Local Forum Does Good

(UrbanOhio mentioned in this Crains article)

https://www.crainscleveland.com/stan-bullard-blog/shorter-nucleus-may-go-clevelands-gateway-district

Beat ya to it. See previous page.

4 hours ago, ethlaw said:

 

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. 

 

If I remember correctly it previously was ped only only to High Street. Cant really determine if that has chaged or not. Regardless, that doesn't mean people will suddenly find a different route, With the size of that curb cut people will be thrown into a freaking auto derby.

Seeing Ezra Stark’s quote in Crains, I’m more optimistic that we might actually see an even better Nucleus plan than the “new” rendering we glimpsed on January 23. There were some aspects of that design I liked and others I did not. I appreciate that a city block would be filled by that bulkier, shorter version - but I’m  hoping there’s a more inspiring rendition still to come, hopefully with a bit less bulk and a little more uniqueness and elevation.  Those were elements we certainly had in the 2014 version. 

6 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

At this point, hasn't this thing just become a glorified Reserve Square?

 

You do realize that Reserve Square is the largest single residential development in downtown Cleveland's 223-year history?

Not really. That was a huge project that was widely heralded as one of the finest designs by Cleveland-based Dalton-Dalton-Newport-Little, one of the top architectural firms in the world. It got rid of a dangerous intersection, advanced downtown's skyline eastward, features a grocery store, college, offices, restaurants and put two high-rise apartment towers downtown totaling nearly 1,000 units. The total height of each of those towers hasn't been exceeded anywhere in the entire city of Cleveland since -- ie: Beacon technically added only 19 stories. Lumen will end that drought in about a year or whenever it passes the 23rd floor -- 50 years after the first tower of Park Center was topped out. 50 years...now THAT'S depressing! 

Edited January 27, 20196 yr by KJP

Back in the 90's I wanted to live there. 1,000 units!

 

Edited January 26, 20196 yr by Mildtraumatic

On 1/24/2019 at 1:47 PM, 327 said:

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.

 

I agree. I despise, parking towers (and I'm a true believer that in 7-10 years when many vehicles will finally become autonomous, they will become outdated and useless), but surface parking lots are even worse.

 

For me, I would rather that this parking tower have 2,500 (heck, lets go for 5,000) parking spots as I think it would present massive competition to the surface lots and maybe eliminate some of the financial advantages of keeping them as lots instead of mixed-use towers.

 

Also, the more people park at nuCLEus as opposed to across the Innerbelt (near the post office) or down in the Flats (old Tower City Ampitheater) or towards the area near Prospect and 14th, the more people will pour into the businesses in the E4th/Gateway area before/after sporting events/concerts/etc.

1 minute ago, ragarcia said:

 

For me, I would rather that this parking tower have 2,500 (heck, lets go for 5,000) parking spots as I think it would present massive competition to the surface lots and maybe eliminate some of the financial advantages of keeping them as lots instead of mixed-use towers.

 

Think about that.... If you're diluting the market for existing surface parking by with a huge net increase in spaces, you're also diluting the market for the parking you want to build and earn revenue from to help pay off the cost of providing that parking. How does that make economic sense??

7 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Think about that.... If you're diluting the market for existing surface parking by with a huge net increase in spaces, you're also diluting the market for the parking you want to build and earn revenue from to help pay off the cost of providing that parking. How does that make economic sense??

 

Here are just a few reasons in no particular order of "strength" as they are all likely interlaced:

 

- This tower has a massive built-in advantage over others: location, location, location. It is the only one that is steps away from the most highly visited venues in town as well as from the E4th entertainment district, the casino and Gateway District amenities. As such, you can still charge a premium for your spots while the others will be at a disadvantage during most days of the year.

 

- A tower gives the user protection from the weather, that a parking lot does not. All else being equal, the user would rather be in a tower than a lot.

 

- The margins in parking lots are so incredible, that if you did dilute by 10% or even 20% you still are raking in millions a year.

 

- Once you've reached your ROI for construction, which you likely will within 20-24 months, the parking tower is an eternal revenue/profit generator even if the margins get a bit diluted.

