Well okay so it never happened. It still was enough reason for me to buy the KPF book a few years ago and wouldn't you know the book just fell open on the scanner at work? :wink:

 

It would have been 1198 feet/60 stories high, tallest in Ohio, blah, blah...

 

Site:

 

Top:

 

Bottom:

 

Different view:

 

Top again:

Hmm...personally I don't care for the building (especially the top, which looks junked together) but otherwise it would've been interesting if it had been built...the impact on Cleveland's skyline would've been....interesting...

that doesnt really look like at 1220 footer. The building itself looks pretty good. The top has to go.

Hmm, I like it better as Scripps center ! :lol:

hey mayday,

 

did you get any further in your quest of tracking down the progressive bldg. renderings?

Too bad the Ameritrust Tower was never built.

 

Oh well...

Really. If it had, Cleveland for its size would be un beliveable. Darn bank mergers...

Whats up with me being a guest??? ^^^^^

^ Looks like you may have gotten it, but just in case, make sure you have checked the "keep me logged in" button and that won't happen.

Hmm' date=' I like it better as Scripps center ! :lol:[/quote']

 

Too right!

 

I'm glad it didn't get built because it looks ugly as hell. Just be glad you have the Key Tower guys, it could be worse *just look at what Columbus got stuck with*

wow great photos of the plans --- thanks.

 

couple comments. the building is ugly and of course rather dated looking by today's standards. most of all i do not like how it would have benn totally insular and ignored the street level almost completely, yet another flaw of 80's architecture. actually even more of flaw given it would have been a structure with a prominent public square placement.

 

the progressive tower plan i've seen from renderings was even worse looking. well, maybe not bad, but rather bland at best.

 

otoh ---- of course i wish both had been built anyway!

 

instead we are left with a rather embarrassing permanent parking lot in the heart of downtown. oh well, on the positive side a tabla rasa remains for the future for someone to do that fantastic site some proper justice.

I wish the building had been built.  But you kneve know. If Key hadnt bought Ameritrust, then maybe someone else would've bought Key. Then we would've had a problem..

 

The Progressive Tower would've been great for Cleveland. I don't care if there was a rolled up newspaper on top. They have over 8000 workers. That would've put a lot of energy into downtown.

^yeah, but 8000 wouldn't ahve been downtown..........regardless, another large company would have been "yay"

I don't know why everyone's so down on this tower's appearance...I'm quite fond of it!  But as is obvious from some of my other posts, I'm not always in the mainstream in my tastes...(ie: my affection for the existing Ameritrust Tower on E.9th and Euclid)

 

Aside from the sheer magnitude of the building, I think the design is great because it has that 12-story base and then the setbacks on up to the top.  I think if we're going to seek out another skyscraper on this last remaining side of Public Square, then it can't just be a straight up-and-down wall that blocks out our sun.  This design is great because it maintains the mass of the initial PS buildings until the 13th floor, which is where the setbacks start.  The glass facade is also nice because it helps disquise the building's mass as it reaches for the sky.  The top is, well, interesting, but if anyone's noticed the new towers at Times Square, a couple have this sort of top.  I think they contain wind turbines, smart ventilation systems, solar panels and radio towers that help the buildings function according to green/sustainability principles. 

 

Or maybe they're juts bleachers for the annual air show...what do i know?!

 

Boy, did my 16-year-old heart ever break when I found out this was not to be...

I agree MGD - I think it's important to remember that KPF does an amazing job with curved glass facades (333 Wacker in Chicago, 1250 Rene Levesque in Montreal http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/301cibc2.jpg )

 

This wouldn't have been a Scripps Center on steroids by any stretch. I don't care for the western face which would have been almost entirely masonry but I think the glass portions and the crown (quirky as it is) would have worked well.

 

I think KPF definitely touched on some issues of any structure that's to be built there. 1. It's essential for the base to maintain some sense of context to the square (i.e. 12-story base), and 2. that the tower portion be set off to be closer to 55 Public Square than the Terminal Tower. Ah well, we can always dream, can't we?

 

 

The top is, well, interesting, but if anyone's noticed the new towers at Times Square, a couple have this sort of top.  I think they contain wind turbines, smart ventilation systems, solar panels and radio towers that help the buildings function according to green/sustainability principles.

