Real Growth would be exactly that REAL GROWTH - new companies or expanding companies.  As an earlier poster put it as well - Real Growth is not attracting suburban office tenants either.  We talk about regionalism as long as it benefits Cleveland.  Would I like to see downtown more robust, new class A buildings, an 'aura' of improvement?  Of course - but at the same time do I want to see Rockside or Chagrin void of activity?  Of course not. 

 

There are additional things that can be done to allow companies to grow in continuous space.  You can relocate smaller tenants to other floors (typically allowed for in most commercial leases), rehab unused buildings right now.

 

Dont' get me wrong - I live in Cleveland and have great knowledge (since its what I do) on the commercial real estate climate in Cleveland - so I have a vested interest and understanding on what is happening. 

 

You have tenants already leaving Huntington - why do they ALL have to leave if all this space opens up? 

 

Expanding, isn't that what these company's are doing??  :wtf:  :wtf:  is that not growth as you state?

 

These company's are not moving just to move, they are hiring more people and need more specialized space.  In the release they are looking for other tenants outside downtown which is not specific as to where the tenants will come from, correct?  So lets not assume they will come from the 'burbs.

 

Where did you read that "all the tenants" of the Huntington Bldg. are leaving?  I think the issue with the Huntington building like many other built around its time is the walls and support.  You don't' have enough unobstructed floor space on each floor plate to do business the way they want.  In addition, many buildings now want to have green status and a building of this magnitude doesn't offer this.

 

Who is to know the "second life" of the huntington Bldg. will be until its announced.  We're saying this building is dead, with no probable cause.  Come on people!

 

Downtown has what business going forward want, shops, restaurants, hotels, recreation and other business synergy needs along with transporation options all ready in place.

 

That's something that the 'burbs will never be able to compete with.  In addition, younger employees and those new to the market want to live within 15 minutes of their house and/or where they socialize and network.  Very few suburbs can offer that.

Huntington Bank Building = Converted into condo's, because that would be the damned most hippest pad between Chicago and NYC (mocking the Avalon ad).. seriously, the atrium alone would be a nice selling factor and that building would actually be easier to retrofit into apartments/condo's/hotel space than most other buildings out there. Everytime I go in that building, I definately get the inner feeling that *this one* is Cleveland's best building! The entire complex, from the murals to the atrium lobby to the underground shopping is well executed. This one, whether it's finding new Class B tenants or converting it should not be a problem, as this was built by I believe the guys who built Terminal Tower, but more importantly, I'd like to think this is greater than Walker & Weeks best.

Huntington Bank Building = Converted into condo's, because that would be the damned most hippest pad between Chicago and NYC (mocking the Avalon ad).. seriously, the atrium alone would be a nice selling factor and that building would actually be easier to retrofit into apartments/condo's/hotel space than most other buildings out there. Everytime I go in that building, I definately get the inner feeling that *this one* is Cleveland's best building! The entire complex, from the murals to the atrium lobby to the underground shopping is well executed. This one, whether it's finding new Class B tenants or converting it should not be a problem, as this was built by I believe the guys who built Terminal Tower, but more importantly, I'd like to think this is greater than Walker & Weeks best.

 

BINGO!  I LOVE for that to happen, then the arcade would have built in customers outside of normal business hours.

^ For all we know, Jacobs might have this already planned! He owns the Huntington Bldg. as far as I know and he wouldn't build a new building without knowing the effects on taking away from the HBB's clientele. There's probably a lot more to the picture which hasn't been announced or made public yet. After all, this is right there near K&D's project, lower Euclid, and all that other jazz.

^I don't think that Jacobs owns the Huntington. There was an article a few weeks ago that talked about the owner. I really don't think that it was Jacobs.

Jacobs 100% does not own the huntington... I forget the guys name, but he is like 90some years old and has owned the building for about 60 years.  He leases the building to Huntington, who in turn subleases it out to various tenants.

