PaxtonMarley

The article mentions closing Burke as a possibility in preparing the bid. It comes up now and then, but considering that Amazon selected Crystal City based in part on its proximity to National Airport, having a downtown airport is, in my mind, more of an asset than a liability. Besides it's not like we don't have 100+ acres of unused and underused property all around downtown alone.

The main tower does look pretty awesome, but judging by the surrounding buildings, it may not have put us in the 1000-foot club.

The university / educational opportunities and the "micro-grid" actually made Cleveland's bid stronger than previously thought. Keep in mind that six months ago, the known details of the bid were limited to old office space in Tower City and free transit passes, so this bid is actually impressive. I didn't even have a problem with the financial incentives; the open secret is that pretty much every big business or employer has some sort of tax deferment or incentive tied to it. (Even dollar stores, undeniably the lowest tier of chain retail, have been known to exact subsidies to open locations.) The only real problem was that the whole HQ2 selection process was essentially a pageant where the winner was known well in advance and that all the other bids (Sun Belt and Rust Belt alike) never got a fair shot no matter how exciting or attractive. I was living in Northern Virginia during the selection process and it was very widely expected that Bezos wanted a D.C. area location, as he had other business ties and a residence there. And that's okay, I think Cleveland really dodged a bullet here, as we weren't dragged through a rigged bidding process--unlike our friends in Columbus--and even if we somehow won the bid, dealing with the reality that all those jobs would probably not be created.

Agreed 100%. With the glut of available indoor and street level retail space there is no way such a project would make sense. I suppose that the good thing about all these dead malls in major cities, anyone can see the warning signs of what this project would become.

The article doesn't say but I wonder how much of The Avenue space will be used versus all that space in the Post Office Plaza or the adjacent buildings.

I agree with the other comments above. Seeing a tech hub at TC could bring some jobs and perhaps build some new local businesses. But I am concerned about having this combination of incompatible uses at Tower City (e.g. an urban casino, a Rtiz Carlton, apartments, and now the tech hub). It reminds me of those dead suburban malls that stick municipal offices and call centers in vacant department stores. Not exactly a place where I want to spend much time or money. But who knows how it will turn out.

$600 million for a 100%, 15-year tax abatement for only 50 jobs doesn't sound like a particularly great deal to me. I guess New Albany can brag about landing Google or Facebook hubs, but I'd take a thousand blue collar jobs at an Amazon distribution center any day.

I am excited to see the new project at TC. Please keep us posted when you can. As for what to do there, I have no real right to say. But what I always liked about Tower City was that it was a large public--even civic--space. Clearly they never got the retail mix correct, which is why we are where we are. But seeing it partitioned into a tech hub when there are literally dozens of other more appropriate spaces to do that would be a loss of a civic amenity.

Depends, isn't Quicken Loans still in there? I know they get bent out of shape about whatever mortgages they may be discussing.

I am moving back to Cleveland--yes, I said moving back to Cleveland--next month; I'll check it out.

Gotta admit, those Hudson folks at least have a cool website. https://www.hudsonholdings.com/

And don't forget May Company and The Beacon farther down Euclid. It's a lot of great space coming online, and it shows a lot of residential interest in our market. Hate to be a Debbie Downer, but I wish we could lure some new HQ to Cleveland to help out the office side of things.

How true. I spent many hours at the Rand McNally store. Not just the Tower City one either.

And Finally, Here's the Outside:

Now, Here's the Inside:

I dug out my copy of the original mall directory for Tower City Center / The Avenue. With its grand opening on March 29, 1990, the mall had very upscale tenants like Barneys New York, Gucci, and Fendi. For a short while it looked like Downtown Cleveland was going to be the region's top shopping destination. Following the fire sale of the buildings and the current lackluster tenant mix, I can only assume the old brochure would be regarded like an embarrassing yearbook photo. Unfortunately, I had to shrink the images to fit on the screen. If anyone is interested in the full-size scans, let me know. Here's the Map Cover:

Newest Transit Map: This is a map I made of the Lorain County Transit (LCT) system with bus routes effective 2018. It was completed in the style of the GCRTA system map and has many schools, housing developments, shopping centers, and county offices. I did leave some space on the map for new proposed routes to West Lorain and Avon/Cleveland. I hope you all like it.

Quick question Ken: Will the new Elyria platform be able to accept high speed rail, or higher speed rail? Even though the 3C and Ohio Hub plans have been shelved, it would be smart to have a least one station ready to go, once the political climate changes.

I have a feeling he's thinking about how dreadfully awful his basketball team is. But this is the intriguing question. On the one hand he's the guy saving downtown Detroit. Will Cleveland get anything even approaching that level of his attention? When it comes to Downtown, Bedrock--that's Danny Gilbert's real estate arm--seems to be limited to the Tower City complex so far. But judging by his Detroit acquisitions, I don't see many buildings in Cleveland that fit what he would be looking for. Modified: He also purchased the old May Company building. (Thanks Ken.) Now outside of Downtown, his people renovated Thistledown, which may not be the choice I would have made since the Seminoles dumped all that money into Northfield Park.

