Hey, if we get parking garage w/ street retail that can support a tower, I consider that a plus. 

Why does it have to be a gigantic city-within-a city, or nothing? Just put up a five or six story mixed use building with some parking in there and we can chalk it up as a win. Lots of other vacant land around. I feel like they always announce these huge projects that don't get done because they are over-ambitious. I understand it has to be more profitable than the parking, but does it really need to be 50 stories to accomplish that?

^ Stark may need to get some level of height/density because of how much he paid for the land.  My guess is that he waits until 515 Euclid is nearing completion and starts leasing up but we shall see.

Can you name another development that Stark Enterprises has failed to deliver?

 

By the same token, can you name something Stark has delivered on in the city of Cleveland?  We're still waiting for construction to start on The Beacon, but it would be the first.  For all of his grand talk about urban planning, he doesn't deliver much in the city.

 

http://www.starkenterprises.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/StarkEnterprises_CurrentProperties.jpg

Can you name another development that Stark Enterprises has failed to deliver?

 

By the same token, can you name something Stark has delivered on in the city of Cleveland? 

 

To be fair, some if not much of that blame could be placed on dysfunctional city leadership. 

To be fair, some if not much of that blame could be placed on dysfunctional city leadership. 

 

"Some" maybe, but if it was "much" that wouldn't explain the numerous other developments that have actually completed (or at least are underway) in the last decade.  Stark's biggest problem seems to be that his plans are often too grand and not realistic enough.

^ Stark may need to get some level of height/density because of how much he paid for the land.  My guess is that he waits until 515 Euclid is nearing completion and starts leasing up but we shall see.

 

I think this makes a lot sense.

Why does it have to be a gigantic city-within-a city, or nothing? Just put up a five or six story mixed use building with some parking in there and we can chalk it up as a win. Lots of other vacant land around. I feel like they always announce these huge projects that don't get done because they are over-ambitious. I understand it has to be more profitable than the parking, but does it really need to be 50 stories to accomplish that?

 

Throwing up a 5 or 6 story building on a prominent spot Downtown would be a big mistake and not one that could be corrected for a long time. There are only a handful of truly central vacant lots capable of a large scale transformative project and we should take advantage of them. A 5 or 6 story building would be great if going up on some random lot on the fringe of Downtown, but in this location that's not dense enough.

I live on rhe East Side but I enjoy Crocker Park, every once in a while because it's got in one place many of the stores at Beachwood Place, Eton, Legacy, and LaPlace.  However, whenever I go there I keep thinking if only a fifth of these stores were in downtown Cleveland what an impact they could have!

Why does it have to be a gigantic city-within-a city, or nothing? Just put up a five or six story mixed use building with some parking in there and we can chalk it up as a win. Lots of other vacant land around. I feel like they always announce these huge projects that don't get done because they are over-ambitious. I understand it has to be more profitable than the parking, but does it really need to be 50 stories to accomplish that?

 

Throwing up a 5 or 6 story building on a prominent spot Downtown would be a big mistake and not one that could be corrected for a long time. There are only a handful of truly central vacant lots capable of a large scale transformative project and we should take advantage of them. A 5 or 6 story building would be great if going up on some random lot on the fringe of Downtown, but in this location that's not dense enough.

 

I understand what you are saying, and I am no means dug into my position, but it just seems that cities are built bit-by-bit rather than by transformative projects, and that the transformative projects end up being the flops. I'd rather have all the vacant land covered with shorter buildings than one superstructure and a bunch of other parking lots - look at DC, or any European city. Really I just want to be able to walk down the street and have an unbroken string of city. Obviously that doesn't take account of the cost of the land etc.

Why does it have to be a gigantic city-within-a city, or nothing? Just put up a five or six story mixed use building with some parking in there and we can chalk it up as a win. Lots of other vacant land around. I feel like they always announce these huge projects that don't get done because they are over-ambitious. I understand it has to be more profitable than the parking, but does it really need to be 50 stories to accomplish that?

