Standard Building near Public Square will become apartments, after sale to Weston, Inc. (gallery)

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A downtown Cleveland building constructed by the nation's oldest labor union for country's first labor bank could become 287 apartments, under plans being considered by local developer Weston, Inc.

 

Weston expects to buy the Standard Building, near Public Square, in a deal set to close today. The sale will be the first in the history of the 90-year old office building, which was built by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen and has housed the union's offices since 1989.

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/06/standard_building_near_public.html#incart_river_default

I've always loved the exterior design of this building. Terracotta, right?

Got to give Crain's their due, though. They had this story first, although Michelle has more detail in her piece (above).....

 

Is Weston Inc. preparing to acquire the Standard Building?

By STAN BULLARD

Originally Published: June 27, 2014 1:28 PM  Modified: June 30, 2014 7:11 AM

 

Weston Inc., the Warrensville Heights-based real estate concern, may be preparing to add the largest building yet — the 21-story Standard Building — to its recent spate of downtown Cleveland acquisitions.

 

Such a name would be appropriate for a company to own the structure, as it pairs the building’s name with its address on Ontario Street.

 

A Weston play for the 1925-vintage building has been widely rumored for months among downtown Cleveland real estate insiders and developers, perhaps incorporating adjoining properties to accommodate the lack of parking on the block.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140627/FREE/140629796

I've always loved the exterior design of this building. Terracotta, right?

 

But that south side...ugh!! I'd like to hear more about Weston's ideas here.

But that south side...ugh!! I'd like to hear more about Weston's ideas here.

 

I wonder if they could cut through the south wall and put windows in.  You would think it would enhance the value of the new apartments coming in.  It would certainly end that longtime Public Square visual eyesore.

Or add a giant Menchies billboard like the one on the Stark building

 

 

But that south side...ugh!! I'd like to hear more about Weston's ideas here.

 

I wonder if they could cut through the south wall and put windows in.  You would think it would enhance the value of the new apartments coming in.  It would certainly end that longtime Public Square visual eyesore.

That could cause them to lose the historic tax credits though.

This is very good news if it happens. I have for a long time thought that the Standard Building would be a great building to convert to apts. It would be a plus for the two hotels within a few hundred feet; the residents could be eating at the restaurants inside the Marriott and Hilton. And the SB is considered in the Warehouse District, so again move business for the WHD also.

 

Now, where are the office tenants going to move too? And how much of the SB is currently occupied? I tried to research how much office space is in the SB, but could not find it in any of my Cleveland books. Only that it's a 20 story building opened in 1925.

 

What if all the tenants in the SB would move into the same new office building, say a new 40+ building on the Jacobs land on Public Square. Now that would be a win, win for Cleveland.

 

:clap:

I've always wanted to see a Living Wall installed on the Standard's backside.

The PD article states that the Standard Building is 45% occupied. As for the effect that this conversion, and many others would have on the downtown office market, see the general downtown office market thread at:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=4266.0

 

I also wrote a blog posting this morning regarding this issue:

http://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2014/06/downtown-cleveland-apartment.html

Once this development is complete, with exception to the Weston parking lots, all properties between the River and East 12 street on Lakeside, St. Clair and Rockwell have 24 hour connectivity!

@KJP

 

Yes, I was disappointed to see that very speculative Crain's item on Friday afternoon. I have been working on a story for a while but had promised to wait until this morning to publish it. That's why you didn't see something from The Plain Dealer before now.

 

C'est la vie!

 

Michelle

OK, "La vie!"

@KJP

 

Yes, I was disappointed to see that very speculative Crain's item on Friday afternoon. I have been working on a story for a while but had promised to wait until this morning to publish it. That's why you didn't see something from The Plain Dealer before now.

 

C'est la vie!

 

Michelle

Yours are always worth the wait!

Wow, so this would remove 400,000 sf of office space from the market. As well as remove 180,000 sf of vacancy. I wonder how many current office tenants would stay downtown if this project goes through.

I had no idea this building was actually so big.

 

As for what this does to the office market, that's interesting.  If B and C supplies tighten up, we should see rents increase in that market.  It may force some office users out of Downtown, and/or put a halt to the conversion from office to residential and hotel of these spaces (higher occupancy+higher rent making the risk and expense of conversion less worthwhile).  I'd love to be optimistic and believe that it may lead to new Downtown office construction, but I doubt it.  That happens when the top of the market gets tight.

