We have a media thread if you want to discuss specific outlets and/or reporters.

 

Anything about NuCLEus from the article is germane to be discussed in this thread, everything else is should go into the media conversation.

So I read the Scene article and I'm a little confused.  Tell me if the following is an accurate TL;DR summary--

 

A key element of Nucleus's financing package is a $12M loan from the City of Cleveland to Stark.  Stark will repay the city with $13.2 million in new property tax revenue generated by Nucleus, "guaranteeing" the city a 10 percent ROI.  Somehow this is different from the TIF plan also in place for the project.  Cleveland schools will be unaffected and receive a full protion of the property tax revenue generated by Nucleus.

 

Opponents of the project believe that the $13.2 million in property taxes mentioned above should go to the city free and clear of any loan commitments.  However (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that $13.2M exists if and only if Nucleus goes forward (the surface parking lot currently occupying the site ain't gonna raise that kind of cash).  So if all goes as planned, the city collects an extra $1.2M in property taxes over a specified period and also benefits from a $350M+ mixed use project smack dab in its CBD.   Plus a new stream of income and sales taxes from the increased economic activity associated with the project.  Under the status quo, Cleveland collects nothing more than what they are already receiving.

 

All things considered, it seems like part of the cost of doing business in a major urban area.  My understanding is that the subsidies involved here are not direct handouts but rather splitting a larger pie that the developer helped create.  Not to get too political, but kind of like the Amazon project in NYC.  Except Stark isn't Jeff Bezos and the City of Cleveland could probably use the development more than New York City.  Again, I may have some of the details wrong, so please feel free to let me know if there's more going on than meets the eye here.

Edited May 21, 20196 yr by Down_with_Ctown

No, I think that summarizes it pretty well.

1 hour ago, Down_with_Ctown said:

So I read the Scene article and I'm a little confused.  Tell me if the following is an accurate TL;DR summary--

 

A key element of Nucleus's financing package is a $12M loan from the City of Cleveland to Stark.  Stark will repay the city with $13.2 million in new property tax revenue generated by Nucleus, "guaranteeing" the city a 10 percent ROI.  Somehow this is different from the TIF plan also in place for the project.  Cleveland schools will be unaffected and receive a full protion of the property tax revenue generated by Nucleus.

 

Opponents of the project believe that the $13.2 million in property taxes mentioned above should go to the city free and clear of any loan commitments.  However (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that $13.2M exists if and only if Nucleus goes forward (the surface parking lot currently occupying the site ain't gonna raise that kind of cash).  So if all goes as planned, the city collects an extra $1.2M in property taxes over a specified period and also benefits from a $350M+ mixed use project smack dab in its CBD.   Plus a new stream of income and sales taxes from the increased economic activity associated with the project.  Under the status quo, Cleveland collects nothing more than what they are already receiving.

 

All things considered, it seems like part of the cost of doing business in a major urban area.  My understanding is that the subsidies involved here are not direct handouts but rather splitting a larger pie that the developer helped create.  Not to get too political, but kind of like the Amazon project in NYC.  Except Stark isn't Jeff Bezos and the City of Cleveland could probably use the development more than New York City.  Again, I may have some of the details wrong, so please feel free to let me know if there's more going on than meets the eye here.

 

I don't think this is quite right. And I'm guessing it is a bit more generous than most tax subsidy packages, including the Amazon one.  Without coming down on one side or another on the merits of the deal, the the spin from the city is a little misleading.

