While I hope this project suceeds, I can't help but be bothered by the fact that the only tenants are other downtown businesses leaving massive amounts of empty office space behind in the central business district.  The whole project is really leading to the impression that this town is just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

The Crain's article indicates that construction will begin in December.  Does anybody know if this means the actual buildings or a continuation of the infrastructure work?  Has this work been on going all this time anyway or did it stop completely?  Not really up on this.

^^Maybe we should tell those companies they are not allowed to move?

 

Shuffling deck chairs or not, this project is still a great thing for the City IMO.  I'm fairly certain that Queen City Square in Cincy is mostly (if not all) comprised of existing downtown tenants.

 

The thing that disappoints me is that it appears we lost a few stories off of the tower.  Now at 18?  I thought it was going to be 21...

^^Maybe we should tell those companies they are not allowed to move?

 

Yeesh, a bit of a strawman, no?  How about not spending gobs of public money or using government ED powers to give these companies places to move amidst high vacancy rates in existing buildings?

 

But anyway, even though I'm not a huge fan of what has turned out to be kind of a boring welfare office tower and hotel, I'm in "get excited mode" to see how it turns out.  It will certainly remove a big scar from downtown.  A scar that this project helped open up in the first place.

The Crain's article indicates that construction will begin in December. Does anybody know if this means the actual buildings or a continuation of the infrastructure work? Has this work been on going all this time anyway or did it stop completely? Not really up on this.

 

No work has been done on the construction site for several months now.  I can't remember the last time I saw activity, but at least nothing since spring...maybe even before last winter.

I wish the residential aspect would come sooner

I am curious what the board thinks about this.  Did the stubborn landowners and resulting E.D. lawsuits really screw this project and as a result the city.

 

The lawsuits themself and wrapping things up took well over a year at a time financing was still relatively easy.  If things had moved a year and half earlier we might be seeing the entire originally conceived project underway (instead of a scaled back project that has not even started).

 

On the other hand, if it indeed had started earlier when financing was available, would we now have a huge development nearing completion that would be in loads of trouble because there would not be any tenants around to fill up the retail and a bunch of condos standing empty.

^^Maybe we should tell those companies they are not allowed to move?

 

Yeesh, a bit of a strawman, no?  How about not spending gobs of public money or using government ED powers to give these companies places to move amidst high vacancy rates in existing buildings?

 

We didn't do either of those for one office tower.  The ED powers were used when this project was still full tilt with residential and retail and the benefits far outweighed any harm to private property owners elsewhere in downtown.  The FEB was leveled, the prep work had begun and then the economy tanked.  I highly doubt what was done would have been done if we had a fully operational chrytal ball.

 

Besides, does anyone have full confidence that Tucker Ellis and Ernst Young would be renewing their leases at the Huntington Building if the FEB project was never conceived?

 

As I understood it, the need for continguous class-A office space in downtown - something the existing property owners could not offer - was the driving force for the tower.

^^Maybe we should tell those companies they are not allowed to move?

 

Shuffling deck chairs or not, this project is still a great thing for the City IMO. I'm fairly certain that Queen City Square in Cincy is mostly (if not all) comprised of existing downtown tenants.

 

The thing that disappoints me is that it appears we lost a few stories off of the tower. Now at 18? I thought it was going to be 21...

 

Actually, I think it is still 21 from the ground surface elevation.  I believe it is 18 floors of leasable office space.  I know there were two mechanical floors when I looked into it the first time. 

^^Maybe we should tell those companies they are not allowed to move?

 

Yeesh, a bit of a strawman, no? How about not spending gobs of public money or using government ED powers to give these companies places to move amidst high vacancy rates in existing buildings?

 

We didn't do either of those for one office tower. The ED powers were used when this project was still full tilt with residential and retail and the benefits far outweighed any harm to private property owners elsewhere in downtown. The FEB was leveled, the prep work had begun and then the economy tanked. I highly doubt what was done would have been done if we had a fully operational chrytal ball.

 

Besides, does anyone have full confidence that Tucker Ellis and Ernst Young would be renewing their leases at the Huntington Building if the FEB project was never conceived?

 

As I understood it, the need for continguous class-A office space in downtown - something the existing property owners could not offer - was the driving force for the tower.

 

Well, I agree with all that more or less.  I probably shouldn't be blaming the city quite so much; as you point out, this is not what they thought they were getting into at the beginning.  But for the foreseeable future, the city did in fact do both of those [subsidy and ED] for one office tower [and a hotel and a park], because that's all we're getting.  So I also don't really blame people for not being very excited.

 

In fact, with all the hindsight we have now, I honestly wish the project had never started. I'd rather have that handful of historic buildings down there and millions of dollars still in the city's coffers than what we're going to end up with here, but I can understand how others would feel differently.

