Perhaps it is time for the county to consider whether some form of land value taxation would be better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

 

My understanding is that in this kind of system taxes are applied to the value of the land and its location without regard to what's built on it.  There seem to be a lot of variations, however.  At any rate, if Jacobs's parking lot were taxed at a "public square" rate, which ought to be one of the highest in the city, it might finally convince him (and all the other parking lot operators) to build or sell.

 

I don't know whether this is a good idea or not, but having recently heard a libertarian singing its praises in terms of encouraging development of empty lots, it does seem like something that the county council (and state legislature) ought to look into.

Let me understand.... You don't think the Public Square redesign will occur unless there's a commitment from Jacobs (or whomever) to build on the parking lot?

While I may have been a bit dramatic in my interpretation of how things may play out, I do believe that discussions are in progress with Jacobs, or a developer, about incorporating something mixed use into that lot, and as a developer, what they envision for that lot.  That parcel(s) plays an enormous part on how the architect designs the square, and how the square interacts and opens up to it's surroundings.  Also, a world reknown architect in my opinion would not put his reputation on a public square that opens to 9 blocks of surface parking.  Like I said, I think the city and the architect know how important it is to adding life to the square is essential to it's success.  I think they understand that the current state of the square is due to the mass destruction that has occured on it's entire western side. 

Consider these thoughts from Doug Miller of Jacob's as recently as December:

 

Douglas Miller, executive vice president of Westlake-based Jacobs Real Estate Services, said in an interview that the concern no longer thinks of the site strictly as an office development opportunity.

“We have entertained a mixed-use idea for our site. It probably does make some kind of sense for our site. I don't see it being 100% apartments or office use anymore,” Mr. Miller said. “It will take something of fairly significant mass to finish (commercial development around) Public Square, some kind of mixed use development like we've not seen in Cleveland: office, perhaps a hotel, and apartments.”

The project would still need an anchor use, Mr. Miller said, most likely a large office tenant. Such an anchor would be essential to landing financing for a project that might change the city's skyline. Although he acknowledged Jacobs Group is not actively pursuing such a project, he sees it as a complement to the redevelopment of Public Square and the city's downtown Mall — he is a member of the mayor's Group Plan Commission charged with re-evaluating the city's public spaces — and opens the door to development west of Public Square.

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20131201/SUB1/312019996/building-may-be-next-big-development?template=printart

 

Oh and Jacobs how about getting out of the parking lot biz and built something cool there in the meantime. How about a cutting edge two story all glass Apple mega store. The thing would be packed from am to pm....except by me..cuz I am an Android guy...

 

You gents may be right. I met with someone today who oversees downtown development and says the Jacobs Group is working on a project for this site. It won't be a 60-story tower like the abandoned Ameritrust tower would have been, but probably in the 20-30 story range like what was considered before the Great Recession. And it would be a mixed-use tower. The person said Jacobs Group would wait to move forward until after the Public Square redesign gets underway, possibly as early as 2015. So I moved this topic out of the "Abandoned Projects" section back to the "Active Projects" portion of the forum.

Holy sh*t.

not surprized as the timing seems right. i'll take it as long as it has architectural integrity on that most prominent of sites (the previous plan/render sucked). 20-30 stories is fine, yes it needs some notable height, but thats not the main issue by any means. and bravo for mixed use, sounds creative -- can't wait to hear more about this!

^ 100% agree!

 

We don't need a colossus, but we absolutely need compelling, engaging design. Especially at this location.

 

Been waiting for a long time to see what's coming for this spot...glad to see there might be something on the horizon!

 

Been waiting for a long time to see what's coming for this spot...glad to see there might be something on the horizon!

 

Literally! I mean, it's going to be strange looking west down Superior and not seeing the actual horizon!!!

I started thumbing through this thread when I saw KJP move it to the active forum. The amount of arguing and hostile posts -- hostile for UO, anyway -- is interesting. I didn't live in Cleveland at the time, so I didn't experience the craziness of this and the Stark projects and their eventual collapse.

 

I want to see something 30+ floors with integrated parking and built up to the street on all sides. The actual architecture to me is secondary. Something mixed use and tall with proper sidewalk interaction should be priority #1.

I'm not going to hold my breath but given all the activity downtown... I guess I'm not as pessimistic *this* time around.

