I have to say, having Hines involved with Jacobs takes the likelihood of a new tower on Public Square up a serious notch in my book.

I would have to think so, right? I mean, it sounds like they're pretty serious about at least considering going forward on this one.

Yeah...............15 years later.

Which would you rather have though, The Jacobs tower or Pesht?  I don't see how the market could bear both, unless like they said a company the size of boeing wanted to move their headquarters here.... I would vote for pesht.

We have discussed that before and that seems to be the consensus. If FEB keeps signing the available tenants, that could spell trouble for pesht as well.

Can someone provide some background on Hines?  What is their body of work?  Just a quick overview is all that I am looking for here...

They're one of the largest development/property management groups in the world: http://www.hines.com/about/

For the health of downtown, I would like to see a mixed use tower on the site instead of just office space (since it looks like Jacobs is serious about getting this tower built).  That would be the only way both Pesht and the Jacobs tower could coexist.

Maybe a mixed use project is something he is putting together. Office/Hotel/Condo  This is probably do-able and could co-exist with the other projects.

For the health of downtown, I would like to see a mixed use tower on the site instead of just office space (since it looks like Jacobs is serious about getting this tower built).  That would be the only way both Pesht and the Jacobs tower could coexist.

 

Remember the proposed AmeriTrust tower was mixed use with a hotel.

 

I would think - rather hope - this building would:

 

a) Host a hotel

b) A select group of condo's

c) Be a signature building

d) Have street level retail

e) Have an observation area and or signature restaurant

f)  Be Ohio's new tallest building

 

Wow

^I would hope that the building has:  1) Street level retail (a must)  2) Hotel space (which would make sense no matter where the new convention center goes) 3) Residential units (a mixed-use tower with residential units on Public Square?  The units would sell immediately)  4) Observation deck 5) A restaurant 6) Be designed by a world class architect 7) The new tallest in Cleveland/Ohio/between Chi and NYC; A tower that would send the image that Cleveland believes in itself, much like Terminal Tower and Key Tower did.  Office space is a given, since we have so many large tenants looking for new space. 

I know I would seriously look at a condo on Public Square, as long as it taller than Key.

^I would too!! 

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. 

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.  

 

How are we getting overzealous when we don't have any?!    I mean that in a way in which:

a) All the major chains are represented in the Cleveland market

b) We have the room count to court large scale conventions (between 12-17K in the CBD)

c) We have AT LEAST ONE convention sized property in Cleveland.

d) Boutique and luxury (W, JW Marriot, Marriot Marquis, Grand Hyatt, Peninsula, Conrad, St. Regis, etc.) brand properties which leisure travelers expect in big cities.

 

Please explain.

I also wonder whether we are getting a little overzealous with hotels.

 

Out of the number of hotels being discussed how many will actually become a reality? So no, I don't think so.

i agree with with mts on that wish list. i also happen to believe jacobs wants something like that too. he has sat on this site for a long time with something major like that in mind.

 

i also think that even with feb and this project going forward that pesht will still happen as well in some form. the warehouse space in between is going to get filled in one way or the other. not as all at once and transformative as stark would like, but in that scenario oh well -- he overreached while others took action.

 

Let's not be so harsh on Stark. He came to the party 18-24 months later than Wolstein and Zaremba. How do you play catch-up in this market, with a project that's at least as complex as Wolstein's. Don't forget, those high-priced parking lots have sat fallow for 20-30 years. You just don't turn them into glimmering loft condos, offices and hotels in a year or two of due dilligence, especially when the Cleveland market isn't growing in population or wealth.

 

Stark is literally banking on his sales skills to convince lenders that there is a huge untapped market locally for what he is proposing. He is also trying to capitalize on the transition in the housing marketplace, in which an aging market is wanting less complicated housing, while younger professionals are increasingly looking for sociable urban settings to live in.

 

There, I just wrote Stark's pitch for him. Write the check payable to KJP, please.

true enough. tower or not it's much easier to put up one structure on long held property you already control than to build out complicated multi-site plans like feb or pesht. or the avenue for that matter. all jacobs has to do is worry about the right tenants & mix for his tower (not that that is easy or anything of course). i do applaud jacobs for being cautious & careful to get it right, after all it's thee crucial visible signature property in downtown.

true enough. tower or not it's much easier to put up one structure on long held property you already control than to build out complicated multi-site plans like feb or pesht. or the avenue for that matter. all jacobs has to do is worry about the right tenants & mix for his tower (not that that is easy or anything of course). i do applaud jacobs for being cautious & careful to get it right, after all it's thee crucial visible signature property in downtown.

 

Cautious???  Its been two decades.  That lot has been a sore spot for me since i worked at SOHIO.  I had to look at that crap!

^ no kidding, so why get all hyper about it now? other than a ridiculous and quickly brushed aside pitch for the new convention center there, i havent heard of any serious plans for jacob's site since ameritrust....have you?

 

the other side of the coin here is that he could have easily thrown up some low rise something or other and washed his hands of it. i'll take 20 yrs of surface parking & a tabla rasa over that!