 

Here are what I understand to be the main pieces of the deal:

• The residential portion of the project is getting the standard property tax abatement on all additional assessed value
• The TIF will essentially re-direct the city's portion of property taxes generated from the non-residential portion of the development back into the project
• The city will collect all income, sales taxes and parking taxes, per normal
• The city is making a $12M "loan" that is really a grant

So the city will be collecting zero property taxes. And the "new" stream of income, sales, and parking taxes is what the developer is guaranteeing will be at least $13.2M over 20 years (I don't know if that's present value or nominal value), and is being almost completley offset by the $12M "loan."   And, much of the income tax being collected here won't really be "new," but really just relocated from other downtown buildings.  We don't really know yet what net new jobs this will be bring downtown (i.e., who will fill Benesch's space at 200 Public Square, etc.) or if they'll be enough to offset the voids left in other buildings. And the commercial portions of NuCLEus are likely to consume city services, especially police, fire and EMS, so it's not costless to the city to serve more development.  The spin that the city is "investing" $12M to get $13.2M is pretty hollow, and in any case, a net fiscal benefit of $1.2M over 20 years is sort of pathetic. 

 

But I do think the schools will be collecting their share of the property taxes on the non-residential portion, which is significant, and it's unlikely the tenants here are going to be consuming a lot of city school resources, so it's all net to the schools. 

 

 

Edited May 21, 20196 yr by StapHanger

5 hours ago, KJP said:

At a nuCLEus leasing meeting in the past week, Stark reportedly told those in attendance that he plans to break ground in July.

Hope so...let's hope we avoid a Beacon start time line.

4 hours ago, StapHanger said:

 

 

But I do think the schools will be collecting their share of the property taxes on the non-residential portion, which is significant, and it's unlikely the tenants here are going to be consuming a lot of city school resources, so it's all net to the schools. 

 

 

 

This implies that the schools do not get property taxes on the residential portion. Am I reading that correctly? I thought the Cleveland property tax abatements and TIFs typically did not apply to the school’s portion - i.e. school property tax is owed based on the new full value. I thought the original NuCLEus request for school tax TIF was the thing that was unusual.  Am I missing something?

30 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

This implies that the schools do not get property taxes on the residential portion. Am I reading that correctly? I thought the Cleveland property tax abatements and TIFs typically did not apply to the school’s portion - i.e. school property tax is owed based on the new full value. I thought the original NuCLEus request for school tax TIF was the thing that was unusual.  Am I missing something?

The residential tax abatement applies to all property including the school portion.  This applies to all new residential construction in Cleveland. 

So just to reiterate, the current deal for NuCLEus is, effectively, that it would generate very little tax revenue of any kind for the city,  while income tax collections (and maybe property tax collection if it's the basis for a an appeal of valuation) might decrease at other downtown buildings as tenants shift over.  But the schools would get their normal property taxes on the office building, parking, and retail portion of NuCLEus, which is probably substantial

How much demolition work does Stark have to do before he

can start construction of Nucleus. I know there is a

parking garage and a couple of smaller buildings.

 

2 hours ago, simplythis said:

How much demolition work does Stark have to do before he

can start construction of Nucleus. I know there is a

parking garage and a couple of smaller buildings.

 

 

Sorry for the small image. Blame Scene Magazine......

 

any recent word on a start date?

 

i had read perhaps early august in i think the scene a couple months ago.

1 hour ago, mrnyc said:

any recent word on a start date?

 

i had read perhaps early august in i think the scene a couple months ago.

 

They're still sticking pretty close to that....

 

On 5/21/2019 at 10:16 AM, KJP said:

At a nuCLEus leasing meeting in the past week, Stark reportedly told those in attendance that he plans to break ground in July.

 

I would imagine after the all star game. Anyone wanna guess what they are going to charge? For the world series it was $100 a car.

Groundbreaking will come after the all star game. Look for late July, more likely mid August would be my guess 

I wonder what sort of order things are going to be built/demolished, keeping in mind how much money they make off of the parking there now. Will they build on the surface lot before tearing down the garage to build on that parcel? With the office tenants lined up though, the may need to demo the garage and start on that one first though. I just don't see Stark taking all of the parking there offline all at the same time.

