Next date to pay attention to regarding HB469, the transformational tax credit, is Aug. 22. At 11:00 AM, the Senate Rules and Reference Committee could assign the bill to committee, or possibly in a rare move to the floor for a vote by the full Senate. There is a tentatively scheduled session of the full Senate scheduled that same day at 1:30 PM. The next Senate session is scheduled for late September.

Awesome

Next date to pay attention to regarding HB469, the transformational tax credit, is Aug. 22. At 11:00 AM, the Senate Rules and Reference Committee could assign the bill to committee, or possibly in a rare move to the floor for a vote by the full Senate. There is a tentatively scheduled session of the full Senate scheduled that same day at 1:30 PM. The next Senate session is scheduled for late September.

 

what about the school board vote? Did they every vote? Wasn't it like Sept they were supposed to decide and then because the mayoral election in November, they delayed it--did they ever actually vote?

This project is going to have to change its shape to adjust to the needs of Downtown at the moment. I don't see this being sustainable as originally planned.

what about the school board vote? Did they every vote? Wasn't it like Sept they were supposed to decide and then because the mayoral election in November, they delayed it--did they ever actually vote?

 

No vote. My guess is that Stark discovered the BOE wasn't supportive.

what about the school board vote? Did they every vote? Wasn't it like Sept they were supposed to decide and then because the mayoral election in November, they delayed it--did they ever actually vote?

 

No vote. My guess is that Stark discovered the BOE wasn't supportive.

 

BOE has no vision and no understanding of basic economics.

Neither does the mayor who appoints the BOE.

Next date to pay attention to regarding HB469, the transformational tax credit, is Aug. 22. At 11:00 AM, the Senate Rules and Reference Committee could assign the bill to committee, or possibly in a rare move to the floor for a vote by the full Senate. There is a tentatively scheduled session of the full Senate scheduled that same day at 1:30 PM. The next Senate session is scheduled for late September.

 

what about the school board vote? Did they every vote? Wasn't it like Sept they were supposed to decide and then because the mayoral election in November, they delayed it--did they ever actually vote?

 

My understanding is that all efforts seeking local subsidies (from the county, city and school board) were put on hold while Stark focused on this new tactic (the state tax credit legislation).  If the state bill is passed I am sure they will do the math and then go back to the local entities to see what they can get from them as well.

 

Originally, almost a year ago, the school board was to vote, but that was put on hold when they realized Stark was also meeting with the city and county and the board wanted in on those negotiations as well.  Again all the local stuff seems to have been put on hold for the time being (I am guessing) but I imagine there are still some type of informal discussions going on (or at least there should be)

 

My take from all the reporting and being an outsider reading between the lines is that Stark absolutely needs the state tax credit to make this deal work and that local subsidies alone are not going to be enough.

My take from all the reporting and being an outsider reading between the lines is that Stark absolutely needs the state tax credit to make this deal work and that local subsidies alone are not going to be enough.

 

To me this is a sign that this project needs to be broken into smaller pieces.  Start with that parking garage and it will be generating (some) revenue as soon as it is complete!

 

My take from all the reporting and being an outsider reading between the lines is that Stark absolutely needs the state tax credit to make this deal work and that local subsidies alone are not going to be enough.

 

To me this is a sign that this project needs to be broken into smaller pieces.  Start with that parking garage and it will be generating (some) revenue as soon as it is complete!

 

 

That's how the Beacon was built -- with a little recession mixed in there that caused the first property owner to sell the parking pedestal for pennies on the dollar. Suddenly completing the project became fiscally viable without going to the extremes that Playhouse Square did or what Stark is having to do in order to get Nucleus built.

My take from all the reporting and being an outsider reading between the lines is that Stark absolutely needs the state tax credit to make this deal work and that local subsidies alone are not going to be enough.

 

To me this is a sign that this project needs to be broken into smaller pieces.  Start with that parking garage and it will be generating (some) revenue as soon as it is complete!

 

You do that though and you take the chance of the full thing never getting built

My take from all the reporting and being an outsider reading between the lines is that Stark absolutely needs the state tax credit to make this deal work and that local subsidies alone are not going to be enough.