The conversion of this building to residential is small compared to what is already happening -- the equivalent of THREE KEY TOWERS is being converted to residential downtown between now and 2017 -- before this conversion was announced. SOURCE: http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140615/SUB1/306159983&template=mobile#ATHS

 

Rents have already risen $1 per square foot over the past year in the Class C market (same source). I hear what you're saying about the top of the market usually driving the construction of new office product. But this is a very unusual circumstance in which building inventories are quickly and substantially shifting over -- old to residential, new to office. So the effect is that old offices will ultimately be traded for new offices. That is what is affecting the Class A market -- the bottom. No one builds new Class C offices.

 

Once these conversions take place between now and 2017 (not including the Huntington, Garfield and whatever K&D is thinking of buying next), the Class A market will tighten up and rents will rise further. So either the Class C office users are moving over to Class B (which is also being lost to apartment conversions) and to Class A downtown, or we'll lose them to the suburbs.

 

EDIT: of course, we should be discussing this at http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=4266.0 where you will find such a discussion is already well underway.

OK, "La vie!"

 

Oh, you're baaad!!  :whip:

The conversion of this building to residential is small compared to what is already happening -- the equivalent of THREE KEY TOWERS is being converted to residential downtown between now and 2017 -- before this conversion was announced. SOURCE: http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140615/SUB1/306159983&template=mobile#ATHS

 

Rents have already risen $1 per square foot over the past year in the Class C market (same source). I hear what you're saying about the top of the market usually driving the construction of new office product. But this is a very unusual circumstance in which building inventories are quickly and substantially shifting over -- old to residential, new to office. So the effect is that old offices will ultimately be traded for new offices. That is what is affecting the Class A market -- the bottom. No one builds new Class C offices.

 

Once these conversions take place between now and 2017 (not including the Huntington, Garfield and whatever K&D is thinking of buying next), the Class A market will tighten up and rents will rise further. So either the Class C office users are moving over to Class B (which is also being lost to apartment conversions) and to Class A downtown, or we'll lose them to the suburbs.

 

EDIT: of course, we should be discussing this at http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=4266.0 where you will find such a discussion is already well underway.

You're right, they don't build class C space...downtown.  However, there is an oversupply of it in the burbs.  Hopefully the reduced class c space in the city doesn't drive these businesses to the suburbs.

Admittedly, the ramifications of this project spread beyond it in a big way. Heck, I was the one last Friday/Saturday wondering why we weren't recognizing this fact and discussing it. So that's why I pointed people over the weekend to the general downtown offices thread (and continue to):

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=4266.0

 

Standard Building fetches $3.9 million in sale to Weston, Inc. for apartment conversion

 

"CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A downtown Cleveland office building owned by a labor union for the last 90 years changed hands Tuesday for $3.9 million.

Real estate records show that Weston, Inc., a Warrensville Heights developer, closed its purchase of the Standard Building on Tuesday morning. The Plain Dealer reported Monday that Weston was acquiring the 21-story building for an apartment conversion that could start next year."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/07/standard_building_fetches_39_m.html#incart_river_default

 

 

 

Note: Wow, 3.9 million is insanely low but I assume the Union couldn't maintain it and had to take what it could get.  I wonder what the effect on the comp calculations will be because of such a low selling price in the heart of the CBD.

Michelle had the presence of mind to give us a picture of what a southern view would look like if there could be some way to replace the blank wall on the Standard with windows. From what I have read about the tax credits you are not able to alter the architectural integrity of the building. I guess you could argue that a blank wall has no 'architectural integrity'. Didn't 668 put in some windows on the west side of the building, also there were some windows cut in the alley of the Breuer project I think.

Michelle had the presence of mind to give us a picture of what a southern view would look like if there could be some way to replace the blank wall on the Standard with windows. From what I have read about the tax credits you are not able to alter the architectural integrity of the building. I guess you could argue that a blank wall has no 'architectural integrity'. Didn't 668 put in some windows on the west side of the building, also there were some windows cut in the alley of the Breuer project I think.

 

If that is true about the tax credits in this case, then the tax credit program has to loosen up a bit.

 

edit - well, this could be an obstacle. A comment from cleveland.com:

 

the elevators are up against the back wall so you cant put windows there because there are no offices there

OK well, then there's that...

Michelle had the presence of mind to give us a picture of what a southern view would look like if there could be some way to replace the blank wall on the Standard with windows. From what I have read about the tax credits you are not able to alter the architectural integrity of the building. I guess you could argue that a blank wall has no 'architectural integrity'. Didn't 668 put in some windows on the west side of the building, also there were some windows cut in the alley of the Breuer project I think.

 

If that is true about the tax credits in this case, then the tax credit program has to loosen up a bit.

