^ Well this is intriguing. Hopefully we'll be seeing a Sherwin-Williams Tower there :)

 

Based off a brief convo I had with a guy at Sherwin this week, it doesn't sound like this will happen anytime in the near future. The focus will be on "paying down debt from the Valspar acquisition" before making any moves on building a new HQ.

 

I've also heard that S-W hasn't fully sorted out the organization of the new, combined company so it doesn't have a good idea of what its office and research space needs will be going forward. And it may be a year or two before S-W brass know for certain.

 

Too bad, as it seemed almost a lock that S-W was bound for the Public Square lot before the Valspar acquisition. Everyone from Councilman McCormack to Planning Commission staff to S-W mid-level managers were hinting that they were close to announcing a new tower and that the Jacobs lot was their favored site. With interest rates rising, I don't understand why it makes sense to wait to incur new debt until existing debt is paid down. In fact, S-W doesn't even have to own a new office tower at the outset. It could be a lease-to-own deal similar to what Geis did with Cuyahoga County's new administrative building. That way it would keep the debt off S-W's books.

Just to pile on re:SW. I met a pretty high-up commercial leader from there at an event a few weeks ago. They stated that "not that many' people have come/ will come to Cleveland from Valspar. When I asked about office space and plans for anything new, they looked at me like I had a fish on my head.

Pssst hey buddy--how much for this?  :P

 

 

 

 

I've been working on a few 3d modeling sketches on Google Sketchup. Maybe I can find one big enough for Jacob's Lot. Or if I don't maybe I can mock one up.

Anyone know the dimensions of the lot? What Sq ft. are they looking for?

I don't like tossing old renderings and concepts of what could have been, just look towards the future for once.

Might not be as tall as this rendering but It wont be a waste of space, trust me. ;)

 

Maybe I should have went into architecture...

The Jacobs lot measures 215 feet by 235 feet.

Public Square's Big 3 seen today and the missing 4th....

 

 

 

 

It’s an embarrassment that the Jacoba lot remains a parking lot after all these years

It’s an embarrassment that the Jacoba lot remains a parking lot after all these years

 

True, but I'd rather still have a parking lot than something forced in there, not worthy of the location. 

^ absolutely -- its not just any lot, it is thee prime lot in town and it deserves something fitting of the site. i think the jacobs family understands that well enough. i don't expect an ameritrust tower, but something hopefully significant and nice someday.

I don't think we should let our heads get too big though. It's an important space but at the end of the day buildings are just buildings. I'd rather something decent go up than sit around waiting for another 30 years for something perfect. Put up a conservatively designed office tower, nothing too flashy or experimental but something that will age well, with some retail on the bottom and be done with it. If they want to mix in residential or hotel like Stark is trying to do, fine.

If HB469 -- the tax credit for transformational mixed-use developments -- passes, it might apply to a tower on this site. The big caveat is that a project must cost at least $400 million. It also must feature at least one building that's 20 stories or taller, possess mixed uses (including parking), and be on a site that's 7 acres or less. So would a Jacobs Tower cost $400 million or more?

 

Consider that the Jacobs lot measures 50,525 sf. A reasonable construction cost figure for an office skyscraper on this expensive site is about $250 per square foot (the Playhouse Square tower is $225/sf). So a Jacobs lot tower would have to measure 31.667 stories tall with no setbacks to reach that $400 million figure. The tower will probably have setbacks so something in the 40-story range, with modest setbacks, would allow this tower to achieve the $400 million figure and make it eligible for the transformational tax credit.

 

For a class A officer tower, it costs more than residential. I did some research and talked to a few local people and found $300 per sf to build, plus another $50-$100 per sf to fit tenants into the property. (Still trying to figure out who typically pays for that)

 

But those figures I believe are only for leasable space... I don't think you're going to get the full 50,000 sf per story. E&Y, the most recent comparable, is 20 (21?) stories and only half a million square feet which is roughly 25,000 sf per story. I've been trying to figure out how much the E&Y tower cost Scott Wolstein but it seems to be kept under wraps. I think around $150 to $200 million. $400 million is a lot. Does Bob Stark (who I think is a force behind this tax credit legislation) anticipate NuCLEus being $400 million?

The most recent article estimates Stark's nuCLEus project would cost $500 million to $540 million.