 

i think it's pretty clear after all this time that jacobs has been holding out for a signature building. so yeah, i am grateful for cautiousness with that particular prime parcel.

 

 

^ no kidding, so why get all hyper about it now? other than a ridiculous and quickly brushed aside pitch for the new convention center there, i havent heard of any serious plans for jacob's site since ameritrust....have you?

 

the other side of the coin here is that he could have easily thrown up some low rise something or other and washed his hands of it. i'll take 20 yrs of surface parking & a tabla rasa over that!

 

i think it's pretty clear after all this time that jacobs has been holding out for a signature building. so yeah, i am grateful for cautiousness with that particular prime parcel.

 

I've been critical of that site, since the buildings were torn down.  I'm concerned and amazed that it took this long to "decide" to build.  I think this is a classic case of "everyone else is building so I better build"

 

I don't think its clear, if so, he would have and should have communicated that.  If he has, it's unknown and gave the city an image of "you can't even build on a premiere spot in the heart of the city".  You know how PERCEPTIONS are and that leads to region wide negativity. 

I think this is a classic case of "everyone else is building so I better build"

 

I don't think that is the case. For the first time in 20-25 years there are potential tenants to anchor a signature building.

I think this is a classic case of "everyone else is building so I better build"

 

I don't think that is the case. For the first time in 20-25 years there are potential tenants to anchor a signature building.

 

Hell they could have built a fabulous hotel, we would have already had our convention size hotel.  a nice 60 story hotel in downtown Cleveland would have been spectacular!

^ no kidding, so why get all hyper about it now? other than a ridiculous and quickly brushed aside pitch for the new convention center there, i havent heard of any serious plans for jacob's site since ameritrust....have you?

 

the other side of the coin here is that he could have easily thrown up some low rise something or other and washed his hands of it. i'll take 20 yrs of surface parking & a tabla rasa over that!

 

i think it's pretty clear after all this time that jacobs has been holding out for a signature building. so yeah, i am grateful for cautiousness with that particular prime parcel.

 

I've been critical of that site, since the buildings were torn down.  I'm concerned and amazed that it took this long to "decide" to build.  I think this is a classic case of "everyone else is building so I better build"

 

I don't think its clear, if so, he would have and should have communicated that.  If he has, it's unknown and gave the city an image of "you can't even build on a premiere spot in the heart of the city".  You know how PERCEPTIONS are and that leads to region wide negativity. 

 

of course, no one has been happy since the block was torn down, but otoh thankfully at least no middling junk was thrown up there after ameritrust fell through either. face it, no "fabulous" hotel or even motel six wanted to be there until now, much less a business hq -- or they would have been. currently, its more a classic case of evryone postioning themselves for a partly unclear group of local businesses that are or may be seeking new office space soon. so as far as the developers go, all bets are on. first come, first served & may the best developer win.

 

as far as jacobs wanting a signature tower of some kind there, i dont see how his not building some easier low rise something on the lot over all these years could make that case any clearer. it's funny yes, but the proof is in the non-action.

I agree.  I too am glad that no crap was put what I view as the most valuable plot of land in central Downtown.

 

Well now its time to build us an ultra fabulous signature building.

Hell they could have built a fabulous hotel, we would have already had our convention size hotel.  a nice 60 story hotel in downtown Cleveland would have been spectacular!

 

Why? So we can reduce hotel occupancy rates downtown from 55-60 percent to 25 percent? Aside from governmental buildings, there is a very good reason why no new 'scrapers have been built downtown since Society/Key Tower+Marriott and the Bank One/Fifth Third Center all opened 17 years ago.

Hell they could have built a fabulous hotel, we would have already had our convention size hotel.  a nice 60 story hotel in downtown Cleveland would have been spectacular!

 

Why? So we can reduce hotel occupancy rates downtown from 55-60 percent to 25 percent? Aside from governmental buildings, there is a very good reason why no new 'scrapers have been built downtown since Society/Key Tower+Marriott and the Bank One/Fifth Third Center all opened 17 years ago.

 

Why do they occupancy rates have to be reduced?  After answering that, tell me how you can market and brand the hotel and city to increase (competition) and occupancy rates for all?

 

KJP, you know I agree with 99% of the things you write and with all due respect, why must we always say "why something can't or wont work" instead of "this is what we need to do to make this work (profitable)"

 

Why do they occupancy rates have to be reduced?

 

 

I think he meant that if demand stays constant the occupancy will automatically go down with a new hotel opening and being that hotel occupancy right now is pretty weak......

 

Why do they occupancy rates have to be reduced?

 

 

I think he meant that if demand stays constant the occupancy will automatically go down with a new hotel opening and being that hotel occupancy right now is pretty weak......

 

Hence my question.  Our occupancy fluctuates in Winter like most of the midwest & northeast, and S. Florida, S. America and the Caribbean go into "high season.

 

Our summer occupancy increases and the aforementioned place fall drastically.

 

With the proper programs in place and right brand occupancy rates do not have to decrease.

I don't want to get too far away from the subject of this thread, but my contention is that, barring the addition of a modern convention center downtown, a medical or some other merchandise mart, enhancement of tech/green businesses, and better marketing of our tourist assets and improved market/physical linkages with the growing medical facilities at University Circle, there isn't any need for more hotel space.

