i wonder the if the nucleus project helps or hinders the proposed Ferrari showroom/condo tower.  I would love to see both projects built

 

I love the design and project, but I think it slows down other residential projects from breaking ground.  I think developers will sit back, and see how this masssive project absorbs the market before they kick anything off. 

 

How does it hinder?  With almost no vacancy rate downtown, this is just keeping up with demand.  Plus, not everyone will want live in a high rise (I personally love it).  I take the opposite view.  This may very well spur the construction of more speculative ventures and ease the conversion of May Company/Huntington.  New construction (which is lagging in CLE) of apartments as signals growth.  There is plenty of room for both conversion and new.

 

As for the design, it's neither good nor bad.  But it is unique for CLE.  I've read above where today's chic is tomorrow's eyesore.  But if properly maintained, it will be a differnt take on the skyline for some decades to come.

 

Hard to see how this spurs renovation of May Co and Huntington.  With a near 95% or so occupancy rate downtown, those projects can't seem to get off the ground without major historic tax credits or other public funding.  I don't see how a new mega tower, which inevitably will reduce the occupancy rate in existing buildings, helps lenders feel more comfortable about those projects.  Of course, this is all speculation since the Stark project is far from being realized in its current form, or any form for that matter. 

what makes you automatically assume it would reduce occupancy rates? its classic mixed use, so 2/3rds of the "mega" is hotel/retail, not residential. so its not that many apts. if anything new build will attract a lot more occupancy to downtown. this project is riding the steamroller back to the city movement trend that is in full swing in every downtown in america. millenials prefer downtown and empty nesters and retirees are into it as well. a developer can get on board with that or be left behind building their same old cathedral ceiling mcmansions in cornfields that nobody wants anymore. add to it that cleveland has never had such sustained, consistent good press, so the time is now for new construction to compliment all these rehabs. it will also indirectly help may co and other properties because it will attract other developer and investor attention, both local and far flung.

Considering zoning approval, financing and design, what do you think is the probability of NuCLEus happening. Is financing shaky? I thought it was a pretty wrapped up deal. Cleveland skyline and urban scene really need this kind of boost. The building might spur a Gateway neighborhood of modern medium and high rise residential towers.

forget about the Ferarri dealership. Not happening. Never was

 

You're probably right, but there is actually a surprising (albeit small) possibility that it could happen. There's a lot of insight from the user "I love pizza" on this thread: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,29423.0.html

 

I know you're aware of that since you posted on that thread a few times, but I'd like others to see it too. I think if the NuCLEus project is successful, it could only help the Ferrari project.

I'm not upset or disappointed that this tower doesn't "pay homage" to terminal tower by blending in with it. I'm impressed with the architecture and innovation in the Terminal Tower design but I feel Cleveland residents try to hold on to tradition too much. I feel like that has help our skyline back from a design stand point. It is 2015 I don't want to see another tan and beige colored building because that would help it blend in with terminal tower. I want to see a striking design that catches my eye and brings Cleveland's skyline into the 21st century and this is it (along with the Hilton hotel). If this was built in Chicago it would be praised, but because it is in traditionalist Cleveland it is to striking of a design. Tradition is not bad but some things can be changed over time. This building is what Cleveland needs as far as design, street presence and height.

 

Also I don't mind this building being tall on prospect just because all the other buildings are short. There was a time when buildings on superior weren't very tall as well as public square but things slowly changed and began to blend well together. Overall I love the design and boldness of this project.

 

I lIke the tower, especially the bridge portion.  I hope this project  kickstarts other projects such as the WHD. Those empty parking lots need to go!

I'm not upset or disappointed that this tower doesn't "pay homage" to terminal tower by blending in with it. I'm impressed with the architecture and innovation in the Terminal Tower design but I feel Cleveland residents try to hold on to tradition too much. I feel like that has help our skyline back from a design stand point. It is 2015 I don't want to see another tan and beige colored building because that would help it blend in with terminal tower. I want to see a striking design that catches my eye and brings Cleveland's skyline into the 21st century and this is it (along with the Hilton hotel). If this was built in Chicago it would be praised, but because it is in traditionalist Cleveland it is to striking of a design. Tradition is not bad but some things can be changed over time. This building is what Cleveland needs as far as design, street presence and height. Also I don't mind this building being tall on prospect just because all the other buildings are short. There was a time when buildings on superior weren't very tall as well as public square but things slowly changed and began to blend well together. Overall I love the design and boldness of this project.

