yes yes i restoked it (and sorry for the late reply as i see the conversation has already passed me)

 

but just to clairify my question WAS answered.. its an urban planning issue not a design issue. I guess now that you mention that its just the mood that more ppl vs less set than another i would agree.. however..

 

 

i can wait 10 years, just give me all four tallest buildings on public square.

 

thats my opinion though.

...the county would need to start looking for office space immediately, in which they could turn to Jacobs which could easily add 15-20 stories to accommodate them.

 

There is no way that the county government will be in Jacobs' tower.  First, the county commissioners have spotty credibility when it comes to making major financial decisions lately, so purchasing the most expensive office space in town would likely damage their political credibility even further.  They need to improve credibility with voters (especially during an economic downturn), not lease prime space on the square. 

 

If the county moves their offices, they are going to consolidate most of the offices scattered around town onto one site, and will likely need to lease their own building.  Anybody that has worked in one of the buildings where the county leases space knows that county offices do not make good neighbors.  Most county offices are social services (drug rehab, family services, mental health, etc.). The targeted tenants with deep pockets desiring Class A offices will not lease space in a building with druggies running around screaming at people in the elevators and psychos defecating in stairwells. 

 

The county needs a modern but mostly empty building with low rents (like EOG at E.9th & Superior) at around $12 a foot versus $30 per foot rent in a new tower.

good point Pete.

^^Damn, well put.

"psychos defecating in stairwells"....WOW!

 

 

 

The county needs a modern but mostly empty building with low rents (like EOG at E.9th & Superior) at around $12 a foot versus $30 per foot rent in a new tower.

 

Sounds like the Huntington bank building circa 2011 to me.

The prevailing office-location rumor at Baker Hostetler is that their preferred alternative is to move to the new Jacob's building on Public Square from the National City Building.  They would need 100,000+ SF of space, and depending on how much "+" it could be enough to get financing to build the proposed building.

Pete,

 

Thanks for the rumor info. It would be great to hear that this project has its leases lined up soon.

Given the size of the firm, I would not be at all surprised if Baker Hostetler requires 200,000 sq+

They are requiring 200,000 square feet. That's the figure BH has put out there, and was quoted in numerous articles.

As they say on the radio, first time, long time.  I have a quick question for everyone on this board.  I was walking by the proposed site last night and one thing really struck me.  At only 21 stories, the Jacobs building would have its lake views to the North completely blocked by 55 Public Square.  Isn't that one of the biggest attractions to an office tower in Cleveland?  If I am one of the firms looking to move and currently paying cheap rent, I would find it hard to stomache the steep rent premium given this.  Maybe this wouldn't be a big deal for a bank like Huntington, but for the law firms looking to move I would think they would require a top floor with great panoramic views in order to impress clients.  Maybe the location can't be beat and this won't matter but it really sticks out to me.

 

Twear, its the "address" that is all important, not the view.  Again, this is a rendering, not the final product.

 

Oh, and welcome.  :wave:

I think that, in this case, the location would have to be a major selling point. Besides, not every location in Cleveland has views of the lake.

 

Welcome, Twear.

Welcome to the forum, twear!

The view of the lake will not be completely blocked off.  The west and north sides of the buidling will have a direct line of sight to the mouth of the Cuyahoga, and any point of the shoreline west of there, with nothing of significance blocking the view.  Plus, as discussed upthread, the high priced offices (presumably on the top floors) will probably be higher than the roof of 55 PS due to taller ceilings on each floor leading up.

Twear, its the "address" that is all important, not the view.  Again, this is a rendering, not the final product.

 

Oh, and welcome.  :wave:

 

My hope is that requirements of the firms (panoramic views for conference rooms in order to impress clients) will convince jacobs to build a slightly taller tower which I think would make evenone on this board happy.  :clap:

 

 

Twear, its the "address" that is all important, not the view.  Again, this is a rendering, not the final product.

 

Oh, and welcome.  :wave:

 

My hope is that requirements of the firms (panoramic views for conference rooms in order to impress clients) will convince jacobs to build a slightly taller tower which I think would make evenone on this board happy.   :clap:

 

 

 

Honestly, "height" won't make me happy.  what would make me happy is a full building, that is built in time and on budget and a good tenant mix that can afford the building for a long period of time, plus, throw in some ground level retail and I'm happy.  Conference rooms rarely have premium views.

 

Yes I'd like to see a taller building for my own selfish concerns but that apparently isn't financial feasible today.

