I really hope that the hotel bridge ends up as part of the project.  This is my favorite part of the design and is very innovative and unique. 

^Ditto.  It absolutely adds the WOW factor.  Plus, I think the tower, and the rest of the complex, is aesthetically pleasing.

Hmm according to the article, the design also calls for one (or maybe two) smaller "bridges" to connect the parking garages. I am a big fan of the hotel bridge. Not such a big fan of the car bridges...

Litt states in the article that this is the first skyscraper to be built in Cleveland in a quarter century.  How tall does a building have to be to be considered a skyscraper?

Litt states in the article that this is the first skyscraper to be built in Cleveland in a quarter century.  How tall does a building have to be to be considered a skyscraper?

 

A 'skyscraper' is typically defined as 500 feet and higher

How can E6th really be considered a street? 

Not just in reference to this project but the zoning process in this City is totally ridiculous.

OK, so it's no longer a street. Now it's just a public right of way. You're welcome.  :wink:

How can E6th really be considered a street? 

Not just in reference to this project but the zoning process in this City is totally ridiculous.

That was my thought as I read it and I believe my comments alluded to that as well. I don't have a problem necessarily, but we haven't seen any E6 renders from street level.

Litt states in the article that this is the first skyscraper to be built in Cleveland in a quarter century.  How tall does a building have to be to be considered a skyscraper?

 

A 'skyscraper' is typically defined as 500 feet and higher

 

The Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats defines skyscrapers as anything above 12 floors/35 meters/115 feet.

^Ive heard 20 stories or more.

Litt states in the article that this is the first skyscraper to be built in Cleveland in a quarter century.  How tall does a building have to be to be considered a skyscraper?

 

A 'skyscraper' is typically defined as 500 feet and higher

 

The Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats defines skyscrapers as anything above 12 floors/35 meters/115 feet.

 

I had hoped May Day would have weighed in...in any event I personally consider the Federal Courthouse and E and W to be skyscrapers which means Litt is kinda blowing smoke.

 

Actually I think his whole article was a bit "dramatic" given the issue he was discussing.  Things must be slow.

What do I know about skyscrapers ;-) Yes, the general standard is the CTBUH measurement.

Here's the document being submitted to the city review committee today. 

 

 

www.documentcloud.org/documents/1502590-20150113-city-stark-comments.html#document/p1

Thank god for the new rebranding....The original logo looked so tacky.

 

Looks like a solid plan. Fingers crossed!

Page 50 is disconcerting as it relates to the "laneway" concept just don't know what is going on there. Page 38 has the locations of the parking garage bridges, but nothing definitive that I caught to tell what they'll look like. Pages 43 and 49 would indicate that there will be no parking garage street access ramps in the A building which is swell.

The number of residential units has also jumped from 500 to 570. 

38% of the space is parking...holy moley!  Can't say I like that, but if that's what it takes to make the project feasible to build so be it. Probably a sure fire money maker (sadly).

38% of the space is parking...holy moley!  Can't say I like that, but if that's what it takes to make the project feasible to build so be it. Probably a sure fire money maker (sadly).

 

Welcome Enginerd!  Great name.

I go back and forth by the minute on this design.  the more I look at it, it is perfectly square, and not one bit "Jenga-ish".  The play they put on it with some rooms having balconies, and others not, give the building a more dramatic, un-linear look.  If the natural lighting off the buidling does not work as depicted in the renderrings with the shadowing, the building may just look like a perfect tall rectangle. 

Thanks MuRrAy HiLL! There was a comic in my University's newspaper titled 'Enginerds.' Who doesn't love a little self-depreciating humor? :)

 

It seems like the 'Jenga' effect would very much hinge on the type of glass they use on the exterior of the tower.  You can see in the hotel bridge section they show the use of different glass to mimic the effect of the tower.  It looks like the designers intent to me...although in practice I don't know how well it works!

I'm really, really curious to see what retail tenants Stark is pursuing.  They seem to show a lot of non-restaurant storefronts in the presentation

Side note: Anyone else notice that the 1951 photo on page 6 is an image taken from the opening credits of "A Christmas Story"?

