Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest jjames0408

Cleveland: Nautica Development

Recommended Posts

And here we go!!!

 

Nautica plan calls for residential complexes

 

"Saying it is time to move the vision for the west bank of the Cuyahoga River from entertainment district to residential mixed-use district, Nautica developer Jeffrey Jacobs has unveiled a Nautica master plan calling for new towers upwards of 10 stories — with some as high as 20 — and 664 rental apartments.

 

The new plan would retain major features of Nautica, such as its massive former railroad powerhouse and amphitheater, but add an estimated $405 million in additional real estate development to the 22-acre riverfront site."

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20160509/NEWS/160509849/nautica-plan-calls-for-residential-complexes#utm_medium=email&utm_source=ccl-morningroundup&utm_campaign=ccl-morningroundup-20160509

 

*Edit...whoops wrong thread. There are too many :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT!!!  I'm thinking we may have hit critical mass!  (I hope)

 

Nautica plan calls for residential complexes

 

 

Saying it is time to move the vision for the west bank of the Cuyahoga River from entertainment district to residential mixed-use district, Nautica developer Jeffrey Jacobs has unveiled a Nautica master plan calling for new towers upwards of 10 stories — with some as high as 20 — and 664 rental apartments.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20160509/NEWS/160509849/nautica-plan-calls-for-residential-complexes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No really sure how I feel about the site plan to be completely honest. The water plan is cool but the water surrounding the site kind of makes it seem secluded and off limits to non residents, sort of like a country club feel. Also the distance between the two separate high rises are sort of weird to me. Finally I've seen so many recent high rise projects similar to this that haven't broken ground yet (One U.C and NuCLEus I'm looking at you.) So I'm very hesitant about the financing getting done. If this was done on the East Bank where the energy and momentum it has would make getting this done easier I would have more confidence. Still an exciting potential development, sort of reminds me of Baltimore's waterfront development. Curious to see final drawings more buildings are always welcome.

 

 

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

SIDE NOTE: DEVELOP THE FREAKING P.S LOT JACOB'S JEEEEEEEEEZ!

 

 

 

Different Jacobs companies, correct?

Really? I could've sworn they were the ones that owned the lot. If not oh well.

 

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Dick and David Jacobs (both deceased) founded the main real estate business several decades ago, mostly as mall developers. Their company (and its affiliates) also built Key Tower, is developing Chagrin Highlands, and owns the Public Square lot. Jeff Jacobs is Dicks's son and runs his own separate real estate business, which owns Nautica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only at excitement level 2. Partly because I sort of hate the vision, and partly because I have almost zero confidence this gets real far. We'll see.

 

EDIT: actually, make that excitement level 0. The more I look at it, the more I loathe it and actively hope it withers on the vine. It looks like it's from a 1978 press clipping announcing with great hope some awful proposal we all look at 40 years later with mild amusement and relief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Dick and David Jacobs (both deceased) founded the main real estate business several decades ago, mostly as mall developers. Their company (and its affiliates) also built Key Tower, is developing Chagrin Highlands, and owns the Public Square lot. Jeff Jacobs is Dicks's son and runs his own separate real estate business, which owns Nautica.

That's what the modify button is for lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For this particular site, I don't mind the plans at all.  No existing street grid to work with and little/no hope for anything denser rising out of that parking lot so long as we can't get anything moving on the much more appealing WHD sea of parking lots.  I like that the plan interacts with the river and changes absolutely nothing into something quite substantial.  As much as I would love to see a Pescht type plan announced for this site, we all know that ain't happening.  This fits the area and is a lofty vision IMO.  It's the type of project (horse) which will hopefully spur the desired infill (cart) between it and Stonebridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are parts of this plan I like, but I really can't believe they're proposing tearing down the Harbor Inn building and the warehouse building that houses McCarthy's. Why are Cleveland developers still stuck in the old mindset of demolishing every old building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are parts of this plan I like, but I really can't believe they're proposing tearing down the Harbor Inn building and the warehouse building that houses McCarthy's. Why are Cleveland developers still stuck in the old mindset of demolishing every old building?

 

There should absolutely be a fight for the Harbor.  It would be an amazing addition to a new building constructed around it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be interesting to think about what section could be built first.  I'd imagine Harbor Inn and Building with McCarthys in it would stay for now since they are producing income.  Would be nice to see the lake-link trail get built with some new buildings right along it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Development on that site would certainly be welcome, but that plan looks bizarre to me. What's up with twin highrise building with the moat? And why have a big surface lot in the middle? Tearing down the Harbor Inn and Nautica Lofts (a perfectly good building) is not ideal either. I hope this is reworked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, this is extremely exciting news... however, it's described as "mixed-use," but looks more like a bunch of single-use structures being added together. 

 

Hopefully they get some urban planning help, because the opportunity for building on this prime location probably only comes up once or twice a century. 

 

Additionally, efforts need to be made to save as many century old brick buildings (i.e. Harbor Inn) or at least find a way to integrate them, which shouldn't be too difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Agreed. And this is so early in the process, that I'm sure those things will be addressed. There's no need for anyone to freak out over anything yet.