They must have some ideas of a main tenant at this point...wonder who it could be? Who is coming up for a lease renewal, who's building is being sold,  who needs multiple floors. My hope it would be someone from the 'burbs looking to move downtown. It's going to be interesting. Eaton Ctr. has a new owner so they will be looking for a tenant also. It's going to have to be someone who desires brand new space looking to make a statement. A Law firm or a Bank, idk.

Well that is certainly good news, even if it's nothing concrete at the moment. In my dreams I would love for a CLE company to merge and move the HQ here for once.

Well that is certainly good news, even if it's nothing concrete at the moment. In my dreams I would love for a CLE company to merge and move the HQ here for once.

They must have some ideas of a main tenant at this point...wonder who it could be? Who is coming up for a lease renewal, who's building is being sold,  who needs multiple floors. My hope it would be someone from the 'burbs looking to move downtown. It's going to be interesting. Eaton Ctr. has a new owner so they will be looking for a tenant also. It's going to have to be someone who desires brand new space looking to make a statement. A Law firm or a Bank, idk.

I'm not going to hold my breath but given all the activity downtown... I guess I'm not as pessimistic *this* time around.

 

I sorta have to agree with May Day...still not holding my breath.

 

Even though it is now "mixed used" (what ever that means) I would imagine that a major component would be office space and as we all know they are not going to be able to get financing (and we know that they are a very cautious company) without a major tenant.  At this point I could not imagine who that would be.  "Working on a project for the site" as mentioned by KJP's development insider can mean many things.  Unfortunately, it could mean as little as a guy in a small office trying to tag a tenant and reporting to his boss every couple of weeks.  If it is at that stage and the guy is also working on Jacobs "green fields" in Avon there will be plenty of parking on PS for the foreseeable future.  Hopefully it has progressed much further than that but really no signs of that.

I honestly think the Cleveland Clinic could use a presence in a building downtown with their logo on top of it.  I know Jacobs has a good relationship with them as they have developed several of their out-patient facilities. 

 

In any event, it's great someone's talking. 

In any event, it's great someone's talking. 

 

It's got a pulse. That's good enough for me right now.

I sorta have to agree with May Day...still not holding my breath.

 

Even though it is now "mixed used" (what ever that means) I would imagine that a major component would be office space and as we all know they are not going to be able to get financing (and we know that they are a very cautious company) without a major tenant.  At this point I could not imagine who that would be.  "Working on a project for the site" as mentioned by KJP's development insider can mean many things.  Unfortunately, it could mean as little as a guy in a small office trying to tag a tenant and reporting to his boss every couple of weeks.  If it is at that stage and the guy is also working on Jacobs "green fields" in Avon there will be plenty of parking on PS for the foreseeable future.  Hopefully it has progressed much further than that but really no signs of that.

 

This is where I am too.  My one note of optimism, though, is that the success of FEB E&Y tower may have opened some eyes.  The anchor tenant is still absolutely crucial, but new A+ buildings in A+ locations, with A+ public subsidies to keep rents reasonable, seem to have serious power to steal smaller tenants from other buildings. I'm guessing the owners of the older towers, like Erieview, One Cleveland, and PNC Center sort of dread projects like this.

Before we discussed the Public Square parking lot, we talked about how thousands of office jobs are coming downtown from the suburbs, many times more than the hundreds of Eaton and Ferro jobs that downtown lost. And we discussed how downtown is running out of Class C office buildings to convert to apartments.

 

I also noted that CBRE's First-Quarter 2014 office market assessment for Greater Cleveland reports the "Cleveland CBD continues to display a strong market for Class A office space."

 

That's when our conversation turned to Jacobs Group parking lot on Public Square. He said an anchor tenant would be needed to secure financing, but a mixed-use component with residential offers promise. Hotel does not. There is increasing concern in development circles that hotel inventory is getting overbuilt downtown. The Le Meridian on Euclid may be the last in the current wave of hotel buildings. The Crown Plaza in the old CAC isn't likely considering the CAC is tied up in litigation and will probably lose its historic tax credits (some of the first awarded downtown).

