I can't imagine that anything is going to happen soon with this land. I'd love to be wrong.

I wonder how - if at all - Dick Jacobs' passing away is going to impact this proposed project.  Anyone has any insights on what the leadership at the Jacobs' Group is going to do about this prime property downtown Cleveland, in the post-Jacobs era of that organization?

I wonder how - if at all - Dick Jacobs' passing away is going to impact this proposed project. Anyone has any insights on what the leadership at the Jacobs' Group is going to do about this prime property downtown Cleveland, in the post-Jacobs era of that organization?

 

I know nothing about the Jacobs' Group so this comes solely from the gut.  I just have had the feeling for a while that they are sitting on this property to see how the MM/CC, FEB and/or WH Dist. plays out.  The success and/or failure of any of those projects will likely affect the viability/value of developing the lot and the manner/scale in which it is developed.

From what I understand, Jacobs in recent years has played a decreasingly active role in the management of the company that bears his name. In the last year or two his involvement has been minimal. I may be wrong but I doubt his passing will have much affect on his company's activities.

Anything new here? Everytime I look at these parking lots I want to vomit.

Does anyone know who is the current owner of the vacant land next to the northwest quandrant of Public Square that used to house 1 and 33 Public Square, where the Ameritrust Tower was planned to be? Is it owned by Jacobs? A few years ago there were plans by Hines to develop a 20 story building there, but that plan seems to have faded with the economy... Also, does anyone know the current value of the land? When I do a property search of 1 Public Square or 33 Public Square on the County Auditors website for Real Property, nothing comes up...

^I think Jacobs group still owns it.  It's made up of a bunch of parcels, but looks like the auditor's info is all under parcel # 101-07-008 if you want to look it up.

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,14285.0.html

Thanks--found it using the parcel ID number. Looks like over $1MM in delinquent property taxes! And yes, it looks like Jacobs is still the owner. They have a different name on the county auditor's web site, but it has the same address of Jacobs in Westlake.

Thanks--found it using the parcel ID number. Looks like over $1MM in delinquent property taxes! And yes, it looks like Jacobs is still the owner. They have a different name on the county auditor's web site, but it has the same address of Jacobs in Westlake.

 

Can the city/county "foreclose" on a property to recover delinquent taxes?

^yes

I believe that is how most "Sheriff's sales" are brought about.

^The County sure could- the county's currently putting many property owners through foreclosure.  But I wouldn't get my hopes up about the county foreclosing on the Public Square lot, since this is a Jacob's property. 

Yes, but usually only on those who have no political clout.

Oh the lot.... Such an embarrassing sight and leaves me at a loss for words when trying to explain this vacant hole in the heart of the city when I have guests in town. Maybe a nice brick wall with ivy can at least hide it!

The owner of the lot is incurring some nice penalties on its delinquent taxes and the property value is more than enough to secure their eventual payment, so right now it's a decent little side investment for the city.  I'm not savvy enough to know why the Jacobs group is doing this unless they're having some cash flow issues of their own.

Yes, but usually only on those who have no political clout.

 

The owner of the lot is incurring some nice penalties on its delinquent taxes and the property value is more than enough to secure their eventual payment, so right now it's a decent little side investment for the city. 

 

With property values dropping and sales slow, how do we know what this property is worth?  Wouldn't it be worth more to the city developed?  If so, it seems to make more sense for the city/county to foreclose and then build on the property before selling it.  Even if the city loses some money in the development, the future increased tax income should make up for it.  Doesn't seem right that a wealthy citizen can simply decide not to pay taxes while collecting income from a property. 

 

Why should Jacobs have any political clout these days?  Clout with the city should come with getting things done.  Jacobs isn't doing the city any favors by sitting on that property.  And the county did Jacobs a big favor in taking the Breuer complex off his hands at a more-than-fair price.

^Doesn't matter.  If the county initiated foreclosure proceedings at some point (the taxes have to be delinquent for some specified time first) the owner would just pay up then.  It was streamlined in connection with the land bank legislation, but the tax foreclosure process is still pretty lengthy and gives owners a lot of opportunity to hang onto their property, as it should.

 

But aside from all that, for many reasons, pretty sure we don't want our municipal governments wading that deep into the development business.

But aside from all that, for many reasons, pretty sure we don't want our municipal governments wading that deep into the development business.

