May 29, 20196 yr Looks like Stark is reneging - if I'm the Council, Stark bringing up the prevailing wage issue now is disingenuous. If the project doesn't float because of prevailing wage, and you're requesting $12 million in public funding, then don't do the project.
May 29, 20196 yr So Stark is essentially at the funding finish line, has pretty much indicated a start date, and says “Oh btw, I can’t afford to do prevailing wage” wtf. Something doesn’t smell right about this....why did this come up now?
May 29, 20196 yr I should add that Stark has never had an issue using/paying for union labor on his past projects (Crocker, Eton, Beacon, etc), so what makes Nucleus such a problem?
May 29, 20196 yr I think it's great that the city and Port are sticking to their requirement for prevailing wage labor in exchange for public subsidy. It'd be one thing if this was an affordable housing development or something that really brought necessary services to the city, and even then I would think prevailing wage labor should be used. But the article posted a few weeks back claimed that this development was going to be extremely high end and intended for the wealthy. Some gems from that article: Office Amenities: "Indoor and outdoor pools, a lounge, a gym that rivals the Ritz." Stark listed them off. "No, seriously. These are resort amenities, and we're bringing them to our office users." Prospective Residents: These would be state-of-the-art residences, he said, the sort of places that celebrity athletes and executives from global brands would consider. "This is Tier 1," he said. "We really see this as being the Who's Who of Cleveland." Residential Amenities: "You can have groceries delivered. You can have your dog walked. It'll be like New York City." Sooo Stark is taking millions in public money, got a pretty good deal with the school district, and is planning an ultra-luxe development, but can't pay the construction workers building the project a decent wage? Shameful. Edit: this is the article I'm referencing/quoting: https://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/cleveland-is-prepared-to-hand-over-a-12-million-loan-to-the-nucleus-project/Content?oid=30501801&utm_source=feature&utm_medium=home&utm_campaign=hpfeatures&utm_content=HomeTopFeature Edited May 29, 20196 yr by edale
May 29, 20196 yr Honestly hate everything about this project starting with the initial overblown fanfare and then especially the shift from potentially skyline-changing building to the suburban apartment tower crapola that it’s sadly morphed into. If you can’t afford it then Pull the effing plug already.
May 29, 20196 yr My spidey senses are telling me Stark’s got an issue elsewhere in his capital stack and he can use the Building Trades/Port/City as scapegoats I’d this doesn’t end up going forward idk.
May 29, 20196 yr 5 minutes ago, CleCaneFan said: My spidey senses are telling me Stark’s got an issue elsewhere in his capital stack and he can use the Building Trades/Port/City as scapegoats I’d this doesn’t end up going forward idk. Can anyone speak to what (un)levered returns are typical for projects like this? Returns on equity? It would be an revealing exercise to compare the delta in prevailing wage against basis points, if for no other purpose than to tease out what order of magnitude impact prevailing wages actually have on a project. Edited May 29, 20196 yr by ASP1984
May 31, 20196 yr Back to the design... I'm neither an architect nor an artist, so forgive my chicken-scratch drawing below. I like the view from Prospect - I think it's interesting. I think the view from Huron could be vastly improved by echoing some of the design concepts from the other side of the building. From Prospect / East 4th intersection: Aerial view: By comparison, the view from the south (Huron) is boring. It'll be a bit more interesting than shown in this illustration with the big video screens, but the TV view from Progressive Field and the view from the innerbelt will be that of relatively generic buildings. (Going through these renderings also reminded me about that HORRIBLE open top parking deck. Yuck! Please cover that thing up. I don't think that someone paying top dollar for an apartment in this building would want that to be their view.) My suggestion is to echo the terrace step-backs on the south facing part of the residential building, something like this: And it would be even better to have liner apartments along E. 4th. Maybe the step-back terraces could work for this too. Then keep the video monitors to the Huron side, where all the glass on the renovated Q will reflect it. Edited May 31, 20196 yr by Boomerang_Brian When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
May 31, 20196 yr Assuming the prevailing wage issue is resolved and Nucleus makes it to the finish line, Does the design board still have feedback to provide or is the design final ? I happen to agree with the many that have expressed concerns including the parking lot overlooking the laneway, the very generic design on the side facing Progressive and the exposed parking deck behind the residential building.