 

Throwing up a 5 or 6 story building on a prominent spot Downtown would be a big mistake and not one that could be corrected for a long time. There are only a handful of truly central vacant lots capable of a large scale transformative project and we should take advantage of them. A 5 or 6 story building would be great if going up on some random lot on the fringe of Downtown, but in this location that's not dense enough.

 

I understand what you are saying, and I am no means dug into my position, but it just seems that cities are built bit-by-bit rather than by transformative projects, and that the transformative projects end up being the flops. I'd rather have all the vacant land covered with shorter buildings than one superstructure and a bunch of other parking lots - look at DC, or any European city. Really I just want to be able to walk down the street and have an unbroken string of city. Obviously that doesn't take account of the cost of the land etc.

 

Maybe Stark will learn from lessons at the Beacon and start on a parking structure (with ground-level retail) that can support a future tower?  With a location next to ballpark/arena, plus new apartments going in AT&T, parking will at least start making him some money back quickly. 

Why does it have to be a gigantic city-within-a city, or nothing? Just put up a five or six story mixed use building with some parking in there and we can chalk it up as a win. Lots of other vacant land around. I feel like they always announce these huge projects that don't get done because they are over-ambitious. I understand it has to be more profitable than the parking, but does it really need to be 50 stories to accomplish that?

 

Throwing up a 5 or 6 story building on a prominent spot Downtown would be a big mistake and not one that could be corrected for a long time. There are only a handful of truly central vacant lots capable of a large scale transformative project and we should take advantage of them. A 5 or 6 story building would be great if going up on some random lot on the fringe of Downtown, but in this location that's not dense enough.

 

I understand what you are saying, and I am no means dug into my position, but it just seems that cities are built bit-by-bit rather than by transformative projects, and that the transformative projects end up being the flops. I'd rather have all the vacant land covered with shorter buildings than one superstructure and a bunch of other parking lots - look at DC, or any European city. Really I just want to be able to walk down the street and have an unbroken string of city. Obviously that doesn't take account of the cost of the land etc.

 

In an effort to not add to the derailment of the thread topic too much, this is short. To be fair, an act of Congress keeps the buildings in DC short. If Cleveland had similar code, you might

see an unbroken string of city downtown instead of interspersed highrises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_of_Buildings_Act_of_1910

Why does it have to be a gigantic city-within-a city, or nothing? Just put up a five or six story mixed use building with some parking in there and we can chalk it up as a win. Lots of other vacant land around. I feel like they always announce these huge projects that don't get done because they are over-ambitious. I understand it has to be more profitable than the parking, but does it really need to be 50 stories to accomplish that?

 

Throwing up a 5 or 6 story building on a prominent spot Downtown would be a big mistake and not one that could be corrected for a long time. There are only a handful of truly central vacant lots capable of a large scale transformative project and we should take advantage of them. A 5 or 6 story building would be great if going up on some random lot on the fringe of Downtown, but in this location that's not dense enough.

 

I understand what you are saying, and I am no means dug into my position, but it just seems that cities are built bit-by-bit rather than by transformative projects, and that the transformative projects end up being the flops. I'd rather have all the vacant land covered with shorter buildings than one superstructure and a bunch of other parking lots - look at DC, or any European city. Really I just want to be able to walk down the street and have an unbroken string of city. Obviously that doesn't take account of the cost of the land etc.

 

In an effort to not add to the derailment of the thread topic too much, this is short. To be fair, an act of Congress keeps the buildings in DC short. If Cleveland had similar code, you might

see an unbroken string of city downtown instead of interspersed highrises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_of_Buildings_Act_of_1910

 

If you want a direct comparison, just look at the density in Uptown/UC versus Downtown. One feels like DC, the other is much less dense.

Why does it have to be a gigantic city-within-a city, or nothing? Just put up a five or six story mixed use building with some parking in there and we can chalk it up as a win. Lots of other vacant land around. I feel like they always announce these huge projects that don't get done because they are over-ambitious. I understand it has to be more profitable than the parking, but does it really need to be 50 stories to accomplish that?