9 hours ago, PoshSteve said:

I wonder what sort of order things are going to be built/demolished, keeping in mind how much money they make off of the parking there now. Will they build on the surface lot before tearing down the garage to build on that parcel? With the office tenants lined up though, the may need to demo the garage and start on that one first though. I just don't see Stark taking all of the parking there offline all at the same time.

If there was ever a time to take it all offline, it would be August.  No basketball or hockey, and relatively few events at the Q.  Get er done! 

Does a All-Star weekend payout really justify delaying this project a month or two?  Just shorting themselves on the back end. 

My understanding is that the All Star Game will delay it by only a couple of weeks.

After what seems like an eternity... We might finally see the nuCLEus project break ground!

 

I won't believe it until I see it though.

5 hours ago, CLE_Millennial said:

After what seems like an eternity... We might finally see the nuCLEus project break ground!

 

I won't believe it until I see it though

 

Bob Stark is sitting across the aisle from me on my Newark-Cleveland flight. Oh, the things I should ask him....

 

BTW, he's wearing a "Stark Enterprises" cap and is sitting in Economy Plus (to save some coin for NuCLEus?)

Edited May 23, 20196 yr by eyehrtfood

Why didn't you ask him? Ask him if his firm is thinking of the next big project(s) after nuCLEus and, if so, what they might be! 

 

25 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

Not quite.  I just think that this project, as it is now, would be better in the West 3rd empty lots.  Originally, a tall tower would have been a bookend for the E. 4th street entertainment corridor with the 30 story Beacon at the other end.  It wouldn't have mattered that it blocked the BP Tower view from Jacobs field because it would have been a monument in its own way at 50 stories.  Now it's just Park Center all over again.

 

@Terdolph Let's discuss NuCLEus here on the NuCLEus thread.  Help me understand your comments.  From my perspective, a tall building anywhere downtown is going to block the view of other buildings from some angles.  200 Public Square (I shall not mention a company that bailed out of Cleveland) isn't exactly beloved.  I actually do kinda like it, but clearly it isn't in the same league as the Terminal Tower or Key Tower.  Why is that the building you are mentioning?  And I'm really excited about MORE tall building being in view from Progressive Field.  It makes it look more like a city.  I think it's reasonable to have some discussion about which location might be best for which building, but ANY empty lot / horrible parking garage being turned into real development is a huge win for the city.

 

As far as the East 4th bookend comment - the Beacon is about 350 ft and the NuCLEus residential building on East 4th is proposed at 310 ft.  I think that makes an excellent bookend with a decent height symmetry.

 

I think this is a better location than W 3rd because it builds on one of the most lively districts in the area and it fills the only significant parking crater in that part of downtown.

 

I would be all for development in the Warehouse district lots.  That said, NuCLEus as it is currently proposed would only fill 1/4th of the surface lots over in the Warehouse district.  It would improve that area, but I'm convinced it will have a bigger impact right where it is.  And, of course, Stark actually owns these lots, unlike the W3 lots.

 

All that said, let's talk about the improvements we'd like to see in the NuCLEus design.  (To clarify, I'm talking about realistic things the city should be pushing for, not economically unfeasible ideas.)  Most of these have been mentioned up-thread, but now those comments are buried and a bit hard to find.

 

A. The laneway as originally proposed was a cool idea.  The way it is in the most recent renderings sucks - having an open parking garage facing the laneway from both sides will ruin any appeal of that area.  Potential solutions:

  1. Wall off the garage facing the laneway. I'm really having trouble envisioning what facing material would make this work, but maybe someone has some ideas.

  2. Cover the laneway with an skylight / atrium below the parking levels (think of the old Arcade on a much smaller scale).  At least this would block the sound and weather.

  3. I liked @X's idea to just turn the laneway into an arcade and cover it with the garage, thus adding square footage to the garage and perhaps enabling the E4th wall of the garage to have liner apartments.  And giving us arcades from Superior all three blocks to Huron.  It's also a nice "Cleveland history" reference.