Great presentation! Did you also notice he plans to narrow Prospect to two lanes with no on-street parking? The lanes would be replaced with wider sidewalks on both sides of the street.

yeah now that is a sharp plan that is going to work.

 

i love it, if stark can't get cooperation on the damn warehouse lots, he just bumps over a couple blocks and goes for it. bravo.

I'm glad they are wrapping the garage on Prospect and part of East 4th with the apartments.  I wish they would continue that all the way down East 4th.  And I wonder how they think East 6th is going to be "romantic" when it is wedged between two massive parking garages.  It's going to sound like you're inside a parking garage, with horns, engines and doors slamming constantly.  They should wrap those facades, too, if they're serious about making that a destination street.

^Good points X.

 

Glad to see the project was received with positive fan fare this afternoon.  I can really respect the comments that came from the one lady who said that this building gives the sense of an infill structure in an area with similar sized buildings in cities such as NYC or Chicago.  I think that has been my feelings all along, but just haven't been able to figure it out in my own mind.  Being that this will be Clevelands 4th tallest (almost third) I think it may need to be more sleek, and glamorous versus linear and "boxy".  It's essentially 3 boxes arranged in ddifferent patterns. f this was NYC or Chigago's 4th tallest rising, I think it would be much smoother, gentle and subtle.  It';s already tall, everryone will see it, so make it sexy!

 

From a skyline perspective, it may have a Ren Cen effect in that it stands out alone while the rest of the skyline hides behind it or to the side.  Your eyes may brush over the rest of the skyline, as it almost does with Detroit, and focus directly on this.  I think Ren Cen stole Detroit's beautiful skyline, and I think this may also have a similar effect. 

 

I love thee project, and I'm sure I will still enjoy it if it gets built as such.  But I really do not want to miss the boat on this one, and have it possibly stain and forever dramatically change the way we view our skyline.

I am personally more interested in the projects street interaction than its effect on the skyline, especially in that neighborhood.

X, if they wraped the whole thing, I wouldn't imagine there being much room left for the parking.

 

This is different than Detroit.  Ren Cen is the tallest building by a hundred feet and is a huge complex.  Also, it is much further removed from the heart of downtown than nucleus will be.

X, if they wraped the whole thing, I wouldn't imagine there being much room left for the parking.

 

This is different than Detroit.  Ren Cen is the tallest building by a hundred feet and is a huge complex.  Also, it is much further removed from the heart of downtown than nucleus will be.

 

Agreed that Detroit is not a good comparison.  It is set quite a bit apart and dwarfs the closest building.  At least Cleveland will have 4 of similar height arranged in a reasonably close proximity.

X, if they wraped the whole thing, I wouldn't imagine there being much room left for the parking.

 

This is different than Detroit.  Ren Cen is the tallest building by a hundred feet and is a huge complex.  Also, it is much further removed from the heart of downtown than nucleus will be.

 

Unless things have changed during the last decade or so, it's a fortress.  At the SAE show we used to talk about people staying at "Fort Westin".

I'm not saying that this is going to be fortress"like" as the Ren Cen is.  I'm just saying from a skyline perspective, it may have a similar influence.  Despite it not being out tallest, it will overshadow anything else in the city.  Protecting the skyline is also important, and something design review has in mind.  I agree, I am 100% excited about the street level interaction, and the expansion of the city's 24/7 life to the south. 

I'm not saying that this is going to be fortress"like" as the Ren Cen is.  I'm just saying from a skyline perspective, it may have a similar influence.  Despite it not being out tallest, it will overshadow anything else in the city.  Protecting the skyline is also important, and something design review has in mind.  I agree, I am 100% excited about the street level interaction, and the expansion of the city's 24/7 life to the south. 

 

To some degree this is my own personal bias, I prefer skyscrapers that embrace their height, and this does not.  It would be a perfectly fine and even innovative design for a building half its height.

