Not sure where to put this.  Wasn't sure if there was a Huntington Thread.  But anyhow, something we have all been waiting for!  I guess this is in stiff competition with the May Company building on the catalytic tax credit...The source is Crains.

 

Former Huntington Building would be revamped as mixed-used development in $231 million project

 

A proposal has surfaced to remake the 925 Building, better known as the former Huntington Building at East Ninth Street and Euclid Avenue, as a mixed-use building in a $231 million project.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140909/FREE/140909791#

 

 

Long time lurker, first time poster. This could be huge, Huntington bulding looking for the same Tax credit as the May Company building for a mixed use rehab. I'm not sure how to post links but it is in today's Crain's Cleveland.

Great news!!!

This has me wondering - what buildings are vacant/mostly vacant in the CBD?

Great to hear!!! Although I DO NOT like the talk of converting the Hannah Annex being converted to parking. Cimperman is the one who turned in the application. I'd like to hear what he has to say about the parking...

Cant they just use the massive parking garage across the street that has an underground tunnel connecting to the building?

So is it either this or the May Co building? If so, which one would you prefer? 

From what I recall, this is the largest building in the CBD, maybe a close second.  I think it warrants it's own parking.  Especially with a large residential component.  If I was in the hunt for a downtown apartment, I would want onsite parking.  Now, if it was all office, I would agree across the street would be fine.

 

 

Long time lurker, first time poster. This could be huge, Huntington bulding looking for the same Tax credit as the May Company building for a mixed use rehab. I'm not sure how to post links but it is in today's Crain's Cleveland.

 

Welcome! I hope you keep posting.

 

I've been waiting to hear about a project here. This will be a biggie.

So is it either this or the May Co building? If so, which one would you prefer?

[/quoteif I remember right, it only goes toward one project in the entire state, so neither may get it.

To answer your question though, I would prefer Huntington.  It's such an enormous building that could get passed up for years considering the amount that would have to go into it.  Look at the price tag.  $231 million!  This is what it may take to entice a developer.  May, being on The soon to be renovated/repurposed PS, and smaller in scale may be more feasible without the assistance.  But, as I said, neither may be awarded...

^  Keep in mind that the May Co. Building already has a $5 million award from this latest round.

^^It's going to one of these two projects...

 

Since last fall, developers John Carney, Bob Rains and David Goldberg have been working with State Rep. Kirk Schuring, a Canton Republican, to find a way around the $5 million cap. This month, they succeeded. House Bill 483 contained a special provision for "catalytic projects" - which can win up to $25 million in state credits over five years, drawing $5 million per year.

 

The state can recognize one such project every biennium. To be deemed "catalytic," a redevelopment project must spur economic development within 2,500 feet of the building. And, in the first two fiscal years, at least, the rehabilitation work has to cost more than $75 million. The law doesn't specifically mention the May Co. building, but it's clear that's what Schuring had in mind.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/06/may_co_apartment_revamp_could.html

 

Are there any other projects big enough in the State to even compete with these two?

Quick question I thought the address in the story was 925 Euclid Ave.

Quick question I thought the address in the story was 925 Euclid Ave.

 

You are correct. I mistakenly used the address Google had for the former Huntington Building.

Wow, this is great news!  It sounds like this might have some hurdles to clear, in particularly financing.

 

I'm torn but if I had to pick either this project or the May Company building I think I would have to choose the May Company.  But E9th and Euclid is taking a complete 180 from where it was just two years ago!  Very exciting!  :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

I change my mind, Huntington Building!!

Cant they just use the massive parking garage across the street that has an underground tunnel connecting to the building?

 

I'm sure they would if they could. Parking costs a lot of money. Why would a developer want to get rid of so much valuable rentable SF if the parking wasn't necessary for the project? 

So is it either this or the May Co building? If so, which one would you prefer? 

 

I'd prefer to see the May Co building go first. It looks so bad on both the Prospect and Public Square sides. It would infuse a lot of life onto lower Prospect and onto Public Square. A redevelopment of May Co would also put more pressure on the Jacobs PS lot.

Do we know for certain if Chaim Schochet (aka Optima) is not involved in this project? If he is, the guy is a younger, Ukrainian version of Fred Geis and his deep pockets. I can understand Schochet wanting to see if he can get the tax credits since they offer free capital. But if he can't within his desired timeframe, I hope he moves forward without them if only because he probably can.