Honestly, "height" won't make me happy. what would make me happy is a full building, that is built in time and on budget and a good tenant mix that can afford the building for a long period of time, plus, throw in some ground level retail and I'm happy. Conference rooms rarely have premium views.

 

Yes I'd like to see a taller building for my own selfish concerns but that apparently isn't financial feasible today.

 

I totally agree.

 

Conference rooms rarely have premium views.

 

 

 

Take one step into SS&D's conference rooms in the Key Tower and you will know what I am talking about.  Absolutely amazing views.

 

Not that you can compare what Jacobs is planning to a 60 story tower, but impressive nonetheless.

Now only if you can get this new building to spin around, we might beat Dubai to the punch! :-)

 

(http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,5628.msg299664.html#msg299664)

 

But really, height won't be a determining factor in making this building a "successful" addition. Proper context will.

I'd rather see 24 wind turbines off the CLE coast than an extra 24 stories on this building (as far as the rendering shows)!  But that's just me and that's for another topic!  Carry on!

 

 

Take one step into SS&D's conference rooms in the Key Tower and you will know what I am talking about.  Absolutely amazing views.

 

Not that you can compare what Jacobs is planning to a 60 story tower, but impressive nonetheless.

 

I used to work for a startup firm (that failed) that had space on the 50th floor of the Key Tower. I don't think there is  any window above the 30th or 35th floor that doesn't have a breathtaking view. Our big conference room was in the NE corner with near floor to ceiling windows. Absolutely beautiful. I used to be able to look at the window from my desk onto the flats and the westside.

Depressing, I am now at a different company in cube in the middle of my floor  with no windows anywhere around(sigh)

 

But back on topic, a building that is the right sized to get built is the most important thing.

im praying this proposal is never built. id rather the parking lot remain there for 10 yrs if thats how long it takes for there to be an actually decent proposal. doesnt have to be a supoertall, doesnt even have to be taller than key......just something thats tall enough to offer lake views & has a good design.

 

 

this quote is perfect

 

Posted by krazyk47 on 06/04/08 at 3:04PM

 

21 story glass tower in the heart of downtown? Is this a joke? Are we that desparate that we are trying to compete with Toledo? Are we trying to get rid of the indians so that the mudhens have a place to play?

 

This is a terrible idea. Yes it fills an empty lot, but thats hardly a reason to build a crappy building. All the architects on this forum who are extolling the virtues of compact design seem to have forgotten that this is public square, not some anonymous corner of the city. If there is any place where building a 1000 foot tall building is appropriate, this is it. That will be much harder to do with this ugly little runt standing in the way.

My guess, this is just a hasty proposal that Hines is pitching to satisfy the tenants who are leaving the Huntington building. When they sign leases with other projects that are further along this project will be thrown in the scrap heap where it belongs 

 

lets hope thats the case

 

 

 

^ I hope so too.  I have a hard time believe Jacobs would hold on to this property for this long only to build something underwhelming.  It stinks that it's a parking lot, but that is property that shouldn't be touched until a worthy project is proposed for it.

^ I hope so too. I have a hard time believe Jacobs would hold on to this property for this long only to build something underwhelming. It stinks that it's a parking lot, but that is property that shouldn't be touched until a worthy project is proposed for it.

 

I agree.

Here we go again.

Last week it was the Avenue District, this week Jacobs building, whats next week.  Hey, on the bright side, 5 years ago we had nothing to bash. 

 

Anyhow, conceptually, I like Jacobs plan, and that is all I can say because we have only seen a concept so far.  He has yet to secure a tenant to design for. 

I'm glad Jacobs thinks the market will absorb a new tower like this and i understand the market couldn't absorb a 70 story all-office tower in addition to other office developments, but this is Public Square, where aparently hubris in construction comes into full force. I'm just stating that if I owned this land, I would wait until I could build something landmark. Of course if the building as proposed gets built, floors can always be added, look at Queen City Square in Cincy for example.

 

But this is only a proposal and there are a multitude of variables that could drastically alter this project.

How about this... why doesn't everyone just stop rehashing the same arguments until we actually find out what is or isn't going to happen.

 

So just to recap, some people like the potential project because it brings more life and added density to a long vacant surface lot. Some people think the lot is too valuable and construction should hold out until conditions are ripe for a 50+ story building.  There is currently no tennant, nor anything other than one massing.  When more information becomes available we can issue more informed opinions. That should cover it, right  :wink:

No really, I love discussing other buildings, other architects, renderings that aren't final or tentatively labeled as so, other cities, architect's websites, whether an architect will get a commission here in Ohio again, other cities......

