January 23, 20196 yr Agree with everyone else... obviously a 54 story tower would be great and exciting... but we have plenty of empty holes where something that size could one day go when it is feasible. I have no issue with this. If we would have seen this first and not known about the grand original plans we would be thrilled That being said, hopefully the design can continue to be improved. Not bad massing but I think the actual design could be better.
January 23, 20196 yr The way they have this laid out now reminds me a lot of "Goldman Alley" near the World Trade Center in NYC. Its a cool space lined with shops/restaurants and at one end the Conrad Hotel. Here is the screenshot from the Nucleus flier: Edited January 23, 20196 yr by mrclifton88
January 23, 20196 yr Doing some back-of-the-envelope math. Past articles suggested that Stark has about $400 million in public and private financing in place or available to build nuCLEus. Stark said he needed the $120 million from the school TIF plan to build the $500+ million version of nuCLEus. It's possible he has more than $400 million potentially available because the transformational tax was estimated to provide nuCLEus with only $50+ million. Granted, a smaller nuCLEus means less revenue. But this is still a large-scale project. By my estimates, the parking alone appears to represent more than 900,000 square feet of space and the office/housing/retail component appears to represent about 1.1 million square feet. If my math is accurate, building the parking at $70 per square foot could cost about $64.4 million and the office/housing/retail component at $250 per square foot could cost about $275 million, for a total of $340 million (round up to $350 million to include demolitions, etc). There may be additional site prep costs I'm not accounting for here. Even so, I'm guessing he's very close to having the resources available to build this. The fact that he sold his headquarters was probably the indication that Stark is close to moving forward, since he planned to move his HQ to nuCLEus. Is this accurate? Does Stark now have a funding-ready plan? Edited January 23, 20196 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
January 23, 20196 yr I'm fine with the size and design, but the part I absolutely hate (by the looks of it) is the exposed parking on top. If I were a resident there, the last thing I'd want to look down on is a parking deck full of cars. I wish they would have taken the rooftop terrace concept from the last design and carried it over to this one. Would have been a great opportunity for a rooftop pool.
January 23, 20196 yr 19 minutes ago, ASPhotoman said: I'm fine with the size and design, but the part I absolutely hate (by the looks of it) is the exposed parking on top. If I were a resident there, the last thing I'd want to look down on is a parking deck full of cars. I wish they would have taken the rooftop terrace concept from the last design and carried it over to this one. Would have been a great opportunity for a rooftop pool. I didn't notice that at first. I hope that's not the case. Maybe they forgot to apply the green paint bucket to that plane ?. That said most of my gripes deal with the auto infrastructure on this proposal. The multi level garage "connector" above the lane-way portion might look really bad in person. Also on the E4th portion it looks like there is about a 60 foot curb-cut. That isn't exactly inmate and pedestrian friendly for the major corridor. and... the 1500 spot garage still, even though the whole project is scaled way down? Overall, glad to see the reattempt at this project and I have no issue with the revised height. Maybe if this was the initial proposal it would be standing by now!
January 23, 20196 yr Are these renderings really what those in the business would call a "design". Isn't it more a site plan and a detailed massing. I would imagine as we go along much will be re-imagined, although the percentage of uses (office, parking retail, residential) will pretty much stay the same.
January 23, 20196 yr ^that said the depicted massing makes me worried about the Huron side. It lose like it could turn into a dead canyon (given surrounding buildings) even with first floor retail (which might be a hard sell compare to Prospect or alley retail).
January 23, 20196 yr I'm also curious about the block between E. 4th st. and E. 2nd on the south side of Prospect. If they dismiss the historic relevance of the Record Rendezvous building, I'll be very disappointed in their lack of vision. Perhaps that location will be addressed in future renderings (fingers crossed . . . on the whole darn thing).