June 1, 20196 yr On 5/30/2019 at 9:58 PM, Boomerang_Brian said: Back to the design... I'm neither an architect nor an artist, so forgive my chicken-scratch drawing below. I like the view from Prospect - I think it's interesting. I think the view from Huron could be vastly improved by echoing some of the design concepts from the other side of the building. From Prospect / East 4th intersection: Aerial view: By comparison, the view from the south (Huron) is boring. It'll be a bit more interesting than shown in this illustration with the big video screens, but the TV view from Progressive Field and the view from the innerbelt will be that of relatively generic buildings. (Going through these renderings also reminded me about that HORRIBLE open top parking deck. Yuck! Please cover that thing up. I don't think that someone paying top dollar for an apartment in this building would want that to be their view.) My suggestion is to echo the terrace step-backs on the south facing part of the residential building, something like this: And it would be even better to have liner apartments along E. 4th. Maybe the step-back terraces could work for this too. Then keep the video monitors to the Huron side, where all the glass on the renovated Q will reflect it. Maybe sprinkle some of that atop the "tower". It would be nice for one of these new buildings to break the 400' mark.
June 1, 20196 yr 1 hour ago, fmp in nyc said: Maybe sprinkle some of that atop the "tower". It would be nice for one of these new buildings to break the 400' mark. I like that idea too. I think one challenge is that the office tower is basically the max height for the type of foundation being used. Going taller requires a different, much more expensive foundation. That’s one of the main reasons why the new version cut so much cost from the original, much taller proposal. Perhaps some type of ornamentation that echoed that design could be much lighter and therefore included on top? Edited June 1, 20196 yr by Boomerang_Brian Misspelling When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 1, 20196 yr Yeah I wouldn't be that concerned with the view from Progressive. That empty space on top of the parking deck is designed for a future phase. So if this thing finally gets gets off the ground I am sure over the next couple of years they will determine what the market needs. Whether that be residential, office or hotel. And as long as they don't hire Arbor construction to build on top of the existing parking deck, it should go up pretty quickly.
June 1, 20196 yr 10 minutes ago, freethink said: Yeah I wouldn't be that concerned with the view from Progressive. That empty space on top of the parking deck is designed for a future phase. So if this thing finally gets gets off the ground I am sure over the next couple of years they will determine what the market needs. Whether that be residential, office or hotel. And as long as they don't hire Arbor construction to build on top of the existing parking deck, it should go up pretty quickly. This is the first I’ve heard it suggested that there is the possibility of another phase over the parking. Where did that info come from? I’m not seeing any provisions for an add-on over the parking deck in the plans - for example, elevator or fireproof stairway footprints. If that’s true I’d feel better about the design. At least Stark does have experience building a tower on top of a parking deck. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 1, 20196 yr ^Well Stark really wanted a true mixed use project, remember Live Work Play, that is part of his brand. But to make the numbers work they had to pencil out the hotel component for now. I mean there is only one place a future phase could go.
June 1, 20196 yr And it doesn't have to be Stark building whatever goes on top of that garage. Could be a significant revenue stream for Stark and its partners. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 1, 20196 yr 5 hours ago, Terdolph said: Move it over to the W. 3rd lots and be done with it. The design is fine for that location. I didn't realize that it would cover up the view of the BP Tower from Progressive Field and would be what everybody sees on national TV. This design isn't good enough, or monumental enough for that. So what it covers up BP? That has nothing to do our National presence.
June 4, 20196 yr Anyone have a finger on the pulse of this project? I know there are a lot of folks here who have serious real estate connections.. just curious if anyone has heard how the prevailing wage gap issue may effect things going forward.
June 17, 20195 yr New guy here. Any news on this? Been awfully quiet for the past few weeks. Like it fell off the Earth.
June 17, 20195 yr If there were news it would get posted. If possible let's avoid the "any news here?" posts because its annoying to check the thread only for this question, which gets asked a lot.
June 17, 20195 yr Cut the new guy a break ? "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 17, 20195 yr Stark is starting to irritate me. Starting to feel like it's not worth it. He can keep all his hoopla to himself. Edited June 17, 20195 yr by Mildtraumatic
June 18, 20195 yr 9 minutes ago, Terdolph said: I think it's dead. I think it has been for months. Can't say I'm overwhelmingly disappointed. The original design was horrifying.