The owner is Carl Glickman, who owns the building through Chester Union Associates.

 

However, Jacobs' new office tower does have a connection with the Huntington Building. His partner in the new tower, Hines Interests LP, is the firm hired by Glickman in 1991 to manage the Huntington Building, including leasing activities.

 

Given this connection with Hines, I assume Jacobs and Glickman met regarding the Public Square tower. Bet that was an interesting discussion!

 

Regarding the 65% pre-leasing... There are 3 major tennants out there.  If they get 2 the building is about 85-90% full.  If they get one it's about 50% already. 65% will not be an issue.  Everyone keeps bringing up the reshuffling and how it's not "growth".  But the simple fact is that until the reshuffling occurs there simply isn't the type of office space available downtown to entice anyone to enter.  We HAVE to go through this phase if we want to grow.

 

Not to bring up the old "This should have been taller" argument again, but this is an important consideration.  If the building needs 65% pre-leasing to construct, and there are 3 major tenants looking, 2 of which would fill the proposed tower 85%, then it stands to reason that a tower 3 times the size of the one proposed would only have been filled about 42% or so if they signed all three of the major tenants.

 

The likely result without an improvement in market conditions would have likely been another "Abandoned Projects" thread, and don't you just hate those?

 

Now I can understand the argument that this is a prime site and should be reserved for a prime development.  The "This should have been a 'supertall'*" argument doesn't hold much water. 

 

What might hold water is, "If you're going to build a 22 story glass rectangle to satisfy existing demand for Class A space, are there not plenty of other places you could do this, while leaving the Public Square location open for something really special?"

 

Maybe - people listed plenty of places in the CBD that the next 600+ footer could go, so those same places could certainly be suitable for a 22-story tower.

 

But breaking up this lot and the superblock in the WHD is probably the most important issue in the CBD  (aside from the nonunion workers who dared to clean up the sidewalks).  If this and Stark's plan can come to life together it would be a major boon for the city, and if you want to talk about psychological boosts I think development on those important city blocks would be just as significant as a new skyscraper, for anyone who actually goes into the city to look around. 

 

_{*I hate when adjectives are turned into nouns}

^I believe that costs go up significantly if you build over 21 stories due to more intense foundation work.

 

I think we have our signature structures on public Square. I'd rather see a tall tower built somewhere else in the cbd.

Now I can understand the argument that this is a prime site and should be reserved for a prime development.  The "This should have been a 'supertall'*" argument doesn't hold much water. 

 

What might hold water is, "If you're going to build a 22 story glass rectangle to satisfy existing demand for Class A space, are there not plenty of other places you could do this, while leaving the Public Square location open for something really special?"

 

Maybe - people listed plenty of places in the CBD that the next 600+ footer could go, so those same places could certainly be suitable for a 22-story tower.

 

 

Hey look at that, an intelligent way to debate whether or not this building is good news... not just the "we should be building 900 story towers, because that's what progressive cities do" argument.

True about the foundation. Since bedrock is 200 feet below the surface, you either have to build a concrete pad for lighter buildings (generally 25 stories or less) or for tall buildings you have dig caissons all the way down to bedrock. The high price of steel (not just for girders but for rebar in the caissons) and the region's office stagnant market are both likely factors against building a supertall.

We could build that 65 Story Signature Building Right across the street on that vacant Stark parcel. That parcel is basically public square.

"and if you want to talk about psychological boosts I think development on those important city blocks would be just as significant as a new skyscraper, for anyone who actually goes into the city to look around."

 

Any new construction in downtown Cleveland is a psychological boost in my book.  All everyone hears about is how the economy sucks or about the population exodus etc.  Just think, by sometime in 2010 if all these projects get underway, we could be dubbed "The City of Cranes".....take that Berlin.

 

Oh, just because:

 

 

Nice job, MayDay. You're nutty, but nice job!