 

Ironically, after we discussed the Parking Lot On Public Square, we discussed Progressive Insurance. The company hired trolleys to tour young prospective job applicants from East Coast and Chicago universities. They showed them downtown, North Coast Harbor, Ohio City, University Circle etc. and they loved it all. And then... They took the long ride on the interstate out to Progressive's office campus in Mayfield Village and their interest level in working for Progressive Insurance disappeared. While we both agreed Progressive won't relocate existing offices downtown, they may expand downtown. That's the kind of anchor tenant that would be needed for an office building, and Progressive would plant a big visible flag right on Public Square. That part IS speculation on our part, however.

^Unfortunately KJP, your more detailed explanation of your conversation with the "development guy" leaves me even more pessimistic than your original post.  Seems much more "speculative" on his part than the original statement that "Jacobs Group is working on project for this site".

 

That said, I was intrigued by your Progressive thoughts as, when I was mulling this over, I thought Progressive would be and ideal tenant and a tenant as you described.  In other words, I cannot see them moving the headquarters given their commitment to their current multiple spaces in the "burbs, but moving a couple of large departments downtown and having a good size presence, especially for the employees described in your post.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see if an announcement is made once construction begins on the Public Square redesign. That's how the timing/sequencing of things could play out.

Moved off-topic posts to:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=7292.0

Will it happen? Who knows. Never predict the future -- create it instead. Point is, Jacobs Group is making plans again and that's why I moved this thread from Dead Projects to back amongst the living.

 

Connecting Cleveland with commission's plan

Vision that is four years in the works could be boon for downtown

By JAY MILLER

Originally Published: June 22, 2014 4:30 AM  Modified: June 22, 2014 8:02 AM

 

....In particular, anyone with an interest in downtown is hoping the makeover will put a building or two on the open parking lots that sit on the west side of Public Square.

 

A key parcel they look at is the parking lot at the corner of Superior Avenue and Public Square's west roadway, owned by The Richard E. Jacobs Group of Westlake.

 

A 21-story office tower design unveiled in 2008 never found tenants and died a quiet death. Now, however, the Group Plan transformation has the owner making new plans.

 

“To have (a refreshed Public Square) as a front door creates more energy and opportunity for us to develop that site,” said Douglas Miller, executive vice president of Jacobs Real Estate Services, a Jacobs Group affiliate, and a member of the Group Plan Commission.

 

“Perhaps it's mixed use, with office and residential,” he said. “It just creates more opportunity.”

 

The stretch run begins Monday afternoon, June 23, when James Corner, a landscape architect who has designed successful urban spaces around the country, will come to Cleveland to update the community on his plan to revive Cleveland's Public Square. The Group Plan Commission and the City Club of Cleveland are sponsoring Monday's event at the main Cleveland Public Library to encourage the public to add their ideas before the final drawings are inked.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140622/SUB1/306229972/connecting-cleveland-with-commissions-plan

Will it happen? Who knows. Never predict the future -- create it instead. Point is, Jacobs Group is making plans again and that's why I moved this thread from Dead Projects to back amongst the living.

 

Connecting Cleveland with commission's plan

Vision that is four years in the works could be boon for downtown

By JAY MILLER

Originally Published: June 22, 2014 4:30 AM  Modified: June 22, 2014 8:02 AM

 

....In particular, anyone with an interest in downtown is hoping the makeover will put a building or two on the open parking lots that sit on the west side of Public Square.

 

A key parcel they look at is the parking lot at the corner of Superior Avenue and Public Square's west roadway, owned by The Richard E. Jacobs Group of Westlake.

 

A 21-story office tower design unveiled in 2008 never found tenants and died a quiet death. Now, however, the Group Plan transformation has the owner making new plans.

 

“To have (a refreshed Public Square) as a front door creates more energy and opportunity for us to develop that site,” said Douglas Miller, executive vice president of Jacobs Real Estate Services, a Jacobs Group affiliate, and a member of the Group Plan Commission.

 

“Perhaps it's mixed use, with office and residential,” he said. “It just creates more opportunity.”