January 23, 20196 yr 10 minutes ago, viscomi said: I didn't notice that at first. I hope that's not the case. Maybe they forgot to apply the green paint bucket to that plane ?. That said most of my gripes deal with the auto infrastructure on this proposal. The multi level garage "connector" above the lane-way portion might look really bad in person. Also on the E4th portion it looks like there is about a 60 foot curb-cut. That isn't exactly inmate and pedestrian friendly for the major corridor. and... the 1500 spot garage still, even though the whole project is scaled way down? Overall, glad to see the reattempt at this project and I have no issue with the revised height. Maybe if this was the initial proposal it would be standing by now! The Building Section view doesn't indicate that the top level will be open parking. It has little items on there that appear to be lounge chairs or similar that also appear on the amenity terrace next to the building. And there's no parking ramp shown for vehicles to reach the rooftop deck. But it does seem a bit vague. Perhaps Stark doesn't yet know which way he'll go with regards to the use of the top of the parking garage. But I sure hope it's an amenity deck. As I saw from my hotel in Fort Lauderdale a few weeks ago, an amenity deck with a pool looks great,. But I seldom saw anyone using it in the week we were there earlier this month -- and I've used my own condo building's indoor rooftop pool maybe a dozen times in the 22 years I've live here! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 23, 20196 yr 6 minutes ago, Eastside said: The link to the site appears to have been taken down. And any reference to nuCLEus has been removed from the site. I hope you saved the PDF because it's gone too. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 23, 20196 yr Just now, KJP said: And any reference to nuCLEus has been removed from the site. I hope you saved the PDF because it's gone too. I saved the pdf: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GE-tp2zCWolDx09ELLbIHl54CZSJ2JIh/view?usp=sharing
January 23, 20196 yr Me too, but to my hard drive. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 23, 20196 yr Edit: (Yeah, what everyone else said about the dead link.) Edited January 23, 20196 yr by PittsburgoDelendaEst
January 23, 20196 yr The rough design of the buildings themselves look good, and I like the taller office component. It looks about double the original planned 160,000 sqft -- from 7 to 14 floors. But the garage is now far too dominant. It's bad enough almost half the square footage is parking, but now any interest at ground level is gone. The original site plan had 6 floors of apartments and two stories of retail right up to the sidewalk on Prospect, wrapped around E. 4th. And now it's just one story of retail? For reference here was the original design and site plan: https://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/01/first_look_nucleus_project_ren.html http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2015/01162015/index.php
January 23, 20196 yr Yeah, they need to wrap more of the garage, especially on the base of the office building on Prospect and along East 4th St. This seems very "Florida" to me- a couple large buildings plopped atop a massive parking garage. Also, that curb cut on East 4th is way to large!
January 23, 20196 yr WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2019 Stark's nuCLEus has a smaller, more achievable concept After months of speculation and rumor about a scaled-down design for Stark Enterprises' downtown Cleveland megaproject called nuCLEus, revised conceptual site plans for the project were briefly posted on Stark's web site earlier today. They apparently were posted in error or posted prematurely because they were since taken down. All references to nuCLEus were briefly removed from the website but since restored using an aerial graphic showing only the existing parking lot at the proposed site. Stark representatives have yet to respond to an e-mail seeking updates about the nuCLEus project. Nor did they comment on why the new conceptual graphics and promotional brochure were posted earlier today and soon removed. Before they were removed, the nuCLEus page was shown as updated in January 2019. So clearly there is activity regarding this project. MORE: http://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2019/01/starks-nucleus-has-smaller-more.html Edited January 23, 20196 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
January 23, 20196 yr The roof of the parking garage is very plain in the rendering. I think someone said it may be the exposed parking garage roof and that the residents would have to look at the cars below. I think that its blank like that for a reason. I believe that another building is going to go there. My guess is a luxury hotel. It says in the PDF above that there will a be a luxury hotel on site. I think it will be built on this spot above the parking deck. But, it will happen only if they sign a brand, and they will give them the opportunity to have input on its design. Just a guess but you never know.
January 24, 20196 yr I think the PDF contained old information from the original version, such as the inclusion of a hotel, the number of residential units and so on. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 24, 20196 yr Really wish they would change the name to something less gimmicky. logo is pretty shit too, but the new design is much more fitting for downtown CLE.