Cant they just use the massive parking garage across the street that has an underground tunnel connecting to the building?

 

I'm sure they would if they could. Parking costs a lot of money. Why would a developer want to get rid of so much valuable rentable SF if the parking wasn't necessary for the project?

 

 

Don't forget, parking can be an income generator to! Parking at The 9 for residents is $300+ a month.

I complained about this a while back... While the Huntington Building needs an interior makeover (badly I might add), I hope the primary focus is on the abandoned buildings downtown (e.g., May Co.). They look really bad. Fingers crossed that this doesn't derail that project.

Why would this project derail the May Co. project?  It's not like this project is securing an office tenant away from May.

^As mentioned upthread and in the article, this proposal is competing with the May Co building for a single extra large historic preservation credit the state will be offering.

This is OUTSTANDING news- however, I would also like to see the May Co. receive the funding from the state between the two buildings first.  I would bet that both of the buildings would be asking for some of the highest rents in the city.  Hell- could you imagine actually living in the Huntington and going through that lobby every day on your way to your apartment unit?   

 

Taking that building off of the market for office use takes a big chunk of square footage of vacant office space out of the market for downtown... and as KJP stated in another thread, we could very well be seeing a new office building soon based strictly off of the moves the downtown market has made.  Hopefully, IF the Huntington doesn't make the cut for the state funds, I hope the owner and developer are able to secure the needed funding for the project to move forward.     

Taking that building off of the market for office use takes a big chunk of square footage of vacant office space out of the market for downtown... and as KJP stated in another thread, we could very well be seeing a new office building soon based strictly off of the moves the downtown market has made.  Hopefully, IF the Huntington doesn't make the cut for the state funds, the owner and developer are able to secure the needed funding for the project to move forward.   

 

My understanding is that 925 Euclid hasn't been marketed as an office building for a while and thus its high vacancy has not counted in the overall downtown market. There are, however, about 100,000 square feet of office users left in the building who may have to find new addresses that will count in office market data -- hopefully downtown. The Great Reshuffling continues.....

^is the occupancy of 100,000 sq ft counted in office numbers? it would be a bit dishonest to count the rented space but not the vacant space.... who does this counting--is it the real estate firms who write the statistics reports or Downtown Cleveland Alliance?

Real Estate firms do the counting, and they all count things a little differently.

And DCA is an advocate for downtown, so it cherry picks the counting it likes best for its reports.

 

[Edited to not be incoherent]

Real Estate firms do the counting, and they all count things a little differently.

 

True. CBRE, M&M and others all do their own market reports. Each shows somewhat different data.

 

Anyway. Point is about 100,000 square feet of office users are still there. I think it would be great to keep them there. It would help ensure round-clock activity for retailers and restaurants in the building's vast lobby and the large but often overlooked retail arcade below. This is one building where city-within-city would certainly apply. Between this and the former Ameritrust complex across the street, there would be a lot for residents to do without going outside much in the depths of winter. That's why I would love a winter garden concept for 925's lobby. I picture it with live trees, a couple of small fountains and even a goldfish pond like the one in PNC's plaza.

^ I truly hope they keep the power lunch restaurant on the 21st floor.

^Agreed; I have a soft spot for that venue - it's where I signed the contract for my first book back in 2002.

Four large projects - former Huntington, May Co., Goodyear, Music Hall - vie for hefty state tax credits

By  Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer 

on October 03, 2014 at 7:00 AM, updated October 03, 2014 at 7:06 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Two of downtown Cleveland's largest - and emptiest - marquee buildings are vying for major state tax credits to help fuel redevelopment.

 

And they face potentially fierce competition from iconic properties in Akron and Cincinnati.

 

There can be only one victor.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/10/former_huntington_building_may.html#incart_river

This is going to be very competitive. I want the May Co. building to get it because it has become such an eyesore in such a prominent area, and Public Square really needs some new apartments to justify its renovation. However, I feel like the Music Hall has the edge... a lot of people have been talking about it since it was denied funding by the county commissioners.

I think 925 Euclid is kind of a long shot, but mostly because the law authorizing the $25 million tax credits was written specifically with the May Co. building in mind.

I think timing for the May Company building to win this is perfect, as Republican convention and Public Square renovation add some urgency.

 

 

I think 925 Euclid is kind of a long shot, but mostly because the law authorizing the $25 million tax credits was written specifically with the May Co. building in mind.