 

There are also reasons we might want governments more involved.  Documents are out in the open that way, and the public would have at least some say in the matter.  This doesn't have to be the only way things get built, but at a time when banks are abidcating their role in financing development, it's nice to have options.   

To build what? For what tenant? With what credit?

 

If you want a monument built, that's one thing. But if you want a market-based, successful office building/hotel/other tall commercial structure with someone actually paying to occupy the structure, please identify them.

 

The parking lot exists because the economy in Cleveland has been in the crapper for 20 years. Maybe it's changing, but the complicated financing/subsidy package required to get Flats East Bank built tells me it probably isn't yet.

Cleveland has funded a lot more than just monuments in recent years.  This isn't some radical notion, nor is it even uncommon.  The city wouldn't just build a tower by itself, but, as it has in the past, it could certainly assist private sector partners with financing.  And with land acquisition.

 

How can this parking lot be so sacred and untouchable, when the City of Cleveland just got done forcing the destruction of the entire east bank of the flats?  Multiple historic blocks-- gone.  But we can't acquire a solitary parking lot?  I think we can.  All I'm saying is that possibilities exist.  I'm not claiming to have a skyscraper developer lined up, and yeah, that would be a necessary element.  Everyone agrees the economy sucks.  That said, we have an inordinate amount of surface parking in the core of our downtown and we aren't powerless to address that.

It's not sacred. And I'm sure the Jacobs Group has more motivation to develop it than the city might; their shareholders are more demanding than taxpayers. How many skyscrapers have been built in downtown Cleveland in the past 20 years?.... one -- a federal courthouse.

 

Sorry, but nothing will get built there until the private office market improves and Jacobs has a user. Move on, nothing to see here.

actually there is plenty to see here, its thee prime piece of downtown property! looking at the bright side at least jacobs and co. have held out and havent thrown up just any old spec building over the years. i'd rather see it continue as it is than be stuck with some unworthy eyesore. the site deserves grand and i think or would like to think they feel that way about it too.

But aside from all that, for many reasons, pretty sure we don't want our municipal governments wading that deep into the development business.

 

There are also reasons we might want governments more involved. Documents are out in the open that way, and the public would have at least some say in the matter. This doesn't have to be the only way things get built, but at a time when banks are abidcating their role in financing development, it's nice to have options.

 

Ask Kasich how frustrating that whole transparency thing can be to getting things done...

I was wondering about something. Tell me if this makes sense after you read these facts....

 

1. The old Huntington Building (formerly the Union Trust Bank and then Union Commerce Bank) at Euclid and East 9th has 1.3 million square feet of total office space.

2. After Huntington moved its offices last year to 200 Public Square and after Ernst & Young and law firm Tucker Ellis & West move out in 2013, the old Huntington Building is projected to have an occupancy rate of just below 50 percent (Source: http://media.cleveland.com/pdgraphics_impact/photo/9046029-large.jpg).

3. That leaves about 650,000 square feet of office space occupied in the old Huntington Building.

4. The 21-story Public Square office tower proposed in 2008 by the Jacobs Group and Gerald Hines Interests was estimated to have 500,000 square feet of leasable office space (Source: http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20080528/FREE/330573416).

5. Hines is the property manager and, in the early 1990s, was the redeveloper of the old Huntington Building.

6. Hines also develops and manages residential properties.

7. Residential rental properties in downtown Cleveland are 95 percent occupied and there are waiting lists for some buildings, driving up prices.

 

So. If I am at the Jacobs Group and/or Hines, I am knocking on doors at City Hall and in Columbus to inquire about historic tax credits, tax abatements and other public incentives to redevelop the old Huntington into residential. And -- at the same time, I'm talking to my tenants at the old Huntington to see if they're interested in relocating into a new office tower on Public Square. To fit all 650,000 square feet of them in there, however, it would have to be more than 6 stories taller than a 21-story, 500,000-square-foot building. I might even consider several floors of retail at the ground level, topped by about 5-7 stories of parking and then have the office tower above it. Potentially, it could be a 35- to 40-story 'scraper -- something more befitting of Public Square than a 21-story runt.

 

Even before all of the office users are out of the old Huntington, perhaps Hines could start redeveloping the building into residential. Then, once all of the office users are out, the rest of the old Huntington could go residential.