 

To me this is a sign that this project needs to be broken into smaller pieces.  Start with that parking garage and it will be generating (some) revenue as soon as it is complete!

 

 

Would the parking garage revenue even cover debt service? The developer of the garage under The Beacon lost it to foreclosure.

NuCleus is in a more marketable spot and actually more fortunate for being right in front of E. 4th and both the ol' Gund and Jacob's Field.

Yet the scale of the proposed garage is large, and it doesn't seem sustainable without the benefit of round-the-clock daily users from the proposed tower, hotel, office and retail.

 

This would be a great opportunity to spruice up E 4th a bit, it's a location that loathes parking.

NuCleus is in a more marketable spot and actually more fortunate for being right in front of E. 4th and both the ol' Gund and Jacob's Field.

 

I would agree if they would've kept the original "alley" idea, molded after Melbourne, AU. But the new concept doesn't really organically blend with E. 4th, and for that reason (other than the hotel and parking) I don't think they'd meld into one "destination"

 

 

 

 

 

NuCleus is in a more marketable spot and actually more fortunate for being right in front of E. 4th and both the ol' Gund and Jacob's Field.

 

I would agree if they would've kept the original "alley" idea, molded after Melbourne, AU. But the new concept doesn't really organically blend with E. 4th, and for that reason (other than the hotel and parking) I don't think they'd meld into one "destination"

 

 

Since when is the alley part of the project taken out?

wait, they nixed the alley/laneway part of the plan? can someone repost the newer version renders?

^^I was wondering the same thing when I read that post.  When was it nixed and what is the new concept?

I'm sure they'll incorporate it later on when they have funding. I don't think it was wiped off the board just yet, but the option is there if they get the funding they originally needed.

^that really doesn't answer the question when it was allegedly  changed and why and what is the new concept (in terms of retail) that is replacing it.  I could have missed it but I just don't recall the change (not that it could not have happened at some point given the tortured history of the project).  Lack of funding at this point for such a change does not make sense to me (unless the concept is being challenged by purported lenders).  If there was a change (again I don't know) it would seem that a more logical reason is perhaps a difficulty signing up retail tenants and/or negative market studies for the concept we don't know about.

Unless stated nothing has been wiped off the board. Whereas nothing has been told as of yet. I don't understand where people are getting their news from but if it's not a public report it never happened. My 'speculation' is that since costs of construction are rising, maybe they'll scratch the alley idea. But I'm not sure why Stark would do such a thing, it's more money quicker with more tenants, and probably more business from the residents in the tower. I'd approach a project of this size in phases, and not really go for the gusto. I'd demolish the current garage, and build the newer larger garage in phase I, begin work on the offices phase II, and then build the tower upon existing structure and refurbish the alleyway in phase III. This way you're at least making money and cutting your losses if something does fall through. Once one phase has made its money, start with the next.

New build downtown parking garages don’t make money

The official website for Stark Enterprises no longer has images on it's website for NuCLEus.

 

http://www.starkenterprises.com/properties/nucleus/

Pending changes to it's design maybe; could be due to multiple factors (maturing downtown rental market; Class A space closing in on 90%; possibly more condos). Just a guess.

None of the development sites on Stark Enterprise feature images as of right now.

If you go to the Nucleus page you might even see an image that says "DON'T PANIC".

 

No, that is not a message to all of us. The pages are programmed to show a random image.  I've never been to the website before but it looks like it's in a not-quite-done phase.

The address says "501 High Ave."  Will they extend High east of E4?  It probably existed east of e. 4 before that giant parking lot was opened.  Right now though, that address could not exist, nor anything above 400.  In any event, wouldn't one WANT a prospect address over "High"? its more prestigious plus people will know where it is. More people know "Prospect" than "High".

^Looking at this map from 1858, looks like High Street did cross what is now called E4.

 

(This is a great resource:  https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=ddb0ee6134d64de4adaaa3660308abfd)

If you go to the Nucleus page you might even see an image that says "DON'T PANIC".

 

No, that is not a message to all of us. The pages are programmed to show a random image.  I've never been to the website before but it looks like it's in a not-quite-done phase.