 

At $300 per square foot, a Jacobs tower of reasonable height (30-50 stories) should easily achieve the $400 million figure and be eligible for the tax credit -- if it passes as written.

For a class A officer tower, it costs more than residential. I did some research and talked to a few local people and found $300 per sf to build, plus another $50-$100 per sf to fit tenants into the property. (Still trying to figure out who typically pays for that)

 

If the proposed tax credit is used, the developer could afford to pay for that and be a big marketing incentive for prospect tenants.

For a class A officer tower, it costs more than residential. I did some research and talked to a few local people and found $300 per sf to build, plus another $50-$100 per sf to fit tenants into the property. (Still trying to figure out who typically pays for that)

 

If the proposed tax credit is used, the developer could afford to pay for that and be a big marketing incentive for prospect tenants.

 

Is the Weston site under 7 acres in the WHD?  I know different thread but just wondering if the credit could potentially jump-start that project as well.

Weston site is 6 acres (if they don't include the parking lots across West 3rd from the Justice Center).

Just to pile on re:SW. I met a pretty high-up commercial leader from there at an event a few weeks ago. They stated that "not that many' people have come/ will come to Cleveland from Valspar. When I asked about office space and plans for anything new, they looked at me like I had a fish on my head.

 

My source said they actually were looking at building a new HQ from scratch and had narrowed it down to 3 sites:  The Flats, near CSU, and an unidentified "other" downtown site (I wouldn't be surprised if this was the Jacobs property).  After the Valspar acquisition, this was put on hold, but they expect to resume the new build plan in 4 years.  Conservatively, it could be up to 8 years hence that a new building is complete and ready for occupancy.  That said, it's nice to know that SW is serious about a new building.  What would become of the Landmark Towers at that point?

My source said they actually were looking at building a new HQ from scratch and had narrowed it down to 3 sites:  The Flats, near CSU, and an unidentified "other" downtown site (I wouldn't be surprised if this was the Jacobs property).  After the Valspar acquisition, this was put on hold, but they expect to resume the new build plan in 4 years.  Conservatively, it could be up to 8 years hence that a new building is complete and ready for occupancy.  That said, it's nice to know that SW is serious about a new building.  What would become of the Landmark Towers at that point?

 

Why, the destiny of all Class C office buildings downtown is either residential, hotel, and perhaps a little bit of office or restaurant/retail, of course! :)

Is there still a market for Class C - or are the people who used to rent cheap downtown offices all working from home now?

Is there still a market for Class C - or are the people who used to rent cheap downtown offices all working from home now?

 

My building is Class C in practice  ::) ???

Still practicing law YABO713[/member] ? When is practice over and when are you going to get it right??

 

But seriously, yes there is always a market for Class C offices. But the vacancies for that market are very high. It's tightened up a bit with all of these conversions, but it's still up about 15 percent or so IIRC.

 

 

My source said they actually were looking at building a new HQ from scratch and had narrowed it down to 3 sites:  The Flats, near CSU, and an unidentified "other" downtown site (I wouldn't be surprised if this was the Jacobs property).  After the Valspar acquisition, this was put on hold, but they expect to resume the new build plan in 4 years.  Conservatively, it could be up to 8 years hence that a new building is complete and ready for occupancy.  That said, it's nice to know that SW is serious about a new building.  What would become of the Landmark Towers at that point?

 

It shouldn't surprise anybody if they built in the flats. They own a large amount of land along the water around their R&D building. Probably be more challenging to build in the flats, but its a much larger space than the Jacobs lot.

Ottawa Square

File this under: Fantasy

 

These drawings are of a plan I had for the Weston Block development from a decade ago. I called it Ottawa Square. It would replace all surface parking lots with housing and put giant City-owned parking garages behind existing buildings and infill. The Perry monument on Lakeside would be repurposed as a fountain in the center of Ottawa Square, offering a human scale public space just west of Public Square. 

Given the value of the land, something more vertical makes more sense.

 

BTW, can someone tell me why the Jacobs Group doesn't market their Public Square lot? If you put http://jresgroup.com/property-listing/ into this website: http://web.archive.org/web/20151001000000*/google.comhttp://jresgroup.com/property-listing/ you will see they've never marketed at any time in the past five years of this web page's history. The only Public Square property they've marketed was Key Tower. And that ended earlier this year, long after Millennia Companies bought the building.