The tower reminds me a bit of the building in Philly (can't remember the name) that has a very strange geometry.  Almost as if it's leaning. 

The tower reminds me a bit of the building in Philly (can't remember the name) that has a very strange geometry.  Almost as if it's leaning. 

 

Cira Centre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cira_Centre

Oh, just because:

 

 

 

Beautiful.  That should put everyone's mind at ease.  I love it.

 

:)

Great job MayDay!  It changes that view down Superior considerably.

 

But, I too am somewhat disappointed with the height of the building. I was hoping for about a 500' tower on this site which would make that view even more impressive.  I would assume that the steel structure on the top of the building does not count toward the 21 stories, so it looks like it would add about 3 stories of height.

 

But, if the E&Y tower, Ameritrust, and PS buildings are counted together, there is going to be about 55 stories of new construction.  I think there is enough companies looking for new office space to support all three projects.  Would you rather have one 55 story building or all three of these projects?  This is an easy answer to me as I would rather see all three built.

 

As far as the design goes, I lived in Dallas and Houston for about 10 years total and Hines had always built well designed and classy buildings in those cities (Houston is their headquarters) and I would expect this building to be no different.  Also, Dick Jacobs supports good architecture as the Key tower would attest.

 

Those of you that do not like the glassy buildings are out of luck as this is the current style of skyscrapers today.  The E&Y and Ameritrust proposals are also glassy in their renderings.  Personally, I liked the post modern style that was used in the last skyscraper boom in the late 80's and early 90's.  But, styles change over time and it is good to have a mixture of all styles on the skyline although I am not a big fan of the Brutalist style in the 70's.

 

Speaking of Houston and Dallas, those cities had a longer drought of no new office buildings than Cleveland.  Both cities had tremendous booms in the late 70's and early 80's.  Dallas may still have not had a significant new office building since then and Houston had the Enron building constructed in the early 2000's.

 

I worked in the Huntington building for about 17 years.  It is without a doubt a classy building with a lot of marble.  However, since there was no air conditioning when it was built, it was built with two open wells on the inside of the building, one going North/South down 9th street and the other going East/West down Chester.  This was to have window offices on the inside to have enough circulation of air for cooling during the summer.  As a result, there is not enough room for open space for cubes and it does not support a modern office environment.  But, I enjoyed having my own office.

Well this has become a very lively and interesting debate over the last 24 hrs. First let me say I understand the incredulity of some of the members (btw welcome badge). I don't believe their comments were any more sinister than disappointment and/or disbelief. That being said, I'm glad we're all a little calmer today. I want to touch on just a few of the points of contention.

 

I don't believe there is any debate concerning the economic viability of a signature tower on this site. Without a large tenant, or two, financing would be impossible. If Jacobs/Hines were to somehow snap up some of the prospects out there locally it would be the end of FEB, and Starks' future build out and I don't think anyone wants that.

 

Can we all agree that the success of a project to positively affect street life is a function of design and not of height; and yes I'm assuming that a monstrous tower hasn't gobbled up all the tenants from around the city at 9 only to regurgitate them at 5. The design of this building is something we can debate once there are more thorough renderings.

 

This brings me to the interesting point that 'X' brought up and reminded me that this announcement comes on the heels of Starks abandoning a similarly sized component of his development just 1 block west. Obviously we don't know what sort of deals were made, if any, but on the surface it looks like Stark just got squeezed a little. Why do we need to sew up this little hole in our urban fabric more than the one right next to it? IMO no convincing argument has been made, or even attempted, for why this 21 storey structure should be on this site as opposed to the site immediately to the west. Conversely you might ask me why I'd rather see it in "Pesht" and I'll get to that shortly.