 

- Rental income from the retail venues in the first floor will act as a subsidy for any diluted margins

 

- Rented spots from the users of the offices in the floors above will act as a subsidy for any diluted margins

 

- Income from rented apartments and their many additional rented spots in the floor above will act as a subsidy for any diluted margins

 

- Visitors to the offices or apartments from the floors above generate a built-in revenue stream that other parking lots/towers do not have

 

- The proposal is "under-parked" per city requirements. As such, an assumption can easily be made that it does make economic sense to pursue a larger parking offering.

Parking is lucrative for surface lot owners, not for garages.

Adding other options should make surface lots less lucrative.

In what world does a for-profit investor seek to take a loss by offering an excessive amount of money-losing structured parking merely to punish other businesses with whom he has no incentive to compete?

In all seriousness surface lots will stay in place while they are profitable, they are low-overhead high-margin businesses.  In reality the only way to get them developed is to present the lot owners with increases in taxes for remaining a surface lot as well as increased incentives to allow development on their land.  Eventually that will help move the needle towards improved land-usage, however isn't a golden ticket.  https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/01/18/the-case-for-a-tax-on-parking-lots/

2 hours ago, ragarcia said:

- The proposal is "under-parked" per city requirements. As such, an assumption can easily be made that it does make economic sense to pursue a larger parking offering.

 

Just to be clear, there are no parking minimums downtown. The requirements posted earlier were for outside the CBD. Stark could build this without a single parking space if it made sense to.

 

To the point about encouraging development on surface lots -- you don't devalue parking by adding more parking. That's not how it works. If anything it'll put downward pressure on prices which would just encourage more people to drive downtown. You encourage development on surface parking by either increasing taxes on undeveloped land (a land value tax) and/or improving transit so it's reasonable alternative to driving.

Not to get too far off topic, but what if the city built strategically placed parking structures and provided shuttles a streetcar thru downtown? That would certainly devalue the surface lots. 

* I figure since I'm dreaming here I'll make it a good one  

And yet that makes more economic sense than anything else posted here so far today.

5 minutes ago, surfohio said:

Not to get too far off topic, but what if the city built strategically placed parking structures and provided shuttles a streetcar thru downtown? That would certainly devalue the surface lots. 

* I figure since I'm dreaming here I'll make it a good one  

 

Like the free trolleys?

1 minute ago, imjustinjk said:

 

Like the free trolleys?

Yes! But with better frequency. And without those tacky tires lol.

Just now, surfohio said:

Yes! But with better frequency. And without those tacky tires lol.

 

I mean they run every 10ish minutes and circulate downtown. I use them numerous times a day since I live on Euclid/E 6, intern in the warehouse district, and attend grad school at CSU. Plus the buses are very cute. But it’s not a bad idea to have concentrated parking areas. Downtown isn’t very geographically large, and there are cities (in Europe obviously) who have removed parking from their city centers with success. 

22 minutes ago, Mendo said:

To the point about encouraging development on surface lots -- you don't devalue parking by adding more parking. That's not how it works. If anything it'll put downward pressure on prices which would just encourage more people to drive downtown. You encourage development on surface parking by either increasing taxes on undeveloped land (a land value tax) and/or improving transit so it's reasonable alternative to driving.

 

From a supply and demand perspective, yes you do.  As prices drop, there is a point on the profit curve at which other land uses begin to make more sense.  Tax rates on surface parking can move that point along the curve.

 

This is not about controlling the behavior of the general public.  It never should be.  I agree we should invest in transit, but we can't expect different consumer behavior until after we've done that.  Raising the parking tax should not be about punishing citizens for driving-- most of them have no choice-- it should be about punishing landowners for failing to develop anything, for taking easy profits at the community's expense.

2 hours ago, Mendo said:

 

Just to be clear, there are no parking minimums downtown. The requirements posted earlier were for outside the CBD. Stark could build this without a single parking space if it made sense to.

 

To the point about encouraging development on surface lots -- you don't devalue parking by adding more parking. That's not how it works. If anything it'll put downward pressure on prices which would just encourage more people to drive downtown. You encourage development on surface parking by either increasing taxes on undeveloped land (a land value tax) and/or improving transit so it's reasonable alternative to driving.

 

I'd love to see your sources for these two items you state as facts. The prices on any parking lot can't go down further than the minimum tax the city applies to it plus a reasonable profit for the owner.

4 hours ago, KJP said:

Parking is lucrative for surface lot owners, not for garages.