 

May Co.'s developers requested the tax credits because they need them. I think 925's developers requested the credits because they want them. The players involved with 925 Euclid could probably afford to pay cash for the $231 million worth of improvements.

I agree with each of you! I think for transformational, May Co has this one. Music Hall already is in existence and used. Yes, it needs updates, but it's not out of commission nor is 925 plus Chaim was super rude when the County was selecting their location.

 

This is going to be very competitive. I want the May Co. building to get it because it has become such an eyesore in such a prominent area' date=' and Public Square really needs some new apartments to justify its renovation. However, I feel like the Music Hall has the edge... a lot of people have been talking about it since it was denied funding by the county commissioners.[/quote']

 

 

But Music Hall is currently used by its current use--the symphony and opera. Plus it doesn't even have local support:  "In August, Hamilton County Commissioners voted to put a quarter-cent sales-tax hike on the November ballot to help cover the costs of fixing Union Terminal, another iconic Cincinnati building. But, after much debate, they cut Music Hall out of the package."  Music Hall is beautiful, but if people in Cincinnati don't want to fund an arts/public use, why should people in say, Toledo, Columbus, and Cleveland fund it?

 

May Co and the Huntington Bldg will actually ADD activity around the project so, to me, they are more 'catalytic'. And such revenues will add to the State's bottom line. And from the State's perspective, I'd say Huntington is more catalytic because it includes more than one use (residential) (May Co), but residential, commercial, and hotel.

^ Ahh okay. My only source for that is my planner friend in Cincy who could perhaps be a little biased.

 

And I agree that the Huntington building is more catalytic, but I think the May Co. building needs it more. It would just be a sad sight to have a newly renovated Public Square, with that dirty vacant building fronting it. Of course, it would also be a sad sight to still have that big surface lot next to Public Square, but hopefully that also changes...

Hudson Holdings of Florida emerges as potential 925 Building buyer (photos)  :clap: :clap:

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A hot rumor in local real estate circles moved a bit closer to reality this week, with the formation of two companies that link a Florida investment group to the hulking and largely vacant 925 Building on Euclid Avenue.

 

Records filed with the Ohio Secretary of State make the connection between Hudson Holdings of Delray Beach and the downtown Cleveland building, best known as the former Huntington Building or the historic Union Trust Building. Hudson, according to its website, is a mixed-use developer that favors downtown locations and works with historic buildings and distressed landmarks.

 

Corporation records dated Monday show that HH Cleveland Huntington L.P. and Hudson Cleveland Real Estate Manager LLC, two newly formed companies, are tied to the 925 Euclid Ave. address and to Andrew "Avi" Greenbaum, one of Hudson's principals.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/05/hudson_holdings_of_florida_eme.html

From Crain's:

 

Florida group lines up as potential buyer for Huntington Building in downtown Cleveland

 

The next play may be taking shape for the vacancy-riddled former Huntington Building in downtown Cleveland.

 

Delray Beach, Fla.-based real estate developer Hudson Holdings LLC recently formed Ohio limited liability companies linked to downtown’s second-largest multitenant office building, at 925 Euclid Ave.

 

The name of Andrew Greenbaum, a principal of Hudson, appears as the manager on articles of organization filed May 11 with the Ohio Secretary of State’s office for Hudson Cleveland Real Estate Manager LLC. The agent for that new company, Tom Smith, also is the agent for HH Cleveland Huntington L.P., a limited partnership formed the same day. Both documents list 925 Euclid as the location for the concerns.

 

The Hudson Holdings website portrays it as a mixed-use real estate developer for both construction and rehabilitation projects, particularly those located in urban areas. The firm owns five Florida hotel, restaurant and office properties, according to the website.

 

More: http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20150514/FREE/150519904/florida-group-lines-up-as-potential-buyer-for-huntington-building-in

From the Cleveland.com article:

 

"The 925 Building occupies a volume of 20,000,000 cubic feet," the company added. "If 20 million cubes, each measuring one cubic foot, were stretched end-to-end, they would reach from New York City across the Atlantic Ocean to London, England. If spread out over a single plane, the 925 Building's ... floor area would cover Cleveland's Public Square (and connecting streets) three times over."

 

Wow. I knew that building was huge, but that really helps put it's massive size into perspective. For something that big, there's really no other feasible option than mixed use.

You have to wonder how serious Optima's plans were to convert the building to apartments and develop its retail components.