 

During the time Society Center was getting underway and Ameritrust was proposed I had a conversation with a senior member of the planning dept and I asked for his opinion on these amazing projects. His response surprised me. He said he felt there never should have been any highrise development on Public Square, with the exception of course of Terminal Tower, and P.S. should of maintained its historical character. His thoughts were that the E. 9th st corridor and points east should be the domain for highrise construction and that the TT should stand alone in the skyline, worthy of its place. He then pointed out that once SOHIO ( which he described as an open-toed boot, an image I still get a kick from) was built, that changed the rules. He now felt that Clevelands future tallest structures should in fact frame the square and become the dominant focal point of the skyline. I still agree with him today. Yes there are of course other sites were future Key+ towers could be built, but I believe none more perfect than the site that's title to this thread. So if I had the choice, and I don't, I would nudge this little guy just a bit to the west. That would leave me just a little hope that if we plug the one hole now, we can later plug this one with something not just tall but truly special. Imagine if the announcement read a little more like - Jacobs/Hines have letter of intent from a large fortune 500 co. that plans to move there world headquarters to Cleveland and occupy 80% of a proposed 1000 ft tower on Public Square. Sure it sounds like wishful thinking but things like this have happened before. Do we think our city lacks the appeal for such a move? Are there no set of inducements to make that happen? Without speaking for others, I think most would be pleased. Even those who've said they'd rather not see another highrise on P.S. might begin to warm up to the idea, as I might warm up to the proposal in hand.

 

BTW great job MayDay with the photoshop. Looks good..just not to special.

^I think there is definitely room for the argument of "should this space be left open for a future prominent tower".  My only problem with it of course is that a signature tower of that size requires a huge company... like you said something of the fortune 500 ilk.  It's not coming from inside the region.  So you are either waiting to entice some huge company to move to cleveland or waiting for some local company to make a giant leap.  Either way I see it being a LONG time before that happens.  And we need this development and density very very badly.  But again, whether or not this space should be left blank for such a scenario is certainly debateable.  As for my particular preference, like I said, I think we need the density.  I am happy with the height. But I do believe this project needs to have a stand out building...

^I think there is definitely room for the argument of "should this space be left open for a future prominent tower".  My only problem with it of course is that a signature tower of that size requires a huge company... like you said something of the fortune 500 ilk.  It's not coming from inside the region.  So you are either waiting to entice some huge company to move to cleveland or waiting for some local company to make a giant leap.  Either way I see it being a LONG time before that happens. And we need this development and density very very badly.  But again, whether or not this space should be left blank for such a scenario is certainly debateable.  As for my particular preference, like I said, I think we need the density.  I am happy with the height. But I do believe this project needs to have a stand out building...

 

waiting for a post to say "you aren't thinking big enough", "this is why cleveland is small", "wah wah wah", "you make cleveland sports teams keep losing"

from emporis.com

 

http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/tp/wo/

 

# Building                   City         Height   Height   Floors Year

1. Taipei 101                 Taipei         509 m       1,671 ft 101       2004

2. Shanghai World Financial .. Shanghai         492 m         1,614 ft 101       2008

3. Petronas Tower 1     Kuala Lumpur 452 m         1,483 ft   88         1998

4. Petronas Tower 2     Kuala Lumpur 452 m         1,483 ft   88         1998

5. Sears Tower               Chicago             442 m     1,451 ft     108   1974

6. Jin Mao Tower               Shanghai             421 m   1,380 ft     88   1999

7. Two International Finance..Hong Kong         415 m       1,362 ft 88       2003

8. CITIC Plaza                 Guangzhou     391 m     1,283 ft     80     1997

9. Shun Hing Square       Shenzhen           384 m   1,260 ft   69         1996

10. Empire State Building   New York City 381 m           1,250 ft 102         1931

11. Central Plaza               Hong Kong     374 m     1,227 ft     78     1992

12. Bank of China Tower Hong Kong         367 m         1,205 ft 70         1990

13. Bank of America Tower New York City       366 m       1,200 ft        54       2008

14. Almas Tower                   Dubai       360 m       1,181 ft       74       2008

15. Emirates Office Tower         Dubai             355 m     1,163 ft     54           2000

 

Altitude and number of floors, even in modern construction, are not synonymous. Of course, construction standards were much different in 1931 when the Empire State Building #10 made 102 stories equal 1250ft. However compare two buildings built in the same era.