There's only been one skyline shot so far and I don't see this building overtaking anything. The skyline is going to continue to grow hopefully. We have many surface lots left.

The renderings I, and others, did a few pages ago show that this won't dominate the skyline. Nor will it feel separated from the main cluster. This won't feel like the Ren Center.

 

I also don't think this building would work if it was shorter. Its main massing comes in the form of two long bars stacked, one horizontally, one vertically. If the vertical one was chopped in half it would look really disproportional and squat. Not something it currently feels.

There's only been one skyline shot so far and I don't see this building overtaking anything. The skyline is going to continue to grow hopefully. We have many surface lots left.

 

... most notably Public Square, of course.

mjarboe[/member]  live tweeting from CPC on nuCLEus:

 

#CLE Planning Commission discussing proposed nuCLEus project in @GatewayCLE. Up for schematic design OK. Developers seeking demo of 2 bldgs.

 

#CLE Planning Commission member @cityprowl_jen says we need to do a skyscraper impact study. Look at where new buildings will/should be.

 

Proposed nuCLEus tower in downtown #CLE would house mix of one- and two-bedroom units, with possible condos - six to a floor - at very top.

 

Demo of garage, small retail building on nuCLEus site in downtown #CLE could occur in spring. Developers aim to close financing May/June.

 

Stark Enterprises aims to hand over first retail spaces at nuCLEus to tenants in fall 2016. Openings possible in spring 2017. #CLE

 

#CLE City Planning Commission gives unanimous schematic design approval to nuCLEus project in @GatewayCLE. Developer obviously will be back.

I feel like a bit of an outlier here, but I really don't understand this angst about the skyline. Not even a little bit. I often agree with Jennifer Coleman's comments about individual building issues, but she's totally losing me here.

I don't get worrying about the skyline either. I think people along the line got it in their head that skylines should be really well organized and thought out and that idea is just confusing to me. If you look at some of the most famous skylines around the focal points usually stood out at some point like a sore thumb until the city filled in around them. Look at Chicago when the Sears Tower was first completed. NOTHING around that building was anywhere near that scale. It was basically a handful of buildings no more than 1/3-1/2 the height of the Sears Tower and then BAM, Sears Tower and Hancock Tower anchoring the edges of the skyline. Now things are filled in and the skyline feels well balanced.

 

Same thing with NYC. Empire State Building was obnoxiously overscaled for its location when it was built, but that was fine because Midtown grew up around it.

 

This is how skylines grow and change and trying to regulate their growth just leads to less innovation, excitement, and just stunts growth.

From the Shoreway east or west I don't this has any impact, nor from out on the lake or the shot everyone uses down by the Center Street swing bridge.

 

About the only places this would have an overwhelming impact on the skyline would be coming up 77 or from Progressive Field.

 

From the Shoreway east or west I don't this has any impact, nor from out on the lake or the shot everyone uses down by the Center Street swing bridge.

 

About the only places this would have an overwhelming impact on the skyline would be coming up 77 or from Progressive Field.

 

 

i cant say i agree with that.  Its the 4th tallest building in the city, it will have impact from all angles.

I don't get worrying about the skyline either. I think people along the line got it in their head that skylines should be really well organized and thought out and that idea is just confusing to me. If you look at some of the most famous skylines around the focal points usually stood out at some point like a sore thumb until the city filled in around them. Look at Chicago when the Sears Tower was first completed. NOTHING around that building was anywhere near that scale. It was basically a handful of buildings no more than 1/3-1/2 the height of the Sears Tower and then BAM, Sears Tower and Hancock Tower anchoring the edges of the skyline. Now things are filled in and the skyline feels well balanced.

 

Same thing with NYC. Empire State Building was obnoxiously overscaled for its location when it was built, but that was fine because Midtown grew up around it.

 

This is how skylines grow and change and trying to regulate their growth just leads to less innovation, excitement, and just stunts growth.

