Clvlndr in LV

^^ Perhaps Fred didn't get the memo on "absolute openness and transparency".

Very nice DocBroc, congratulations and thank you for sharing. Hope its not to much to ask for updates as the landscaping progresses.

As much as I want to see Eaton stay in downtown I have reservations about their current leanings. Let me be clear before I continue that I truly hope they will stay anywhere in downtown C-land before relocating elsewhere. Eaton seems to be somewhat of a wild card that could effect other downtown projects. Honestly the "corporate campus" is my least favorite component of this. I'm disappointed that Eaton is even considering such an environment for their future HQ; that is to say , anything that can be duplicated outside of downtown. I don't want to get to far off topic but it seems to me the massing renderings don't offer much more space than what they currently occupy. Is their current HQ 100% Eaton? Are there other tenants in that Superior/12th St building? Another way to ask this question is will Eaton have to much influence, if they're a part of FEB and then need to expand in the future, on the development of the port property once the port relocates (crossing fingers)? All this is just another way of me saying I would rather see Eaton somewhere else downtown if they're not a necessary component for FEB moving forward.

^I still can't believe there's no department stores downtown. The May and Higbee locations are still ideal and I'll hold out hope that someday they'll be utilized for just that. Until then I'll just have to keep watching "A Christmas Story" over and over.

Thanks 3231 - this is good news indeed. I guess I asked to see if there were loose ends that could still derail it, but it sounds like all is in place.

I'm sorry if this has been discussed but, does this project move forward if Eaton doesn't commit and the northern component by the WFL is not included at this time? Also has financing been secured?

Take a good look at the photo of the buildings that previously occupied this site: FrqntFlyr post # 370 (btw great find). Notice the hole just behind these buildings (west), yes it's been there forever. So again I ask the question; why does this 21 storey structure need to be on the Jacobs site as opposed to the Stark site 1 block west? Why this hole instead of that hole? I've asked before and nobody bit so here's my Oliver Stone take on this question. Jacobs knows there are only so many anchor tenants to go around. If Wolstein gets his share, which seems likely, and Stark gets his well there's just not anything left in this go around of office development. So Jacobs approaches the city and says - don't sign off on the TIF unless Stark agrees to drop the office component of his project. You guys owe me for... (I'd make up something here if I was making the movie), and I want this now cause I'm not gettin any younger. The city folds like a cheap suit and Stark has no choice. By his own admission he needs public assistance to move "Pesht" forward. The rest of us are left saying things like; at least that hole is getting filled, to bad it's not a little taller. What do we do about it? I'm glad you asked. We pressure the city, because we can, to use their enormous powers. They force Jacobs to drop Hines and team up with Stark to build this tower on the southeast corner of "Pesht". As part of the development they must dig up the Jacobs lot and construct a 2 level parking garage underground. They cover it, and beautifully connect it to the northwest quadrant of P.S. creating an open and flowing rectangular space between "Pesht" and P.S. This only minimally alters traffic patterns of the square. In return Jacobs is guaranteed that even if it doesn't happen in his lifetime, his heirs will build a sublime tower on this site. High in the clouds on the pinnacle of this grand building stands a statue. It will be a statue of Mr. Jacobs overlooking his many accomplishments and, regardless of the tenants inside, the building will always be known as... wait for it.. The Jake. Now I must go pry my tongue from inside my cheek. BTW thanks guys for the info on the model

^^ 100% agreed. Build it right or don't build it at all. This btw is how I feel about most projects.

^^ I agree 'seicer', discrimination is simply the practice of hate. I got to tell you 'Ytown..', I'm all about civil discourse when it comes to matters of architecture or planning and the related subjects on this forum. I'm actually surprised that topics of this nature are fair game on this site. Since you've had the fortitude to state your position so honestly I'll do the same. I would like to invite you to actually stand upright, throw some salve and bandaids on those knuckles and admit that you actually do have a problem with gays. Should you ever decide to let your children out of the basement they'll see a great deal worse than two women, or two men in love with eachother; choosing to have a benevolent god, and an insignificant church and state sanctify that love. Anyway, don't worry they'll find those weapons of mass destruction by November.