My favorite "just ruin my day" topic.

 

When I die and go to heaven (fingers crossed) I am counting on God revealing  to me the answer to the great mystery: why Cleveland has had a surface parking lot on Public Square for more than 25 years.  He is also going to let me know who killed Marilyn Shepard. 

I can't tell you for certain, but there is hope that our long local embarrassment will come to an end.

In this proposal, Ottawa Square would sit just to the west of the Jacobs lot. It leaves the door open for an updated mixed-use development (office/hotel/condos) in the Ameritrust Tower on Public Square.

?

Just now, KJP said:

I can't tell you for certain, but there is hope that our long local embarrassment will come to an end.

Come on KJP, don't do  that to me.

 

You know I still owe you a big sloppy kiss in connection with the Playhouse Square lot.  If the Jacob lot is developed in the near  future per your post God knows what I will do to you.

Don't tell the others. They might get jealous. 

I am really hoping Sherwin chooses this location if they ever build a new HQ. It would be cool to see Scranton peninsula developed, but I have more faith in Geis to get it done without an anchor tenant like Sherwin than I do in Jacobs getting his lot developed. If Sherwin doesn't choose to be on Public Square, then I fear that Jacobs will just sit on that land and do nothing until someone comes to him. He's too busy developing corn fields in Avon.

First KJP hinted about the landmark building.........now this.  It sure sounds like Sherwin  Williams.  Hoping for more hints....hint hint.

40 minutes ago, YO to the CLE said:

I am really hoping Sherwin chooses this location if they ever build a new HQ. It would be cool to see Scranton peninsula developed, but I have more faith in Geis to get it done without an anchor tenant like Sherwin than I do in Jacobs getting his lot developed. If Sherwin doesn't choose to be on Public Square, then I fear that Jacobs will just sit on that land and do nothing until someone comes to him. He's too busy developing corn fields in Avon.

Y0...when you say "he", to whom are you referring?  Is it Jeff Jacobs?  I would imagine he is a major shareholder in the company but I not under the impression he is in a management position.

@Cleveland Trust you're tearing down stark's headquarters in your plan fyi.

^^I thought Jacobs Real Estate Services was the property management company created to manage Jeff Jacob's developments? In that case, Jeff would be the developer of the lot and then once the building was constructed, he would employ his property management company to lease and manage the building? Am I wrong in that regard?

^Jeff Jacobs is out on his own. The Nautica stuff and whatever he does in Florida isn't part of the "Jacobs" company that owns the Public Square site (or Chagrin Highlands). 

It's astounding to me that you can make enough money on parking to cover your taxes.  That you can just sit and wait for the land to appreciate or the right opportunity to come along.  Even if that is 25, 30 years.

Thanks Strap! I learned something new today.

Just now, RMB said:

It's astounding to me that you can make enough money on parking to cover your taxes.  That you can just sit and wait for the land to appreciate or the right opportunity to come along.  Even if that is 25, 30 years.

 

A few years ago I figured that the Jacobs Group is netting at least $300,000 per year on the Public Square parking lot.

Just now, KJP said:

 

A few years ago I figured that the Jacobs Group is netting at least $300,000 per year on the Public Square parking lot.

 

For that piece of property already in the hands of an able party, that's essentially losing money. 

Once property taxes go up in that vicinity, $300k wont fit their bill. They're gonna have no choice but to sell it up.

Just now, tastybunns said:

Once property taxes go up in that vicinity, $300k wont fit their bill. They're gonna have no choice but to sell it up.

 

From the county auditor's site:

 

101-07-008

PUBLIC SQUARE WEST LTD

W 3 ST

CLEVELAND, OH. 44113

 

2017 Certified Values
Land    $4,787,000.00
Building    $54,000.00
Total    $4,841,000.00

 

2018 Proposed Values
Land    $5,097,400.00
Building    $49,800.00
Total    $5,147,200.00

 

That's a total increase of 6.3%, which is less than the county average increase. Wouldn't that mean Jacob's Group property tax would actually go down?

Lol not unless it has "Transformational Tax Cuts"

The taxable amount is a lot less...

