Jump to content
SixthCity

Cleveland: Downtown: nuCLEus

Recommended Posts

What if     -     What If the CPC gives Stark the Demolition Permit for 310 Prospect

With the Understanding that he do something with the parking crater like in 5 years.

 

Isn't this the arrangement that Geis got when he bought the New York spaghetti House 

with the intent to develop it it 5 years.

 

Under this arrangement, Stark Builds Nucleus, Lowers his property taxes on 310 Prospect,

and gets an opportunity to re-direct the loss of the revenue from the Garage & Parking lot and then

MAYBE ,  just maybe we get to go thru this all again with Nucleus Phase 2. 

 

What to you guys think? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, simplythis said:

What if     -     What If the CPC gives Stark the Demolition Permit for 310 Prospect

With the Understanding that he do something with the parking crater like in 5 years.

 

Isn't this the arrangement that Geis got when he bought the New York spaghetti House 

with the intent to develop it it 5 years.

 

Under this arrangement, Stark Builds Nucleus, Lowers his property taxes on 310 Prospect,

and gets an opportunity to re-direct the loss of the revenue from the Garage & Parking lot and then

MAYBE ,  just maybe we get to go thru this all again with Nucleus Phase 2. 

 

What to you guys think? 

 

 

I think it's more likely Stark will sell the expanded lot down the road to a more competent developer who has financial stability... Until then Stark will probably collect revenue for parking until the cows come home.. And why not? It's easy money!

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, simplythis said:

What if     -     What If the CPC gives Stark the Demolition Permit for 310 Prospect

With the Understanding that he do something with the parking crater like in 5 years.

 

Isn't this the arrangement that Geis got when he bought the New York spaghetti House 

with the intent to develop it it 5 years.

 

Under this arrangement, Stark Builds Nucleus, Lowers his property taxes on 310 Prospect,

and gets an opportunity to re-direct the loss of the revenue from the Garage & Parking lot and then

MAYBE ,  just maybe we get to go thru this all again with Nucleus Phase 2. 

 

What to you guys think? 

You are correct about the arrangement that Geis got when he demo the New York Spaghetti House that he would have to develop it within 5 years.

Edited by Larry1962
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Boxtruffles said:

We’re in the endgame now...

 

Are you saying we need to watch Thanos...I mean Stark... I mean Bob Stark snap away half of all our buildings in order to eventually win?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, simplythis said:

KJP - How about coming up with some goods news or any news for us on this project.

 

I've got fish hooks in the water. No bites yet.

  • Thanks 1

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine that this massive project which has been in the planning stages for years is potentially being held up/derailed entirely due to the demolition of one building...  and now it is right back up on the CPC Schedule.  It will be interesting to see what happens Friday.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should just delete this whole thread/topic all together. And then just hope for the best. Gonna be 6-7 years from announcing til we get more parking. FU Stark. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So tomorrow's Design-Review agenda item for the demolition is listed as follows......

 

DOWNTOWN/FLATS DESIGN REVIEW

DF2019-064 - Proposed Demolition of a 4-Story Office Building: Seeking Final Approval per §341.08 of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances
Project Address: 310 Prospect Ave.
Project Representative: Rebecca Molyneaux, Stark Enterprises

 

I have yet to hear from city sources on this demolition, namely if Stark has submitted a post-demolition site plan as Councilman McCormack requested. There was no site plan when it was first put on the D-R agenda, so McCormack asked D-R to table it until there was a plan. But now this is back on the agenda, and cites §341.08 as the reason why (possibly at the urging of Stark's lawyers?). So here is what §341.08 says (I'd love to hear from our forum's lawyers, like @YABO713 and @freefourur or others....