 

edit - well, this could be an obstacle. A comment from cleveland.com:

 

the elevators are up against the back wall so you cant put windows there because there are no offices there

 

You know I thought that was the case from being in the building so often but was not sure, so I held back commenting as posters constantly lamented the blank wall.

We can always incorporate the rectory (?) into a much taller, multi-use, more iconic design.... correct?  :-D

 

 

If your prject has historic tax credits you have to wait seven yeats before altering the building.

It's probably not worth the cost and effort but couldn't they use an elevator with glass walls and still put in windows?  Would make for a really fun elevator ride.

If your prject has historic tax credits you have to wait seven yeats before altering the building.

 

Isn't the section I highlighted in green offices for the Old Stone Church?

If your prject has historic tax credits you have to wait seven yeats before altering the building.

 

Isn't the section I highlighted in green offices for the Old Stone Church?

 

Yes. And before those offices were built mid-20th century (100 years after the church was built), the Standard Building would have added a new structure in that space and possibly even to where the church is.

 

But I suspect a large mural will be the first phase of any plan to make the south wall more attractive. A building expansion would probably have to come later.

Standard Building, Drury Plaza, other Northeast Ohio projects win state tax credits for preservation

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/12/standard_building_drury_plaza.html#incart_river

Win some and lose a big one: Cleveland-area preservation projects receive funding, Cincinnati takes main prize

By STAN BULLARD

Originally Published: December 18, 2014 2:06 PM  Modified: December 18, 2014 3:23 PM

 

Conversions of the old Cleveland Board of Education Building to a Drury Plaza Hotel, and of the Standard Building near Public Square to a mixed-use project with apartments, both received maximum $5 million state Historic Preservation Tax Credit awards from the Ohio Department of Development Services.

 

Renovation of the former Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. headquarters building in Akron to residential, office and institutional use, also received a $5 million allocation, the state said in an announcement today, Thursday, Dec. 18.

 

Industrial Realty Group, the developer of the Goodyear project, had applied for both a $5 million allocation and for a $25 million in the state’s new, larger program for project with catalytic economic impact.

 

MORE:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20141218/FREE/141219830/win-some-and-lose-a-big-one-cleveland-area-preservation-projects

I heard from a good source that full-on construction will start in June. 

You're right, they don't build class C space...downtown.  However, there is an oversupply of it in the burbs.  Hopefully the reduced class c space in the city doesn't drive these businesses to the suburbs.

 

And unfortunately, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen is moving out of this building and to Independence...

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen to move HQ to Independence

Originally Published: March 20, 2015 4:21 PM  Modified: March 20, 2015 5:01 PM

 

Conversion of office buildings to apartments is about to cost downtown Cleveland the national headquarters of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, which has purchased an office building in Independence.

 

Through an affiliate, BLET Thursday, March 19, acquired for $1.8 million the office building at 7061 E. Pleasant Valley Road, according to Cuyahoga County land records.

 

BLET sold its 21-story Standard Building, 1370 Ontario St., July 1, 2014, to Warrensville Heights-based Weston Inc., for $3.9 million. Weston, an industrial and office building owner, plans to convert part of the multitenant office building to apartments and retain part of it as office space.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20150320/FREE/150329969/brotherhood-of-locomotive-engineers-and-trainmen-to-move-hq-to

I've been concerned that the shift of office to residential may drive some people to the burbs.  I know my building in independence is offering rents extremely cheap due to the vacancy rates along Rockside.  It's truly a "ghost town" there compared to what it was 10 to 15 years ago. 

I've been concerned that the shift of office to residential may drive some people to the burbs.  I know my building in independence is offering rents extremely cheap due to the vacancy rates along Rockside.  It's truly a "ghost town" there compared to what it was 10 to 15 years ago. 

 

I've done some work in Independence. The only pro I can think of was seeing coyotes run across the parking lot every now and then.

It will be hard for downtown to retain some businesses which want to own their HQ. I believe the company that sold 75 Public SQ is also headed to Independence. Many suburban markets offer cheaper ownership opportunities.  However I think a lot of the displaced tenants will remain downtown. Many of these tenants are small litigation firms which value proximity to the courts. Plus there is still a ton of space downtown at the $15-16 dollar psf price point. 

United Transportation Union already moved "outward" from downtown Lakewood to North Olmsted.

 

The Teamsters District Council HQ is just up the street from Independence, in Brooklyn Heights. And the BLE is part of the Teamsters as of a few years ago.

Michelle had these from the meeting.

 

Michelle J. McFee ‏mjarboe[/member]

Weston has no plans, at this point, to replace or mimic onetime "The Standard Building" sign on building's big, blank south face.