^^ I'm sorry, this is only the second time I've seen this particular model for the Jacobs property; was it a Jacobs proposal? Regardless, if anyone knows, when was it first revealed and who did sponsor the work?

Have to say I've allways liked the four quadrant layout yet "Pete' proposing an east/west rectangular layout is very intriguing. The argument 'Pete' made concerning traffic flow seems very sound as well. Now that's an idea I would like to see in renderings to evaluate its' potential for improvement to the square. Welcome to the forum Pete from someone as new as you are.

Well this has become a very lively and interesting debate over the last 24 hrs. First let me say I understand the incredulity of some of the members (btw welcome badge). I don't believe their comments were any more sinister than disappointment and/or disbelief. That being said, I'm glad we're all a little calmer today. I want to touch on just a few of the points of contention. I don't believe there is any debate concerning the economic viability of a signature tower on this site. Without a large tenant, or two, financing would be impossible. If Jacobs/Hines were to somehow snap up some of the prospects out there locally it would be the end of FEB, and Starks' future build out and I don't think anyone wants that. Can we all agree that the success of a project to positively affect street life is a function of design and not of height; and yes I'm assuming that a monstrous tower hasn't gobbled up all the tenants from around the city at 9 only to regurgitate them at 5. The design of this building is something we can debate once there are more thorough renderings. This brings me to the interesting point that 'X' brought up and reminded me that this announcement comes on the heels of Starks abandoning a similarly sized component of his development just 1 block west. Obviously we don't know what sort of deals were made, if any, but on the surface it looks like Stark just got squeezed a little. Why do we need to sew up this little hole in our urban fabric more than the one right next to it? IMO no convincing argument has been made, or even attempted, for why this 21 storey structure should be on this site as opposed to the site immediately to the west. Conversely you might ask me why I'd rather see it in "Pesht" and I'll get to that shortly. During the time Society Center was getting underway and Ameritrust was proposed I had a conversation with a senior member of the planning dept and I asked for his opinion on these amazing projects. His response surprised me. He said he felt there never should have been any highrise development on Public Square, with the exception of course of Terminal Tower, and P.S. should of maintained its historical character. His thoughts were that the E. 9th st corridor and points east should be the domain for highrise construction and that the TT should stand alone in the skyline, worthy of its place. He then pointed out that once SOHIO ( which he described as an open-toed boot, an image I still get a kick from) was built, that changed the rules. He now felt that Clevelands future tallest structures should in fact frame the square and become the dominant focal point of the skyline. I still agree with him today. Yes there are of course other sites were future Key+ towers could be built, but I believe none more perfect than the site that's title to this thread. So if I had the choice, and I don't, I would nudge this little guy just a bit to the west. That would leave me just a little hope that if we plug the one hole now, we can later plug this one with something not just tall but truly special. Imagine if the announcement read a little more like - Jacobs/Hines have letter of intent from a large fortune 500 co. that plans to move there world headquarters to Cleveland and occupy 80% of a proposed 1000 ft tower on Public Square. Sure it sounds like wishful thinking but things like this have happened before. Do we think our city lacks the appeal for such a move? Are there no set of inducements to make that happen? Without speaking for others, I think most would be pleased. Even those who've said they'd rather not see another highrise on P.S. might begin to warm up to the idea, as I might warm up to the proposal in hand. BTW great job MayDay with the photoshop. Looks good..just not to special.

^ I understand it fills up a hole but it's a small hole and once "Pesht" is done, especially if it included an office tower component on the southeast side, it would seem much smaller. This just does not do justice to the potential of the location.

