Hts121

Aren't we always pushing for street life over asthetics (i.e. the skyscraper debate). I love the "wall" on Euclid as much as the next urban enthusiast, but the wall itself does not create the street life/activity we desperately need. Euclid is plenty dense regardless of any demo of Dollar. This proposal to demo Dollar (not a big loss IMHO) and put in pedestrian access from Euclid to Prospect makes that part of the CBD more "walkable". Also, believe it or not UO'ers, green space is attractive to many prospective tenants of CBD condos/apartments. The hole in the wall that Price is going to create will easily be overlooked 10 years from now when the skyscraper so many want is put right to the east of 668 on that surface lot. :)

I believe that picture is of old 720 Euclid - the Hippodrome Theatre - which was demolished in the 70's (I believe) to make way for the parking garage and surface lot just east of 668 Euclid. It is definitely too tall and not wide enough to be 668.

A lot of the people that make the "suburbanite" comments are the ones that grew up in Gates Mills / Pepper Pike and are just spending a couple years pretending to be urban dwellers.

If I ever want a quick recap of "downtown cleveland building projects" I just... http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=97396 :wink:

One thing I take from this announcement and Stark's recent scale down is that collaberation in that part of the CBD amongst those two developers is evident.... now. Anyone remember Stark's harsh words when a tower on this lot was talked about last year? Seems like the kids found a way to both play in the sandbox. I'll take the project. Putting aside asthetic enjoyment, the 'functional purpose' of skyscrapers in my book arises out of a necessity Cleveland does not have due to the surface lots that would surround any supertall that Jacobs built there. Key was great and I love looking at it but it hardly spawned the further development that the current projects all around the CBD have the potential to do. Bring in a NEW fortune 500 or convince Progressive to leave the burbs and my tune changes but only to the extent that I would much prefer a well-designed 200m tower than a "supertall".

McCleveland - you're assuming because it has the same amount of stories as 55 PS that it will be the same height. That very well may not be the case. For example, the Stokes Courthouse is 5 stories less but well over a 100 feet taller than the McDonald Investment building. Ceiling height, especially in the lobby and "penthouse", could play a major role in increasing/decreasing the height of RJ's proposed tower as compared to other towers containing the same amount of stories. On the flip side, Reserve Square has 4 more stories than 55 PS but is 30 feet shorter in height. I am going to side with those who argue that a supertall would frustrate what appears to be a consesus goal among downtown developers of density. A dense, vibrant downtown must come first.... then we can get our hopes up for another 200m+ skyscraper. For those who saw the rendering the in the PD this morning, what is that in the background (lower left portion of the rendering).... perhaps phase 1 of Pesht?? Hard to tell because it does not indicate what angle it is taken from, although I assume it is showing the angle from Superior coming through PS.

Cuyahoga County Appeals Court has issued a decision in favor of the cities........ the decision was 2-1 in Cleveland's favor.

Some thoughts (errr... speculation) came to mind when reading Stark's recent quotes from Vegas. Unlike Stark's "revised" WHD plan, I assume that any project on the Jacobs property will require large tenants. It seems that FEB already has all the large office tenants its needs with Tucker Ellis and Ernst Young (Eaton would be icing on the cake to Wolstein) and not a whole lot more office space to go around unless the project is expanded once again. Stark pretty much admitted that the large tenants have no interest in the first phase of his project. So..... It seems there are still two huge tenants up in the air with expiring leases - Squires Sanders and Baker Hostetler, both in need of over 200,000 sq feet. Could Stark's admission be a sign that those firms may be getting close with Jacobs? Could this project be done in time given the upcoming expiration of their current leases at Key and 200 PS, respectively? I highly doubt that either of them has any interest in K&D's E 9 location which would only take them further away from the Courts (Federal and State). Personally, I would prefer them to stay where they are so that those two buildings (especially 200 PS) stay somewhat filled. But as any UD enthusiast, I always welcome anything that will turn such a key piece of land into SOMETHING other than a surface lot.

Let me guess... 1919 E 55 would be the attached hotel? :| Since even the commissioners are just throwing spaghetti against the wall at this point, how about Scranton Penninsula for the CC with a hotel and the MM on the site directly behind TC?.... all this connected with walkways of course. Is Scranton even a legitimate option for a building of that size? My official vote still remains for the current site with the MM and hotel on Ontario but the chances of that happening seem to be dwindling rapidly. I say either keep it close to downtown (even if it is too expensive to put it in the CBD) or more toward UC despite the apparently undesired positive impact it would have on Cle Hts.... (Hagan cannot truly believe that the conventioners would wander away from UC to spend money in EC). Bottom line is we need to showcase our City to these visitors better than E 55 and Chester.... something that will make them want to come back. The areas in the immediate proximity of UC and downtown are the only options that do the trick IMHO.