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

§ 341.08  Demolition and Moving

   For applications proposing the demolition or moving of a building in a Design Review District, other than for emergency demolition activities ordered by the Director of the Building and Housing to remedy conditions that pose immediate danger to human life or health, the following provisions shall apply:

   (a)   Criteria for Action. In considering a request to demolish or move a building or other structure located within a Design Review District, the City Planning Commission and its Local Design Review Advisory Committee shall consider the following factors in making its decision to approve or disapprove the request:

      (1)   The architectural and historic significance of the subject building or structure;

      (2)   The significance of the building or structure in contributing to the architectural or historic character of its environs;

      (3)   In the case of a request to move a building or other structure, the relationship between the location of the subject building or structure and its overall significance;

      (4)   The present and potential economic viability of the subject building or structure, given its physical condition and marketability;

      (5)   The presence of conditions on the subject property that are dangerous or are detrimental to the immediate area and cannot be reasonably remedied other than by the proposed demolition;

      (6)   The degree to which the applicant proposes to salvage and facilitate re-use of structures proposed for demolition; and

      (7)   The design quality and significance and the appropriateness of the proposed re-use of the property.

   (b)   Nature of Action. The City Planning Commission may delay action, for a period of not more than six (6) months, on the demolition or moving of a building in order to allow economic viability studies to be conducted, as well as to allow interested parties the opportunity to explore alternatives to the proposed action. At the end of such period, the Commission shall either approve or disapprove the request to demolish or move, or may choose to delay action for a second and final period of not more than six (6) months if the Commission determines that this additional time period may be useful in securing an alternative to the proposed demolition or moving. At the end of such second and final period, the Commission shall either approve or disapprove the request.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I attended design review today.  I was hoping Stark's presentation regarding the Herold Building demo which was on the agenda would shed some light on the status of Necleus  (something like a suggestion that they needed the space for construction staging (which is actually a pretty silly proposition) or something in that vein).  Unfortunately nothing in that regard.  Seems they are keen for the demo simply because the city says they have to either deal with the code violations (which they claim will cost 6 million...and that would not include an actual marketable renovation) or demo it.

 

The Board voted 7-3 against a demo with various conditions.  Interesting that it was the architects on the Board advocating for demo.  Still the Planning Commission can still approve the demo tomorrow since design review is only advisory.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that information @Htsguy. That helps shed some light on things. McCormack texted me about an hour ago, saying he hasn't heard from Stark at all about this demo or the viability of nuCLEus going forward. The lack of a post-demolition site plan is why he urged Planning Commission to table it on Aug. 15. Sounds like, in the absence of a site plan, he will urge the request be tabled again. BTW, note that Stark is applicant this time. On Aug. 15, it was B&B Wrecking. Don't what that means, if anything.

  • Thanks 1

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

I attended design review today.  I was hoping Stark's presentation regarding the Herold Building demo which was on the agenda would shed some light on the status of Necleus  (something like a suggestion that they needed the space for construction staging (which is actually a pretty silly proposition) or something in that vein).  Unfortunately nothing in that regard.  Seems they are keen for the demo simply because the city says they have to either deal with the code violations (which they claim will cost 6 million...and that would not include an actual marketable renovation) or demo it.

 

The Board voted 7-3 against a demo with various conditions.  Interesting that it was the architects on the Board advocating for demo.  Still the Planning Commission can still approve the demo tomorrow since design review is only advisory.

So the City wants the building renovated and Stark claims it will cost $6M to do so.  Sounds a bit adversarial to me. If so, another bad sign for Nucleus project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KJP said:

Thanks for that information @Htsguy. That helps shed some light on things. McCormack texted me about an hour ago, saying he hasn't heard from Stark at all about this demo or the viability of nuCLEus going forward. The lack of a post-demolition site plan is why he urged Planning Commission to table it on Aug. 15. Sounds like, in the absence of a site plan, he will urge the request be tabled again. BTW, note that Stark is applicant this time. On Aug. 15, it was B&B Wrecking. Don't what that means, if anything.

Unfortunately during the two weeks they had they did not come up with much of a plan and were mildly criticized for this.  It basically went from a gravel lot to a grass lot with a fence (in other words a weedy liter magnet) with a "promise" to incorporate the current façade in any future development (you know...right around the time we land a man on Pluto).  The Board offered to let them table this again (they had to approve the tabling) in order to work with Historic Gateway (who opposed demo) on some tax credit senarios and they refused.  The Board then voted.

