^Floods7 is specifically referring to design review, and on that basis, Cleveland is actually pretty extreme. Most NYC sky scrapers, for instance, are built without any discretionary review of any kind.

 

[edited for typo]

^Floods7 is specifically referring to design review, and on the basis, Cleveland is actually pretty extreme. Most NYC sky scrapers, for instance, are built without any discretionary review of any kind.

 

And that has been quite an issue for many people in New York in recent years. I wouldn't be surprised if Cleveland were on the more extreme end in terms of design review. We are insular by nature, but have been quite conservative in terms of architecture throughout our entire history.

Conservative is what that flat roof is, shockingly so.  It's a cheap ugly finish to an otherwise fantastic scheme.

Nothing flamboyant about the "flat look" if you ask me.  In fact I'd call it uninspired, even retrograde.   

It's fine to re-hash the Erieview Tower, The 9, PNC Center, IMG, East Ohio Gas, or the Celebrezze Tower, but I hardly think NuCLEus is supposed to be an homage to the 60s-80s.

 

The sculpted-top skyscrapers on the Cleveland skyline each show evidence of their respective design eras, but they have a timeless quality that the main NuCLEus tower just doesn't present.

 

I don't think they should just give it a party hat, but that would be a start to designing a fresh look for the punctuation mark of that roof.   

 

To Strap and TPH2,  NYC has 161 buildings over 400' tall either standing or under construction. If, like Cleveland, NYC only had four skyscrapers of scale on their skyline, they might be a bit more concerned about the aesthetic influence of adding just one more. 

To compare our own design requirements to those of the largest city in the United States seems somewhat inappropriate, wouldn't you say? 

Just because someone is willing to invest a substantial amount of money in your community doesn't give them immunity from scrutiny. In some respects, it demands more scrutiny because a greater investment can have a greater impact, both good and bad, on the community.

I am sure these numbers will continue to change but Stark has an ad in the January SCT that differ from the numbers on the projects website. Website has

150k / Retail - 200k / Office - 1500 / Parking.  SCT ad has 125k / Retail  -  230k / Office  -  2100 / Parking  -  120 room / Hotel.  500 apartments remain the same on both.

 

Given the changes in the space numbers, there must be a revision to the design.  I would love to see new renderings of the project.

 

The office portion is going up by 30K which is roughly equivalent to one more floor although the footprint of the building could have changed too.

 

I also would like to see some kind of crown on top of the building.  And this would almost certainly push it higher than 200 Public Square which is only 11 feet taller than the flat roof design.

 

Here's the Stark ad in SCT for those that are interested. Note too what does (and doesn't) get top billing.

Here's the Stark ad in SCT for those that are interested. Note too what does (and doesn't) get top billing.

Isn't NuCLEus the only project of those not under construction or mostly completed though? That's what I read out of that ad.

It is also the largest picture...

 

I think we might be reading too much into an advertisement...

If you look at it upside down you'll see satanic messages.

Bottom of page = not built yet

Biggest picture = most interesting looking, plus need to build interest

 

BTW - I like the flat roof. Given all the 90 degree angles everywhere else in the design, some kind of crown would look very odd IMO

I agree that a crown might look odd. I think the best solution would be to have it taper on the top few floors.

Going back to the increase of office space, I do remember seeing an article saying that the planning commission approved a variance to the design that raised the office portion, thus raising the hotel/bridge. The reason for this was Stark wanted more space in case of high demand.

Bottom of page = not built yet

Biggest picture = most interesting looking, plus need to build interest

 

BTW - I like the flat roof. Given all the 90 degree angles everywhere else in the design, some kind of crown would look very odd IMO

 

So do I.  This is one instance where a flat roof works given the design of the building.

I would love to see some condos as part of the high rise, even if just a few.

^i think that's the plan on the upper floors

^i think that's the plan on the upper floors

If it's changed, that would be awesome. The last I remember hearing is 500 apartments on the upper levels.

Condos were always a part of the project at least as shown in the site plan.

Also regarding the top of the building , I usually like to stay with the architects original vision. If the NBBJ team can see it differently then I would like to see what they propose.  What I would like to see proposed is would be some kind of 'spire' that would reach maybe 150 ft with some kind of design element. This 'spire' would be substantial enough to be considered a part of the buildings overall height. It could also have a lighting component, think One World Trade Center.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/cleveland/big-boom-for-downtown-cleveland-development/23531320

 

“As you wipe out the office space and convert it into apartments, you then all of a sudden tighten up the office market, which allows people to build new buildings," [Terry] Coyne [the Newmark Grubb Knight Frank vice chairman] adds.