 

Agreed - if this was proposed for the site where the Renaissance Hotel sits, *then* I'd say they need to pay homage. I posted the following on the skyscraperpage.com forum- "You have all this interesting 'texture' going on with the base and the apartment tower balconies... then the skybridge is just a flat glass facade? I see in the renderings they show some of the cross-bracing but that will only be visible at night, if at all. They said the skybridge is an homage to the historic bridges along the Cuyahoga River - well, I get that they want "sleek" for the development, but this is just *too* sleek, it needs more heft to it. 'Sleek' doesn't have to mean a flat glass curtain wall. I'm not an architect or engineer so no idea if it's feasible but I think if they played up the structural components of the bridge (i.e. Foster's HSBC Building in Hong Kong), that would help the design a *lot*. Then there's the question of the office building (the shorter tower) and what it will look like, and how the skybridge is incorporated. Right now, it just looks arbitrarily placed there without any thought to how those components interact. It's early on in the development and I'm sure the project will be revised as things progress but that's my take for now.

i wonder the if the nucleus project helps or hinders the proposed Ferrari showroom/condo tower.  I would love to see both projects built

 

I love the design and project, but I think it slows down other residential projects from breaking ground.  I think developers will sit back, and see how this masssive project absorbs the market before they kick anything off. 

 

How does it hinder?  With almost no vacancy rate downtown, this is just keeping up with demand.  Plus, not everyone will want live in a high rise (I personally love it).  I take the opposite view.  This may very well spur the construction of more speculative ventures and ease the conversion of May Company/Huntington.  New construction (which is lagging in CLE) of apartments as signals growth.  There is plenty of room for both conversion and new.

 

As for the design, it's neither good nor bad.  But it is unique for CLE.  I've read above where today's chic is tomorrow's eyesore.  But if properly maintained, it will be a differnt take on the skyline for some decades to come.

 

Hard to see how this spurs renovation of May Co and Huntington.  With a near 95% or so occupancy rate downtown, those projects can't seem to get off the ground without major historic tax credits or other public funding.  I don't see how a new mega tower, which inevitably will reduce the occupancy rate in existing buildings, helps lenders feel more comfortable about those projects.  Of course, this is all speculation since the Stark project is far from being realized in its current form, or any form for that matter. 

 

But that was then and this is now.  The tax credit contingency was pre nuCLEus.  Now that a developer is obtaining financing for new construction this makes lending on the rehabs less risky and the those developers will be able to obtain better rates making the tax credit less necessary.  Plus, how does this reduce occupancy at existing buildings?  You are assuming a zero sum game where every new unit occupied deceases the occupancy of existing units.  As it is forecast that an additional 7-10 thousand people will move downtown by then end of the decade the new construction isn't even keeping up with demand.  Add Huntington and May Company and you are still lagging demand.  A similar construction on Public Square probably wouldn't even satisfy the projected demand.  The office portion of the Project is only 200,000sqft which is not much.  That's approximately the amount that one decent sized law firm would occupy.  I don't know about the hotel though.  I've said on many threads that CLE needs an additional Hilton sized hotel to really compete for the big convention events on a regular basis. 

I'm not upset or disappointed that this tower doesn't "pay homage" to terminal tower by blending in with it. I'm impressed with the architecture and innovation in the Terminal Tower design but I feel Cleveland residents try to hold on to tradition too much. I feel like that has help our skyline back from a design stand point. It is 2015 I don't want to see another tan and beige colored building because that would help it blend in with terminal tower. I want to see a striking design that catches my eye and brings Cleveland's skyline into the 21st century and this is it (along with the Hilton hotel). If this was built in Chicago it would be praised, but because it is in traditionalist Cleveland it is to striking of a design. Tradition is not bad but some things can be changed over time. This building is what Cleveland needs as far as design, street presence and height. Also I don't mind this building being tall on prospect just because all the other buildings are short. There was a time when buildings on superior weren't very tall as well as public square but things slowly changed and began to blend well together. Overall I love the design and boldness of this project.