  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

So the City wants the building renovated and Stark claims it will cost $6M to do so.  Sounds a bit adversarial to me. If so, another bad sign for Nucleus project.

It was my impression that Stark was claiming that the 6 million to address code violations not to renovate.  They also said it would cost 1 mil to mothball to make it safe but this would not include addressing code violations.  There were many numbers being thrown around and I don't know if I believed many of them.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

So the City wants the building renovated and Stark claims it will cost $6M to do so.  Sounds a bit adversarial to me. If so, another bad sign for Nucleus project.

I do not view any thing happen today as a bad news for Nucleus just no news

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, marty15 said:

This is inexcusable. They let this building continue to decay for 5 years under their ownership. Then pull these BS numbers out.

Meanwhile he's moving forward with his development in Pittsburgh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, the two Stark reps kept emphasizing the huge costs to correct the code violations and that in the end a renovated building could not be marketed to todays tenants (either residential or office) because of the small footprint and low ceilings.  The architects were sympathetic but not many of the others, especially since they held the building for 5 years and did nothing.  One member said that given the mission of Design Review it was not their problem it was Starks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did Stark buy this in the first place? I understand there were original plans to redevelop the strip of buildings along with the original Nucleus project, but if his main project was the new build, why include this strip for redevelopment at all? I just seems like added cost and complexity to the main plan. Even back then (before 5 additional years of decay) you could tell these buildings would be a tough reno and sell to tenants, so I don't buy Stark's argument about that now. Looks like he made a bad investment with this property and now doesn't want to face up to the responsibility that comes with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, KJP said:

It was part of a portfolio of properties sold to Stark in 2014....

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2014/09/downtown_cleveland_parking_por.html

Sounds like that small parcel was problematic for the previous owners (L&R) as well.  All told, it may have been in need of repair for almost a decade or more.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they're new to the vertical development game.  The beacon was their first one if i'm not mistaken.  I think going from developing shopping malls to such an undertaking like Nucleus is a bit of a stretch.  I just wish they could get a phase 1 going on the lots that require no demolition.  But that's coming from someone with no skin in the game besides possible tax subsidies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thankful that Stark built Beacon but that was only a partial education for them on how to finance and build a high-rise. They still haven't financed and built a high rise that required them to dig and pour the foundations. So that part is still unknown territory for them.

  • Like 2

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stark Enterprises just asked to have the 310 Prospect demolition request tabled. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to table it.

  • Thanks 2

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KJP said:

Stark Enterprises just asked to have the 310 Prospect demolition request tabled. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to table it.

What are they up to behind the scenes?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, simplythis said:

What are they up to behind the scenes?

 

Just a guess, but Stark probably took a hint from yesterday's vote by Design-Review which wasn't binding and opted not to subject itself to a vote today from Planning Commission, which would have been binding. Stark will probably now regroup and consider its options.

Edited by KJP
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Larry1962 said:

So True!!!

The Stanley Block was much more important historically. 

 

On 9/3/2019 at 4:42 PM, marty15 said:

I think we can safely call this regress now. We went from a potential cityscape changing 54 story complex, to tearing down buildings that have nothing to do with the supposed project. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we're back to $6M to bring the building up to code + cost of renovations and it can never be profitable.

 

Even if they decided to sell it, who would buy it?

 

Sounds like a no-win proposition to me.

Edited by Frmr CLEder
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

Just a guess, but Stark probably took a hint from yesterday's vote by Design-Review which wasn't binding and opted not to subject itself to a vote today from Planning Commission, which would have been binding. Stark will probably now regroup and consider its options.

Just another guess but they might be talking with Historic Gateway to see if they can help.  Tom argued against the demo yesterday at Design Review and then right after the negative vote he made a bee line for one of the Stark reps as they were leaving the room, practically put his arm around him and they were discussing something.  Of course if this is true Stark should have been having these conversations with Gateway all along.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...