 

#13 Bank of America Tower (2008) 54 floors and 1200ft and #7 Two International Finance (2003) 88 floors and 1362ft. Granted one is in NYC and one Asia, but putting that aside, Bank of America averages 22.2 feet per floor while Two International Finance averages 15.47 feet per floor.

 

I understand each building's construction will necessarily have different demands that will alter each buildings per floor height.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that 21 floors might get you a lot more than you might think in terms of height. 466 feet by Bank of America standards, which would be taller than One Cleveland Center. Still, all a lot of conjecture...

 

 

 

A important factor to consider when building towers in Downtown Cleveland is the poor soils.  Remember, Downtown is built on the pile of crap leftover when the glaciers receded.  Downtown has some of the worst soil (or lack of shallow rock) in the region.  Here is some history: (quotes from http://www.clevelandskyscrapers.com/cleveland/fghistory.html)

 

"As Cleveland is located between New York and Chicago, design inspiration for Cleveland's high rise buildings came from both cities. Unfortunately, much of this "lofty" inspiration has been dampened by weak bearing soil." 

 

"the Terminal Tower’s foundations were heroic. Hand dug caissons, 250’ deep, support the building."

 

"Both buildings [55 Building, East Ohio Building] were built on slab foundations, which limited the building’s height to 22-stories (or so), thus "ducking" the soils issue."

 

"the Fed rose to 32 stories (it also included a beautiful landscaped plaza) and did not "duck" the soils issue. Because of that, the Federal Building bears mute testimony to the unyielding characteristic of Cleveland's mucky subsoil and the "price" of excessive height. The caisson-drilling rig is still under the northwest corner of the building!"

 

 

Another thing to consider is soaring prices and the long lead time necessary for structural steel.  The economics will probably favor buildings with a reinforced concrete structure on either Public Square or Flats East Bank, no matter the height (see Avenue District and Petronas Towers for examples).

 

 

Welcome, Pete. As a newcomer, you should be aware that you just quoted the website of MayDay, one of the moderators of this site. I'm sure he won't be pissed, but the irony is fun. :-)

Is it beveled, or are my eyes playing tricks?  If so, it could be nicknamed the glass chisel.  I can't tell if that is a right angle at W Roadway and Superior.  The front window wall reminds me of the uck Federal Building at 9th and Lakeside.  I was hoping for a Public Square framing, taller building myself, but hey, I guess its not to be.

 

 

I was initially hoping for something 50+ stories on this site as were many others on here. Though I realize the market conditions may be prohibitive for a larger structure. If done right this could tie in the central business district nicely with Stark's project on into the warehouse district. This could become a very dense area in a short period of time. I'm all for it. Though I hope for a little better design, maybe some stone work with the glass to help compliment the adjacent terminal tower complex.

i wonder if people in chicago or new york complain when 700 footers go up about how street life will be ruined

 

matter fact, why dont we just demolish the terminal tower, BP, and key while we're at it. tall buildings are horrible, they ruin cities and do nothing for street life. i mean whens the last time you saw people out on the streets in manhattan or the loop? i wish all the fortune 500 companies downtown located in skyscrapers would put themselves in 10 different buildings instead. why is jacobs even trying to build such a tall behemoth on public square anyways? i think it would be better suited with a hut and a tiki bar.....or maybe they could put a papa johns on the lot and offer 23 cent pizzas. that would create TONS of street life! after all, we're looking at 1 single lot on public square as an entire section of prague!

 

 

 

skyscrapers are whats built today. if you detest them so much, fire up the old chuck wagon and go live in podunkville, usa.