 

Coyne says we see this happening in the Flats, and the stabilized market sparked the nuCLEus project. That is the proposed 50 plus story building, which will become the future home of apartments, condominiums, hotel rooms, offices, parking garage, restaurants and stores.

“NuCLEus already has some very well-known retail tenants that they have not announced yet."

More interesting to me was the quote that they have well known retailers lined up already but not announced

I definitely won't take one of the apartments, but I WILL try to get one of the condos if it 3br or more. For-sale space, especially other than 0-1-2 bedrooms, is sorely lacking in the downtown market.

Same here. I'll shortly be in the market for a 1 or 2 bedroom and Gateway/ PHS is my desired location.

Just because someone is willing to invest a substantial amount of money in your community doesn't give them immunity from scrutiny. In some respects, it demands more scrutiny because a greater investment can have a greater impact, both good and bad, on the community.

 

Telling a developer that is investing a substantial amount of money in the future of downtown that they need to add what is basically amounting to no return on investment "ornament" shows a lack of respect, IMO.

This design is very contemporary. Globally this typology gets away from anything ornamental that does not serve a purpose.

Just because someone is willing to invest a substantial amount of money in your community doesn't give them immunity from scrutiny. In some respects, it demands more scrutiny because a greater investment can have a greater impact, both good and bad, on the community.

 

Telling a developer that is investing a substantial amount of money in the future of downtown that they need to add what is basically amounting to no return on investment "ornament" shows a lack of respect, IMO.

This design is very contemporary. Globally this typology gets away from anything ornamental that does not serve a purpose.

 

So essentially developers that invest substantial amounts of money are immune from design reviews?  IMO...not a sign of disrespect.

So essentially developers that invest substantial amounts of money are immune from design reviews?  IMO...not a sign of disrespect.

 

I think there is some reluctance to accept the idea that government based design reviews are somehow downloaded with knowledge of "correct" architectural decisions.

 

These were buildings built by public entities:

 

 

Some prefer a system where many different private actors make architectural decisions - that will lead to true diversity.  Because it is ultimately the private actor who is exposed to the risk or reward of the project, they will be motivated to present the most competitive design.

 

Globally there aren't a lot of flat topped skyscrapers going up these days.  Just one recent example, the Great American tower in Cincinnati.  Pretty heavy on the ornamentation up top.

 

I like the current Nucleus design well enough, the irregular windows are cool, but the overall rectangular shape creates a very 60s-70s feel.  I don't think our skyline needs any more of that.

^^Hey, I like Boston City Hall!  But I agree with the overall point. I'm fine with some objective ex ante standards regarding building bulk, massing, street edge, curb cuts, even materials in some cases, but I'm not a fan of giving city hall or some commission substantive input on pure aesthetics or other discretionary power without any standards. Literal design by committee.

 

To be honest, though, I don't know how much practical authority Cleveland's design review really has. I doubt we ever get to the point where they squelch a viable project. Either they give way due to political pressure from city hall or a developer just says "thanks for the input!" and ignores them. I'm not convinced a design review veto would survive court challenge.

 

EDITED to add:

 

Globally there aren't a lot of flat topped skyscrapers going up these days.  Just one recent example, the Great American tower in Cincinnati.  Pretty heavy on the ornamentation up top.

 

This is simply untrue. Just look around Curbed. Here are the skyscrapers currently underway in Chicago: http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2016/01/27/chicago-highrise-construction-january-2016.php

In Boston, these are the tallest buildings currently under construction or in the planning stage: http://boston.curbed.com/archives/2015/12/winthrop-square-boston.php

 

[these aren't cherry picked; just the two quickest examples I could find showing multiple ongoing projects]

 

There are certainly lots of new buildings with fancy crowns, but clean, modern boxes are still extremely common.

I'm not convinced a design review veto would survive court challenge.

 

I'm pretty sure it would.  This is an everyday practice in most US communities.  Regulations are broadly legal unless they violate civil rights.  And cities aren't prone to holding regular open meetings of illegal commissions. 

 

Edited to add:

 

For what it's worth, here's a link to diagrams of planned or existing tall buildings where a rectangle doesn't appear till page 2.  While straight-up boxes do still get built, they're a lot less common than they used to be, and I don't believe they represent the future.

 

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=207

^Continued in the Cleveland zoning thread, as we (including me) drift further off topic: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,25222.70.html

Telling a developer that is investing a substantial amount of money in the future of downtown that they need to add what is basically amounting to no return on investment "ornament" shows a lack of respect, IMO.