January 24, 20196 yr 8 hours ago, KJP said: The Building Section view doesn't indicate that the top level will be open parking. It has little items on there that appear to be lounge chairs or similar that also appear on the amenity terrace next to the building. And there's no parking ramp shown for vehicles to reach the rooftop deck. But it does seem a bit vague. Perhaps Stark doesn't yet know which way he'll go with regards to the use of the top of the parking garage. But I sure hope it's an amenity deck. As I saw from my hotel in Fort Lauderdale a few weeks ago, an amenity deck with a pool looks great,. But I seldom saw anyone using it in the week we were there earlier this month -- and I've used my own condo building's indoor rooftop pool maybe a dozen times in the 22 years I've live here! That building, ICON Las Olas, actually has a second “dipping” pool on its rooftop. And you’ll rarely see anyone use the pool in your photos, because by midday every day the sun is blocked by the tower itself which means the water will be cold and you can’t even catch any good tanning rays. https://iconlasolasfl.com/distinctions/ Edited January 24, 20196 yr by ragarcia
January 24, 20196 yr To be honest I'm a little disappointed but the smaller version will continue the progress in making downtown a better place to work, live and play where hopefully someday we will see several towers come up to meet demand. Street level presence is everything.
January 24, 20196 yr That's looking awfully blank for many floors on all sides...I don't like that. I'm fine with smaller buildings. I would have loved a skyline breaker, but it never felt all that achievable (despite my biggest hopes) and as time went on I think it was clear it wasn't happening as originally planned. With that said, it needs to be better. It's not a good plan right now. Those laneways aren't worth crap if every level within visible connection is empty and blank. That's just an alleyway at that point. There's a difference. Hopefully when renderings of the updated laneways are shown they'll have more life, but it isn't looking promising from these images.
January 24, 20196 yr ^ Agree, a single level of retail/restaurants topped by several floors of bland wall or garage is bleak and foreboding, rather than the welcoming atmosphere of existing East 4th with multilevel restaurants and apartment windows. This definitely needs to be rethought. Would rather see apartment balconies and windows right above the retail component, than several floors of parking above a single level of restaurants like the May Company garage across Prospect.
January 24, 20196 yr When you think about the chances that Nucleus, in its 54 story version, was ever going to get built - juxtaposed with the renewed possibility that we actually replace two ugly surface lots, in a key location, - of course, we’ll take this new project without much hesitation. But as others have said , when you consider how Stark had described this project -“an iconic Terminal Tower for the 21st century - world-class and skyline changing” (all phrases used by Stark) - this is a real disappointment . Understanding that the new images are not final renderings, in my opinion, these buildings are not compelling or even especially attractive. This project still probably contains enough square footage to produce a 50-some story tower at a significantly reduced price tag from Nucleus 2014. I get that many, perhaps most, Forum members would rather have two 20-25 story structures , but there’s powerful symbolism created by the rise of a new skyscraper that challenges a city’s tallest towers and becomes a metaphor for that city’s growth. Honestly, I would’ve preferred to live with one remaining surface lot (hopefully to be built upon in the near future) in exchange for one new, skyline-changing tower like what they’re building in Detroit. Edited January 24, 20196 yr by CleveFan
January 24, 20196 yr 13 hours ago, ragarcia said: That building, ICON Las Olas, actually has a second “dipping” pool on its rooftop. And you’ll rarely see anyone use the pool in your photos, because by midday every day the sun is blocked by the tower itself which means the water will be cold and you can’t even catch any good tanning rays. https://iconlasolasfl.com/distinctions/ I wasn't in my hotel at midday. But I was surprised to see it unused on New Year's eve. Anyhoo, my experience with the pool in my own building is that they're nice to brag about even though they're seldom used. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 24, 20196 yr UrbanOhio gets a nod here, including a link to this site and references to comments here... January 24, 2019 09:38 AM UPDATED 9 MINUTES AGO A shorter NuCLEus may go up in Cleveland's Gateway District STAN BULLARD The proposed 54-floor nuCLEus skyscraper in downtown Cleveland looks to be trimmed by half in images of the project that surfaced Wednesday, Jan. 23, in a forum on the UrbanOhio.com blog. ....Ezra Stark, chief operating officer of Stark, said in an email, "This is an old version. We have updated it since then." Stacie Schmidt, Stark's spokeswoman, said in a separate email that the company has had "hundreds of different models" and none will be authentic until one is submitted and approved by the Cleveland City Planning Commission. MORE: https://www.crainscleveland.com/stan-bullard-blog/shorter-nucleus-may-go-clevelands-gateway-district "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 24, 20196 yr 8 stories of parking in each. Yikes. Maybe 8 stories of parking in one of the buildings. 1500 parking spaces seems really unnecessary. Maybe 800-1000. There’s PnR bus routes, rapid transit, etc. that run extremely close to this project.