 

One thing I'm perversely looking forward to is what happens to the Waterfront Line when the new office tower and hotel come on line.  I'm pretty pessimistic those two buildings alone will provide nearly enough ridership to justify restarting regular service, but there could be some ugly battles over it.  On these boards and between RTA and the developers.  Hopefully not though.

I am curious what the board thinks about this. Did the stubborn landowners and resulting E.D. lawsuits really screw this project and as a result the city.

 

The lawsuits themself and wrapping things up took well over a year at a time financing was still relatively easy. If things had moved a year and half earlier we might be seeing the entire originally conceived project underway (instead of a scaled back project that has not even started).

 

On the other hand, if it indeed had started earlier when financing was available, would we now have a huge development nearing completion that would be in loads of trouble because there would not be any tenants around to fill up the retail and a bunch of condos standing empty.

 

So true!!!

^^Maybe we should tell those companies they are not allowed to move?

 

Yeesh, a bit of a strawman, no? How about not spending gobs of public money or using government ED powers to give these companies places to move amidst high vacancy rates in existing buildings?

 

I'm hopeful that several of the vacant (East Ohio) or heavily vacant (Superior Bldg., Chester Commons) office buildings in the East 9th corridor can be converted to residential give that area more 24-hour life and boost occupancy in the rest of the office buildings. Do we have a thread for the general topic of residential conversions?

 

I'm grateful for the new construction. I think when the general public/visitors see construction of Flats East Bank, the convention center, the casino and various projects around CSU and UC happening, it will help lift spirits and energize the city.

^Well true, construction always makes a town look good to visitors.  Just hope they don't wonder around the old financial district...

That's why I started the thread in the Discussion section about which under-utilized office towers UOers would want to see converted into residential. I started wandering into that subject but backed off, then started the new thread.

 

OK back to the Bank.

i think we can all say the same thing here....

 

FINALLY!!

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/12/clevelands_flats_east_bank_pro.html

 

^Unless I misread the article, I didn't see anywhere where it said that they're done with financing.  This is just another piece.

 

One telling quote that I saw:

 

"HUD's role in the project is not new. In fact, the developers have factored these loans into their elaborate funding scheme for more than a year."

 

 

 

It's good news, but I don't expect to see cranes anytime soon just based on this news.

I need an FEB fix, if no one has news, Ill take a rumor. 

Last I heard, groundbreaking was supposed to be this month.

Here's a rumor:  there's going to be a special area with extra food and drink under the groundbreaking tent for UrbanOhioans to thank us for 101 pages of fervent, passionate discussion and support.

It's the least they could do.

Still anxious for some info here.  If they are unable to get this done by end of year, would that be a deal breaker?

they are just dottin i's and crossing t's at this point.

Didn't they need to break ground by the end of the year for tax credits?

 

If so, would a delay mean the tax credits are gone, and then its another financing hole to fill

they have to close by end of year i believe.

Here's a rumor: there's going to be a special area with extra food and drink under the groundbreaking tent for UrbanOhioans to thank us for 101 pages of fervent, passionate discussion and support.

 

 

Really!...Is this true?

Here's a rumor:  there's going to be a special area with extra food and drink under the groundbreaking tent for UrbanOhioans to thank us for 101 pages of fervent, passionate discussion and support.

 

 

Really!...Is this true?

 

No.

I just heard this should close tomorrow. Merry christmas.

yessss -- ending the year on an up note!

I just heard this should close tomorrow. Merry christmas.

 

You just made my week!

 

EDIT: so did this......

 

Flats East Bank financing set to close Tuesday, despite a dispute with the architect

Published: Monday, December 20, 2010, 7:30 PM

By Michelle Jarboe, The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A dispute with an architectural firm is causing complications for the Flats East Bank project, just as the stalled development is finally ready to go.

 

 

The developers of the $275 million project filed a lawsuit Monday against Forum Architectural Services LLC, a Cleveland firm that has crafted site plans and designs for a mixed-use neighborhood at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River.

 

After years of effort, the Wolstein Group and Fairmount Properties are scheduled to close on their financing Tuesday -- the crucial step to lock in the public and private money to build an office tower, a hotel, a parking garage, retail and park space. But the developers claim their closing was almost derailed -- and that the project was nearly destroyed -- because of Forum's efforts to secure payment for its work.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/12/flats_east_bank_financing_set.html

 

Ha. I beat jarboe by 18 minutes :)

You rock.

I just heard this should close tomorrow. Merry christmas.

 

Thank you!  I knew I would hear about it here first!

It strikes me that it takes a special kind of gall to sue a company for insisting that it be paid for services rendered.

Woohoo!!

So who is the construction manager on this project?  First go 'round it was Marous, now it's someone else, Gilbane or Turner?  If they say they are planning to start right away, they must have civil plans ready to go?  Foundations for the garage & tower & hotel?