It's not the scale, but rather the design.  And before I go further, I'm just hung up on how I feel.  I need to see the renderrings refined a bit more.  But essentially, you're taking a 20 story building, flipping it horizontally,hoisting it 250 feet in the air,  and anchoring it on two other buildings.  Thrown in the center of Midtown Manhattan, or the Loop in Chicago, it may blend in, and not be quite as noticeable.  At this location, it will most certainly be an extreme eye catcher.  Must be done right.

From the Shoreway east or west I don't this has any impact, nor from out on the lake or the shot everyone uses down by the Center Street swing bridge.

 

About the only places this would have an overwhelming impact on the skyline would be coming up 77 or from Progressive Field.

 

 

i cant say i agree with that.  Its the 4th tallest building in the city, it will have impact from all angles.

 

Maybe not so much from northward if you're out on the lake or taking in views from Voinovich Park, but definitely from Edgewater, I-77 northbound, and eastside locations (Garfield Monument especially).  I wonder what it would look like from the Shoreway westbound...

The general shape and height needs stays the same. I'd like to echo what other posters are saying and that is to see more refinement of the design. I don't under-Stand what the fuss is about in regards to the height of the building in relation to the surrounding buildings. It's supposed to make a statement. As we all know, this is not the final rendering and I am sure the final rendering will be even better.

It's next to the AT&T building (aka Daily Planet) which is 27 stories and close to The 9. I do think that if this gets built and fills up pretty fast, the former Hippodrome site between Prospect/Euclid at East 8th alley will see interest as might the site for the Ferrari Building, to say nothing of other, more distant sites (Jacobs lot on Public Square). And I have no doubts if Stark builds this, it will fill up before it opens if not shortly thereafter. I believe the speed at which The 9 filled up (at its higher rents for this market) made nuCLEus realistic.

I, too, do not understand what all of the fuss is about concerning the skyline.  This is a prime area for future development and there will be future skyscrapers built in this part of town.

 

I do agree with the comments about this building being infill in Chicago and New York.  I think the building should be more iconic in its design since it will stand out on the skyline and will be one of the first buildings that visitors will notice will coming into town.

Oh no, not another tall building in my city!

There's so much to think about here other than height.  Design, functionality, and sustainability all come to mind.  Sustainability is the next thing that floats around in my mind.  Is the city ready for retailers at this point?  Will they be successful?  I think we will find out with Heinen's, which will open before anything here does.  If retailers are not successful here, Cleveland takes a step back with respect to it's comback status.  I tend to believe that we are ready for specific retailers, just not all.  Also, can Cleveland sustain this many more additional units?  At what point do downtown residents give up their older units to move into something new, leaving those vacant.  Similar to what we are seeing with the office market.

 

These are all just talking points, and thoughts I have had.  This is such a huge project that all of these things must be vetted.  I know we can't tell Stark to "go small or go home", but a part of me almost wishes we could.  I know he's going to do what the market demands at the present, but will we pay for it in to not so distant future (ex. commercial building spree of the 80's and 90's). 

Interesting to compare KJP and Gotribe posts.  One is overly optimistic and the other is overly pestimistic.

Interesting to compare KJP and Gotribe posts.  One is overly optimistic and the other is overly pestimistic.

 

How do you know?

Is the city ready for retailers at this point?  Will they be successful?  I think we will find out with Heinen's, which will open before anything here does.  If retailers are not successful here, Cleveland takes a step back with respect to it's comback status.  I tend to believe that we are ready for specific retailers, just not all.  Also, can Cleveland sustain this many more additional units?  At what point do downtown residents give up their older units to move into something new, leaving those vacant.  Similar to what we are seeing with the office market.

 

Using super conservative numbers, 20,000 downtown residents by 2020 and an average of 2 people per apartment (which is high) we would need an additional 3,750 units to satisfy that need. With education levels growing and average salaries growing for downtown residents, we would need four of these buildings and then some to get to the number of units that are needed. That's not even taking into account if more growth occurs do to the excitement. With all of that will come retail as more people live and play downtown. I agree that a lot of retail is a little scary but this is a developer who does this for a living with a lot of smart analysts.