It's the type of design that will mesh with the direction UC is taking. Better there than the CBD.

Hopefully the County building would be leveled as well. Also, Litt makes no mention of a new hotel. The rendering of this concept that I have seen in Mayday's project rundown seems to have a hotel attached to the south side of the MM. Of course, the Marriot is already right there.

One of the two big law firms??..... Or both??? (Both of them dwarf Tucker Ellis in terms of space needed). Given proximity to the courthouse, WHD would be prime location for both Baker and Squires. How about the County??? Bottom line - there still are some major tenants out there to land but timetable to break ground in time to get them on board is evaporating rapidly.

Hollywood

That's funny. I recall seeing a rendering of the office building, unless I confused that with another building. Channel 3 News flashed a bigger version of the second rendering you posted that included the "E & Y" office tower. With regard to that tower, I don't understand the pessimism re location. The above quote is correct that the location really is a merger between the WHD and the Flats. It is up the hill, not down on the river and that makes a big difference for a firm such as Tucker Ellis in terms of walkability to the courthouse. I just hope they do something to make transversing Lakeside into the WHD a little less hazardous.

I don't know if anybody else caught this but Channel 3 News gave a very brief glimpse of the rendering during its 11 pm broadcast last night. Previewing the upcoming segment just before commercial, the rendering flashed on the screen. Then, after the commercial they had a segment on it and talked as if they were showing the rendering but only video of the present state of FEB was shown (i.e. the building that were to be demolished this week).... no rendering. My guess is that Channel 3 got an earful from somebody during the commercials that caused them to not show the rendering during the full segment.... unbeknownst to the anchors. Nevertheless, luckily I was watching on my DVR cable box and was able to rewind and freeze. The rendering, as expected, is the same in all material aspects as was posted on here a month or so ago but with the architechtural details included. The office tower seems like a mix between 55 Public Sq and Mayday's April fool's Erieview renovation. Very glassy (shiny) with horizontal window rows. Most of the rest of the development is in the brick style that we saw in earlier renderings. Probably not as dense as some would have liked, but probably more aesthetically pleasing to those that will actually want (and can afford) to live there than what people on here desire from an urban planning standpoint.

I would actually hope that it is NOT taller than Key. I would LOVE another skyscraper but I think that something between the size of Erieview and 200 PS makes the most sense for the CBD, both practically and aesthetically speaking. I also wonder whether we are getting a little overzealous with hotels.

Rumor has it that the 8th District panel will decide (2-1) in favor of the City.

Lucas County (Toledo) Court of Appeals announced its decision in favor of the cities. That makes it 8 courts of common pleas in favor of the state and unions vs. 3 appeals courts in favor of the cities. This is weird.

Looks like that battle for EY is not yet decided. I believe EY wants its own building. Both Stark and Price can provide that. Stark can make strong pitches for Baker and Squires due to location. However, Stark better get rolling fast if he wants to land any of those office tenants. I don't see reeling in retail as a problem.

Kick the Navy out of their spot and put it there.

That is overly optomistic. I think that 25,000 in 7-10 is realistic. And yes... we are currently at 10,000.

IIRC, no.... the project line does not extend east on Euclid past the Rotunda. It also appears that there are no new plans for across Prospect. Somebody can correct me if I am wrong, or add to the below, but I believe the entirety of the project is: 1. New 13 story office building on NE corner of Prospect and E 9th. 2. Rehab the AT Tower into 150 room botique hotel with Residential units on the higher floors. 3. Transform the Rotunda into a ballroom for the hotel.

What is the plan for the properties on Euclid directly to the East of the AT Tower??? Are they part of the deal. I have always been disturbed by the idea of demolishing 1010 Euclid.... even moreso than the AT Tower.

And A LOT of their 6,000+ employees do not work downtown but rather at the individual branches. Completely a guess, but I would say that Key would probably be able/want to keep about half of those employees. They are not going to just close all the branches and fire ALL the employees. A good majority of the branches will become Key branches in hopes of retaining the customer base that NCB has. Some of the branch buildings might get sold to other banks. E.g., when Tops sold to Giant Eagle, Zagara's took over a couple of their locations (such as Richmond/Monticello). I just really hope the Federal Gov't steps in here. However, with our luck, NCB will be sold and the government will wait for some southeastern bank to get in trouble before lending a hand. There are other areas of the country that could easily sit back and watch a couple thousand jobs leave their economy.... but not us.

Key's goal is to eliminate competition. The article is right in that it would be terrible news for Cleveland.