 

The stretch run begins Monday afternoon, June 23, when James Corner, a landscape architect who has designed successful urban spaces around the country, will come to Cleveland to update the community on his plan to revive Cleveland's Public Square. The Group Plan Commission and the City Club of Cleveland are sponsoring Monday's event at the main Cleveland Public Library to encourage the public to add their ideas before the final drawings are inked.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140622/SUB1/306229972/connecting-cleveland-with-commissions-plan

My favorite part is the movie showing on Public Square I've been waiting on a regularly scheduled event like this to draw people downtown especially public square, and after I saw fountain square had it I wanted it even more. Looking at those redevelopment examples in the story I do believe that more interest will be shown to the square. Mixed use is a must though, with residential included along with retail at the bottom to continue activity throughout the day. Also there is retail space available along Euclid where the cadillac ranch once was that I believe will either be entirely taken up (20,000 sf) or divided up. The same goes for the retail on the superior side of 200 P.S. Due to blunders with development around P.S (Strictly office and government buildings) the square won't reach its full potential but can still be great.

I've said it before, and mixed use office hotel would be wonderful.  Basement and first two floors upscale retail and restaurants, office space 3 thru 16, Hotel 17 thru 30 with the 17-20 being hotel check in, lobby/lounge, hotel specific restaurant, amenities, spa, pool, gym.

 

If they really want to impress me, add some white glove apartments above the hotel.

 

I would like a building tall enough to fit in with height diversity of the surrounding buildings on the square, yet not dwarf current and future buildings in the WHD.  If future buildings that front Superior are near the same height as the Rockfeller and Perry Payne buildings the area would have symmetry.

 

The guy who told me about the Jacobs property being back in play again said there's concern in development circles that hotel uses may be getting overbuilt. Developers are going to keep an eye on the newest hotels (convention hotel, Drury, Kimpton, Autograph, and Le Méridien) to see if all these new hotels can make it. But the Le Méridien may be the last one for a while.

 

Note that Miller only said "office/housing" when referring to possible mixed use for that site. He didn't mention "hotel". Although I think we would all be surprised if some ground floor retail/restaurant wasn't part of the plan, yet he didn't mention that.

 

Also, past concepts for that site had a diagonal promenade/arcade for pedestrians walking between the Warehouse District and Public Square, especially Tower City. If Frankfort ever gets developed as a European-style shopping street/mews, as Weston once proposed, such a cut-through would be a nice feature. It could be a pretty wide, lofty and airy feature, not some claustrophobic corridor.

^like the promenade/arcade concept....however KJP, you still don't have me convinced that this is all nothing but pie in the sky right now...although it is fun to talk about it.

^like the promenade/arcade concept....however KJP, you still don't have me convinced that this is all nothing but pie in the sky right now...although it is fun to talk about it.

 

It's not up to me to convince anyone. I moved it back here because it's back in play and no longer dead, as my source and the article both have said. And they aren't the same person, BTW. You know what will convince you AND me? If there's construction cranes on site a few years from now. Then we'll know -- same as time had proven with Flats East Bank, and had disproven with Pesht. But they were both projects under active consideration and therefore worthy of discussion here.

I think instead of one large building, I'd like to see this thing built like the Avenue District was supposed to have been done- a few buildings with smaller footprints wrapped around a parking garage.  The first couple floors could still have a retail arcade, with the parking garage located in between levels 3 and up of the building.  If the parking garage was built with the proper structure, the buildings could be built into the airspace above it as well.

 

Also, I'd love to see some of the housing be on lower levels of the building, with balconies overlooking the square.  It would enliven the square, and add some eyes on the street.

Also, I'd love to see some of the housing be on lower levels of the building, with balconies overlooking the square.  It would enliven the square, and add some eyes on the street.

 

Ding ding!  Balconies would also be a great way for Forest City to differentiate their apartments from other redevelopment projects going on right now.

^Confused...what does Forest City have to do with this.

I think instead of one large building, I'd like to see this thing built like the Avenue District was supposed to have been done- a few buildings with smaller footprints wrapped around a parking garage.  The first couple floors could still have a retail arcade, with the parking garage located in between levels 3 and up of the building.  If the parking garage was built with the proper structure, the buildings could be built into the airspace above it as well.

 

Also, I'd love to see some of the housing be on lower levels of the building, with balconies overlooking the square.  It would enliven the square, and add some eyes on the street.

 

I don't think having a parking garage on PS with the hub of RTA and the HL right there.  There are plenty of lots in the area that could absorb those spots.

^Confused...what does Forest City have to do with this.

I think he's confused Jacobs with Forest City.