I agree with your hunch. Cities that still have downtown retail scenes are subsidizing them. That's how it's done. Foot traffic is created by drawing people in-- the market for downtown retail is more than just downtown. Always has been, always will be. TC collapsed after its anchor stores left and the Galleria (inexplicably) never had anchors. Not enough draw. Our systemic problems are self-inflicted. Cleveland has already invested a fortune in downtown retail subsidies but unfortunately the result is Steelyard Commons, which contains all the anchor stores Tower City would ever need. That's a fair point, but I see Steelyard as serving a fundamentally different market than Tower City. If I live or work Downtown, I am not likely to hop in my car to drive to Steelyard on my lunch break. Conversely, if I am driving on a particular day, I am not likely to deal with the hassles of going downtown and park my car in a paid garage. The barriers of parking or retrieving a car are quite high in both time and cost.

This is the plan I was referring to. Put Horizon Group Properties in a room with Dan Gilbert and let them figure this thing out for Tower City, not on the Lakefront.... Judging by the current state of downtown retail, we don't need to build more of it. But if Horizon wants to purchase and re-lease the Galleria, they should definitely have at.

The in-line retail spaces don't seem large enough for anchors / junior anchors. Unless they spanned two floors like Gucci / J. Crew did back in the 1990s. As a side note, despite Forest City's spotty development record, I am pleased with how much money and effort they put into the Terminal Tower complex. They really lost their shirts on it, but it wasn't for lack of trying. And considering that that so many downtown malls built around the same time (St. Louis Centre, Columbus City Center, etc...) have failed or are on life support, Tower City is something to be happy about.

You may be right on that. They were trying to land the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame on that site too, so I really don't think they had it all figured out. Also, judging by some of those renderings and models they were trying to turn that segment of Huron Ave into a mini-Fifth Avenue. Sticking to the Lakefront and Euclid Avenue was definitely the smart thing to do.

If that's accurate, Nordstrom Rack would be a good draw, along with H&M. But could you imagine if it really were a Nordstrom? Forest City would have sold their grandmother to bring Nordstrom to Tower City. I do recall they inked out a deal to bring in Neiman Marcus; that probably would not have turned out well. As for parking, you don't really need free parking, as you've already got what--90K office workers--already in the downtown area, plus another 20K permanent residents.

How Tall is the Terminal Tower Anyway? So, a few weeks ago, I wrote a fun little email to the Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) on this very matter. The CTBUH lists the Terminal Tower at 708 feet but the flagpole increases the overall height to 771 feet. (UrbanOhio seems to go with the taller height too.) The CTBUH's entry for the Key Tower's includes its spire, but the fact that the Terminal Tower's flagpole has a functional purpose causes its height to be discounted. It is an oddity that certain structures are included but others aren't. And in fact, there is no real rhyme or reason to it. I was able to swallow the controversy on the height of the Willis Tower's (fka Sears Tower), but when One World Trade Center was completed, its rather similar pinnacle was definitely included. So less I am missing something, even esoteric organizations like CTBUH are as susceptible to global politics as any other organization. So here's my letter. ================ Good Morning - I appreciate the work that your organization does and I have been following the CTBUH for many years. But I kindly request the CTBUH reevaluate the height of the Terminal Tower / Tower City building in Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. Per the CTBUH database (link attached below), the official height is 708 feet, but the flagpole increases to a total height to 771 feet. The issue stems from the CTBUH's application of its definition of "architectural height." The CTBUH has been consistent in its reasoning that placing a flagpole or antenna at the top of a building should not increase its architectural height but spires are included. I posit that a flagpole should be included in a building's architectural height, if the other qualifications of calling said flagpole a spire have also been met. The term spire is defined as a conical or pyramidal termination of a tower. This commonly-used definition does not opine on the presence of a flag. Applying that definition, if a flag were placed at the top of a building's previously defined as a spire (e.g. the Petronas Towers), we can safely assume the CTBUH would not redefine that building's architectural height. Conversely, if a tower never had the flag but had a "spire-like" pole, the CTBUH would have defined the pole as a spire and included it in its architectural height. So in other words, the mere addition or subtraction of the piece of cloth, not the spire or pole, becomes a definitive element in determining a building's height. Such an outcome, from this layperson's point of view, cannot be logically reconciled. The Terminal Tower provides an element of intrigue here. The long-established rule on flagpoles was clearly intended for flat roof structures rather than the addition of flags on spires. The Terminal Tower clearly fits into the later and not the former. I do kindly request, CTBUH look into the matter, and hopefully reevaluate its decision. I thank you for your time and attention. Paul J. Meissner Arlington, Virginia