 

I don't care so much about homage to the TT.  Any sense of homage the City owed to its iconic tower was pretty much thrown out the window with 200 PS and Key Tower IMO.  I do feel that, at least on here, the design is getting a pass due to the proposed height of the tower.  This board tends to trend toward being collectively critical of about every rendering/design put out there..... harsh and nitpicky to an extreme IMO sometimes.  But if a supertall is proposed, then we get all googly eyed.

 

In a cluster of residential towers, I'd think this would be an appealing design.  As a stand alone, somewhat separated element of the skyline, I don't like it.  Charlotte has something similar and it stands out in a bad way IMO.

 

That gives Charlotte a "Nashville-ish" look.

 

If the TT was a bit taller and beefier, it would be easier to remain the iconic building in Cleveland, similar to the Empire State Building.  I compare this situation to the Wrigley Building.  Because of its height, and slenderness, it's tough to not dwarf.  Regardless, no matter what, it will always have a special place in Cleveland's skyline because of it location and design, and the investment being put into PS.

I wouldn't worry about this becoming the new icon of Cleveland... It will be the cool new building but Terminal Tower is more symbolic. Look at Key Tower, our tallest building, while important is hardly as featured as the TT.  I think if this really gets off the ground and is a success it's going to be amazing and will prompt more new construction around downtown.

i wonder the if the nucleus project helps or hinders the proposed Ferrari showroom/condo tower.  I would love to see both projects built

 

I love the design and project, but I think it slows down other residential projects from breaking ground.  I think developers will sit back, and see how this masssive project absorbs the market before they kick anything off. 

 

How does it hinder?  With almost no vacancy rate downtown, this is just keeping up with demand.  Plus, not everyone will want live in a high rise (I personally love it).  I take the opposite view.  This may very well spur the construction of more speculative ventures and ease the conversion of May Company/Huntington.  New construction (which is lagging in CLE) of apartments as signals growth.  There is plenty of room for both conversion and new.

 

As for the design, it's neither good nor bad.  But it is unique for CLE.  I've read above where today's chic is tomorrow's eyesore.  But if properly maintained, it will be a differnt take on the skyline for some decades to come.

 

Hard to see how this spurs renovation of May Co and Huntington.  With a near 95% or so occupancy rate downtown, those projects can't seem to get off the ground without major historic tax credits or other public funding.  I don't see how a new mega tower, which inevitably will reduce the occupancy rate in existing buildings, helps lenders feel more comfortable about those projects.  Of course, this is all speculation since the Stark project is far from being realized in its current form, or any form for that matter. 

 

But that was then and this is now.  The tax credit contingency was pre nuCLEus.  Now that a developer is obtaining financing for new construction this makes lending on the rehabs less risky and the those developers will be able to obtain better rates making the tax credit less necessary.  Plus, how does this reduce occupancy at existing buildings?  You are assuming a zero sum game where every new unit occupied deceases the occupancy of existing units.  As it is forecast that an additional 7-10 thousand people will move downtown by then end of the decade the new construction isn't even keeping up with demand.  Add Huntington and May Company and you are still lagging demand.  A similar construction on Public Square probably wouldn't even satisfy the projected demand.  The office portion of the Project is only 200,000sqft which is not much.  That's approximately the amount that one decent sized law firm would occupy.  I don't know about the hotel though.  I've said on many threads that CLE needs an additional Hilton sized hotel to really compete for the big convention events on a regular basis. 

 

It's definitely not a zero-sum game; but nor is it the case where nuCLEus doesn't poach any existing DT residents.  Under your paradigm, the fact that the E&Y tower filled up with office tenants should mean that the demand for new office space is in crazy demand, but it's not.  Maybe it'll be different for residential, but that assumes existing occupancy and demand rates remain in place over the next 3-5 years, with no intervening economic downturn.  It also assumes that Stark is actually getting financing for the project in its current form, which is far from the case.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled that this project is on the table.  But I'm also being realistic.  A project this size, if built, is not necessarily going to spur development of all the other residential conversion projects in the pipeline. 

I disagree that this tower is isolated. It's only 50% more isolated by area from TT/200PS than the big 3 are to each other. You can go and look back at everyone's massing projections on pages 10 and 11 and see that there is not a single shot that resembles that shot of Charlotte, because it always gets caught up in either the big 3, the E9th & Euclid cluster, or caught up with ATT-Huron Road and the Stokes Courthouse. Even when viewed as a person on the street this tower would not look out of place like that Charlotte tower, because Gateway's 7-9 story buildings neighbor 7-9 story buildings and not parking lots.