 

I also hope by the time this comes to fruition, the connection between the east and west bank will be better with increased use of the water taxi (and integration with RTA's fare system so the WFL could be used more easily). Would eventually be nice to have some sort of pedestrian swing bridge crossing the river at this point too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The site plan shown in those renderings is awful, but per Michelle's piece, it doesn't sound like these guys are even close to putting any real energy into advancing anything, so probably not even worth commenting on. In case anyone was interested in who GPD Group is: http://www.gpdgroup.com/markets/planning/

 

And to be honest, I'm even wondering how genuine this proposal is. Part of me wonders if this is just posturing to lobby the state about the Shoreway exit and maybe trying to form some kind of TIF to fix up their local streets as part of something much more modest. The utter crappiness of the scheme (bargain basement design) looks a lot more like the other BS posturing proposals we've seen over the years (Lighthouse Landing, Davenport Bluffs) than it looks like the bona fide proposals (Citymark's WHD, NuCLEus, Flats East Bank, Vintage's District Park).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The site plan shown in those renderings is awful, but per Michelle's piece, it doesn't sound like these guys are even close to putting any real energy into advancing anything, so probably not even worth commenting on. In case anyone was interested in who GPD Group is: http://www.gpdgroup.com/markets/planning/

 

And to be honest, I'm even wondering how genuine this proposal is. Part of me wonders if this is just posturing to lobby the state about the Shoreway exit and maybe trying to form some kind of TIF to fix up their local streets as part of something much more modest. The utter crappiness of the scheme (bargain basement design) looks a lot more like the other BS posturing proposals we've seen over the years (Lighthouse Landing, Davenport Bluffs) than it looks like the bona fide proposals (Citymark's WHD, NuCLEus, Flats East Bank, Vintage's District Park).

 

According the article, Jacobs is saying they'll likely first build the parking garage and dig out the moat for the apartment building in early 2018. Seems like it'll be three years minimum before they even get to actually building apartments and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Jacobs is tired of watching Wolstein strut up and down the Eastbank boardwalk with a wheelbarrow of money every weekend.

 

That being said the water feature has to go. A 20 story apartment building on the river would be fantastic and add a lot towards making the flats a fully functional neighborhood. I love the east bank but it's only restaurants and bars in the retail spaces so far.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a West Bank resident, I love the idea. I can't wait to see those parking lots go. I don't take the plan for much of anything though. For one, it's a master plan, so more of just a wish list place holder. Second, they say they're busy with other things this year, so wont even start planning and working with the city until next year, and no construction start until 2018. I personally love the water plan. It'd be great having some lagoons and slips carved off of the river. Dubai on the Cuyahoga?  :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "lagoon" concept is.. I'm searching for the right words..  ambitious? ridiculous?  I don't know.  But I too am not a fan of the layout here.  Why not just extend the street grid as it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of me kind of likes the harbor/moat idea and part of me hates it. I don't think it would work well as currently depicted, but I'm intrigued by extending water into the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a bit surprised to see the lack of "buzz"  after hearing about this West Bank proposed project  and checking into the forum to see what the experts thought - I guess, that, although exciting, right now, people aren't taking it too seriously, given a seven year time frame for realization.  I get that the design is in a very early stage and might be fun to talk about, but realistically is not worth giving too much energy to, at this point anyway.

Personally, I like the look of the main complex in the model.  Having said that, I've lived in a twin tower complex and a lot of apartments wind up with having a view of another tower, at pretty close range.  I now live in a high rise with an amazing view - but I'd be hesitant to buy an apartment in which my view was dominated by the "other tower" in a twin tower type design.  I'd prefer to see one combined tower rising from the complex - and, yes, it would be cool if that single tower became much taller than the buildings in the two tower model.  You could have the same number of units - but on one dynamic tower with each unit having a truly premium view, unobstructed by a neighboring twin tower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem with Cleveland developments.  Single developers have immense sites tied up.  Like nuCLEus, Citymark, lakefront, FEB.  it would be nice if multiple  developers competed for tenants in a one square block area of the WHD, versus one guy owning it forced to build some 300MM development that gets hung up in financing, blah blah.  Simply put, I wish not things were like 515, and not always master plans for redevelopment.  Then your left with FEB developments that are lifestyle centers in the city.  All for the redevelopment, just not in the single-developer scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No really sure how I feel about the site plan to be completely honest. The water plan is cool but the water surrounding the site kind of makes it seem secluded and off limits to non residents, sort of like a country club feel.

 

That's probably intentional and a selling point.  Considering the other developments being proposed, they are going to want to distinguish themselves somehow and that may be a good way.  If downtown continues to thrive the way it has been people from this area will venture out.  But some people want "home" to be a refuge from the world at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a marketing standpoint, how many people actually want to live downtown and have their boat right next to the building?  This is NE Ohio.  We have maybe 5 months of boating weather.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem with Cleveland developments.  Single developers have immense sites tied up.  Like nuCLEus, Citymark, lakefront, FEB.  it would be nice if multiple  developers competed for tenants in a one square block area of the WHD, versus one guy owning it forced to build some 300MM development that gets hung up in financing, blah blah.  Simply put, I wish not things were like 515, and not always master plans for redevelopment.  Then your left with FEB developments that are lifestyle centers in the city.  All for the redevelopment, just not in the single-developer scenario.