 

B. It's a bummer that the most interesting design elements face away from Progressive Field (and its extensive TV footage of this project) and the innerbelt where so many people would get to view them.  I don't think flipping the design it is the right solution - I'd still like to have the density on Prospect and I want to see those aspect from the north as well.  But I have to imagine there's a way to echo some of those north-facing design elements on the south facing part of the building.  Any photoshop warriors / budding architecture students want to take a swag at that?

 

C. Please face the garage with something to make it look less like a parking garage.  That's just ugly.  We're tired of staring at the ugly parking deck currently on that site.  Please don't give us another one.  (I do like the video boards, especially being right across from the Q - all that glass will reflect the video, giving it even more of an entertainment district vibe.)

 

What other improvements would you like to see to the design before they break ground?

 

On 5/23/2019 at 10:39 PM, KJP said:

Why didn't you ask him? Ask him if his firm is thinking of the next big project(s) after nuCLEus and, if so, what they might be! 

If only you were on that flight..? 

 

On 5/23/2019 at 7:45 PM, eyehrtfood said:

 

Bob Stark is sitting across the aisle from me on my Newark-Cleveland flight. Oh, the things I should ask him....

 

BTW, he's wearing a "Stark Enterprises" cap and is sitting in Economy Plus (to save some coin for NuCLEus?)

Little surprised economy class but I've always heard the super rich love to save money. Warren Buffet lives in a modest house, drives a Cadillac and eats at Mcdonalds.

edit.  Where was the flight headed?

edit on edit:  first edit was meant to go up there.^

Edit for below comment: Now thinking longer about it. He loves to eat breakfast at Mcdonalds.

Edited May 26, 20196 yr by Mildtraumatic

1 minute ago, Mildtraumatic said:

If only you were on that flight..? 

 

Little surprised economy class but I've always heard the super rich love to save money. Warren Buffet lives in a modest house, drives a Cadillac and eats at Mcdonalds.

Warren Buffet eats at Village Inn. The same Village Inn at the same time every single day he's in Omaha. I've seen his house, you wouldn't even look twice at it and think a billionaire lives there. Truly rich people don't act like rich people. I was lucky enough to grow up at a country club, the real richest people dressed like bums while at the club. The wanna be's were dressed to a tee. 

28 minutes ago, Mildtraumatic said:

If only you were on that flight..? 

 

 

I would've been asking him so many questions that he would've done a DB Cooper and parachuted out of that plane.

2 hours ago, Mildtraumatic said:

Little surprised economy class but I've always heard the super rich love to save money. Warren Buffet lives in a modest house, drives a Cadillac and eats at Mcdonalds.

 

There is always the chance that he booked in first class, and a flight canceled etc and he had to take what he can get.   

I think it would be really cool to have the laneway topped with a trellis completely covered in thick vines. That would separate it from the garage, create a cool intimate atmosphere with the greenery, and still leave it open to breezes. Would also catch any light rain drizzles too.

Anyway to mitigate the appearance of the parking garage is a bonus. We have too many ugly parking garages tarnishing our downtown. The one by the Rockefeller building, the 55 pub sq garage, etc. are all terrible. It’s good that Stark is replacing an ugly garage with a more attractive building, but to half ass the garage design would be an insult. The Lumen’s billboard thing is really cool because it mimics Broadway. Would it really be cost prohibitive to construct a better facade for the garage in the grand scheme of things? 

On 5/26/2019 at 7:36 PM, imjustinjk said:

Anyway to mitigate the appearance of the parking garage is a bonus. We have too many ugly parking garages tarnishing our downtown. The one by the Rockefeller building, the 55 pub sq garage, etc. are all terrible. It’s good that Stark is replacing an ugly garage with a more attractive building, but to half ass the garage design would be an insult. The Lumen’s billboard thing is really cool because it mimics Broadway. Would it really be cost prohibitive to construct a better facade for the garage in the grand scheme of things? 