 

hey thats true, i never noticed that --- the top does look kinda like the new times square buildings tops. however, it would not have had any eco-friendly stuff, it was an 80's design.

 

the top did not bother me as much as the unfriendly street level facades did. a ped-friendly street level is very very import imo, esp on public square. my similar ny example is the 80's zeckendorf towers in union square, which totally kickstarted the revival of that neighborhood. that was, and still is, a functional model for the way to build around public square too.

 

 

 

 

Really?  You think the street level facades are unfriendly???  I mean, I can't tell from the pictures what would have occupied the first floor, but I'm assuming there would have been retail.  I think the scale and facade of that first 12-floor segment is ideal.

^just like key towers first floor retail?

Maybe not Key Tower, but I like the first floor of the Marriott on the St. Clair side (the restaurant that's slightly above street level). Fyi, the first floors of Ameritrust were slated to be a Hyatt Regency so I imagine the street-level retail would have been decent.

Ouch, true, Key Tower really doesn't do a whole lot for the public on the Square.  But it's an entirely different structure by design all around.  I actually prefer the Ameritrust design...what would have happened if they had done it the other way around?

i was only referring to the actual street level, from the renderings i did not get the flavor of much or any retail activity. who knows how it would have played out in reality?

 

now mind you i'm not in favor of this played out 80's design style either, but i do think zeckendorf towers (below) is a good model for the square because it has hopping street level activity all the way around it and also because i know it totally revived union square in ny. i do not have any of my photos handy so i borrowed the one below. its hard to tell from that shot, but there are coffee, ice cream, etc shops, hospital services, subway, grocery, theater all around the block on the street level. basically the base is all business, mostly hospital and the are towers residential. there is a running track around the deck up there and other amenity stuff too.

 

i cant help it ---- i just think of what something like it would do for that hole in public square whenever i look at zeckendorf.

 

 

Nice Mr. NYC!  I probably think the same every time I pass this building now too!  I don't love the details on this building, but the scale is right...smaller base with retail and setback upper floors.  I wonder if we'd ever have housing built on that lot next to the Square.  It would be great, but it would have to be very very pricey...  Not sure if that will ever happen, but it would be nice!

 

ps: my bank's downstairs and I'm two stops from here on the Q!

I kinda like the design of this tower. I hope that we fill that space on public square with a tower soon. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

  So since progressive is still around, why have they not looked into a tower again..what about joint ventures?  What about Quicken loans?  I'm greedy...I want more towers!  :)

well considering quicken loans is hq'd in livonia......

 

Just because business mogul bought your team doesn't mean he's going to move his corporate HQ.

 

Peter Karmanos of compuware owns the carolina hurricanes, HQ still in detroit

bill davidson owns the pistons, tampa bay lightning, and an arena football team, corporate HQ in oakland county.

 

and that's just detroit businessmen owning franchises elsewhere. Point is, worry about creating new jobs, not stealing others.

 

^^PGR owns outright a bunch of buildings in Mayfied at this point and is starting to work on a 3rd campus, also in Mayfield.  A move downtown seems really unlikely. 

this has to be driven from the top and from the bottom:

 

companies like Quicken Loans could certainly get together to fill a new office building downtown.  it doesn't have to be their headquarters to have naming rights or a significant presence in a building.  Progressive, Quicken, American Greetings - any of these companies and other comanies that are currently in the suburbs, but use Cleveand as their mailing address, could put a presence downtown - or better yet, consolidate their interactive/online divisions downtown somewhere. 

 

But for this to also work, there needs to be more work by developers/entrepreneurs to finish converting class b and c office spaces to residential, thereby reducing office space capacity.  i don't think you'll see new tower construction until vacancy rates get near 10%. 

Are A, B, and C vacancy rates really the same market?  Does the vacancy rate in B or C effect the demand for new "A" space?  I'm sure that because there isn't a clear line that there might be some overlap, but I wonder if the real bogey isn't a particular vacancy rate amongst class A real estate only.

^ i agree that if class A vacany went lower, ultimately that would drive new construction. 