Hold up, are people ACTUALLY complaining about a 647' 54 story modern building that will be built on a parking lot and employ an extremely urban ground level?

 

Think about what you're doing. Think about what we've all been wanting for Cleveland for awhile. Think about how many of those gaps in our renaissance this building is filling.

 

I love it. I'm cautiously optimistic but feel good about this.

Hold up, are people ACTUALLY complaining about a 647' 54 story modern building that will be built on a parking lot and employ an extremely urban ground level?

 

Think about what you're doing. Think about what we've all been wanting for Cleveland for awhile. Think about how many of those gaps in our renaissance this building is filling.

 

I love it. I'm cautiously optimistic but feel good about this.

 

No one's complaining; there are just people on this board that want the project to be executed in the best way possible for the city.  Just because it's Cleveland, doesn't mean we should expect anything less than residents in NYC, Chicago, and other markets demand when it comes to major development projects.

Okay, and where are any of us seeing something that ISN'T up to those cities' standards? This design is modern, well thought out, has a great street presence, height, a unique design, etc. etc. It's not like this is some simple box and I'm saying, "oh well it's better than nothing." This is a design that people from around the country are jealous of. Go to the boards on Skyscraperpage and there are many people from many cities commenting on how impressive it is.

Okay, and where are any of us seeing something that ISN'T up to those cities' standards? This design is modern, well thought out, has a great street presence, height, a unique design, etc. etc. It's not like this is some simple box and I'm saying, "oh well it's better than nothing." This is a design that people from around the country are jealous of. Go to the boards on Skyscraperpage and there are many people from many cities commenting on how impressive it is.

 

Well, I think others can and do disagree.  But that's just one local denizen's opinion.  I recognize, and respect that others may disagree. I also recognize that it's more than likely that the current design is going to evolve over time.

 

No one's complaining; there are just people on this board that want the project to be executed in the best way possible for the city.  Just because it's Cleveland, doesn't mean we should expect anything less than residents in NYC, Chicago, and other markets demand when it comes to major development projects.

 

I don't think anyone on this board said this design isn't up to other cities standards "just because it's Cleveland" or that the project isn't going to be well executed "just because it's Cleveland". Perhaps it's just you with the "just because it's Cleveland " insecurity.  Others have come to expect good projects and design for Cleveland because that has been what's happening over the last few years: Mariner's Watch, MOCA, CMA, the new Hilton, and Uptown, just to name a few. 

Truthfully, I think that's what makes Cleveland look interesting is there are a few buildings built from each period of architectural style.  We have the solid linestone buildings from the early part of the 20th century when Cleveland WAS American industrial muscle, the 60s era buildings (ie The Federal building which looks like a giant ice cube) the BP building is 80s postmodern, the Key Tower screams 90s, etc.  I think a 2010s era skyscraper will fit the skyline well.  :shoot: :whip: :drunk:

-another thing I really like about the design is Cleveland has a beautify horizontal "skyline".  When you come over the I-90 bridge, you see all of the bridges crossing the flats, and the white stone buildings facing the river kinda makes it look like a fortress city.  I'm glad our friends at NBBJ noticed this as well.  (I am a HUGE fan of the bridge design).  However, I don't like the void it creates in the tower.  I'd like to see how the top of the tower would look shifted off-axis. :clap:

 

 

PS: Cleveland should only refer to itself as a Great Lakes City, putting ourselves in the company of Chicago and Toronto and leave the Midwest moniker for Topeka Kansas or Iowa.  Dig?  It's more geographically accurate. (-this rant inspired by people on message boards talking about the Midwest.  The Midwest thing is a term coastal snobs use because they are geographically ignorant)

Agree on scrapping the Midwest moniker in favor of Great Lakes for Cleveland.  Mideast would also make sense if there was such an animal.

Hold up, are people ACTUALLY complaining about a 647' 54 story modern building that will be built on a parking lot and employ an extremely urban ground level?