 

So how crazy does all of that sound?

thoughts like this that make me wish our board was running the city.  Very good idea.

And to even further dream, Hines was the development mgr. for the Progressive Ins. complex in the burbs. So maybe they contact Peter Lewis and say you know you really want to be downtown Peter,  maybe we can do something together again. And then they both call up the Jacobs group and the whole thing starts to get rolling, and then.....well that's when I woke up

 

I like you thought process!  Except I see it this way.

The project is in the planning stages, renderings, models and drawings complete, project is about to get under construction  :clap:............. and the economy tanks again and Hines merges with K&D Group  :whip:  Damn development company mergers!  Que the violin.  Then the renderings and pictures of the model are sent to www.clevelandskyscrapers.com to the "Unbuilt Cleveland Skyscrapers" page.  Then it's back to more nights at the bar drinking away the "what could have been" sorrows :drunk:

Sounds like a really good idea. Maybe send that one to Hines and Jacobs.... Based on what I found out from calling owners in NY of the old O. Edison Building about making over the street level windows, if the answers from Hines and Jacobs are anything like theirs in NY as to what they speculate for the property, we're screwed. (Psssst. they didn't have a clue what was going on in Cleveland or about the fate of the building..and at one point a demolition comment was mentioned if it didn't sell! YIKES--all subjective, I hope!)  The parking ocean huge hole continues to give me heartburn every time I look at it.  Not even Flaming Ice Cube's best can quell the pain. There may as well be a suburban style Mall-Wart sitting there. I just find it hard to believe that since this IS such prime space, that it has been empty this long...even in any economy...for this looooonng... God, a pedestrian park.... a wall around it built of stone...a huge pond...or even call up Hollywood to make some kind of artificial facade as they did for the Avengers set to surround the whole place..... but the largest downtown surface parking lot on the planet! UGGGGG!

And to even further dream, Hines was the development mgr. for the Progressive Ins. complex in the burbs. So maybe they contact Peter Lewis and say you know you really want to be downtown Peter,  maybe we can do something together again. And then they both call up the Jacobs group and the whole thing starts to get rolling, and then.....well that's when I woke up

 

 

Try day-dreaming. It's much more productive!! ;-)

KJP - If the Huntington Building were repurposed as residential -- that's 1.3M square feet -- minus what one would hope could be set up as retail at the bottom level -- how many units would you estimate that would create.  Also, I've read here before that the building simply does not have good enough natural lighting to create appealing units due to the distance central rooms have from the exterior walls.  Thoughts/examples for ways to get around that? 

This topic is more about the Jacobs' Public Square property, and not about the old Huntington Building. So let's keep any discussion of the old Huntington focused on how it could relate to the Public Square property. We can discuss possible housing layouts of the old Huntington here (which is where I posted my response to Burnham's question):

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,25347.0.html

I don't know.  The whole scenario to me just does not make much sense for the tenants.  I try to put myself in their shoes.  If my landlord came to my business, and said we are going to move you down the street.  I would be like what the heck are you talking about.  It's just a major change.  Obviously they would have to pay for the move, the new business cards, letterhead, stock items, etc, but still, I would not be happy to hear that.

One thing is certain that corner...9th and Euclid does not need anymore reason to become desolate. The Huntington is fabulous...even underground were some nice little retail shops.

Do any of you think that Cleveland will build that final skyscraper (to complete Public Square) on the western part of Public Square anytime soon? I hope it's at least as big as the Terminal Tower....

Do any of you think that Cleveland will build that final skyscraper (to complete Public Square) on the western part of Public Square anytime soon? I hope it's at least as big as the Terminal Tower....

 

Jacobs owns the parcel and I'm sure if there is ever a business case for a building, they will build it.  Some years ago there was a competition of sorts to design a building for that parcel.  There was a design inspired by African culture/design that won I think.  Beutiful design.  I think it was referred to in another thread on here some time back.

Keep in mind that nobody would build a supertall here in Cleveland on spec.  Most notably, the bedrock is so far down that construction costs baloon once you go above 21 or so floors.  Point being, there would need to be a dedicated and VERY profitable use for discussions to even begin.  IMHO, the Terminal Tower should have never been exceeded in height anyway.  While I like the Key Tower and 200 PS individually, I think both have a diminishing effect on the Terminal Tower.  The Key Tower, for lack of a better term, towers over it.  200 PS blocks the view of the TT coming from the east along the lake and its width makes the TT look more diminutive too.  JMO.  I'd be much happier with a few towers of moderate size than another supertall.