 

Some things are percolating, like the improved linkages with University Circle. That's probably why a hotel is probable at the Bruer Tower at Euclid/9th. We need more of the features I spoke of to make the addition of more hotel space viable, IMHO.

I don't want to get too far away from the subject of this thread, but my contention is that, barring the addition of a modern convention center downtown, a medical or some other merchandise mart, enhancement of tech/green businesses, and better marketing of our tourist assets and improved market/physical linkages with the growing medical facilities at University Circle, there isn't any need for more hotel space.

 

Some things are percolating, like the improved linkages with University Circle. That's probably why a hotel is probable at the Bruer Tower at Euclid/9th. We need more of the features I spoke of to make the addition of more hotel space viable, IMHO.

 

Ahh but we do.  We still miss out on travelers that want a certain "brand" experience yet can't get that here in Cleveland.  I encountered this numerous times from collegues and staff, and get the "you'd think in a city this big they would have X hotel". 

 

We don't have a:

Sheraton, Westin Le Meridie or W. 

Hilton, Conrad

Marriott Suites, Marriott Marquis a JW Marriott.

Grand Hyatt or Park Hyatt.

 

those are brands people want to stay in.  They're hip, young, cool.  We need those to be built along with better marketing of the area.  And with all the new construction going on, hotels should be a priority in these developments.

I guess I don't get it. How do you brand a clean bed in a quiet room? I'm asleep almost the entire time I spend in a hotel, so who cares what their brand is? I guess my needs are too basic to understand such extravagences.

Goddammit Kids. Go Create a Cleveland Hotel Economy Thread.

Whoa Pope.. easy on the GD's on the national day of prayer..

I knew this (Pope or MayDay ultimatim) was coming.  :-D

 

I don't want to get too far away from the subject of this thread, but my contention is that, barring the addition of a modern convention center downtown, a medical or some other merchandise mart, enhancement of tech/green businesses, and better marketing of our tourist assets and improved market/physical linkages with the growing medical facilities at University Circle, there isn't any need for more hotel space.

 

To bring this back on topic, maybe part of the reason Jacobs is moving on this now is exactly because a lot of those things you mentioned are happening or have a high likelihood of happening.

 

It's likely that it's a combo of all of the reasons that have been brought up:

-Availability of anchor office tenants

-Proven interest in downtown condos

-Anticipated demand for more hotel space (new downtown CC, MM, EC, tech companies expanding in eastern CBD, Cleveland+ marketing)

 

As far as the "everyone else is building" idea, I would guess that maybe rather than trying to keep up with the Joneses (or Wolsteins, as it were,) there are simply favorable market conditions all around that all of these developers are trying to exploit.  There's competition because so many people see the advantages of building right now.

I hope so! 

 

I'm glad we've never overbuilt and Happy to see many of our beautiful buildings get a second life as a condo/loft.  Lets keep the momentum moving.

Jacobs, Stark are part of a downtown TIF District plan to be possibly announced later this week. More info in the stark pesht thread

Not yet they aren't! Hopefully they will.

Yeah .. let's not jump to any conclusions. Let's be tentatively optimistic.

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.

^I don't think that the type of work that those two law firms do would take them to the downtown courts too often. They do a lot of corporate work.

^While both firms have large transactional practices, they also have huge litigation departments and practice extensively in both federal and state court in Cleveland (and really around the state and nation).  In January the litigators appreciate being close to court.

Hts44121, you are very much on to something. Jacobs is quite serious about his Public Square skyscraper. I don't mind letting this nugget slip (it will give us all lots to talk about over the Memorial Day weekend and time for the PD to forget about this by the time Tuesday rolls around -- since I technically don't cover downtown anymore!)...

 

Jacobs is trying to restructure his UDAG loan he took in the late 1980s to build Key Tower so he can afford to build the new Public Square skyscraper. He has an interested tenant though I don't know who. BH and Squires are almost certainly candidates.

 

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? 

 

 

Hts44121 isnt Baker Hostetler still in the National City Building?

^Yes Baker is still in the National City Bank Building.

Don't we also know that Huntington Bank has an expiring lease and DFAS is looking for more space?  So besides SSD and BH, there's a couple more large players out there.  It does seem that now that Stark is presumably out of the office tenant market, then there is room at least for K&D's 200k-300k office building if not Jacob's tower.

^ I know DFAS had at one point been rumored to be moving to FEB, but I was never quite convinced the government would be willing to pay the extra money for brand new Class A office space, even though they will need to expand to more than the Celebreze Federal Building would allow. My guess is DFAS would expand into some of the nearby office space soon to be vacated by the likes of Ernst & Young, Baker Hostetler et al. in this period of major tenant lease reshuffling. Actually, with this glut of new projects (WHD, FEB, Jacobs...) I am actually more interested to see the second and third rounds of leases signed to fill the newly vacated spaces left by larger tenants. The speed at which this happens, IMO, is going to be the real indicator as to the viable scale of downtown office tenancy in the next 6 to 10 years.