First let me say that since I no longer live in Cleveland my opinion of this proposal is certainly not as germane to this thread as those still residing there. It seems most of the comments thus far are in favor of a project of this size for this site. With that in mind I say congratulations, you're finally getting rid of that awful surface lot. IMHO this is just simply heart breaking. Since the cancellation of the Ameritrust Center, which I considered a very good KPF effort, I always held out hope that this critical site would be reserved for something truly grand. I even hoped it would be the site of Clevelands first, and probably only, supertall. I understand the idea of sustainable density; however placing this building on this site will not do anything more for downtown street life then if it was 1 block west. Again it's only my opinion but this building would be a better fit for the southeast corner of the "Pesht" development. I'm only speaking of height here. I'll reserve judgement on design for the time when more, and better, renderings are available. I don't like the sound of a 3 story parking podium on the "Pesht" side so seeing some street level elevations would be interesting. BTW, Jacobs had to partner with Hines for this...really?

^ I'm guessing Dimora's a big boy... glad to lob one over for ya. LOL

I'm guessing this announcement of a scaled back or phased development of "Pesht" is not the big announcement that was put off for the Las Vegas convention. Does anybody have more info on a timetable for that? I'm assuming that we're still talking about Starks/Jacobs and some TIF district yes?

Thanks all for the updates!! I'll take it as a good sign that the public seems fairly unanimous in its support for the Mall site. What I don't take as a good sign is that only one commissioner was present. Maybe that shouldn't be a concern but honestly do they have much bigger things on their plates these days?

Agreed, a Red Herring indeed; however those stinky bastards beg the question why; in this particular case why so bent on the TC site? I know this is speculation since no decision is made but most here seem to see the writing on the wall. Sounds like a few of the posters here will be attending the public meeting tonight; hope you'll share as many details as possible. Thanks to KJP and clvlndr for the welcome. Sorry about the name thing clvlndr... born and raised in Cleveland and now live in Las Vegas, didn't dig to hard for a name.

Thank you and I'm sure I will.

I am new to this forum and would like to take a moment to thank all the participants for their insightful commentary and informative posts. A special thanks to MayDay for his tireless efforts on this forum, Cleveland Skyscrapers.com, and his many threads and posts at Skyscraperpage.com which is how I came across this great site. Glenville: I appreciate your view on the E.55th St. site however Cleveland is not in a position to sufficiently develop around it for quite some time. Those of you that believe a midtown like Atlanta would soon follow are not considering how much demand for office space, hotel rooms, and retail it would take to create such a place. A Place visitors are impressed with and are eager to return. Cleveland must focus its resources and demand downtown. The noble vision of a bustling midtown will only be realized once a thriving downtown needs to expand. This might be a good idea for the next generation CC, they don't last forever. Forest City: Shame on you. You know the Tower City site is best used for just that, towers. Framing that iconic tower you're restoring should be office, hotel, and yes even high rise residential towers (public access to the river of course). Look back at Civic Vision 2000 and start pushing that with the zeal of your CC efforts. Offer that crazy lease to a major department store and anchor that little mall of yours. Certainly a prestigious developer like you can bring in anchor office tenants from outside the Cleveland area; I hear Centene out of St. Louis is looking for new digs and I'm sure there is more out there. Keep in mind that the CC may not be as effective at resurrecting Tower City as your own earlier visions of a large scale mixed-use development. Cleveland leadership: I don't want to sound harsh when I say this but, you are failing your community. If you read this forum, and you should, you will find that you are blamed for many of the failures of this city to realize big ideas. It might be said that it's the price that all elected officials pay but when the perception is that the failure is due to you serving your own personal interests, that's a problem. Turn this perception around and quickly find a way to use the MALL SITE! If you ask your own professionals (planning dept staff) I would be surprised if they did not all agree. It is centrally located to all a visitor to Cleveland would want to see and will leave a positive lasting impression. Even Tower City is only a 3 wood away(play it like a dog leg right, bounce it off Superior and it's goin right through the front door). Sorry, a bit long for my first post.