 

 

nevermind the fact that this building is only 21-stories, it is a poor uninspired design that looks like it could be built anywhere. theres no unique to cleveland design of the building.

 

what kind of a dolt am i though, i dont know anything about companies or the economy. i must want a 3579045271-story building and dubai-like construction since im unhappy with a developer holding onto a parking lot for big plans only to announce 55 public square part deux 20 yrs later. hes only crippled the city with that lot for 2 decades, but i should be happy with anything being built! how DARE i demand better and have a big vision for my hometown when its not my money. i shouldnt be telling any developer how to spend his money.

 

what was jacobs doing building key in the first place when they told him not to. you see what good that turned out to be. ...guess he's finally learned from that tragic mistake !

 

 

 

i hope this building in its current iteration is never built. keep it a parking lot.

Lets not bring in the Cleveland compared to Chicago/NYC, it holds no water.  We need to do what is best for Cleveland not worry about comparisons.

 

Now you're insulting us, after doing some reflecting, I've stated the building could be in the 25-30 range, but is that a personal interest or in the interest of the developer and tenants REAL TIME needs?  Lets think about that, what does the primary tenant need and can afford??  Regardless of what another city has done, what is right AT THIS MOMENT for Cleveland. 

 

The podunkville, USA comment is again insulting just because we don't agree on this issue.    It's a rendering how can you critique the design, seriously?

 

Now, nobody is slamming you, at least not me, for wanting a fabulous building, but the reality of it is, NONE OF US, control that land or have any financial interest in the project, yes or no?

 

I get it, you want a tall signature building on our historical "front door", but is building a large building financially viable?  Yes or No?  Is creating a new building going to improve NE Ohioans perception of their city as being "progressive", Yes or No?  Is building a new skyscrapper going to bring more jobs to the city than what teh tenant has already stated?  "Yes or No"?  Will a new skyscrapper on public square a Magic Bullet and cure all that needs to be corrected in Cleveland?  Yes or No? That's the bottom line.

 

What kind of building do you want and how is that building going to differ and more significant than what is proposed??

And your idea of a "unique to Cleveland" design would be what? Sure you could "tell" Jacobs and Hines how to spend their millions (I'd suggest improved grammar and punctuation though), but are you sending them emails, or just complaining on this local geekboard?

 

"i dont know anything about companies or the economy"

 

Apparently you do, but you think Jacobs/Hines should completely ignore economic realities. I'm guessing you don't have their net worth so here's a little hint - ignoring economic realities doesn't get you into a position to build office towers.

216, one other thing.  If you want this 50-60-70 story tower so badly (and personally, I do, and hope some day, WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT, we get another one), you have 3 options.  Go track down Peter B. Lewis and convince him that Progressive needs to abandon the 10 or so building compound they have (and own) over in Mayfield Hts. / Lyndhurst (and in the process probably cripple that town).  After he says no, you can go looking for the CEO of Eaton, perhaps put a gun to his head and force him to not build a multi building "campus".  Eaton with another one or two of the "large tennants" might get this done.  Assuming neither one of those avenues work out too well for you, here is the final option.  You will need to get most of these "large" tennants out on the market. You will need a hotel.  You will need residences.  In the process of this you will have to steal the FEB tenants, wiping that out.  You'll steal any possible tennants for the ameritrust project, the hotel from the ameritrust project, the highrise residences from the ameritrust project.... so I guess that's dead.  Residences will more than likely be stolen from pesht and 668 so we can shelve those... There you go.  You now have a "signature" building on public square surrounded by nothing.  I realize you're probably just going to bash me because I dont "dream" big enough, and I'm part of the problem, blah, blah, blah... Well here's my dream, to walk around downtown and not be surrounded by surface parking lots and abandoned buildings.  We currently have an opportunity to eradicate 70% of that problem in almost one swoop with pesht, feb, 668, ameritrust, the jacobs property, and the john hartness brown buildings.  And you know what, I'm not interested in losing all that just so we can have a neat sky scraper like some of the bigger cities.  When we've filled in all the "holes in the donut", and one of these fine young companies moving into the city grows to the point it's needed we'll worry about another skyscraper.

i hope this building in its current iteration is never built. keep it a parking lot.