 

this is, admittedly, a second-hand rumor, but I heard Calfee Halter is considering moving to Jacobs' planned building in the Public Square.  I guess this would be a large enough anchor tenant to push this project forward.  Can anyone confirm this?

^Depends on how much space they'd need (like any other potential tenant).

Who's that?

^Law firm - not one of the big ones like Squire or Jones Day, but not tiny either.

Calfee has between 130-140 attorneys in their Cleveland office; plus support staff, this probably means 250-300 people.  Squire Sanders has about 150-160 attorneys in Cleveland.  Even though Calfee is much smaller than Squire or Jones Day globally, they're pretty strong here locally.  I imagine they could be an anchor tenant for a 20+ story office building, right?

Ahh, thanks guys. I assume they are already Downtown, then.

^800 Superior (KeyBank Center). Thanks alanr - I didn't realize they had that many locally but that's great. Are they big enough to anchor a new office tower? Maybe not, but they'd at least take up a healthy amount of space.

Ahh, thanks guys. I assume they are already Downtown, then.

 

Yep East Ninth.  They have a website. hint, hint..... he he he

They are currently located in the Key/McDonald building at 9th and Superior. I know that they take up two floors there, but I'm not sure if they take up any more than that.

they are looking for about 150k feet.  That would take up a decent chunk, but I wouldn't think enough to get it going...

The whole employment law field is growing.  Baker Hostetler and Calfee Halter are the big ones around here.  Some national firms such as Littler Mendleson and Ogletree something are trying to invade the market by incorporating mid-sized local firms - I believe Littler absorbed what used to be Duvin Cahn.  That has caused Baker and Calfee to be more aggressive in trying to expand and attract top Ivy league talent.

 

I was recently in Calfee's office in the Key/McDonald building.  They have a beautiful, Class-A (IMO) space but it was rather disjointed.  Earlier poster was correct, they occupy at least two floors but I am not sure their occupancy spans the entire building.  Based upon what I heard about Baker's and SSD's wants and desires, firms of that size are usually looking for 200,000 sq. ft +.

 

The Jacobs property is ideal for law firms that have a litigation department such as Calfee.  It is placed perfectly in the middle of the Federal and State Courthouses.  Hop, Skip and Jump from both.  It would also be near the ugly black building (state building?) where the workers' comp hearings are held.  Plus, it is right next door to 55 and 75 Public Square, both of which house an inordinate amount of small and mid-size firms.

 

One thing you can count on is that Baker AND Calfee will not both be going in any building Jacobs' plans to build.  It will be one or the other or neither.  They would never be able to decide who gets to be on top.  :wink:

 

 

The Calfee Halter web site lists that there are approximately 157 attorneys in the Cleveland office and 24 in the Columbus office.

 

I found this in the fast facts tab.

I cannot see this project surviving the credit crunch. 

 

Edit: Article removed for lack of link.

Simply - just so you're not killing yourself, this has been posted in the general cleveland development thread since this discuss several projects. 

Mts I want all of these projects to go just like everyone else but a couple of them might not get financing. This Jacobs project might be the toughest unless he ends up with signed leases and most of the lookers are pretty close to being signed up.

So what? Cleveland didn't die in the Great Depression. It was certainly hurt bad, but the city was asleep at the switch then.

 

It won't die in this economic downturn, either. It will certainly be hurt. No question. But there are "boomtown" cities in this country where entire skyscrapers (Miami) and subdivisions (Las Vegas) that have going into foreclosure. They might recover. They might be slow to rebound like Cleveland was in the Great Depression. Who knows...the future isn't written. We all write our own futures.

 

My suggestion, simplythis:  stop reading the newspaper. You're taking it awfully hard. Instead, get out there and make some news. Let people read about you and all the good things you're doing to make Cleveland better. You obviously care deeply about this city. Use those emotions and motivations to create good news.

im glad we havent heard anything about this project  :-D

im glad we havent heard anything about this project  :-D

 

Yes that rendering was awful.  Towers should be towery.  It's like they handed Jacobs a blank blueish sheet of paper and said picture this-- as a building.       

if possible, can someone summarize to date?

 

that is, make a quick laundry list of the for sure and the potential tenants for this tower & their likely sq footage requirements (floors)? thx

I herd people in starbucks on 6th talking about development on this land, can anyone confirm this. Or were they talking about the building that got postponed due to the lones?