I just heard this should close tomorrow. Merry christmas.

 

...and a happy new year! Great news.

It strikes me that it takes a special kind of gall to sue a company for insisting that it be paid for services rendered.

If Forum was working on a contract that clearly stated "paid when paid" then they would just have to deal with this.  If not, I see no problems with them holding back their plans and specifications.

*Happy Dance*

So this is my inaugural post on UO, :wave: though I've been a long time reader.  I'm a big big fan of these forums as you all seem to a) have lots of good information and b) actually CARE about these projects and have a positive attitude about them.  Unlike the Cleveland.com forum which is so truly depressing.

 

Today, however, under the article in the PD on the FEB project, there was one comment that really struck me (perhaps because it was... intelligent.)  The commenter was talking about real-estate development v. economic development.  Here is a piece of his post:

 

cask23 December 21, 2010 at 8:48AM

"Real estate development in NE Ohio is a zero-sum game. Each new development must “steal” its commercial leasers and its residential renters from another NE Ohio location and more property adds supply driving down lease and rent prices making it more difficult for existing building owners to stay in business. The E&Y gain for the new flats office building will be a loss for Huntington building.

 

We have been living the past 2-3 decades confusing real estate development with economic development. Real estate development is easy to confuse with economic development; the buildings are shiny and new, a temporary boost is provided locally through construction jobs, and politicians get to have photo ops at ribbon cutting ceremonies. If you didn’t know any better, you’d think we were experiencing progress.

 

Economic development, on the other hand, is the exercise of fostering growth of long-term sustainable and good paying jobs through brining new companies to the region and encouraging organic growth of existing companies."

 

I won't argue that there are dozens of new retail/restaurants and even new apartments/condos in downtown, but for the commercial real-estate, and the broader growth we're still lacking. 

 

I love seeing the projects going up in Cleveland, and seeing the new developments take shape.  There is certainly forward progress in many respects.  But it seems true, to me, that the commercial sector is (on the whole) diminishing downtown. Eaton Corp. was the latest BIG blow to the economy.  Does anyone have any thoughts/info on how FEB and work around Euclid and 9th are capable of economic development instead of just real estate development?  We need to fill FEB and E9th and Euclid, but it seems we're mostly redirecting what's left.

 

 

:? Thoughts on the true benefits of projects like FEB? 

In a nutshell,

 

1. Companies playing musical chairs is not conducive to growth immediately unless they need to expand and their present building cannot handle it.

 

2. However, companies might leave the area all together if not for the East Bank project.  Who knows what would have happened with Eaton if not for the project's delays. 

 

3. The Flats East Bank is visually a complete embarrassment and something needs to be there.  City pride and morale have to count for something sometimes.

 

4. More A class work space is now available downtown, which is desirable for other companies thinking of moving down to the city.

 

 

You play with the cards you get. 

I agree to a certain extent, about the zero sum game and the logic about simply stealing clients from one building to put them in another.  What that doesn't take into consideration is that many companies WANT to be in Cleveland, and if we don't offer them a competitive supply of Class A office space, they will relocate elsewhere, whether it's to Beachwood or out of the area altogether.  A better question is, when was the last time new high end commerical office space was built in Cleveland? 

 

This new Flats Development certainly puts pressure on the owners of the Huntington building and the entire "9-12" district has high vacancies now, but they need to look at attracting new clients interested in a little less modern space for a lower lease, or perhaps renovating to become current & modern, or even look at a residential conversion as has been discussed on this board.

I agree to a certain extent, about the zero sum game and the logic about simply stealing clients from one building to put them in another. What that doesn't take into consideration is that many companies WANT to be in Cleveland, and if we don't offer them a competitive supply of Class A office space, they will relocate elsewhere, whether it's to Beachwood or out of the area altogether. A better question is, when was the last time new high end commerical office space was built in Cleveland?

 

This new Flats Development certainly puts pressure on the owners of the Huntington building and the entire "9-12" district has high vacancies now, but they need to look at attracting new clients interested in a little less modern space for a lower lease, or perhaps renovating to become current & modern, or even look at a residential conversion as has been discussed on this board.

 

Agreed.

Eaton wasn't going to the FEB period, they should not be discussed as a part of the equation.

I didn't mention Eaton as part of the FEB but rather as an example of a large employer leaving downtown, which is what I'm worried about with FEB.  But I agree with the above, developments aren't bad, and the E9th buildings aren't going anywhere.  Hopefully it will inspire further reconsideration of the buildings downtown.

 

I personally think the most important part is the connectivity of the FEB area to the WHD.  People need to be able to walk to W6th for lunch and back, and that foot traffic will inspire development between.  We can't have islands of development!