June 18, 20195 yr 11 minutes ago, Terdolph said: I think it's dead. It may be, but then again maybe not. It's still being advertised on their website.
June 18, 20195 yr The project is stalled pending the outcome of the city loan. No city loan. No nuCLEus. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 18, 20195 yr ^Was the prevailing wage issue resolved? I thought that was the main sticking point now.
June 18, 20195 yr 6 minutes ago, StapHanger said: ^Was the prevailing wage issue resolved? I thought that was the main sticking point now. I would guess not. That is why no city loan to date. Question is: Is anybody working on this (who ever that would be) Edited June 18, 20195 yr by Htsguy
June 18, 20195 yr 10 minutes ago, StapHanger said: ^Was the prevailing wage issue resolved? I thought that was the main sticking point now. No. Neither side is budging. Stark can't make the numbers work as a prevailing wage project. And the city isn't going to waive the prevailing wage requirement for this project, because it will likely mean the end of the prevailing wage for all future projects that get city financing. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 18, 20195 yr Ah, got it. I forgot that the prevailing wage issue was the sticking point with the city loan- I was only remembering the port authority part.
June 18, 20195 yr What I'm wondering is, why couldn't Stark use the $12 million loan to pay for a smaller part of the development where only the prevailing wage would apply, which can be built quickly and and that might not be expected to generate a positive return anyway? Perhaps the parking garage might fall into this category? "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 18, 20195 yr 1 minute ago, KJP said: What I'm wondering is, why couldn't Stark use the $12 million loan to pay for a smaller part of the development where only the prevailing wage would apply, which can be built quickly and and that might not be expected to generate a positive return anyway? Perhaps the parking garage might fall into this category? I doubt the city would be willing to make that loan because the rest of the project wouldn't pay a prevailing wage. It seems a matter of principle for the city. I find it hard to believe there isn't some other source of a few million dollars of funding for such a large project.
June 18, 20195 yr For what it's worth I disagreed with the school district when they didn't accept Stark's offer but I support the City on withholding the loan. Didn't Stark have to agree to these terms before the city voted on the ordinance?
June 18, 20195 yr 1 hour ago, gg707 said: I doubt the city would be willing to make that loan because the rest of the project wouldn't pay a prevailing wage. It seems a matter of principle for the city. I find it hard to believe there isn't some other source of a few million dollars of funding for such a large project. Perhaps if Stark created a separate company to receive the $12 million loan and to build and own the parking garage? I'm with you...we're down to $12 million for a $300 million project. Between the federal Opportunity Zone program, the pending Ohio tax incentive to lure Opportunity Zone investments, the Cleveland Development Advisors' new $50 million fund, etc. Even I know where to point Stark to fill that $12 million gap in a couple of weeks. But I just heard something laughable about Stark's financial stake in the project. It's so small that I have a hard time believing it's true, unless Stark has leveraged everything else he has for other projects. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 18, 20195 yr 1 hour ago, KJP said: Even I know where to point Stark to fill that $12 million gap in a couple of weeks. Point away! It sounds like Stark doesn't know where to look and needs the help.
June 19, 20195 yr Stark better finish this project if he ever wants anyone to believe him when he proposes something again.
June 19, 20195 yr I find too often I hold the city accountable in pushing back on private development. I’ll never forget what I heard about Pixar and their visit with Frank Jackson. However, this feels way too much like a developer having their hand out. I’m ok with this never breaking ground if government has to bend any further backward for Stark.
June 19, 20195 yr Is said many months ago Stark can't be trusted but someone brought out his big successful projects. Nonetheless, his Warehouse District extravanga got whittled down, down to nothing. And I believe he had a big project planned for downtown Solon, though I've very happy that one got eliminated. There are some big offices that had made commitments to go into NuCleus, so may it's still going - one way or another.... No sign went up on Prospect, though. Maybe that's a bad omen. But then projects with signs don't always materialize anyway. Edited June 19, 20195 yr by lafont
June 19, 20195 yr 1 hour ago, Sapper Daddy said: I find too often I hold the city accountable in pushing back on private development. I’ll never forget what I heard about Pixar and their visit with Frank Jackson. However, this feels way too much like a developer having their hand out. I’m ok with this never breaking ground if government has to bend any further backward for Stark. Not to get off topic but what's the Pixar story?