 

Throwing up a 5 or 6 story building on a prominent spot Downtown would be a big mistake and not one that could be corrected for a long time. There are only a handful of truly central vacant lots capable of a large scale transformative project and we should take advantage of them. A 5 or 6 story building would be great if going up on some random lot on the fringe of Downtown, but in this location that's not dense enough.

 

I understand what you are saying, and I am no means dug into my position, but it just seems that cities are built bit-by-bit rather than by transformative projects, and that the transformative projects end up being the flops. I'd rather have all the vacant land covered with shorter buildings than one superstructure and a bunch of other parking lots - look at DC, or any European city. Really I just want to be able to walk down the street and have an unbroken string of city. Obviously that doesn't take account of the cost of the land etc.

 

Maybe Stark will learn from lessons at the Beacon and start on a parking structure (with ground-level retail) that can support a future tower?  With a location next to ballpark/arena, plus new apartments going in AT&T, parking will at least start making him some money back quickly.

 

The economics do not work for construction of a parking structure by itself.  Parking is expensive to build and doesn't pay the return on investment to warrant building it without rentable floor space above it.  The Beacon construction only makes sense because a previous developer built the parking structure, went bankrupt, then Stark was able to buy it for cheap.

The incredible shrinking skyscraper is down to 5 or 6 stories? Lol - "why bother?" ( as Bette Midler once said)

I don't like parking lots either but  this location is much too important to be some fairly inconsequential structure.  I'd prefer to see the proposed bridge hotel section eliminated along with the second shorter tower (for now) in order to allow the higher building, perhaps in an evolved form, to rise.  I'd like to see the "Jenga tower"  be less bulky and create a "fewer apartments per floor" scenario.  I think that would be incredibly enticing to buyers and Nucleus would become an "if you build it, they will come" project. I could envision one terraced tower with a wider base and lower floors for the office component with narrower upper floors for those completely unique apartments with perhaps all corner units.    I know this is complete speculation from a non-expert but isn't that part of the purpose on the Forum? 

I just hope that this project is being looked at from some different design and purpose perspectives because the original Nucleus seems to have too much weight to lift off. 

Plans have called for use of existing parking garage?  Is that correct?  I know the building with the clothing stores was supposed to be demolished.

Why does it have to be a gigantic city-within-a city, or nothing? Just put up a five or six story mixed use building with some parking in there and we can chalk it up as a win. Lots of other vacant land around. I feel like they always announce these huge projects that don't get done because they are over-ambitious. I understand it has to be more profitable than the parking, but does it really need to be 50 stories to accomplish that?

 

Throwing up a 5 or 6 story building on a prominent spot Downtown would be a big mistake and not one that could be corrected for a long time. There are only a handful of truly central vacant lots capable of a large scale transformative project and we should take advantage of them. A 5 or 6 story building would be great if going up on some random lot on the fringe of Downtown, but in this location that's not dense enough.

 

I understand what you are saying, and I am no means dug into my position, but it just seems that cities are built bit-by-bit rather than by transformative projects, and that the transformative projects end up being the flops. I'd rather have all the vacant land covered with shorter buildings than one superstructure and a bunch of other parking lots - look at DC, or any European city. Really I just want to be able to walk down the street and have an unbroken string of city. Obviously that doesn't take account of the cost of the land etc.

 

Maybe Stark will learn from lessons at the Beacon and start on a parking structure (with ground-level retail) that can support a future tower?  With a location next to ballpark/arena, plus new apartments going in AT&T, parking will at least start making him some money back quickly.

 

The economics do not work for construction of a parking structure by itself.  Parking is expensive to build and doesn't pay the return on investment to warrant building it without rentable floor space above it.  The Beacon construction only makes sense because a previous developer built the parking structure, went bankrupt, then Stark was able to buy it for cheap.

 

So it's a financing issue right?  He would have to pay out of pocket to get the building designed then the parking structure built that will be the podium for a future tower?

Everything is already designed. The biggest issue right now is the school district property tax TIF. It will get done after the election.