 

wow.  relax.  oversimplification will get you nowhere on this forum.  being excessively contrarian will do even less.  shrill ranting...well if that works anywhere else for you, good luck with that.  in the meantime, use your inside voice.

 

« Reply #332 on: Today at 02:57:50 AM »

 

oh, well, guess that explains it.  when in doubt, go to sleep instead of posting at nearly 3am. 

Well said, McCleveland. Consider this: there are at least three 20+ skyscrapers due. Three?

 

You have:

 

The Ernst & Young building on West 9th

The Jacobs/Hines building on Public Square

And the Bruer tower at East 9th and Euclid

 

The last belongs on this list because only six months ago this building was still due to be demolished. Its replacement was to be a building roughly half as tall. Now the 29-story building will be a hotel and residences.

 

While there are additional buildings planned downtown, these aren't yet as likely as the two new ones. With all three in the skyline and spread out throughout downtown, they will not only provide more vibrancy in more areas of the CBD, but look good density-wise.

theres no unique to cleveland design of the building.

 

Like a brown and orange building? 

i wonder if people in chicago or new york complain when 700 footers go up about how street life will be ruined

 

Yes, as a Cleveland transplant in New York, I can say they do.. oh wait, New Yorkers complain about EVERYTHING.

^I think there is definitely room for the argument of "should this space be left open for a future prominent tower".  My only problem with it of course is that a signature tower of that size requires a huge company... like you said something of the fortune 500 ilk.  It's not coming from inside the region.  So you are either waiting to entice some huge company to move to cleveland or waiting for some local company to make a giant leap.  Either way I see it being a LONG time before that happens.  And we need this development and density very very badly.  But again, whether or not this space should be left blank for such a scenario is certainly debateable.  As for my particular preference, like I said, I think we need the density.  I am happy with the height. But I do believe this project needs to have a stand out building...

 

The only thing I would say is that even though there isnt a large enough tenent justifying anything taller, Im surprised he didnt plan for a mixed use building as was talked about further up, with a convention hotel.  The hotel itself could have added 20 stories. 

I like the building, I just think it needs to be a bit taller for that spot. 

You can't build a convention hotel on Public Square if you don't know where a convention center will be located.

 

 

I think people (developers) want to see where the CC is located and make sure that deal goes through before they commit to any more hotels.  There are already 2 new hotels coming on the market between FEB and Ameritrust.  And there are tons of new residences coming open at PESHT.  My guess is Jacobs and Stark figured it out and came to some sort of conclusion that stark wouldn't go after the big office tennants if jacobs didn't try to lure residences.

You can't build a convention hotel on Public Square if you don't know where a convention center will be located.

 

 

True.  Although it is between the two spots that were in contention.  Now we may instead see a convention hotel near e.55th.  :lol:

McCleveland that makes a lot of sense.  Thanks for that insight.

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  we should wait and see what unfolds with this project.  I have a hard time believing that this will just stay as an office tower, and that a hotel might be added into the mix as soon as the convention center site is chosen (as downtown is the most logical place for it, but that's another discussion). 