 

Assessed Values

Land Value$1,675,450

Building Value$18,900

Total Value$1,694,350

 

Jacobs Group paid $172,094.58 in taxes on this property in 2017.

 

The property was valued more than three times higher a decade ago and they were assessed more than twice as much in taxes per year.

Edited October 30, 20186 yr by KJP

We have watched major local developers who made fortunes in the suburbs turn their attention to the City. We have watched suburban mall magnate Scott Wolstein build Flats East Bank. We are watching the developer of Crocker Park run around the Statehouse trying to get a law passed to make NuCLEus work. We watched the developer of Legacy Village build Steelyard Commons. We watched Weston, a suburban industrial developer, do the Standard Building. We watched Frank Sinito do Statler, Key Tower, now Union Trust. Etc etc etc. These projects are hard to do and those doing them and trying to do them deserve credit.

 

What conclusions can we make about why this piece of land (and also the Nautica parking lots) is undeveloped other than the Jacobs family are lazy and don't care about Cleveland? I get it, the math doesn't quite work yet, but Stark isn't letting that stop him, why do we give a pass to Jacobs? Math doesn't work so guess what? Bob Stark tries to change the math.

 

It's funny, I have mostly referred to Progressive Field as Jacobs Field since the name changed, but I've been catching on to their suckiness and so now I'm proudly calling it Progressive.

Edited October 31, 20186 yr by mu2010

Supporting Progressive doesn't mean supporting urbanism either.

 

Jacobs Group isn't taking the lead in many if any real estate developments. If the Jacobs Lot is developed, they will likely least active member of a multi-faceted team.

It’s shameful that the Jacobs Group has allowed this proud and great city to have a parking lot on its public square for so long. I hope KJP’s “tease” is the news many of us have  been hoping for - that an iconic 21st century  tower will finally  join  the “big 3” in the not-so distant future. 

What a great place to be located, on the revived  and beautiful public square in an energized and increasingly more dynamic  downtown. I’m sure that  challenging market economics have kept such a project at bay - but Cleveland deserves better than what the Jacobs Group has given us. . I only hope that such a project happens before another 2007 type “correction” in the economy puts a halt to major new construction for another decade or so. 

14 hours ago, Eastside said:

@Cleveland Trust you're tearing down stark's headquarters in your plan fyi.

At the time I sketched this I was hoping that the Stark HQ building facade could be restored and the building expanded to fit the L-shaped block. With this one possible exception, no other buildings would need to be demolished.

6 hours ago, CleveFan said:

It’s shameful that the Jacobs Group has allowed this proud and great city to have a parking lot on its public square for so long. I hope KJP’s “tease” is the news many of us have  been hoping for - that an iconic 21st century  tower will finally  join  the “big 3” in the not-so distant future. 

What a great place to be located, on the revived  and beautiful public square in an energized and increasingly more dynamic  downtown. I’m sure that  challenging market economics have kept such a project at bay - but Cleveland deserves better than what the Jacobs Group has given us. . I only hope that such a project happens before another 2007 type “correction” in the economy puts a halt to major new construction for another decade or so. 

Personally, I think this comment is somewhat unfair. While I do believe the Jacobs group could be doing more to court a large tenant, or multiple tenants of various types to a new development at this location (assuming they're not), it's not that simple. In the last 30 years what major tenants that could take up enough space in a new Ameritrust sized tower have come downtown. There may be a few now that recently have a need to expand and are looking, but that demand hasn't existed for at least 25 of the last 30 years. We aren't New York, or DC, or Atlanta that have either super high demand for office space or high employment growth rates, or both, that presents the need for a new tower. Only recently have we begun to see some respectable job growth numbers. If our economic conditions continue with the improvement we are seeing currently, then I may share your opinion in another five or ten years because we are really only at the beginning of this increase in demand for downtown space. You can't just build a $500 million spec office tower in a market like this, unless you can privately finance it and even then it wouldn't make sense.

 

Throwing any old project (something less grand than the original Ameritrust proposal) up at that space I think would be more disappointing than the lot sitting there with the opportunity to be turned into something great.

Edited October 31, 20186 yr by Mov2Ohio

Detroit is about to get a new tallest building, and the renderings look pretty nice.  Gotta keep pace!