Plans have called for use of existing parking garage?  Is that correct?  I know the building with the clothing stores was supposed to be demolished.

 

No, that parking garage is to be demoed.  It is a mess.

Everything is already designed. The biggest issue right now is the school district property tax TIF. It will get done after the election.

 

I've went out socially with a guy that's worked on the financing for this job, and he has almost no faith that the project will get done in any semblance of what is currently represented.

Stan Bullard always seems to have different facts about this project. As far as the height he may be referring to the tower as 45 story's on top of a 9 story Parking deck. Which gives us the original 54. He use to do the same thing with the Hilton, calling it a 26 story tower. He also says Benesch would take half of the 200k office space, according to mjarboe[/member] it was always about 60k so that's confusing.

Regarding the project I agree in part about the TIF but it has been my opinion over the last couple of years that while other projects have gotten financing Stark has fallen in love with the parking revenue from all of the Gateway events. It's a tough thing to put a stop to.

 

^I have less faith in Yabo's inside peoples' information than this project getting done.

^I have less faith in Yabo's inside peoples' information than this project getting done.

 

Hahaha. Touche, and probably called for considering how far off I was regarding the start date of Beacon. But this insight was significantly closer to the horse's mouth.

drilling rig on site now at the little vacant parcel across from Flannery's/Hairy Buffalo.

^Hmmmm.... I'm assuming environmental assessment.

I searched this thread to see if this had been posted already, didn't find anything. At any rate, this design looks quite a bit familiar. Done by a firm that was in discussions for the CIA building (many years ago for the Uptown expansion) some time back, MVRDV (pic credit MVRDV). Story and original pic here http://newatlas.com/mvrdv-the-sax-rotterdam/50480/

 

Apologies for possibly sending this off topic; just found the similarity to Nucleus design interesting.

My God. What an ugly building.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder but my objection is the semi-trailer crashing through it horizontally.  For me it is more aesthetically pleasing with just the two vertical towers. I would prefer the second tower to be just a little shorter than the main tower. Otherwise I do like the overall design.

By "CIA" are you referring to the Cleveland Instiute of Art?  I'd sure like to know what's being discussed for that property.

^BOJ is referring to the CIA Building on Euclid.  They were the architects for the original design of the addition (that was completed a couple of years ago).  That design was eventually rejected primarily due to cost and a new architect brought in.  He is not referencing the old and vacant CIA Building on East Blvd. across from the art museum.

http://realestate.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2017/07/cleveland_school_board_will_co.html

 

Update!!

Looks like it's going to be built!!

It looks like the deal is planned, complex and could work...but I absolutely hate the fact that the cleveland MSD has to be the middle man here.  Putting money that is earmarked for one of our city's biggest needs into this deal just comes off as really slimy to me.  And yes, I realize there is upside and they can land more money potentially, but I just don't think it's an appropriate third party. just my opinion

As usual, Michelle has done an incredibly job of reporting.  Jammed packed with facts and analysis.  I would, however, question her assertion in the opening paragraph where she identifies the Stark development as the first true skyscraper in downtown Cleveland in three decades.  I would consider the Hilton and federal courthouse skyscrapers. 

 

Hopefully this passes mustard but who knows.  It is complex and will have to be explained carefully to get pass those who  generally just "knee jerk" reject such  deals.  it appears from the article that the Stark organization has been working hard at negotiations to craft a creative deal for a while.  They should be applauded given the clear financing difficulties which arise due to Cleveland rents and property values.

 

KJP, looks as though you were wrong for once (alert the press :wink:) and the TIF will actually get considered before the mayoral election.

Excellent write-up yet again from Michelle. I actually think this is a pretty solid deal. I agree that involving funds that would normally go to the schools is iffy business, but if I'm Eric Gordon, I have to be thinking that my options are either 56 mill now or potentially nothing for many years...because without this financing, it sounds like this project is dead in the water. Plus I really like the added detail of any higher valuations over 250 mill at future tax assessments gets shared with the schools. All of us on this board, barring another financial meltdown, know that downtown Clevelands property values are going to continue to rise. Probably significantly before now and when this thing is officially finished.