June 19, 20195 yr 15 minutes ago, MikeyB440 said: Not to get off topic but what's the Pixar story? Pixar execs made a visit to Cleveland (not unannounced) interested in a collaboration with Playhouse Square. Folks at city hall were woefully unprepared and kept them in standby mode when the execs showed up to meet. Pixar execs left the city after not meeting with anyone. Feel free to quote me in another thread for further discussion. Don’t want this getting too far off the rails. I will say if nuCLEus does not happen it’ll be the furthest along proposal for Cleveland to fall through that I’m aware of. I’m torn between that logic and that even North Point Tower was scaled back from 500 feet to 285 in the early 80’s. On the same token I’m feeling like Stark’s line of bull is the same as Gilbert pitching casino phase 2. Edited June 19, 20195 yr by Sapper Daddy
June 19, 20195 yr Wait. Something doesn't add up here. Why does the prevailing wage apply only to this city loan whereas it doesn't apply to other city loans, county loans and state loans? Don't most, if not all of these have prevailing wage provisions attached?? See below...... The release said the city has worked with Stark Enterprises on the NuCLEus project since 2013 and previously approved a non-school tax increment financing loan and two Vacant Property Initiative loans, totaling $360,000 for the project. A brief summarizing term of the loan from the city's economic development department that was posted Monday on Cleveland City Council's website indicates that Cuyahoga County will invest $6 million in the project as will the state of Ohio. The city said its aid will go toward the office tower and associated parking in nuCLEus. https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/city-weighs-12-million-nucleus-investment EDIT: I see that the $12 million loan is being made under a provision that requires the loan recipients of financial assistance to work with, and/or cause their tenants to work with The Workforce Investment Board for Workforce Area No. 3. There are all sorts of conditions that come with this requirement. EDIT2: I see that the city doesn't have a prevailing wage provision associated with the loan. But the city made the prevailing wage a priority only after it heard from the port authority that Stark wouldn't pay prevailing wages, which doomed port financing. And the city said that, given the size of the project, prevailing wage should be a priority. In other words, if Stark had gone to the city first, the city probably wouldn't have noticed or asked if Stark was going to pay prevailing wages. https://www.cleveland.com/business/2019/05/wage-issue-stalls-public-financing-negotiations-for-nucleus-project.html Edited June 19, 20195 yr by KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 19, 20195 yr 14 hours ago, KJP said: No. Neither side is budging. Stark can't make the numbers work as a prevailing wage project. And the city isn't going to waive the prevailing wage requirement for this project, because it will likely mean the end of the prevailing wage for all future projects that get city financing. At this point, with all that is going on Stark needs the city a hell of a lot more than the city needs Stark. This is the opposite of the case 20+ years ago and a very good thing. I'm concerned that they might cut corners to make this work, and the results be of poor quality.
June 19, 20195 yr "Today is the last day at our office on West 3rd St here in downtown Cleveland. Come Monday morning the new headquarters for Stark Enterprises will be located on the 12th and 13th floor of the National City Bank Building at 629 Euclid Ave (above Marble Room for all of you foodies out there)." Stark no longer moving to the Nucleus site? Yikes https://www.starkenterprises.com/a-new-chapter-at-stark-enterprises/
June 19, 20195 yr I'm guessing the move into the National City Bank building is temporary until Nucleus is actually built. clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
June 19, 20195 yr ^I thought the release was strange since it never mentioned eventual relocation to Nucleus. I kept trying to read between the lines (like they did not want to tout it since it still is not a done deal or did not want to poke their current landlord in the eye with the eventual move...in reality I certainly am just grasping at straws...don't know what is going on). I did notice from the pics that the build out does not look very elaborate (pretty bare bones) which in my mind is a sign of temporary quarters.
June 19, 20195 yr I wouldn't get terribly excited about this announcement, in relation to the NuCLEus proposal.... It's probably a much better building to work in, in general, and it's certainly closer to the NuCLEar site - just separated by the Fifth Street Markets.
Create an account or sign in to comment