 

Nobody is complaining about the ground level effect or the fact that it will fill a parking lot.  Some, including myself, don't care for the design of the tower.  It's a subjective opinion.  The height of the building, or the fact that the design is 'modern', does not insulate it from criticism, right?  I have followed this board for well over 5 years and every design gets its fair share of critics on here, and I'm usually the one defending the design.  But, for whatever reason, if it is tall enough, then we fall all over ourselves and can't say a negative word about it.  To me, it should be the other way around.... the more the building is going to stand out for its aesthetic purposes, the more its design should be put under a microscope.

But people aren't saying that it's not to their taste, they're saying it's not good enough for Cleveland, or not up to proper standards of urbanism, etc. etc. Those things aren't really all that subjective. I don't care if people don't like it stylistically because that's not important. What is important is how it fits into the street grid, how it fills the first floor, how its massing fits into the overall skyline, how its massing completes a disjointed streetwall, etc. etc. Those things are all being handled quite well in these renderings. That's where my confusion stems from.

Who said it was not up to the proper standards of urbanism or not good enough for Cleveland?  Maybe some isolated comment, but I think the majority of any negative comments have been limited to the design of the tower...... not from a functionality standpoint.  I love the plans for how it will interact with the street.

Who said it was not up to the proper standards of urbanism or not good enough for Cleveland?  Maybe some isolated comment, but I think the majority of any negative comments have been limited to the design of the tower...... not from a functionality standpoint.  I love the plans for how it will interact with the street.

 

I suspect jmichi is referring to me.  Of course, I never said the building wasn't good enough for Cleveland.  What I said was that people in Cleveland should demand that the design gets scrutinized, and not just blindly accepted by the City because it's a super-tall building and/or because we don't tend to see development on this scale, so therefore it should get a pass.     

Who said it was not up to the proper standards of urbanism or not good enough for Cleveland?  Maybe some isolated comment, but I think the majority of any negative comments have been limited to the design of the tower...... not from a functionality standpoint.  I love the plans for how it will interact with the street.

 

I suspect jmichi is referring to me.  Of course, I never said the building wasn't good enough for Cleveland.  What I said was that people in Cleveland should demand that the design gets scrutinized, and not just blindly accepted by the City because it's a super-tall building and/or because we don't tend to see development on this scale, so therefore it should get a pass.  There are some on this board that don't read all that carefully though, and just decide to jump all over someone the moment they express any kind of opinion that doesn't match their own. 

=

I'm not upset or disappointed that this tower doesn't "pay homage" to terminal tower by blending in with it. I'm impressed with the architecture and innovation in the Terminal Tower design but I feel Cleveland residents try to hold on to tradition too much. I feel like that has help our skyline back from a design stand point. It is 2015 I don't want to see another tan and beige colored building because that would help it blend in with terminal tower. I want to see a striking design that catches my eye and brings Cleveland's skyline into the 21st century and this is it (along with the Hilton hotel). If this was built in Chicago it would be praised, but because it is in traditionalist Cleveland it is to striking of a design. Tradition is not bad but some things can be changed over time. This building is what Cleveland needs as far as design, street presence and height. Also I don't mind this building being tall on prospect just because all the other buildings are short. There was a time when buildings on superior weren't very tall as well as public square but things slowly changed and began to blend well together. Overall I love the design and boldness of this project.

 

I don't care so much about homage to the TT.  Any sense of homage the City owed to its iconic tower was pretty much thrown out the window with 200 PS and Key Tower IMO.  I do feel that, at least on here, the design is getting a pass due to the proposed height of the tower.  This board tends to trend toward being collectively critical of about every rendering/design put out there..... harsh and nitpicky to an extreme IMO sometimes.  But if a supertall is proposed, then we get all googly eyed.

 

In a cluster of residential towers, I'd think this would be an appealing design.  As a stand alone, somewhat separated element of the skyline, I don't like it.  Charlotte has something similar and it stands out in a bad way IMO.

 

 

There was never "homage" involved but a certain degree of compliment between the three towers.  The jagged and uneven design doesn't fit at all.  We're not Brasilia, Dubai, or even Phoenix.  We are who we are and while it's not my money and I certainly like the development in principle, we're at heart a traditional town.  I know I sound like the bad guys in The Fountainhead, but IMO this will end up being an eyesore and joke, as designed now, and it's too prominent in the skyline.

Hello there. Museum Plaza called.