 

The website has returned, and while the header is from another property, images of Nucleus are there, unchanged... as is the leasing flyer. 

The address says "501 High Ave."  Will they extend High east of E4?  It probably existed east of e. 4 before that giant parking lot was opened.  Right now though, that address could not exist, nor anything above 400.  In any event, wouldn't one WANT a prospect address over "High"? its more prestigious plus people will know where it is. More people know "Prospect" than "High".

 

The address is now listed as 610 Prospect  Ave.

It is my understanding that Nucleus will happen, that we will hear announcements shortly, and that the original scale will change (read: be smaller)

I'm happy to read this. Will this still require the transformational tax credit? I see that bill hasn't been assigned to a Senate committee yet and, the way its written now, there will be a lot of competition for the credits. Any renderings you can privately slip to me at [email protected]? ;) The origin of any renderings, info, etc. will always be kept off the record.

Glad to hear this... if they can hold onto the retail and office tenants they’ve already signed but lose the hotel or some height I am absolutely ok with that.

I see that bill hasn't been assigned to a Senate committee yet

 

With the election in a few months, everything's on hold down there.

I see that bill hasn't been assigned to a Senate committee yet

 

With the election in a few months, everything's on hold down there.

 

Not true. The bill quickly advanced through the House. There is a Senate session scheduled for September. Then a lame-duck session scheduled after the election.

 

EDIT: Just checked the General Assembly's calendar and they have a Senate sessions scheduled for Sept. 25 & 26, along with a pretty active lame-duck session starting on Nov. 13 and ending a month later.

No additional info on design, sadly. The mix of uses may change, though.

I see that bill hasn't been assigned to a Senate committee yet

 

With the election in a few months, everything's on hold down there.

There will always be an impending election with a project of this size.

No additional info on design, sadly. The mix of uses may change, though.

 

Any word on potential condos?

Glad to hear this... if they can hold onto the retail and office tenants they’ve already signed but lose the hotel or some height I am absolutely ok with that.

 

I'm not OK with losing height. Where are people hearing this from?

^I'm not okay with losing height either--in fact, I'd take taller!

^I'm not okay with losing height either--in fact, I'd take taller!

 

I'd personally rather have a dense complex of 2-3 buildings ranging from 300-450 than one 550+ tower

I'd rather have a 1-2 buildings ranging from 300-450 feet adjacent to one 550+ tower than one 550+ tower with little next to it.

I'd rather have 7-8 buildings of 700+ foot height than 1-2 buildings ranging from 300-450 feet adjacent to one 550+ tower. :P

OK, I'll play.  I'll take every surface lot between the river and University Circle filled with 5-6 story buildings and I'll willingly forego any tower anywhere.

OK, I'll play.  I'll take every surface lot between the river and University Circle filled with 5-6 story buildings and I'll willingly forego any tower anywhere.

 

That's so Euro of you! :)

OK, I'll play.  I'll take every surface lot between the river and University Circle filled with 5-6 story buildings and I'll willingly forego any tower anywhere.

 

That's so Euro of you! :)

 

Or old-Cleveland, circa 1920's. 

OK, I'll play.  I'll take every surface lot between the river and University Circle filled with 5-6 story buildings and I'll willingly forego any tower anywhere.

 

That's so Euro of you! :)

 

Or old-Cleveland, circa 1920's.

 

I’m on bored with this. Tall towers aren’t the end all be able. Maybe a few more downtown, but midtown, and the inner west side are best suited to be filled with shorter buildings.

OK, I'll play.  I'll take every surface lot between the river and University Circle filled with 5-6 story buildings and I'll willingly forego any tower anywhere.

 

That's so Euro of you! :)

 

Or old-Cleveland, circa 1920's.

 

I’m on bored with this. Tall towers aren’t the end all be able. Maybe a few more downtown, but midtown, and the inner west side are best suited to be filled with shorter buildings.

 

I don't think you'd find any opposition here....

OK, I'll play.  I'll take every surface lot between the river and University Circle filled with 5-6 story buildings and I'll willingly forego any tower anywhere.

 

That's so Euro of you! :)

 

Or old-Cleveland, circa 1920's.

 

Washington, DC