 

however, i think there are a few types of people looking for office space in CBD:  1) certain businesses that will generally only take class A  space (ie fortune 500 types, banks), and then another segment that is more price sensitive (smaller companies, law firms). they probably won't pay $28/square foot, but might pay $20.  Is that B or C or maybe some less desirable space in an A building with small floor plates that requires space to spead over 2 floors? 

 

right now it seems that most of the large companies are building or occupying new spaces in the suburbs and not absorbing in the CBD.

^Just FYI, average lease rates in Cleveland are currently lower than that.  I know that really wasn't your point, but since I had it handy... Per CB Richard Ellis, Q4 looked like this:

Class A: $20.25 with a 16.6% vacancy rate

Class B: $14.97/32.24%

Total $16.73/23.8%

They don't list a class C.  Not sure if they don't call anything in the city Class C or ...?

IDK something just looks odd about this tower.  I cant seem to put my finger on it.

Rando,

 

I'm with you. It appears a bit too thick.  I think that the rounded edge forms an arch that is too wide for the height of the structure.  The top is different, but I don't mind it.  It's not how I would design the top of a building, but in a strange way it allows the other three towers to stand out.  But oh how I wish that it had been built. 

I'm glad it wasn't built. Sure, it's better than a gaping hole on PS, but that thing is a beast. It just kinda seems like the architects took three different buildings and smashed them into one, hulking monster. Whatever is built there has to strike a balance between the Terminal and Key. That doesn't mean it can't be futuristic or brazen, but a few subtle design details (setbacks, massing, crown, etc.) could ensure a harmony between Cleveland's two tallest and whatever is eventually built on Jacob's lot.  BP i think was kind of a mistake, too. There are many angles from which it looks fantastic,(from the Jake and the Malls)but seeing it's wide-sides makes me wanna hurl.  :-o

I was doing a little math (uh oh) and came up with the following to find out the size of employer necessary to build a certain height of structure on that lot on Public Square. I had to estimate the square footage of the lot and assume that a building's floor space would fill it out and only gradually taper as the building got higher. I also had to come up with an estimate of square footage needed per employee.

 

According to the Energy Information Administration, the average square footage is 387 sq ft per office worker (includes common areas). I rounded it down to 380 sq ft for conservative estimating.

 

Next, GoogleEarth shows the lot on Public Square measures 215 feet x 235 feet = 50,525 sq feet. I rounded down to an average of 50,000 sq ft per floor to account for a tapering of a building.

 

That results in an average of 132 employees per floor for this site. Or, in other words, for a....

 

20-story building = 2,640 employees

30-story building = 3,960 employees

40-story building = 5,280 employees

50-story building = 6,600 employees

 

Thought that might be somewhat interesting to guesstimate.

 

KJP

Well, Key is nearly full.  Anyone know how many people work there?

In response to KJP's calculations, a single employer wouldn't have to occupy the entire building.  They could probably build something 40 stories with only 50 percent committed to.  Half a class-A building built on speculation isn't all that risky, but it still may be too much for a developer's taste in today's market. 

 

Still, we'd have to come up with the company to get the ball rolling!  Who's growing fast and wants office space, not production/manufacturing space?

I wasn't thinking so much of a single employer, just what that property would/could accommodate in terms of total employees. It's not a large footprint for a building, so it wouldn't take too many employees to be the anchor tenant of a pretty tall office building.

Exactly.  So, who's in?  Hyland Software?  Cleveland Colectivo? 

why cant we get a mixed use tower here. Maybe half hotel and half in  office space and maybe some residential like some towers in Chicago. we could get a new tallest out of this couldnt we. It would not kill us to have some new hotel space in  this city. what do you guys think?

Kevmr,

 

The demand for new hotel rooms in Cleveland is pretty soft as well as new office space.  I think that banks would be reluctant to finance such a project given the poor demand at the present time. 

 

We need to focus on adding population to downtown.  The demand is there, but absorbtion rates are low.  We've got momentum, but it will take a while before we grow to a significant population. Once the population is up, then you will see a rise in demand for hotels and maybe office space. 

Hmm' date=' I like it better as Scripps center !  :lol:[/quote']

 

Too right!