 

I had to laugh... this project came up at my family's Memorial Day BBQ last night and my great uncle says "Well they better add parking because there is nowhere to park downtown." 

 

Generational gap, I guess. 

2 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

I had to laugh... this project came up at my family's Memorial Day BBQ last night and my great uncle says "Well they better add parking because there is nowhere to park downtown." 

 

Generational gap, I guess. 

 

There's absolutely nowhere to park Downtown... at all, haha. I'm pro transit af, but I acknowledge the necessity of parking. However, it shouldn't come at the cost of urban form and aesthetics.

There's nowhere to park downtown? 

5 minutes ago, TPH2 said:

There's nowhere to park downtown? 

Sarcasm on my behalf. I have a map I made for a GIS class with all parking within Downtown. Scary and sad.

Edited May 28, 20196 yr by imjustinjk

1 minute ago, imjustinjk said:

Sarcasm on my behalf. I have a map I made for a GIS class with all parking within Downtown. Scary and sad.

 

Unfortunately, many people say that same thing, but they are not being sarcastic. I'm glad at least one (and soon two) surface lots on that map are gone now because of the Lumen (and nucleus).

3 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

I had to laugh... this project came up at my family's Memorial Day BBQ last night and my great uncle says "Well they better add parking because there is nowhere to park downtown." 

 

Generational gap, I guess. 

I walked past the NuCleUs site with a coworker and said told her there would be a new development there.  She seriously asked "where will all the people who are parking there now park when they close the lot?"  

I’ve too have heard the same said by people and when I push them it’s funny to always learn that parking garages, for some reason, are almost invisible to them and it’s surface lots that they crave. Therefore, I propose the following working definition of a Cleveland “Nowhere to Park”

 

“The visible absence of a cheap surface lot that is within 50 yards of and has a direct line of slight to, the place I want to go.”

 

 

 

1 hour ago, roman totale XVII said:

I’ve too have heard the same said by people and when I push them it’s funny to always learn that parking garages, for some reason, are almost invisible to them and it’s surface lots that they crave. Therefore, I propose the following working definition of a Cleveland “Nowhere to Park”

 

“The visible absence of a cheap free surface lot that is within 50 yards of and has a direct line of slight to, the place I want to go.”

 

 

 

I fixed that for you.?

We get the same garbage here in toledo, about where's the parking?  Its mostly older generations who think its 1950 still, back when parking WAS a problem, before all the demo for surface lots.  

 

Parking is not an issue... finding cheap parking is.. *not even from cleveland and i know where 5$ garages are..      and  rta parking always free ?

$5  ?

 

 

Good article.  Very informative.  You can tell the reporter did her homework.

I'm kind of over this whole nuCLEus project.

How can someone be over something that doesn't yet exist?

how can someone click on a thread they are over with? ha.

I would think financing has come too far for this project to not get off the ground.. but something tells me a summer groundbreaking has become far less probable.

Good for the Port Authority for insisting on prevailing wage.  I'm excited for the project and looking forward to it happening, but it is absolutely appropriate for public and quasi-public entities to insist on prevailing wage commitments when public money is involved.  (Even when public money isn't involved, but that's a whole different conversation.)

8 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Good for the Port Authority for insisting on prevailing wage.  I'm excited for the project and looking forward to it happening, but it is absolutely appropriate for public and quasi-public entities to insist on prevailing wage commitments when public money is involved.  (Even when public money isn't involved, but that's a whole different conversation.)

 

I can't believe it's even a conversation slowing down this process.    It should be required if taking public money.   Maybe this one is a bit bigger than Stark is used to? 

My goodness, Stark wants a million handouts from the public to fund this scaled down project,  but doesn’t want to pay workers a decent wage. Meanwhile, over at the Lumen, it’s all being built union(prevailing wages)  and privately. 

Bob needs to learn to quit when he's ahead.