 

 

--

 

I actually like Nucleus better, though :)

I'm not upset or disappointed that this tower doesn't "pay homage" to terminal tower by blending in with it. I'm impressed with the architecture and innovation in the Terminal Tower design but I feel Cleveland residents try to hold on to tradition too much. I feel like that has help our skyline back from a design stand point. It is 2015 I don't want to see another tan and beige colored building because that would help it blend in with terminal tower. I want to see a striking design that catches my eye and brings Cleveland's skyline into the 21st century and this is it (along with the Hilton hotel). If this was built in Chicago it would be praised, but because it is in traditionalist Cleveland it is to striking of a design. Tradition is not bad but some things can be changed over time. This building is what Cleveland needs as far as design, street presence and height. Also I don't mind this building being tall on prospect just because all the other buildings are short. There was a time when buildings on superior weren't very tall as well as public square but things slowly changed and began to blend well together. Overall I love the design and boldness of this project.

 

I don't care so much about homage to the TT.  Any sense of homage the City owed to its iconic tower was pretty much thrown out the window with 200 PS and Key Tower IMO.  I do feel that, at least on here, the design is getting a pass due to the proposed height of the tower.  This board tends to trend toward being collectively critical of about every rendering/design put out there..... harsh and nitpicky to an extreme IMO sometimes.  But if a supertall is proposed, then we get all googly eyed.

 

In a cluster of residential towers, I'd think this would be an appealing design.  As a stand alone, somewhat separated element of the skyline, I don't like it.  Charlotte has something similar and it stands out in a bad way IMO.

 

 

There was never "homage" involved but a certain degree of compliment between the three towers.  The jagged and uneven design doesn't fit at all.  We're not Brasilia, Dubai, or even Phoenix.  We are who we are and while it's not my money and I certainly like the development in principle, we're at heart a traditional town.  I know I sound like the bad guys in The Fountainhead, but IMO this will end up being an eyesore and joke, as designed now, and it's too prominent in the skyline.

My thing is this though, change has to start somewhere, just because it doesn't fit now doesn't mean it won't fit in the future. Superior avenue has buildings built in the 50-70s with glass facade that didn't originally mesh with their 20s counterparts but more were built over time to make the street blend well. I go back to Chicago as reference because they have a diverse range of building designs, some look like the designs of terminal tower, and some resemble the look of this proposed tower. I bet people had the same traditional sentiments as some people on here when designs began to change. You look at the Chicago skyline now though and it has world renowned building designs and some people travel there just to marvel at them. The skyline is also considered one of the best in the country some would say the world, all because they allowed change to occur and more modern buildings being built caused the "eye sores" to blend it together.

 

My point is things evolve over time, and as time progresses building designs that once stuck out begin to blend in. This comes from designers of future buildings wanting to top what was already built or come close to it. If we continue with the tan and beige pencil designs, which are bland that is what we will continue to get.

 

Am I the only one that has never been that smitten with the Terminal Tower? I have very little technical knowledge of architecture but I find the LeVeque Tower, of a similar date, style, and place, to be more aesthetically pleasing. Something about the TT, it just seems too skinny and too brown, and the top looks too much like a castle at Disneyland.

 

I was born in 1988 so I have no memory of Cleveland sans Key Tower and BP Tower, therefore I don't have the intense devotion/nostalgia for TT that older Clevelanders seem to have. Don't get me wrong, I know it's a time-honored symbol of our city, and very significant for its day... I just feel that planning future buildings around it is absolutely ridiculous and a surefire way to always be stuck in the past. I think the Terminal Tower would be just lovely 50 years from now as a historical treasure in a bustling city, surrounded by many taller buildings.

^ Blasphemy

Am I the only one that has never been that smitten with the Terminal Tower? I have very little technical knowledge of architecture but I find the LeVeque Tower, of a similar date, style, and place, to be more aesthetically pleasing. Something about the TT, it just seems too skinny and too brown, and the top looks too much like a castle at Disneyland.

 

There was never "homage" involved but a certain degree of compliment between the three towers.  The jagged and uneven design doesn't fit at all.  We're not Brasilia, Dubai, or even Phoenix.  We are who we are and while it's not my money and I certainly like the development in principle, we're at heart a traditional town.  I know I sound like the bad guys in The Fountainhead, but IMO this will end up being an eyesore and joke, as designed now, and it's too prominent in the skyline.