 

24h24 hours ago

Michelle J. McFee ‏mjarboe[/member]

Weston exec estimates that developer will replace 1,320 windows in Standard Building north of Public Square as part of apartment conversion.

 

24h24 hours ago

Michelle J. McFee ‏mjarboe[/member]

At a #CLE Landmarks Commission presentation re: Standard Building redo. Plans for 285 apartments. Addy's, PNC stay on ground floor for now.

 

I would consider using the wall as a video display. But the video 'mesh' type display that they used at the Cle Institute of Art. You see it used a lot in Time Square. They are much more energy efficient and less expensive than traditional video display. And they look great.

 

I always thought that huge blank wall would be great for a mural or advertising.

i wonder why the southern side never had windows. For a building, with such a prominent view from Public Square, I always felt the terra cotta details should have continued on the back.

^Yes that would have been nice. Or if the whole building could have been rotated 90° so the entrance would have been on Ontario. But it was not uncommon for buildings of that era to have a blank wall.  From what I recall when Weston bought the Standard it was mentioned that the buildings elevators are along the back wall so punching in windows was not feasible. Even if the historic tax credits allowed it. Our only hope is maybe the OldStone Parish building which is the structure just South of the Standard can be replaced one day with something taller. But that property has been in the churches hands for a long long time.

i wonder why the southern side never had windows. For a building, with such a prominent view from Public Square, I always felt the terra cotta details should have continued on the back.

 

Because the part of the Standard Building that was built was Phase 1. There was consideration in the 1920s of demolishing the Old Stone Church, which was only 70 years old at that time, and constructing the Phase 2 office building in its place.

 

Any time you see a blank wall like that (Lebron mural wall at Landmark office tower, blank wall of The 9 facing Euclid Ave), it's an example of a construction phase that was never undertaken.

^Did the Standard Bldg owners ever control the Old Stone Church lot? They may have an eye on a second phase, but the more usual reason for blank or "unfinished" building walls is that they face shared lot lines, so any windows (or fancy facade materials) are liable to be sealed up by by a future adjacent building, unless a developer owns both lots or controls the air rights over the shorter building. In most cities, lot line windows are permitted, but don't meet code requirements.

there are sometimes unsightly/sometimes cool looking blank walls via neighboring teardowns as well.

there are sometimes unsightly/sometimes cool looking blank walls via neighboring teardowns as well.

 

True. An example is the missing tooth between the Rockefeller Building and the Perry-Payne Building. But the building that was there predated the other two and was smaller than them as well.

Maybe the expected the building between the church and the standard to be more than 3 stories tall

^Did the Standard Bldg owners ever control the Old Stone Church lot? They may have an eye on a second phase, but the more usual reason for blank or "unfinished" building walls is that they face shared lot lines, so any windows (or fancy facade materials) are libel to be sealed up by by a future adjacent building, unless a developer owns both lots or controls the air rights over the shorter building. In most cities, lot line windows are permitted, but don't meet code requirements.

 

If you read the history of that space on the Old Stone website it doesn't sound like that property was ever in jeopardy of leaving the churches hands.  http://www.oldstonechurch.org/the-arts/history-architecture

Especially when the Standard Bank pretty much dissolved into two other banks not long after the building was constructed. And I can't find any evidence of a 'Phase 2' anywhere.

 

And I can't find any evidence of a 'Phase 2' anywhere.

 

 

Except the blank wall facing a major city's public square and the bank of elevators not put in the center of the Standard Building, but rather placed on the other side of that blank wall. In archaeology, this is called a positive correlation. ;)

And I can't find any evidence of a 'Phase 2' anywhere.

 

 

Except the blank wall facing a major city's public square and the bank of elevators not put in the center of the Standard Building, but rather placed on the other side of that blank wall. In archaeology, this is called a positive correlation. ;)

 

It was very common that urban buildings built to a lot line (not talking right of way lot lines) would not have any windows or openings on the lot line facade. If you did not own additional land or an easement, another building could be built up against you at any time--and that was certainly a possibility when the Standand was built--so you set yourself up for the next guy in the block and put your elevators and windowless uses on the potential/future common wall. I am not sure how much they worried about fire back in those days--I assume they did--but today if you put windows in any building on the lot line, you may have to plan fireblocks or other mechanisms to prevent fire from jumping from your building to the next.

 

If the building was planned for an addition/phase 2, I think a good clue would be the floorplan and circulation. If the cooridors are stubbed or elevators/stairs are overbuilt capacity-wise, that might be a sign.