 

I agree. And made worse by a city that's so willing to vacate street right-of-way to make megablocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No really sure how I feel about the site plan to be completely honest. The water plan is cool but the water surrounding the site kind of makes it seem secluded and off limits to non residents, sort of like a country club feel.

 

That's probably intentional and a selling point.  Considering the other developments being proposed, they are going to want to distinguish themselves somehow and that may be a good way.  If downtown continues to thrive the way it has been people from this area will venture out.  But some people want "home" to be a refuge from the world at times.

 

I get your point, but I doubt it applies all that strongly to folks looking to make FWB their home. I think the water feature is aimed more at people that think it just looks cool and for those who want to dock their boat next to their home, more so than people who view it as some kind of security blanket. It's not like there is going to be some kind of draw bridge only the residents will be able to cross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a marketing standpoint, how many people actually want to live downtown and have their boat right next to the building?  This is NE Ohio.  We have maybe 5 months of boating weather.... 

Why not? That's like saying I shouldn't have a pool because there's only five months of swimming weather. I personally love having a pool and I'm sure those who love boating would prefer to be able to walk out their building and go instead of going to the storage facility and then out.It's a convenience. That said, I get the first part of your statement but Cleveland NEEDS to think outside of the box to become a new world class city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a marketing standpoint, how many people actually want to live downtown and have their boat right next to the building?  This is NE Ohio.  We have maybe 5 months of boating weather.... 

 

I'm guessing the people they're marketing this to live elsewhere in the winter months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surf, I guess nobody in Cleveland ever bought a convertible for the same reason, or even a boat for that matter?  Walking to work, then jumping right into my boat on a Friday after work (in season) seems like a pretty nice idea to me. 

 

Of course it never gets cold in Michigan...  http://www.boathousecondos.com/ Too bad though that these condos are a morass of structural problems & millions of dollars in litigation. 

Makes me wonder what the soil is like beneath the banks of our own fair river.  I suspect it's mostly toxic sludge, and about as stable as Irishtown bend.

 

 

[Edit 12:38pm] I was responding to the comment and the quote. Sorry, but indeed I mistakenly thought it was a misguided criticism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surf, I guess nobody in Cleveland ever bought a convertible for the same reason, or even a boat for that matter?  Walking to work, then jumping right into my boat on a Friday after work (in season) seems like a pretty nice idea to me. 

 

Of course it never gets cold in Michigan...  http://www.boathousecondos.com/ Too bad though that these condos are a morass of structural problems & millions of dollars in litigation. 

Makes me wonder what the soil is like beneath the banks of our own fair river.  I suspect it's mostly toxic sludge, and about as stable as Irishtown bend.

 

I think you are mistaking me for someone who is critical of this. I'm not. I think it's a great idea.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the articles, I'm not too excited about this at all at this point... I'll wait and see if more comes of it next year.  No need to critique the layout of what they're envisioning just yet since this is very early in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the slow volume of the Cuyahoga, I'd worry the "moat" would end up a foul, stinking mess before long.  The HOA would have to include monthly cleanups of logs, soda bottles and "beach whistles."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the moat perhaps a necessary component to allow for the docking of boats?  Perhaps the boat slips would be part of the lease?  I recall some early rendering of the FEB showing boat dockets, but that plan was apparently scrapped.  It seems that the Downtown community is lacking in such an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the moat perhaps a necessary component to allow for the docking of boats?  Perhaps the boat slips would be part of the lease?  I recall some early rendering of the FEB showing boat dockets, but that plan was apparently scrapped.  It seems that the Downtown community is lacking in such an option.

 

Having boat docks would be cool, but this "moat" concept is bizarre, blocks off public access, and it seams like it would be very expensive.

 

I think a better configuration would be to build canal slips with condos around them similar to these:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.7279358,12.5816206,3a,75y,92.73h,79.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPVfb6I-lxjxrggK7S7A8NA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.7253144,12.5810488,3a,60y,88.63h,90.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-OnBXj9HU7z-kPj2dGa8kw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the moat perhaps a necessary component to allow for the docking of boats?  Perhaps the boat slips would be part of the lease?  I recall some early rendering of the FEB showing boat dockets, but that plan was apparently scrapped.  It seems that the Downtown community is lacking in such an option.

 

Put winter storage in an adjacent building and make it part of the deal and they might be on to something.  I know at least one younger suburban couple who would move there in a heartbeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^There has to be some 'public access' not visible in these renderings.  Otherwise, what paths of ingress/egress would be available to the tenants who want to arrive by some means other than water?  Also, the only purpose for the lift bridge is to provide public access to the riverfront boardwalk.  I suspect there would also be some sort of boardwalk which would surround the building itself, perhaps allowing for mixed use if desired.  I think you can see that concept in the rendering.  As for the size, if they want to market to the higher end boating community, they would need something of sufficient size.  Very hard to navigate large  boats in tight spaces (no brakes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×