January 24, 20196 yr I am a little relieved to read this design is an old version. The design could be so much better, and I guess we will have to wait and see what gets submitted.
January 24, 20196 yr 1 minute ago, imjustinjk said: 8 stories of parking in each. Yikes. Maybe 8 stories of parking in one of the buildings. 1500 parking spaces seems really unnecessary. Maybe 800-1000. There’s PnR bus routes, rapid transit, etc. that run extremely close to this project. I'll wager that financiers establish the programming in these projects as much as architects and sponsors do. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 24, 20196 yr 4 minutes ago, KJP said: I'll wager that financiers establish the programming in these projects as much as architects and sponsors do. As a transportation/transit planner and soon to be MUPD graduate it’s just a little disheartening to see 1/3 of a building be dedicated to parking.
January 24, 20196 yr 18 minutes ago, imjustinjk said: 8 stories of parking in each. Yikes. Maybe 8 stories of parking in one of the buildings. 1500 parking spaces seems really unnecessary. Maybe 800-1000. There’s PnR bus routes, rapid transit, etc. that run extremely close to this project. 14 minutes ago, KJP said: I'll wager that financiers establish the programming in these projects as much as architects and sponsors do. I'm not sure how you are determining how much parking is needed without things like; how many tenants, what is the cost to live there, how many employees for the businesses, etc.... This is NE Ohio, not NYC. People want to drive everywhere and have a car.
January 24, 20196 yr 6 minutes ago, imjustinjk said: As a transportation/transit planner and soon to be MUPD graduate it’s just a little disheartening to see 1/3 of a building be dedicated to parking. I think it's closer to half, or just shy of half, of the square footage. The neighboring Gateway complex probably is also influencing the extent of parking. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 24, 20196 yr 11 minutes ago, yanni_gogolak said: I'm not sure how you are determining how much parking is needed without things like; how many tenants, what is the cost to live there, how many employees for the businesses, etc.... This is NE Ohio, not NYC. People want to drive everywhere and have a car. What people think they need and/or want is not what they actually need or should necessarily should have. Continuing the pattern of auto oriented development will not benefit Cleveland. This same auto dependency is why we have a glut of flat surface parking lots in our urban core. Going vertical with parking doesn’t really rectify the underlying issues. Shying away from this by designing transit oriented projects and improving multi modal infrastructure is what we should be aiming for Downtown. Many of my peers, including myself, live car free lives or desire to. However, it’s difficult to do so because at all levels from planning to developing to funding, we favor cars over people. Stark professed a landmark project to change the landscape of Cleveland, but will end up delivering the same ole shiny vanilla box wrapped around excessive parking. Edited January 24, 20196 yr by imjustinjk
January 24, 20196 yr I think its the excessiveness of parking that is the red flag being raised. Perhaps 2 underground levels a tiny bit on first floor in middle and then 4 floors above that should suffice with a major venue across the street.
January 24, 20196 yr How many parking spaces would be added by building the new garage on top of the existing parking lot? I agree with KJP- this is a major lot directly next to the Q. Parking no doubt would be added just based on location alone.