I think instead of one large building, I'd like to see this thing built like the Avenue District was supposed to have been done- a few buildings with smaller footprints wrapped around a parking garage.  The first couple floors could still have a retail arcade, with the parking garage located in between levels 3 and up of the building.  If the parking garage was built with the proper structure, the buildings could be built into the airspace above it as well.

 

Also, I'd love to see some of the housing be on lower levels of the building, with balconies overlooking the square.  It would enliven the square, and add some eyes on the street.

 

I don't think having a parking garage on PS with the hub of RTA and the HL right there.  There are plenty of lots in the area that could absorb those spots.

 

You may not like it, but you can be sure the market and financiers will require parking for this building.  I'm recommending the least intrusive way to do parking, besides spending a king's ransom to bury it below ground.

unless the project includes the parkinglot across the street

I think instead of one large building, I'd like to see this thing built like the Avenue District was supposed to have been done- a few buildings with smaller footprints wrapped around a parking garage.  The first couple floors could still have a retail arcade, with the parking garage located in between levels 3 and up of the building.  If the parking garage was built with the proper structure, the buildings could be built into the airspace above it as well.

 

Also, I'd love to see some of the housing be on lower levels of the building, with balconies overlooking the square.  It would enliven the square, and add some eyes on the street.

 

I don't think having a parking garage on PS with the hub of RTA and the HL right there.  There are plenty of lots in the area that could absorb those spots.

 

You may not like it, but you can be sure the market and financiers will require parking for this building.  I'm recommending the least intrusive way to do parking, besides spending a king's ransom to bury it below ground.

 

Why Society, um, Key doe not have parking?  I didn't look but did AmeriTrust Center include parking?

I think instead of one large building, I'd like to see this thing built like the Avenue District was supposed to have been done- a few buildings with smaller footprints wrapped around a parking garage.  The first couple floors could still have a retail arcade, with the parking garage located in between levels 3 and up of the building.  If the parking garage was built with the proper structure, the buildings could be built into the airspace above it as well.

 

Also, I'd love to see some of the housing be on lower levels of the building, with balconies overlooking the square.  It would enliven the square, and add some eyes on the street.

 

I don't think having a parking garage on PS with the hub of RTA and the HL right there.  There are plenty of lots in the area that could absorb those spots.

 

You may not like it, but you can be sure the market and financiers will require parking for this building.  I'm recommending the least intrusive way to do parking, besides spending a king's ransom to bury it below ground.

 

Why Society, um, Key doe not have parking?  I didn't look but did AmeriTrust Center include parking?

 

I think instead of one large building, I'd like to see this thing built like the Avenue District was supposed to have been done- a few buildings with smaller footprints wrapped around a parking garage.  The first couple floors could still have a retail arcade, with the parking garage located in between levels 3 and up of the building.  If the parking garage was built with the proper structure, the buildings could be built into the airspace above it as well.

 

Also, I'd love to see some of the housing be on lower levels of the building, with balconies overlooking the square.  It would enliven the square, and add some eyes on the street.

 

I don't think having a parking garage on PS with the hub of RTA and the HL right there.  There are plenty of lots in the area that could absorb those spots.

 

You may not like it, but you can be sure the market and financiers will require parking for this building.  I'm recommending the least intrusive way to do parking, besides spending a king's ransom to bury it below ground.

 

Why Society, um, Key doe not have parking?  I didn't look but did AmeriTrust Center include parking?

 

Wasn't the "Mall A" underground parking garage built to support Key Tower's parking needs?

Wasn't the "Mall A" underground parking garage built to support Key Tower's parking needs?

 

This is correct.

I'm not a huge fan of incorporating parking into the structure of a high-rise. But a consolation prize is that it gets you a taller building in the process. A very notable example is the Marina Tower apartments in Chicago. These added a 19 floors to two towers that topped out at 60 stories each. Sixty is a lot more impressive than 41! However, no attempt was made to screen the parking structure (or the cars inside) from the elements or otherwise make it more visually appealing....

 

 

I'm not saying this is what Jacobs should build. But I am saying there are *some* benefits to including multiple levels of parking structure as a layer in the vertical structure. The ground floor would remain a public area, including my City Target!