 

Since I don't have sources in Cleveland like you do I only have to go with my friends in other cities (Nashville, Fort Lauderdale, Chicago, New York, Denver) who know people who own garages and make a bundle on them. So maybe it isn't lucrative in Cleveland, but it is lucrative in many other cities.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

And yet that makes more economic sense than anything else posted here so far today.

 

Hahaha someone is getting testy

On 12/18/2018 at 5:11 AM, Mildtraumatic said:

It's hard sometimes not to get frustrated and want to give up on being an optimist but I don't think I'll ever give up on Cleveland-for better or worse. All I'm  asking for is Cleveland to look like a Chicago or a Toronto! Is that too much to ask for?  Criminy!

 

 

 

Cleveland is doing fine, just don't expect any help from our legislature in Columbus. In fact, expect the opposite.

26 minutes ago, ragarcia said:

 

I'd love to see your sources for these two items you state as facts. The prices on any parking lot can't go down further than the minimum tax the city applies to it plus a reasonable profit for the owner.

 

Here is a good start:

 

The Strongest Case Yet That Excessive Parking Causes More Driving

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2016/01/the-strongest-case-yet-that-excessive-parking-causes-more-driving/423663/

 

 

2 hours ago, 327 said:

 

From a supply and demand perspective, yes you do.  As prices drop, there is a point on the profit curve at which other land uses begin to make more sense.  Tax rates on surface parking can move that point along the curve.

 

True, but who is going to provide enough parking that prices or utilization drop enough to make development palatable? Surface lots have low property taxes, virtually no overhead, and mint money.

I emailed both Bob and Ezra Stark regarding the link below.

Similar sized tower (Albeit seemingly all residential) in a similar market (Milwaukee).

Have federal funds been investigated, and if no, why not?

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2018/11/02/couture-construction-may-start-soon-after.html

NuCLEus is much bigger in both pricetag (half-a-billion) and scale (full city block)... but I honestly can't say that I'm not jealous of Milwaukee for that developer's ability to get that project funded. 

And that Milwaukee development is nothing compared to the Bedrock Development getting ready to start in Detroit which has a price tag of $800MM!  

This supports what I said in the lakefront thread about the lack of vision for many Cleveland developers.

1 hour ago, newyorker said:

This supports what I said in the lakefront thread about the lack of vision for many Cleveland developers.

 

Stark has been working on a 54 story building for the last few years. Will be scaled down  due to economics. Two 20-25 story (Beacon and One University Circle) buildings have been built on Euclid the last two years and a 34 story building is currently under construction. Aslo, every building from Public Square to Playhouse Square has been or is being converted to apartments. Considering the market dynamics, I think developers have done a good job. I agree about the lack of vision when it comes to the lakefront. 

Edited February 1, 20196 yr by Sir2geez

5 hours ago, newyorker said:

This supports what I said in the lakefront thread about the lack of vision for many Cleveland developers.

 

You don't really seem to know that much about the market forces that shape what a city can or can not build or the nature of real estate in general.  All of those saying "why can't anything be built in Cleveland" should do your homework first before posting.  There is plenty being built and there is plenty in the pipeline.  Just because it's not 50 stories doesn't mean it is not significant.  Also, the original plans for NuCleus definitely showed a vision--one that was not attainable at this time.  So your comment about "lack of vision" doesn't hold water.

 

 As has been pointed out many times, much of the construction is converting existing buildings to residential, so there is not much in the way of market forces allowing lots of tall buildings to be built.  The amount of refurbished building in the past 10 years in downtown Cleveland is pretty staggering, and it has improved downtown massively.  That should be celebrated even if it's not new construction.  There was so much empty space and now that space is filling up.   

 

When it becomes economically viable for everyone to start building skyscrapers, then they will build skyscrapers.  That's how markets work.  In the meantime, I'll gladly take mid-rises or projects like the one in Ohio City by the West Side Market to fill in the empty spaces.  It's not a "lack of vision", it's reality.