January 24, 20196 yr 16 minutes ago, imjustinjk said: What people think they need and/or want is not what they actually need or should necessarily should have. Continuing the pattern of auto oriented development will not benefit Cleveland. This same auto dependency is why we have a glut of flat surface parking lots in our urban core. Going vertical with parking doesn’t really rectify the underlying issues. Shying away from this by designing transit oriented projects and improving multi modal infrastructure is what we should be aiming for Downtown. Many of my peers, including myself, live car free lives or desire to. However, it’s difficult to do so because at all levels from planning to developing to funding, we favor cars over people. Stark professed a landmark project to change the landscape of Cleveland, but will end up delivering the same ole shiny vanilla box wrapped around excessive parking. The car-dependency of this region isn't going to change because I developer wants it to. It's going to change when the voters and elected officials of this region start providing significant dollars for transportation infrastructure and services other than those for cars. A developer simply will not win financing for his projects in a city like Cleveland unless it meets the investor's minimum threshold for parking spaces. There's a reason why we have so many buildings have succumbed to surface parking lots and garages downtown -- because we've neglected all the other transportation alternatives to driving. Give people a more attractive way to get downtown from where they live and the land uses downtown will start to change. We should probably discuss this further in another thread. This is probably a good one.... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 24, 20196 yr 29 minutes ago, Oldmanladyluck said: How many parking spaces would be added by building the new garage on top of the existing parking lot? I agree with KJP- this is a major lot directly next to the Q. Parking no doubt would be added just based on location alone. I count 310 spaces in the two surface lots and about 375 spaces in the parking garage on Huron that's to be demolished. So approximately 685 spaces total. In the preliminary revised plan that's likely not going to be the plan submitted and approved by the city, 1,550 spaces were proposed. That's a net gain of 865 spaces for the addition of about 1.1 million square feet of usable space. IIRC, Cleveland's building code outside of downtown requires 1 parking space for every 100 square feet of gross floor area, plus 1 for every 3 employees. So on that score, this development is vastly under-parked. Edited January 24, 20196 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
January 24, 20196 yr 40 minutes ago, imjustinjk said: What people think they need and/or want is not what they actually need or should necessarily should have. Continuing the pattern of auto oriented development will not benefit Cleveland. This same auto dependency is why we have a glut of flat surface parking lots in our urban core. Going vertical with parking doesn’t really rectify the underlying issues. Shying away from this by designing transit oriented projects and improving multi modal infrastructure is what we should be aiming for Downtown. Many of my peers, including myself, live car free lives or desire to. However, it’s difficult to do so because at all levels from planning to developing to funding, we favor cars over people. Stark professed a landmark project to change the landscape of Cleveland, but will end up delivering the same ole shiny vanilla box wrapped around excessive parking. As much as you and I want to think auto dependency can change, it will not. Most of the country is vehicle dependent. Cleveland is not a unique circumstance. Again, how are you determining parking without knowing the amount of users of project?
January 24, 20196 yr If and when this project actually happens, I hope someone goes back and does the math to compare tax revenue from the eventual project to tax revenue from what the project might have been if the TIF was passed. Would be interesting to see if money was left on the table. I'm assuming that money will be left on the table, especially when considering the time value of money and the fact that the TIF offered a large upfront payment. Additionally, to the extent the TIF was passed and this project got off the ground faster, it would have just meant more tax revenue sooner. I wonder how much of a delay the lack of the TIF will eventually cause, which only has delayed incremental tax revenue for the city and schools. I'm still glad to see something cooking but I think the TIF should have been better received and understood by the public and political leaders.
January 24, 20196 yr The only way you decrease car dependency is to create attractive and desired neighborhoods that also have limited parking and car lanes. Look at OSU in Columbus, or Amsterdam's transition. While both are far different from Cleveland and Cleveland is a long shot away from creating walkable neighborhoods where most people would be okay not having a vehicle, this is certainly the direction to go in in terms of an overall standpoint.
January 24, 20196 yr For the most part, I'm not mad about the new plan. The massing is pretty good, and hey, one story retail is fine with me (two stories might've been an unrealistic expectation to begin with). However, that massive curb cut is AWFUL. And are they abandoning the plan to make the rest of E 4th pedestrian-only? That's super disappointing.
January 24, 20196 yr 1 hour ago, ytown2ctown said: The only way you decrease car dependency is to create attractive and desired neighborhoods that also have limited parking and car lanes. Look at OSU in Columbus, or Amsterdam's transition. While both are far different from Cleveland and Cleveland is a long shot away from creating walkable neighborhoods where most people would be okay not having a vehicle, this is certainly the direction to go in in terms of an overall standpoint. We definitely have a long way to go. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/01/commuting-to-work-data-car-public-transit-bike/580507/
January 24, 20196 yr We should be elated to get a parking tower on a current surface lot. And it comes with a whole new city block? I'll take three more, thank you.
January 24, 20196 yr 33 minutes ago, Foraker said: We definitely have a long way to go. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/01/commuting-to-work-data-car-public-transit-bike/580507/ Interesting...Ohio is one of only a few states where not a single locale within the state has a rate of commuting to work alone by car of less than 80%.
Create an account or sign in to comment