^ It doesn't sound like Optima has any interest in redeveloping the building themselves. Michelle's article alluded to the deal with Vintage Development Group being contingent on winning the catalytic tax credit. When they lost, the deal fell through.

 

My guess is they've been looking to completely unload the property since they lost the bid for the county headquarters.

 

^ It doesn't sound like Optima has any interest in redeveloping the building themselves. Michelle's article alluded to the deal with Vintage Development Group being contingent on winning the catalytic tax credit. When they lost, the deal fell through.

 

My guess is they've been looking to completely unload the property since they lost the bid for the county headquarters.

 

 

The building has zero value right now, there are no tenants, it was essentially mothballed last year.  Once the occupancy fell below 50%, it became a losing proposition to keep it open from what I understand.  Until they win a major tax credit to redevelop it, the carrying costs are massive.  At least 5 years away from any sort of scenario where they would be able to redevelop the building into anything that generates a cashflow.  Really a gutsy move by anyone who would be trying to tackle such a project. 

Tear it down, we need parking.

^^ I wouldn't say there are "no" tenants left...

 

That lobby sits empty now, even as office workers, apartment dwellers, diners and shoppers have revived the long-shuttered former Ameritrust complex across the street. The retail corridors in the 925 Building's basement are quiet, though longtime tenants like Rickey C. Tanno Jewelers continue to soldier on.

 

"I would say it's about the same, except that we don't see anyone in the building as we used to," said Jim Havach, a director at the Spieth, Bell, McCurdy & Newell Co. law firm, which rents 21,000 square feet on the building's 20th floor. "Obviously, there's not much traffic."

^^ I wouldn't say there are "no" tenants left...

 

That lobby sits empty now, even as office workers, apartment dwellers, diners and shoppers have revived the long-shuttered former Ameritrust complex across the street. The retail corridors in the 925 Building's basement are quiet, though longtime tenants like Rickey C. Tanno Jewelers continue to soldier on.

 

"I would say it's about the same, except that we don't see anyone in the building as we used to," said Jim Havach, a director at the Spieth, Bell, McCurdy & Newell Co. law firm, which rents 21,000 square feet on the building's 20th floor. "Obviously, there's not much traffic."

 

The article doesn't mention it, but the owners have been actively trying to relocate tenants out of the building. 

Former Huntington Building in Cleveland sells for $22 million to Hudson Holdings

By Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/06/former_huntington_building_in.html

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – One of downtown's most prominent office buildings – home to what's often described as the world's largest bank lobby – changed hands Tuesday in deal that could herald a huge redevelopment project.

 

Hudson Holdings of Delray Beach, Florida, paid $22 million to buy the former Huntington Building, a near-empty office property at 925 Euclid Ave. Andrew "Avi" Greenbaum, a Hudson principal, confirmed the sale and the price during a phone interview but was reluctant to discuss his plans for the 21-story building.

 

Real estate sources familiar with the project say Hudson could repurpose some of the largely vacant office space, 1.3 million or so square feet, as apartments and a hotel. The building still would house some offices, plus lower-level retail.

 

"I will neither confirm nor deny any plans," Greenbaum said, adding that he's keeping the details hush-hush until a media tour scheduled for June 16.

 

The sale fits neatly into the narrative of a downtown on the rebound.

 

Now called the 925 Building, the property last sold in 2010 for $18.5 million. At the time, the massive building was generating much more income, but major tenants including Huntington Bank, accounting firm Ernst & Young and the Tucker Ellis law firm were on their way out the door.

 

Five years later, the space is 92 percent empty, according to the Newmark Grubb Knight Frank real estate brokerage, which represented seller Optima Ventures and which will handle office and retail leasing for the new owner.

 

Hudson saw more value in the building as a makeover play, in a market where apartments are full, retailers are creeping back into the city, office occupancy has leveled out and developers are running out of historic buildings to convert into housing.

 

"We're urban developers," Greenbaum said, adding that he's built, bought, converted and adapted more than 4,000 residential units and 3 million square feet of commercial space during his career. "We love downtowns. We run around looking at downtown markets where we're seeing a huge resurgence, especially based on the fact that people want to live, work and play in the same place. Where we're finding those markets, those are the areas that we really like to invest.

 

"We're very bullish on the future of downtown Cleveland," he added.

 

 

 

 

I'm very excited about this project's potential and hope we get some detail on the 16th...

June 16 Press Conference. http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20150610/NEWS/150619981/new-owner-of-former-huntington-building-calls-structure-irreplaceable