 

So is this project not tan or beige enough?

If only architects around the world could come up with something other than the two options of (1) this and (2) tan and beige...... but then what would we have to debate on here.

If only architects around the world could come up with something other than the two options of (1) this and (2) tan and beige...... but then what would we have to debate on here.

 

We can still debate street-level design functionality I suppose.

 

Luckily it appears by all accounts that Stark "get's it," thank goodness.

"By all accounts Stark 'gets it'.  I wish 'it' was financing.

I haven't seen this angle posted yet which shows greater detail of the horizontal structure along with a rooftop restaurant.....

 

DISCLAIMER: I have no idea what I just posted... :)

 

Life Inside a nuCLEus Architectural Rendering

Posted By Eric Sandy on Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at  2:17 PM

 

The snow is falling. I try to kid myself into believing something will be different when I wake up each morning – perhaps just a cold rain? – but the snow never stops. It's been years since we last saw the sun.

 

Before I return to the mines for the day, nuCLEus Bot 2021 has ordered me to retrieve a satchel of goods from across the river. There was a time when I might have argued, but the bots' heat-seeking laser vision is unbearable when discharged. We know all too well the fury of our nuCLEus masters. Even frozen skin feels pain if it's sharp enough, I guess.

 

I've pretty much acclimated myself to the routine by now. Upon leaving our cell blocks, Class 2020 nuCLEus Bots will strip and flay our bodies, further instilling the Tower's rigorous political dynamics. We will be ushered to the ground floor, where the Shift Supervisor will inspect our data chips and update our internal tracking algorithms. A temporary Shadow Bot will be assigned to accompany us on our excursion outside the nuCLEus. If all goes well, we'll make it back to the Tower with only mild delirium and but a few broken bones.

 

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2015/01/12/life-inside-the-nucleus-architectural-rendering

^ So, was that some kind of long-winded satirical way of saying that the NuCLEus tower looks like some kind of futuristic citadel in an authoritarian dystopian society?

Sounds like Eric Sandy, my former co-worker at Sun, needs a vacation....

^ So, was that some kind of long-winded satirical way of saying that the NuCLEus tower looks like some kind of futuristic citadel in an authoritarian dystopian society?

 

Sounds like he got snowed in with no TV and only a VHS copy of Gattaca.

 

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.

Good Lord is this discussion boring!

Thankfully you've come along to share some enlightenment with us? ;-)

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.

I think there was also some angst about how 200 PS blocked the view of the Terminal Tower on the inbound east shoreway.

^A valid discussion but not necessarily for this thread.

Sherman posted the Museum Plaza rendering back a page, and I remember when that came out, how much I hated the "Jenga" nature of it.  Something about nuCLEus has me excited however.  I will say, there is no way you can't make this a focal point of the skyline in it's current design.  The bridge connecting the buildings is so intrusive on the ovreall development, and the skyline.  If you remove that, and have three seperate buildings, there may be more cohesion between nuCLEus and the rest of the skyline, and it may work better. 

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. Check out:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,16802.msg740304.html#msg740304

No graphics posted on this yet.....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2015/01162015/DRC2015_1_15.pdf

 

Downtown/Flats

Design Review Agenda

Thursday January 15th, 2015

Cleveland City Hall

Room 514

 

*Schematic Design Approval

3. Project: DF2014-110 nuCLEus

Project Address: 320-630 Prospect Avenue

Project Representative: Steven H. Coven, Stark Enterprises, Inc.;

*Denotes agenda item will also appear before the Cleveland City Planning Commission the

following day, Friday, January 16th, 2015.

Innovative NBBJ design for hotel in bridge over street in Stark's nuCLEus project raises intriguing questions for city (analysis)

 

"City officials will confront an unusual and fascinating question over land use and zoning Thursday and Friday as they consider "schematic" design approval for developer Robert Stark's architecturally innovative nuCLEus development downtown. The question is whether to allow Stark to build a five-level hotel in a bridge structure that would span East Sixth Street between Prospect Avenue and Huron Road at a height of 18 stories, or 234 feet over the pavement below. In addition, the proposal also calls for at least one and possibly two bridges that would span East Sixth Street to carry cars between garage levels on either side."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2015/01/innovative_nbbj_design_for_hot.html#incart_river