This design is very contemporary. Globally this typology gets away from anything ornamental that does not serve a purpose.

 

You're assuming I support an ornament on this building. I do not.

 

My comment wasn't even directed at this building, specifically. Rather it was in response to a comment posted in this thread that a city should have no say in how a developer, any developer, should spend their money. I disagree with that general premise.

Telling a developer that is investing a substantial amount of money in the future of downtown that they need to add what is basically amounting to no return on investment "ornament" shows a lack of respect, IMO.

This design is very contemporary. Globally this typology gets away from anything ornamental that does not serve a purpose.

 

You're assuming I support an ornament on this building. I do not.

 

My comment wasn't even directed at this building, specifically. Rather it was in response to a comment posted in this thread that a city should have no say in how a developer, any developer, should spend their money. I disagree with that general premise.

I didn't say it, so I can't say if it was meant exactly this way.  But in principle, I would agree.

 

On the other hand, zoning gets a bad rap when it gets too restrictive, for good reason.  Those from the suburbs may think of it like a case where old Herb Klosteryob has been on the zoning committe of Etalement Heights for forty some years.  He personally doesn't like bright colored trim, and his son in law has an aluminum siding business, so vinyl siding and red awnings are banned.

 

Government "can" do a lot of things but that doesn't mean it should.

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...

^ Couldn't have said it better myself

Agreed, except for the example of 432 Park Ave. Looks like the non-working end of a chopstick.

Just because someone is willing to invest a substantial amount of money in your community doesn't give them immunity from scrutiny. In some respects, it demands more scrutiny because a greater investment can have a greater impact, both good and bad, on the community.

 

Telling a developer that is investing a substantial amount of money in the future of downtown that they need to add what is basically amounting to no return on investment "ornament" shows a lack of respect, IMO.

This design is very contemporary. Globally this typology gets away from anything ornamental that does not serve a purpose.

 

So essentially developers that invest substantial amounts of money are immune from design reviews?  IMO...not a sign of disrespect.

 

Surprised to hear this from you who I would assume understands the process.

Aesthetics is a personal opinion and cannot be subjected to right/wrong. "Design" review should be limited to the health, safety and welfare issues, while aesthetics should be opinions.

 

I really like the conculsion from this document in the Fordham Law Review by Kenneth Regan

You Can’t Build That Here: The Constitutionality of Aesthetic Zoning and Architectural Review

CONCLUSION

 

Although  a state's  police power must  admittedly encroach on  the rights of property ownership, that encroachment should be limited. Po­ lice power should not be extended beyond health, safety, moral, or gen­ eral welfare purposes to encompass solely aesthetic regulation. Aesthetics are inherently subjective and attempts  to legislate them infringe upon individual creative freedom.

Aesthetic regulation acquires more draconian overtones in the case of architectural  review, when boards can  withhold building permits for "improper" designs. Difficulty in formulating proper architectural stan­ dards only compounds the problem, because abuse of discretion is more likely with open-ended standards.  Such broad discretion provides the breeding ground for corruption.

Although some states have authorized zoning solely on aesthetic con­ siderations, this view is not wise. Freedom of choice and protection of property rights were among the values upon which this country was founded. These individual rights should not be sacrificed in the name of beauty. A more equitable alternative to aesthetic zoning is the imple­ mentation of covenants to address aesthetic concerns. Private, voluntary restrictions of property rights are preferable to excessive government reg­ ulation. Covenants adequately balance a property owner's interest with the aesthetic interests of the surrounding neighborhood, and should re­ place zoning based on aesthetics alone.

 

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2882&context=flr

I don't have a picture handy, but do we remember what the BP building was supposed to look like, before they were asked to taper the top?  I for one am very glad the design was changed.

Does anyone remember if there was this kind of criticism of the BP Building when it was proposed? Because I think that building has aged worse than the nuCLEus tower will.

One thing I've heard is they wanted it to be shorter that terminal tower, the original design had it being taller.

 

Not true. First, it was built as the headquarters of Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio). Second, the design of the Sohio Building was changed after criticism that it was too massive and dominated Terminal Tower. That's not the same as tall. Instead, the upper corners of the Sohio Building were tapered without changing the height of the skyscraper. That would make it less dominant next to Terminal Tower, the CPC reasoned. I clipped this from the PD in 1982:

 

I don't have a picture handy, but do we remember what the BP building was supposed to look like, before they were asked to taper the top?  I for one am very glad the design was changed.

 

I remembered this from a KJP post in the Cleveland Development thread a while back:

 

^ Wow, I had never seen that before. Thank god for design review!