Do any of you think that Cleveland will build that final skyscraper (to complete Public Square) on the western part of Public Square anytime soon? I hope it's at least as big as the Terminal Tower....

 

Jacobs owns the parcel and I'm sure if there is ever a business case for a building, they will build it.  Some years ago there was a competition of sorts to design a building for that parcel.  There was a design inspired by African culture/design that won I think.  Beutiful design.  I think it was referred to in another thread on here some time back.

 

I hate to be that guy, but I'd really love to see that African inspired tower and I'm not really sure where to look.

I also searched a bit and couldn't come up with anything.. links?

The only building (rendering) I recall was that thing that looked similar to One Cleveland Center that was proposed in 2008 (you can see a picture of it on page 11 of this thread).

 

Also at that time we of course went on for pages debating the super tall issue.  Surprised it only took 3 years for somebody to resurrect this discussion...I am sure it will go on for a few pages as it did in 2008...the only thing that will not go is a new building on this plot for the foreseeable future, and I imagine everybody on this board knows the reasons why.

The only building (rendering) I recall was that thing that looked similar to One Cleveland Center that was proposed in 2008 (you can see a picture of it on page 11 of this thread).

 

 

The original rendering from the Jacobs Group is on Page 10. MayDay's placement of same is on 11. ;-)

Do any of you think that Cleveland will build that final skyscraper (to complete Public Square) on the western part of Public Square anytime soon? I hope it's at least as big as the Terminal Tower....

 

Jacobs owns the parcel and I'm sure if there is ever a business case for a building, they will build it.  Some years ago there was a competition of sorts to design a building for that parcel.  There was a design inspired by African culture/design that won I think.  Beutiful design.  I think it was referred to in another thread on here some time back.

 

I hate to be that guy, but I'd really love to see that African inspired tower and I'm not really sure where to look.

 

See page 13 of this thread.  There is a massing of public suare buldings  and that building has a model on the jacobs parcel.

The only building (rendering) I recall was that thing that looked similar to One Cleveland Center that was proposed in 2008 (you can see a picture of it on page 11 of this thread).

 

Also at that time we of course went on for pages debating the super tall issue.  Surprised it only took 3 years for somebody to resurrect this discussion...I am sure it will go on for a few pages as it did in 2008...the only thing that will not go is a new building on this plot for the foreseeable future, and I imagine everybody on this board knows the reasons why.

 

I disagree.....  There was demand in 2007-2008 as the economy tanked.  That demand is still there.  In fact I think its greater with the casino, med mart and potential county relocation.  Euclid Ave is now complete and slowly but surely, space is being taken up.  With NE Ohio leading the nation to recovery, a speculative venture is not out of the question.  Perhaps a mixed-use building.  Hotel + Office?  A developer looking to the future may want to position building to come on line as the recovery picks up steam.  Money can always be found if the return is great enough.

If I had the money, I dont think I would build my building there. There are better locations in my opinion. Like the lot west of East 8th street. I would love to see a skyscraper go up there with street level retail.

If I had the money, I dont think I would build my building there. There are better locations in my opinion. Like the lot west of East 8th street. I would love to see a skyscraper go up there with street level retail.

 

To me, there is no higher-profile address downtown than Public Square. I keep hoping that a company headquartered here, but with offices spread all over downtown or the rest of the city, would want to consolidate them in one place like Sohio did in 1985. Maybe that's Sherwin Williams. Maybe that's someone else, I don't know. But considering that several downtown office buildings are, or will soon be at least 50% vacant, I think those ought to be absorbed first (such as by the county) before adding new inventory.

Vacancies are a big concern. I often see so much emphasis on buildings having street level retail space--and that's a well and good idea of design, naturally...However, we have soooo many current retail vacancies downtown that are in good and decent shape and can be used for a wide variety of street retail. Just walk around thoroughly and take note to all the existing space. This situation opf so much space to offer, yet they are vacant. It would be  wise rule of thumb to strive to somehow, someway fill existing vacancies before adding new spaces and poaching from other buildings. All we're really doing in that case is shuffling things around leaving holes to fill. If the current spaces get largely full through incentives for smaller start-up first time businesses to seed....then it is time to draw NEW businesses to NEW spaces....and not keep up the trend of building more new, abandon the old, or make new and hope we fill those while we cannot even fill existing space.