I'm not a huge fan of incorporating parking into the structure of a high-rise. But a consolation prize is that it gets you a taller building in the process. A very notable example is the Marina Tower apartments in Chicago. These added a 19 floors to two towers that topped out at 60 stories each. Sixty is a lot more impressive than 41! However, no attempt was made to screen the parking structure (or the cars inside) from the elements or otherwise make it more visually appealing....

 

 

I'm not saying this is what Jacobs should build. But I am saying there are *some* benefits to including multiple levels of parking structure as a layer in the vertical structure. The ground floor would remain a public area, including my City Target!

I think a parking structure like 515 Euclid at the bottom would be perfect here due to how it incorporates retail and is still visually appealing while still having a mixed used 30-35 story structure on top to bring the total to 35 or 40 stories.

 

I feel like since this is the missing piece to the square and the other 3 structures are tall, then this building has to has some height on it to not seem small in comparison.

I think instead of one large building, I'd like to see this thing built like the Avenue District was supposed to have been done- a few buildings with smaller footprints wrapped around a parking garage.  The first couple floors could still have a retail arcade, with the parking garage located in between levels 3 and up of the building.  If the parking garage was built with the proper structure, the buildings could be built into the airspace above it as well.

 

Also, I'd love to see some of the housing be on lower levels of the building, with balconies overlooking the square.  It would enliven the square, and add some eyes on the street.

 

I don't think having a parking garage on PS with the hub of RTA and the HL right there.  There are plenty of lots in the area that could absorb those spots.

 

You may not like it, but you can be sure the market and financiers will require parking for this building.  I'm recommending the least intrusive way to do parking, besides spending a king's ransom to bury it below ground.

 

Why Society, um, Key doe not have parking?  I didn't look but did AmeriTrust Center include parking?

 

Wasn't the "Mall A" underground parking garage built to support Key Tower's parking needs?

 

I thought that parking was for the convention center?

I'm not a huge fan of incorporating parking into the structure of a high-rise. But a consolation prize is that it gets you a taller building in the process. A very notable example is the Marina Tower apartments in Chicago. These added a 19 floors to two towers that topped out at 60 stories each. Sixty is a lot more impressive than 41! However, no attempt was made to screen the parking structure (or the cars inside) from the elements or otherwise make it more visually appealing....

 

 

I'm not saying this is what Jacobs should build. But I am saying there are *some* benefits to including multiple levels of parking structure as a layer in the vertical structure. The ground floor would remain a public area, including my City Target!

 

I understand what your saying but I think this building is a bad choice.  That parking is hideous and doesn't protect your car from anything.  It's not heated.

 

If you're going to do parking included, it should be done like the John Hancock Center, which is similar to the Ameritrust photo DM4 shows above.

 

However, this being on PS, and with all the lots in the area, it would hope this comes without needing parking.

I'm not a huge fan of incorporating parking into the structure of a high-rise. But a consolation prize is that it gets you a taller building in the process. A very notable example is the Marina Tower apartments in Chicago. These added a 19 floors to two towers that topped out at 60 stories each. Sixty is a lot more impressive than 41! However, no attempt was made to screen the parking structure (or the cars inside) from the elements or otherwise make it more visually appealing....

 

 

I'm not saying this is what Jacobs should build. But I am saying there are *some* benefits to including multiple levels of parking structure as a layer in the vertical structure. The ground floor would remain a public area, including my City Target!

 

I understand what your saying but I think this building is a bad choice.  That parking is hideous and doesn't protect your car from anything.  It's not heated.

 

If you're going to do parking included, it should be done like the John Hancock Center, which is similar to the Ameritrust photo DM4 shows above.

 

However, this being on PS, and with all the lots in the area, it would hope this comes without needing parking.

What would you do whenever those lots around PS become developed?

I agree that the existing lots should not be considered when planning parking for this building as they will hopefully be developed at some point in the not too distant future.  Besides, including ample parking should only lower the demand for the surface parking and help to hurry along their development.

I agree that the existing lots should not be considered when planning parking for this building as they will hopefully be developed at some point in the not too distant future.  Besides, including ample parking should only lower the demand for the surface parking and help to hurry along their development.

 

 

A structure like this might reduce the need for surface parking in the rest of the Warehouse District. I would hope Weston is talking with Jacobs about this -- jointly sharing the cost of such a structure. Although hopefully with a smaller footprint and NOT built above Frankfort.