We have six 20+ story residential developments downtown completed or underway since 2010 with two more planned (including nuCLEus). Before 2010, the last 20+ story residential building built or converted downtown was in 1973. And that doesn't include many more buildings of 10+ stories built or converted this century. Friends of mine from out of town (Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Buffalo and even Chicago) are amazed to see the extent and scale of downtown Cleveland's conversions. We were lucky to have them to offer a relatively low-cost way of providing so much high-rise downtown housing inventory. Without them, in a low-rent Midwest market like ours, there's no way we could have achieved that extent and scale of downtown housing development. The conversions helped jumpstart the high-rise market here. The proof of demand has been established but the rents still aren't there yet. When the supply of convertible towers runs out, rents will go up faster and, if demand remains strong, so will the new-construction residential towers.

Edited February 2, 20196 yr by KJP

Lack of vision is building only 16 units apartment on prime waterfront space. What keeps Cleveland stuck in the past is the need to continuously defend apathy.  

Edited February 2, 20196 yr by newyorker

 

1 hour ago, newyorker said:

Lack of vision is building only 16 units apartment on prime waterfront space. What keeps Cleveland stuck in the past is the need to continuously defend apathy.  

 

I responded here...

 

 

On 1/28/2019 at 1:43 PM, tj111 said:

In all seriousness surface lots will stay in place while they are profitable, they are low-overhead high-margin businesses.  In reality the only way to get them developed is to present the lot owners with increases in taxes for remaining a surface lot as well as increased incentives to allow development on their land. 

2

 

The sewer district recently started to increase rates for property owners based on impervious surfaces.  Could the city/county apply a tax on any property with more than X% impervious surface as a way to assist the sewer district and increase the costs of surface parking lots?

According to the Ohio legislature website,  the transformational mixed-use bill was reintroduced in the Senate last week:  https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA133-SB-39

 

I'm not sure if there are differences against the version last year, but it still has the 15-story or 350,000 square feet requirement.

 

Perhaps the large-form Nucleus is not totally off the table if the bill moves forward this year...

Thanks for posting that. Interestingly, the bill's primary sponsor Kirk Schuring was a state rep last session but ran into term limits. So he did the General Assembly hopscotch to get around the limits and is now a state senator. Last year, the transformational tax credit passed the Ohio House unanimously (91-0) last June but ran out of time in the Ohio Senate. Now, it will go through the Ohio Senate first. It's possible that if the Senate passes it, the bill could move very quickly over on the House side. I don't expect the Senate to act on it until probably May.

KJP: Great news. Keep us posted on whatever you hear out of Columbus.

Interesting -- it seems like there is a good shot it passes this year and less chance of a veto with DeWine.

No need to thank me, @simplythis. It was @gg707 who found the information. Nice job, GG. (Is that you, Gordon Gekko??)

 

It looks like the Senate Finance Committee will have their first hearing on SB 39 on Tuesday, March 12th.  It will be interesting to see how this progresses through the Senate this go round.  If it gets through the Senate, hopefully the House will still stand in favor under this new General Assembly.

 

 

It looks like they are doing the opposite of last year. Last year they went to house then senate

"New nuCLEus plan is scaled-back version of original design"

 

After numerous stops and starts, the much-anticipated nuCLEus project in downtown Cleveland is again moving forward, but this time in a scaled-down version.  ...   Instead, developer Stark Enterprises of Cleveland, with joint-venture partner J-Dek Investments Ltd. of Solon, is proposing a pair of 24-story towers, one about 40 feet taller than the other, that would sit atop a six-floor parking garage. Below the parking garage, on the ground floor, would be 80,000 square feet of retail space, with a pedestrian laneway between the two buildings.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2019/03/new-nucleus-plan-is-scaled-back-version-of-original-design.html

 

 

Edited March 7, 20196 yr by mrclifton88

There is a lot to like about the scaled back version, and frankly, I just want them to move ahead with some version of the project at this point. 

350' that works for me. And it is really not scaled back that much in total size of the project, just in height. Man I cannot wait for that parking lot to close. This is a good week for downtown development!

I am always concerned about what is going on at the street level rather than height.  In that vein I would like to see more renderings, especially those reflecting how they are dealing with garage entrances.

I'd like this design more if this is what we're shown 5 years ago. The street presence is not nearly as good as the original design.

 

The overall scale is still great. The office building is going to be very large.

 

By the way, AUGUST start date.  Should we start a pool?

The residential balconies are a welcomed sight. So many buildings downtown just look like unwelcoming fortresses. I'll echo the demand for optimal street presence.