^^Regardless of Terminal Tower, I think the tapered design of Sohio is so much better than the original proposal. The change gives the building much more definition.

Let's get back on topic, folks!

Well in the Feb SCT magazine Stark has a full page ad for Nucleus. Last months ad also included his suburban projects. With RECON Vegas coming up in May let's hope Stark and some other developers that have things in the works are very busy.  The rumor dept. has Stark doing well in attracting retail tenants for Nucleus. We may not be very far away from learning about those.

I read somewhere that as soon as the retail conference is over the names can be announced. Supposedly he already has some national tenants lined up

^that's a good ad. I hope comes to be!

i heard it's not going to happen, at least not this year.  The hotel market is already getting soft in Cleveland after the flurry of hotels that were added recently and the office component is extremely aggressive.  Flats East Bank will be adding a 3rd phase sooner than Nucleus will be ready and Pinecrest will be ready as well - 2 nice new office developments competing for tenants. 

The only way that it might happen is if NuCleus can land the Med Mutual consolidation.  But I agree that it probably doesn't break ground this year.

The concept plan for nuCLEus has 500 residences, 200,000 square feet of offices and 150,000 square feet of retail. I don't know about you, but none of that seems too large to fill. Of the original concept, the hotel seemed the softest market for Stark to tackle and is probably the easiest to replace -- with residential, and residential would benefit his local/regional retail component more than any other use. The residential should be doable depending on the rent. The retail? Stark's expertise is in retail. EDIT: In fact, his original retail goal was 140,000 sq ft which he has since increased, perhaps due to his rumored success in signing national retailers.

 

Benesch will take about 66,500 sq ft of office space, and will be the anchor office tenant including building naming rights. The rest shouldn't be difficult to fill. The office component would have to be dramatically increased to accommodate Medical Mutual, which might have to play second fiddle to Benesch. I don't see that happening especially considering MM's desire for a high-profile presence. I also don't see MM playing second fiddle if MM occupies up to 10 times the office space as Benesch.

 

And is there even room for MM? If the five-story, horizontal hotel were dumped for office instead, that's still way too small of opened hole to accommodate MM. Stark would have to dramatically redesign the residential component of the project too, resulting in a potentially major change in projected purchasing power that Stark used in his marketing pitches to lure retail tenants. Building a retail mix is like building a brick wall. Take out a few bricks near the foundation and the rest falls and has to rebuilt all over again. Stark isn't likely to do that.

 

Losing the hotel probably isn't a big loss for Stark's prospective  retailer mix (unless he's got a destination retailer or two in mind). He could probably make that up with residential that would actually boost his retail. But if a Stark has a deal in place with a unique hotelier and his projected residential rents aren't much higher than what's being offered at The 9, any lender familiar with the Cleveland market and its trendlines would sign off on the financing for this.

i heard it's not going to happen, at least not this year.  The hotel market is already getting soft in Cleveland after the flurry of hotels that were added recently and the office component is extremely aggressive.  Flats East Bank will be adding a 3rd phase sooner than Nucleus will be ready and Pinecrest will be ready as well - 2 nice new office developments competing for tenants.

So what are your sources to back up your comments that this project is not happening? I mean you come across as very high school by not being specific. Also your other comments are very generalized, yeah so what other projects are coming on line, so what? Can you point to actual facts that make this project not feasible? I mean no large scale project is easy but you make it seem like you have inside information so give it up or say it's just your opinion.

^ I think speaking generally for those of us that are able to provide feedback based on sources... It's not like we can come on here and spill every aching detail about a project or what we hear. There are confidentiality agreements and so on and so forth. Calling someone "high schoolish" because they will not say their sources or divulge a ton of detail is short sighted and selfish... The general perception in the market is that this project still has a long ways to go before they break ground, if it happens as designed. We've discussed that at length on here, at least what we can say publicaly. I think we all hope that this project is built, but there are rumblings in the market about the viability based on whatever - cost, feasibility, financing, etc...

Actually, when it comes to rumors and sources, it's quite often that everyone is right to a certain degree.  My brother is a managing director at an investment bank in NYC.  He has helped structure some interesting projects around the world.  Projects such as Nucleus go through many phases and financing options, all of which can appear to kill it or save it any one time.  Remember FEB 10 years ago?  There are so many moving parts in these deals each of which can be an wrench in the works.

I thought the law firm was to be moving in 2018, if they do not start till after r.n.c. I do not know how they are going to do site work and build 19 story building with a 4 or 5

story hotel on top in a little more than 2 years. Thou I really hope this project goes.