 

I have stated earlier in this thread that I would like to see a tower on this site that says "We believe in Cleveland", as signiture buildings can say (think Key Tower, Terminal Tower).  I would like a building with more height, as many others would.  However, we must look at what is best for the future of downtown at this point, and this building will make that corner 

Unique buildings in Cleveland? Who thinks there are none? Please people! Research Walker & Weeks. The Federal Reserve, the Bingham, and all their other stuff is amongst the best out there. The churches we have are also amazing, such as Trinity Cathedral! The Rock Hall might not be tall, but where else is something like it standing today? And as for the rest.. let's not forget all the Brutalism we have here, be it CSU, CWRU, Tri-C, or in downtown! Call it ugly but I call it beautiful! We have more brutalism than most other large cities! We also have in terms of "in Cleveland only" such stuff as the massive warehouses like Tyler Village and all the ones up and down Superior. To me, all of that stuff is unique. We have One Cleveland Center which I think is amazing, even though it has a bigger brother in NYC. We also have buildings by world-renowned, powerful, unique architects even if they aren't Cleveland-exclusive, still amazing. Weatherhead School by Frank Gehry, Key by Cesar Pelli, and the Rock Hall by IM Pei. As for unique to Cleveland, that Carl B. Stokes building is pretty damn amazing if you ask me.

You can't build a convention hotel on Public Square if you don't know where a convention center will be located.

 

 

I read an article in early 2005 that they were two months from picking a site for the convention center.  What did they decide?  ;)

We

Is it beveled, or are my eyes playing tricks?  If so, it could be nicknamed the glass chisel.

We already have one Silver Chisel downtown (on East 9th).  Do we need another?

I honestly don't understand why people care about height so much.  I want the building to be decently designed (well detailed, attractive materials) and I want it to frame the Square (no set-back from the street, no diagonal towers), but I otherwise don't care how tall it is.  At all.  I'm just happy that lot is going to be filled.  That parking lot is like a huge billboard screaming: THIS CITY IS SO ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED OR SPRAWLED OUT THAT LAND DOWNTOWN IS PRACTICALLY WORTHLESS.

 

 

I honestly don't understand why people care about height so much.  I want the building to be decently designed (well detailed, attractive materials) and I want it to frame the Square (no set-back from the street, no diagonal towers), but I otherwise don't care how tall it is.  At all.  I'm just happy that lot is going to be filled.

 

Without speaking for anyone else, I believe, that is what we all want, minus the fuckin' parking lot component. But don't get me started on parking structures.

 

That parking lot is like a huge billboard screaming: THIS CITY IS SO ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED OR SPRAWLED OUT THAT LAND DOWNTOWN IS PRACTICALLY WORTHLESS.

 

This is way over dramatic. :roll:  Seriously. 

From someone who is usually just a reader and too lazy to comment - this is crazy. If they anounced a 30 story tower many of you would have complained it should heve been 40. If the building was clad in stone you would have said it should be plastic. This tower will make a huge difference (possitive) with how public suare feels and looks. There are alot of possitive developments happening in downtown and we should be happy about this. If you look closely at our economy we are on the brink of a real transformation here in Cleveland but not one that will call for mega towers any time soon. We should be focusing on overall density and roughly 20 stories is the perfect height to start increasing this density. Yes it is nice to look at tall buildings from afar but having a dence walkable city with street life is much more satisfying then looking at several mega tall buildings. Cleveland's greatest fault is the negative attitude that persists in this community about our city. I enjoyed reading this forum because it mostly contained possitive enthusiastic comments but it seems this is starting to erode, and this is dissapointing. Back to being lazy.

welcome aboard urbanmyth.

Great first post urbanmyth, lets create a city of empty towers.. ugh..

urbanmyth, ever hear of "be the change you want to see?" - if you (or any other lurker out there) wants to see something different with this or any other thread, add to the discussion. That said, welcome to the forum :-)

 

I'm thrilled to see a decent-sized tower being proposed for the site. Now had they proposed something like a 5-story parking garage and ONLY a garage, I'd be p!ssed. I admit that as webmaster of clevelandskyscrapers.com - the skyline photographer in me wouldn't complain if it was a little taller but I'm well aware that this proposal is much closer to becoming reality as opposed to some supertall. Aside from that I'm looking forward to seeing this get built and more importantly the effect it will have on repairing some of the holes in downtown's urban fabric.

Urbanmyth, you should post more often! Your positive, thoughtful contribution is appreciated.