LlamaLawyer

Mostly agree, in that CLE Hts can't keep businesses open in its existing retail districts let alone support a new one. But there's still a decent amount of retail in Severance right now. I don't think there's anything wrong with a Severance redevelopment that keeps a retail aspect and mostly adds residential. Trying to revitalize it into Beachwood Place is an unrealistic, bad idea. But if you just infill a bunch of single-family homes and duplexes (i.e. @Terdolph's suggestion), you're basically creating a subdivision that is pretty isolated from amenities. I think keeping at least 10,000-20,000 sq. feet of retail is basically necessary to create a modern, quasi-walkable neighborhood.

This is an incredible win for the city and region, and I think most folks on this forum have the perspective to agree that is point number one. From a design perspective, I will wager most on this thread have stood in Public Square, looked northeast, and pictures a 1200’ tower. I know I have. That dream dies hard. So if the Jacobs lot ends up with an 11-story, 175’ building on it, a lot of people will still look at the site and picture the Ameritrust Tower. Maybe that’s just a part of Cleveland. We’re fixated on our past failures but also on our past and current successes.

Thanks as always for the great reporting, @KJP. Wish I had more specific info, but I know the project is going to be huge for the region.

Oh, good point. ?

If the deadline for the RFQ is in less than two weeks, that makes me want to think they’ve got a particular proposal they are considering and the RFQ process is more a formality/for appearances. Nobody could put together a serious microgrid proposal in 10 days.

Sounds like the soundtrack to a pretty cool project! Can’t wait ‘till the article!

Totally agree as far as the Weston-Citymark parcel is concerned. But as far as the Jacobs lot, don't you think it's a real missed opportunity to frame public square for decades if the Jacobs lot has something dinky on it?

If the the Jacobs lot gets something built on it that is not an iconic part of the skyline, that’s really a shame. I don’t think there is any other parcel downtown I would make such a statement about as I am generally for incremental change and believe the perfect is the enemy of the good. But that’s just such a visible and valuable piece of property. This is a happening-enough town that I am confident something really cool can be built there. If SHW builds a blasé 20-story building on the lot, I don’t think it is unreasonable to be disappointed.

Hopefully this is related to SHW, but at least we know somebody wants to build something there!! ?

I would think most of the grade drop is based on river erosion, not bedrock level. But you raise a good point. Every site is different.

Not very surprising or disappointing. Didn’t seem to be very busy and the food and atmosphere was nothing special. There are so many restaurants in that area it must be hard to stay afloat if you’re not one of the national brands or otherwise good, unique food.

I'm not highly knowledgeable on these sorts of tax credits, so maybe this is more common than I realize, but I really don't like the requirement in the TMUD bill that the TMUD tax credit has to be necessary for a project in order to be awarded. Millennia was talking the other day about how the TMUD credit is "necessary" for the Centennial development to get off the ground. Unfortunately, they HAVE to say that in order to contend for the credit. Seems like it just creates an incentive for large developers to whine and moan about how hard it is to get financing for their big project. I mean why WOULDN'T they try for the TMUD?

Well it's great to see development happening in Hough even though the neighborhood was cut out of any opportunity zone funding. Hopefully these developments integrate to improve the quality of living of the existing community instead of simply displacing people.

See I don't really agree. Of course 900-1100' is my optimistic dream, but think about the towers we have right now. The federal court building is 430' with a much bigger floor-plan than would be doable on the Jacobs lot. Also, the county courts have way more judges and way more cases than the federal court here. The current Justice Center is 420' on what I believe is also a bigger floor plan than the Jacobs lot could accommodate. If the County want to expand what is in the Justice Center, that's adding significant space.

I can see from Wikipedia that the total Justice Complex square footage is about 2.3 million. Does anyone know how much of that is the jail and how much is the courts tower, police hq, etc.? I'm trying to picture what a new court tower on Public Square would be like. Without looking at exact numbers, I would assume the Jacobs lot is a significantly smaller plate size than the current courts tower. I've got to say that (from a purely skyline perspective), a SHW decision to build near Breen could be a long-term blessing. I really think Cleveland real estate has hit the critical mass point that the major parking lots will be gone. It may not be in five years, but I would bet they will all have something on them in fifteen. Assuming that to be the case, how great would our city look with major development and a nice tower along the river, something (anything) on the warehouse lots, and a nice 900'-1100' iconic court tower (which SHW apparently wouldn't give us) on public square. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but why not after the past few years we have had! From a non-skyline perspective, I think PS is a moderately silly place for the court tower, but let's look at the hypothetical bright side.

https://www.crainscleveland.com/breaking-news/london-based-company-picks-cleveland-north-american-headquarters

I would seriously doubt Stark is humble enough to build a garage that would allow for future additions and NOT make that fact a visible part of his proposal.

Don’t jinx this! ?

Maybe I am missing something but is the AE7 proposal publicly available somewhere?

If retention is a big goal, I would think downtown Cleveland is the preference location by far.

Hopefully Jacobs/Weston realize that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush! Until a deal is put in ink, there are any number of little things that can derail it or blow it up. That's true even with a potential buyer far less dysfunctional than the county. If SHW makes an offer that Jacobs/Weston refuse, Jacobs/Weston aren't just gambling on whether or not they are getting a better deal, they are gambling on whether this property gets sold at all. Jacobs/Weston should make the first good deal they can, whether that's to SHW or the county (although I can't imagine the county process is functional enough to result in an actual deal in the next six months). I think to do anything else is to risk this property stays a parking lot for 5 more years.

Of course. I'm basing my comments on what @KJP has said that they're looking at roughly 40 stories and a campus as opposed to a 1500-foot monstrosity on the Jacobs lot that you could see from Sandusky. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as some on this forum when it comes to construction logistics and cost. My point is just that there doesn't seem to be a common-sense reason for SHW to say "well if we're doing 40 stories we might as well do 60." I'd love a 1000' tower on the Jacobs lot, but anything over 500' could be a really iconic fourth pillar around Public Square.

I love the concept, but I'm not sure how much sense that reasoning really makes. As Millennia recently found out, the CBD still isn't healthy enough to quickly absorb 400,000 sq. ft. of extra class A space. So unless SHW is interested in becoming a residential landlord or opening up a hotel in its new tower (which would be surprising but cool!) or unless SHW has a vision to pair with some creative developer for the extra 20 floors, the idea of building taller because you've already got caissons seems like a sunk-cost fallacy. On the other hand, what I don't know (and maybe someone could enlighten me) is would any money be saved by having, say, a 60-story tower and two 15-story towers, all with identical footprints, as opposed to a 40-story tower and two 25-story towers?

@KJP, why do you think SHW will acquire the property prior to construction starting?

I think it's the ugliest building downtown. But even if the facade won't be redone, I'd much rather it be renovated than torn down.