Good point EC.  We need programs to support retail more than we need space for it.

The dangers of the large "proposed" towers are that they tend to include a lot of interior retail space that sucks the life off of street. While these spaces help make the towers financially viable, they hurt the older established places that surround the proposed tower.

If I had the money, I dont think I would build my building there. There are better locations in my opinion. Like the lot west of East 8th street. I would love to see a skyscraper go up there with street level retail.

 

To me, there is no higher-profile address downtown than Public Square. I keep hoping that a company headquartered here, but with offices spread all over downtown or the rest of the city, would want to consolidate them in one place like Sohio did in 1985. Maybe that's Sherwin Williams. Maybe that's someone else, I don't know. But considering that several downtown office buildings are, or will soon be at least 50% vacant, I think those ought to be absorbed first (such as by the county) before adding new inventory.

I agree, on both the points about there being no higher-profile address downtown than Public Square and that we also have to make sure that the vacancy in some of those downtown buildings go down as well. But I think that this could still be built if the tenants coming into the building were new to Cleveland or, at least, new to downtown. This way, it wouldn't be negatively impacting the vacancy rates.

 

When I look at some of the businesses in the area, the one that I could think of that would be similar to Sohio would be, to me, Progressive Insurance. Now, I know that there was some dust up some years back which stopped this from happening then, but maybe Peter B. Lewis is still interested? Don't know. But that would be a perfect big tenant for this building (which would likely be named after them too). I also think that luring Clear Channel Communications from the suburbs to move their radio stations and offices downtown would probably be another good option. Locally, there seems to be that sort of movement happening anyway, with Good Karma Broadcasting's (WKNR) relocation from Broadview Heights(?) to downtown a few years ago and 104.9's relocation from Warrensville Heights to the Idea Center at the beginning of this year. I think almost every major radio company in our market is in Cleveland except Clear Channel, Salem Communications (which would also be a good target) and Radio Disney. So maybe we start there. But Progressive and Clear Channel would be my top two.

If I had the money, I dont think I would build my building there. There are better locations in my opinion. Like the lot west of East 8th street. I would love to see a skyscraper go up there with street level retail.

 

To me, there is no higher-profile address downtown than Public Square. I keep hoping that a company headquartered here, but with offices spread all over downtown or the rest of the city, would want to consolidate them in one place like Sohio did in 1985. Maybe that's Sherwin Williams. Maybe that's someone else, I don't know. But considering that several downtown office buildings are, or will soon be at least 50% vacant, I think those ought to be absorbed first (such as by the county) before adding new inventory.

I agree, on both the points about there being no higher-profile address downtown than Public Square and that we also have to make sure that the vacancy in some of those downtown buildings go down as well. But I think that this could still be built if the tenants coming into the building were new to Cleveland or, at least, new to downtown. This way, it wouldn't be negatively impacting the vacancy rates.

 

When I look at some of the businesses in the area, the one that I could think of that would be similar to Sohio would be, to me, Progressive Insurance. Now, I know that there was some dust up some years back which stopped this from happening then, but maybe Peter B. Lewis is still interested? Don't know. But that would be a perfect big tenant for this building (which would likely be named after them too). I also think that luring Clear Channel Communications from the suburbs to move their radio stations and offices downtown would probably be another good option. Locally, there seems to be that sort of movement happening anyway, with Good Karma Broadcasting's (WKNR) relocation from Broadview Heights(?) to downtown a few years ago and 104.9's relocation from Warrensville Heights to the Idea Center at the beginning of this year. I think almost every major radio company in our market is in Cleveland except Clear Channel, Salem Communications (which would also be a good target) and Radio Disney. So maybe we start there. But Progressive and Clear Channel would be my top two.

 

I'm not seeing Progressive moving because I don't see Peter Lewis doing so if the people who work there are against it, and most of them live close to 271 or in that area where the buildings are.

 

As for Clear Channel, from what I know about the decision making process there Mike Trivasanno would have the internal clout to veto moving the studios downtown, and he absolutely would do so.