The building should have its own integrated parking. Whether that is below grade or floors 2 through whatever, doesn't matter to me. A parking garage on a lot adjacent to Jacob's parcel would be a travesty. A surface lot is a blank slate for future development. Just look at the towers near East 9th that follow the same pattern -- tall building with attached adjacent garage. Nearly every one of them is a deadspot with no chance of being anything else.

 

Just my humble opinion. The area between PS and the WHD deserves better.

^Definitely agree.  That wall of garages on the south side of Superior between East 9th and 12th has always drove me nuts.  I would not have been happy if the Ameriturst Building had been built with such a parking arrangement.

I also agree.  Vincent Ave. drives me nuts too as it is such a dead corridor with three garages fronting it.

A couple things.

 

In order for Nucleus to be CLE's third tallest building, it would have to be taller then the 200 PS Building. The 200 PSB is 658 ft tall. I do not see that happening unless Stark is able to land a tenant to take all of the 200,000 sq ft of office space proposed, or more so as to raise the height of the structure.

 

It would be great if Stark has already been working on tenants long before this development was made public

 

When it comes to adding another hotel around the size of the Downtown Hilton under construction as mentioned it a previous post, IMO I think the best place for that hotel would be on PS. I would tear down the 55 PS building, and have this site, and the Jacob's site developed into another mega project. Another hotel approx. the size of the Hilton in # of rooms could even have residential units too. This would give CLE another tall structure.

 

For the Jacob's portion of the PS lot, I have not seen much talk in any of the threads of one of NE Ohio's biggest employers whom I believe would be a great fit for downtown. That would be Group Management in Richfield, OH. It employs 8,000 + according to the list of largest employers in Cuyahoga/Summit County which Crains Cleveland Business publisher in 12/2014. GM  is a quiet co which is HQ'd right here, and also has offices in at least 4 other cities that I know of. It could occupy a building of 40+ stories for sure.

 

But getting back to Nucleus, I too am glad that this project is moving at lighting speed.

 

Redirected from nuCLEus....

 

I didn't know that about Group Management. In the last four decades when I've seen a new office tower get built downtown, it's because the company was consolidating its many offices scattered in numerous buildings. However most of those were already downtown. I haven't seen many consolidate their solely suburban offices into downtown.

^ I didn't know that about Group Management either. Out of curiosity I was thumbing through their About Us page. The founder, ceo, and other vp's live in Bath, Medina, Strongsville, Wadsworth, Columbus, Westlake. Their headquarters address is a small office in the middle of nowhere relatively. We've seen before companies locate near their management team. I'd say its pretty unlikely they would relocate.

 

http://www.groupmgmt.com/about-us/

I don't think they employ 8000 in Richfield.  That's a 1/4 size of the Cleveland Clinic, and I don't know of one building in Richfield 1/4 the size of their campus.

To correct my error, when I said Crain's list of NE Ohio's largest employers list in their 12/2014 publication it should have been the 12/2013 list.

 

Also, I do believe GM has 8000+ employees in the Richfield, OH area. Crain's has been reporting this # of employees here for a number of years now, not just in the 12/2013 publication. I don't think Crain's would report these numbers year after year without verifying the numbers.

 

I do not know, but think that these employees are scattered over many 3-6 story buildings in the Richfield area.

 

Also, most people do not know this either, but Charles Schwab has approximately 600 (give or take) employees in Richfield also. Richfield is a very large area of 3-6 story office buildings of which most people do not know because of the location, and the majority of these office buildings are not visible from I-271, or I-77.

 

 

The building should have its own integrated parking. Whether that is below grade or floors 2 through whatever, doesn't matter to me. A parking garage on a lot adjacent to Jacob's parcel would be a travesty. A surface lot is a blank slate for future development. Just look at the towers near East 9th that follow the same pattern -- tall building with attached adjacent garage. Nearly every one of them is a deadspot with no chance of being anything else.

 

Just my humble opinion. The area between PS and the WHD deserves better.

 

Integral parking was one of the show stoppers where the proposed Progressive skyscraper was concerned.  The lot owners objected and the city sided with them, apparently not understanding how important it was to Progressive's free-parking accustomed workforce, and therefore to Lewis.