KJP, looks as though you were wrong for once (alert the press :wink:) and the TIF will actually get considered before the mayoral election.

 

I am pleasantly surprised. Let's make it happen CMSD board!

I'm excited.  The sketches look like the downtowns of Toronto or Chicago, where projects of this scale go up every few years.

What a great article- I was not expecting such detail on such a complicated topic explained so clearly.  Lets hope this works... It seems to me like a win-win for everyone involved?  But things tend to get over complicated here.  Nonetheless, exciting to see things continuing to progress.

What a creative way to try to solve the political "optics" and the economic reality of this project.  For as much as people like to crap on Cleveland, I believe that we are at the forefront of some creative financing due to the needs of a soft market.

surprising how vast the difference is between cost to build/develop and the actual appraised value of the project

surprising how vast the difference is between cost to build/develop and the actual appraised value of the project

 

Not terribly surprising to me.  Rents will dictate value.  New construction obviously commands higher rental rates, but even so, it is clear that their anticipated rents alone just won't justify the cost of construction on its own. 

 

On a much much more micro scale - it's why in Cleveland Heights the small Lee-Meadowbrook site has yet to be developed.  The anticipated rents won't pencil out to make sense for financing. 

The retail & hotel component are dragging the value down.  The apartments & condos are better value

I am really questioning the need for more hotel supply downtown. 

I am really questioning the need for more hotel supply downtown. 

 

Exactly.  I'd be interested to see the value & scale of the project with the hotel removed.  Of course the height is better with it included but at this point, it just needs to go forward

On the other hand, isn't Cleveland's downtown still behind other similar sized cities in terms of how many hotel rooms they have?

On the other hand, isn't Cleveland's downtown still behind other similar sized cities in terms of how many hotel rooms they have?

 

Some, but most of those cities have larger conventions facilities and a more robust convention business. 

...and the hotel additions do not stop here.  Remember 925 is also planning to add a hotel, and the JHB building as well if that ever happens.  In talking to some folks at Downtown Cleveland Alliance, they are very concerned that we are oversaturated and are trying to persuade these developers to downsize or drop hotel plans to add more housing.  On the plus side, Im glad to see that condos are being planned for Nucleus.

While some here at UO probably view me as a Stark defender, this is probably going to surprise you... What if Stark comes back in the final design and says "We couldn't get a deal done with a hotelier so we're going to instead make that portion of the project apartments." I presume that means the school district will miss out on the added valuation from that use change, and the benefit will go only to Stark and his lenders? If there is any change in the proposed use that would raise the tax valuation of this project over what is currently proposed in the agreement, is there a clause in the proposal deal with the school district (and city) that allows the school district, city and Stark et al to jointly benefit?

While some here at UO probably view me as a Stark defender, this is probably going to surprise you... What if Stark comes back in the final design and says "We couldn't get a deal done with a hotelier so we're going to instead make that portion of the project apartments." I presume that means the school district will miss out on the added valuation from that use change, and the benefit will go only to Stark and his lenders? If there is any change in the proposed use that would raise the tax valuation of this project over what is currently proposed in the agreement, is there a clause in the proposal deal with the school district (and city) that allows the school district, city and Stark et al to jointly benefit?

 

Per the article:

 

"If the complex is more valuable - appraised above $250 million upon opening and higher in later years - then the schools and the developer will split the upside, equally sharing in additional property-tax revenues."

This is the closest thing to a win-win-win that I've seen in development. The school system benefits from an immediate infusion of cash instead of it being stretched out over 30 years, the developer gets the revenue stream necessary to get the loans to build the project and the city gets a dynamic development. Win-win-win

Everybody is high-fiving while this thing still has at least 20 yards to go.

 

I haven't followed the CMSD board in two decades. Are they going to accept this deal? Will the public? Will there a be a vocal backlash from someone within the city to slow this proposal down?