I didn't mention Eaton as part of the FEB but rather as an example of a large employer leaving downtown, which is what I'm worried about with FEB.  But I agree with the above, developments aren't bad, and the E9th buildings aren't going anywhere.  Hopefully it will inspire further reconsideration of the buildings downtown.

 

I personally think the most important part is the connectivity of the FEB area to the WHD.  People need to be able to talk to W6th for lunch and back, and that foot traffic will inspire development between.  We can't have islands of development!

 

I didn't say you did.  ;)

I also agree with concern over the zero sum game. But I also believe there is something to be gained by responding to a tenant's need to be the prime tenant of a building that will have their name on it.

 

Personally, I would rather see existing buildings be utilized, but the demand for Class A space cannot be discounted. The older office spaces simply do not offer what the market of today wants, and thus new uses for old buildings must be found. Given the high demand for market-rate rental housing downtown, especially along the Euclid Corridor, I suspect the Huntington Building (and others) will someday soon be redeveloped into residential. FEB may "unlock" the East 9th-12th district into more residential conversions by freeing up more space and making the numbers work better for prospective investors.

 

And I agree that the Flats East Banks desperately needs this investment. I suspect it will lead to more.

 

There is something to be said for having more construction cranes reaching into the sky in a given city. They can quickly change the ethos of a city, and that ethos, in turn, can move a city forward to do more.

Huntington is a beautiful buidling in a prime location.  However, it simply did not meet the needs of E&Y's and Tucker Ellis's desire to expand.  They both wanted and need contiguous Class A space which was not available downtown without a new build.  And to the extent they do expand, this goes beyond some "zero-sum" analogy.  Growth in business districts is hardly limited to bringing new companies in.  It also involves providing existing companies with the means to expand.

 

Buidings become outdated for their original purpose.  This happens everywhere.  Huntington is simply too much of a gem for some developer to not do something productive with it.  And, who knows, that re-purpose might draw in new downtown tenants, whether they be busineesses or residents (depending on exactly how it is re-purposed).

 

The bottom line is we simply can't afford to sit back hoping to entice new businesses with outdated class B and C office space.  And you can't totally re-purpose a building while it is still occupied (or at least it would be incredibly difficult and disruptive).

 

 

I strongly believe that the developers can help avoid "islands of development" by ensuring adequate street presence.

 

Walking between the neighborhoods has to be encouraged in every way possible.

 

You should not have to feel like you're in a no-mans land on a city sidewalk, or worse, in danger of speeding cars...it just really irks me that in this day and age, so many developers cannot seem to grasp this concept.

 

I didn't mention Eaton as part of the FEB but rather as an example of a large employer leaving downtown, which is what I'm worried about with FEB. But I agree with the above, developments aren't bad, and the E9th buildings aren't going anywhere. Hopefully it will inspire further reconsideration of the buildings downtown.

 

I personally think the most important part is the connectivity of the FEB area to the WHD. People need to be able to walk to W6th for lunch and back, and that foot traffic will inspire development between. We can't have islands of development!

My sensibilities are not particularly offended that it's taking massive public subsidies to keep these tenants in town, but it sure does highlight the dysfunction of the local office market.  Tenants essentially extort class A space for class B rent with the threat of moving.  If we were going to plow all this money into new office space, I just wish it were closer to public square, as has been said a million times by a million UOers.  And urban design wise, I'd rather have the moribund but intact FEB of 5 years ago, with its hints of history and modest scale than this new stuff, unless I knew the residential component was right around the corner.

 

The Huntington Building probably has a future because of it's architecture and its precise location on Euclid, but it is massive and depends on light wells for a lot of its windows, so I think it's still going to be a challenge.  The looming problem (kudos to the PD) is this growing stock of aging, blah post war towers that aren't in super prime locations.  Lord only knows how long these guys are going to sit empty.

The poster is right somewhat right, the Flast East Bank is economic growth, not development. The new building is not bringing new types of industry into Cleveland and it probably won't raise the medium income for the area. However, what the poster is not considering is multiplier effect this will have on the region. Beyond the short-term influence of construction workers who need places to eat/sleep/play you have to consider that when large companies like E&Y and Tuker Ellis leave their building (huntington?) it's forces the owners of that building to reinvest and make it more attractive to potential clients, something it wouldn't have done when it was more occupied. Huntington could be very well become residential, something we here on UO have discussed being in high demand downtown. To call it a 'Zero-Sum Gain' is very misleading.

^ I hope this theory is right about forcing re-investment. It seems that nothing is really forcing owners to re-invest right now, in properties like the Breuer Tower, which has sat empty for oh so long with the county debacle thing and now beyond that. I do think the poster makes sense in defining the difference between economic development and real estate development. I would hate to see a 9th Street corridor sit empty for too long. This is a prime downtown avenue and we cannot afford to have this looking desolate or like it is crumbling.