn't offer 1 space per apartment or 1 space per employee and see how well it gets leased.  I don't care if there is a transit stop right out front, this is Cleveland, not Chicago.  That parking is also required to produce revenue to fund the project.

 

Cleveland isn't Chicago, but parts of Cleveland have as much transit and amenities as Chicago does. And this area is one of them. This site has more than just a transit stop out front. It's in the crotch of two high-density transit routes, plus lesser density transit, plus pedestrian accessibility to all basic services, plus access to bike-friendly routes in several directions. Yet I fear we in Cleveland build like we've always built because we're too timid to compete with the likes of Chicago. Building and maintaining all those parking spaces will cause higher cost burdens on developers, lenders and ultimately, tenants. Are we sure that there is a significant portion of the market that would love to reduce their cost of housing by not having to pay for parking? Or to provide shared parking -- using a parking space at night for residential that may be used by an office user during the day?

 

This site would be a great opportunity to support the use of location-efficient mortgages, but it requires a public sector sponsor like RTA, the city, UCI or a combination. Maybe Coral isn't willing to be the guinea pig, not with this project. But if a LEM-supported project could be done anywhere, this location is clearly one of the best between Chicago and the East Coast.

^^Which is why banks care about parking.  If the developer can't lease the buildings, they will default on their loans.

Banks care about signed leases, not parking.  You can build a tree house with a rope ladder and no parking but if you can get it leased for $20/sf, you can probably get a bank to finance it.

^ but isnt case backing the 'student housing' portion of this project? if so, that chops off some worry as it will be supported finacially by the college.

 

if no, then what exactly is meant by student housing? is it private apts merely suggested to be for case students by the developer? or will they be official student housing apts? hopefully the latter so it will help offset costs for coral & the other developers.

 

 

I went back & re-read the article, I didn't see anything mentioning CWRU as a partner in the development.  The area designated as "student housing" faces the back of those ugly old apartments and would likely have cheaper finishes.  The higher end "market rate" apartments facing Mayfield are what's being targeted to the doctors & tech employees.

^^Which is why banks care about parking.  If the developer can't lease the buildings, they will default on their loans.

 

I think it would be interesting to do a market assessment among various demographic groups in which two of the questions asked is:

 

If you could rent an apartment without a parking space included and save $100 per month on your rent, would that apartment be more attractive to you or less?

 

Which would you prefer at the same rent level -- an apartment without a parking space but with higher-quality finishes and amenities (in-suite laundry, balcony, better views, etc) or an apartment with a parking space included but having lower-quality finishes and fewer amenities?

^I know Coral Group did extensive market analysis on daytime & night time uses as well as demographics of the area.  The biggest thing they came up with was that only 20% or so of the people who work in UCI live in the area.  The rest are commuters.  Rubin's theory was exactly what you're getting at KJP - if we built nice market rate housing here in the area, would you give up your commute (and possibly a car)?

^^Which is why banks care about parking.  If the developer can't lease the buildings, they will default on their loans.

 

I think it would be interesting to do a market assessment among various demographic groups in which two of the questions asked is:

 

If you could rent an apartment without a parking space included and save $100 per month on your rent, would that apartment be more attractive to you or less?

 

Which would you prefer at the same rent level -- an apartment without a parking space but with higher-quality finishes and amenities (in-suite laundry, balcony, better views, etc) or an apartment with a parking space included but having lower-quality finishes and fewer amenities?

 

I would love to see those results. Also add some sort of question asking how much they are willing to pay per month

I think this parking discussion has gotten a little off track. The 700 space garage that's integrated with the main development is enough to accommodate 100k of office space and 96 units of large, market rate units even at Beachwood's very auto-centric zoning standards (yes, I actually checked). Cleveland isn't Chicago, but it's not Beachwood either.  Even adding some student housing and limited retail (and it's not clear whether the 30k sf tech ribbon is part of the 100k sf of office), I think parking needs will be easily met on-site. I doubt even the developers think the second garage is crucial for the main project.

 

Gottaplan's cross-subsidy issue is interesting, but I'm skeptical a skybridge to a development with its own 700 space garage is really going to effect the revenue numbers all that much.  I interpreted the article to mean that the second garage would mostly serve UH (so again, skybridge not crucial), but it's not clear.

Banks care about signed leases, not parking.  You can build a tree house with a rope ladder and no parking but if you can get it leased for $20/sf, you can probably get a bank to finance it.

 

I would love to see that treehouse.

The parking garage is a joke for a development in between two of Cleveland's densest neighborhoods, and on the link of Little Italy to University Circle, AND for being directly next to a rapid transit station, and a short walk from the Healthline. This city CAN'T be walkable and dense if we keep building parking garages everywhere!

One huge parking garage will take away the motive for surface parking lots once the draw of uptown hits full stride. 

 

As long as there are freeways, there will be a need for parking.

If there were futue phases to this development, I could see the need for that much parking. However, this seems like a one-and-done development, in that the only place to build in the future would be the surface lot directly north of the 700 car parking lot. And no, that's not a joke.

The 700-car parking garage is behind both towers and not visible from the street.  I can only see this as a positive thing.  It doesn't disrupt any of the street-lining retail and provides covered parking for residents.  So what's the big deal?  Is this what people have a problem with?

 

That second garage with the skybridge across Mayfield... OK, reasons to gripe.  But either way i don't see this as the end of the world if it gets built as is.  It's still a new train station, residential, retail, student housing, and needed parking all into one that UC and Cleveland desparately could use.

 

 

^No, I think everyone is fine with the 700 space garage. It's the other one causing agita.  And without the sky bridge, and with a decent facade and ground floor, I'd be totally fine with it.  I don't really care too much if there's tons if parking, just not at the expense of the steetscape on that stretch of Mayfield.