 

I'm glad it didn't get built because it looks ugly as hell.  Just be glad you have the Key Tower guys, it could be worse *just look at what Columbus got stuck with*

 

I was just curious to know what Columbus got stuck with John.

Along the same lines as Wimwar: I know office towers are cool for the skyline, but they do very little for downtown as a place to be.  If we can keep adding downtown residents in lowrise, midrise, highrise-any kind of building, really, I'd be perfectly happy if no more office towers (or their street-killing garages) get built for several years.

Hmm' date=' I like it better as Scripps center !  :lol:[/quote']

 

Too right!

 

I'm glad it didn't get built because it looks ugly as hell.  Just be glad you have the Key Tower guys, it could be worse *just look at what Columbus got stuck with*

 

I was just curious to know what Columbus got stuck with John.

 

Rhodes Tower.

^Cleveland also have a Rhodes Tower (CSU's main administration building).  Who operates out of Columbus' Rhodes Tower?

^ I believe the tower house Ohio Government offices. Its full name is Rhodes State office tower.

Ahh yes, Rhodes Tower isn't the best, but for some reason, over the past year, I have gained more respect for it as a building.  Perhaps it's because it was suppose to be bigger?  Maybe because it was acctually suppose to be taller than it is right now?  Or maybe because it doesn't have a central core but is acctually served by elevators that are attached at its side?  It could also be because it is now more eco freindly?  I don't know, I just find it to be more interesting.  But I know for sure, if I had to choose the best of the two Rhodes Towers (Cleveland and Columbus) Columbus' would win hands down.

 

^Cleveland also have a Rhodes Tower (CSU's main administration building).  Who operates out of Columbus' Rhodes Tower?

 

The Ohio state government.

Along the same lines as Wimwar: I know office towers are cool for the skyline, but they do very little for downtown as a place to be.  If we can keep adding downtown residents in lowrise, midrise, highrise-any kind of building, really, I'd be perfectly happy if no more office towers (or their street-killing garages) get built for several years.

 

I disagree.  They help build many things that make downtown a more attractive place, both to walk around, but more importantly, to live.  First, they provide jobs - living downtown makes a lot more sense when your job is nearby.  Second, while all of downtown that some of those office workers see is between the parking garage and the building, many venture out for meals, run errands at local business or go out for drinks after work.  No doubt, residents make the biggest difference since they live/work/shop/generally live in the downtown, but workers are probably the next best thing as they help support some of the business that make downtown living a viable option.

 

In any case, given the vacancy rates at the moment, its hard to see that there'd be too much office construction any time soon anyway...

Well who ever builds Cleveland's next land mark towers (Setting the public square location aside) I would like to see a 500+ one get built on the Northside near the convention center and another on the south in Gateway. I think from a distance two BP sized scrapers on the north and side would really visually enhance and balance the skyline.

^I definitely agree with your (j73's) main point that office workers create much of the demand for the downtown housing market; certainly downtown the neighborhood couldn't survive a [further] implosion of the downtown office market...I just wish the demand could be grown in midtown.  Frankly, I think the other place-making benefits of adding new office workers are pretty thin. Just take a look at Downtown Manhattan or Boston's financial center: pretty desolate by 6pm, and these places employ [and probably house] many more people than downtown Cleveland.  As far as I can tell, much of Downtown Cleveland's weekday lunch business gets sucked up by the various food courts around downtown, most of which are closed in the evenings and weekends [i was pretty disappointed just last weekend that I couldn't show a visitor the Colonial/Euclid arcades on a Saturday afternoon-they were locked and closed].  And unless commuting patterns radically change (and I hope they do), more office construction means more parking garages and not a lot of enlivened streetscape...I'm thinking Eaton Center, the NCB building, the old Diamond Shamrock building, the old East Ohio Gas building, etc.  Similarly, I will be thrilled when the county re-opens the old Cleveland Trust rotunda, but I'm really not expecting the county workforce and county office visitors to improve lower Euclid so much...There is of course a right answer to this question that some urban economist has in his drawer so all this is obviously just my un-scientific (but I don't think totally off-base) opinion and I would love to be proven wrong.

 

I would certainly like to see the existing office space fill up (if nothing else, to help RTA's numbers) but like you said, any talk of new office construction is sort of academic as long as the office market stays so depressed.