All the "street-life" mumbo jumbo is a way for people who, deep-down, are disappointed with the announcement of the height of the mini-scraper to reconcile themselves with the decision to build a fire hydrant on a premier site.

 

Last time I checked, the streetlife in NYC and Chicago, cities boasting 2 of the greatest and tallest skylines in the world, is pretty damn good.

^Again, no need to jump to conclusions about the tower as of yet.  No, I don't have any insider information, but we know what was proposed for the site before (not that we need that at this particular point in downtown's growth, but just as a historical reference).  The Ameritrust Tower was also mixed0use, with a hotel being part of the development.  We'll see if Jacobs has any mixed-use prospects in mind with this new tower as time goes on.  We may see the height of it rise along with the demand of a new address on Public Square.

 

Also, cut the "small-time city" stuff out of this discussion.  No need for Cleveland bashing here.  Take that to Cleveland.com

 

 

fair enough mytwosense, but i dont see how any of those locations are more logical than jacobs lot. aesthetically speaking a tallest there makes the most sense filling a gap between the big 3 and doesnt make it seem as barren. business wise it makes sense being in the center of the CBD on public square. easy access to tower city, other businesses and venues, convention center/med mart, and public square is the transportation hub of cleveland.

 

i agree that those areas are ripe for development......which is why i think a 20-story building should go in those gaps, not public square.

 

 

you guys are underestimating this lot/project and think that anything can be plunked down as a quick fix

 

 

thank you badge.......someone who understands my thinking. though i was all alone there...

Its not Cleveland bashing. Quit being so parochial and so damn sensitive. You're like the wounded little red headed step child.

 

In purely objective terms, Cleveland is a small-time city. If not, what would you deem NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, D.C.? To deny that fact is to damage your credibility. Any negative implications surrounding the term "small-time" are applied only by you.

Stop being homers and lets call this what it is: a small time development for a small time city. Putting the issue of height aside for the moment, the building is bland and forgettable despite occupying what may be the city's premier lot. It looks as if it could've been built in the late 80's.

 

Getting to height...21 storeys??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Even those who maintain that a supertall is not necessary--to those: can you say "Sour Grapes" (if a 1200 foot monster was announced, you'd all be jumping for joy and you know it)--would admit that 300 feet is ridiculous for this site. It must be at least 700 feet, preferably 1200. There are no lake views. There is no ooohhh or ahhh factor. It doesn't do anything to bolster civic pride the way having the formerly tallest between NYC and Chicago did. You want to build one of these mini-scrapers? Fine, bury it out of sight in suburbia-downtown (FEB).

 

A classic example of Cleveland's uncanny tendency to settle for second-best. Demand better, folks.

 

Welcome to urbanohio, now keep the ridiculous comments to cleveland.com.

 

WHEN YOU HAVE THE MONEY TO BUILD A DUBAI-ESQ TOWER PLEASE DO SO.

 

I love it how several people, can hypothetically spend someone else's money.

 

for all you've written, how do you come to those conclusions from ONE RENDERING?!

 

All the "street-life" mumbo jumbo is a way for people who, deep-down, are disappointed with the announcement of the height of the mini-scraper to reconcile themselves with the decision to build a fire hydrant on a premier site.

 

Last time I checked, the streetlife in NYC and Chicago, cities boasting 2 of the greatest and tallest skylines in the world, is pretty damn good.

And Chicago and NYC have nowhere to go but UP!  Not all those two cities towers are 20 or above.  So stop the dramatics already.

Its not Cleveland bashing. Quit being so parochial and so damn sensitive. You're like the wounded little red headed step child.

 

In purely objective terms, Cleveland is a small-time city. If not, what would you deem NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, D.C.? To deny that fact is to damage your credibility. Any negative implications surrounding the term "small-time" are applied only by you.

 

Then why are you here?

Badge, welcome to UO. Glad to see another sign up.

 

Your input ignores basic economic and urban planning principles. Of course we'd love to have a handful of new 60-story towers going up downtown. However, we are not at the point where that is economically feasible.

 

There appears to be a disconnect between how a city looks from afar and how it works on the downtown sidewalks.  If we built cities for those who drive by on the local highways, then we'd have a dead skyscraper sculpture garden on our hands. We will have a vibrant 24-hr city only when we have various contiguous blocks of mixed-use, sufficiently dense structures. I can sense that a lot people who don't understand how a city works simply revert to "big is best" view on things. Take a look at Portland's downtown--are tall skyscrapers making that place a vibrant city?

 

What would Cleveland feel like if Key Tower and the BP building were broken down into 10 ten-story buildings and scattered throughout the WHD and along Prospect. Imagine the in-fill that those buildings would have generated by now. Cleveland would be a much more vibrant city.

Its not Cleveland bashing. Quit being so parochial and so damn sensitive. You're like the wounded little red headed step child.

 

In purely objective terms, Cleveland is a small-time city. If not, what would you deem NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, D.C.? To deny that fact is to damage your credibility. Any negative implications surrounding the term "small-time" are applied only by you.

 

If we are a "small-time" city, then why do you suggest we develop skyscrapers as if we were a "big time" city. 

I agree with the comments that a 21 story building is fine.  I'd much rather see a more filled in denser shorter skyline like Cincinnati, Philadelphia....etc than the 3 building skyline currently.  I think a few more 20 floor or so buildings would accomplish that. 

 

Also, I remember reading that Cleveland has an issue with having to dig really far down to hit the bedrock that is needed for the footings of a tower taller than a certain height, unlike Chicago and other midwest cities.  Taking that into account, this does make economical sense....but I am not an expert on this subject...I just seem remember it being an issue.

 

As for Gensler, why not let them have a crack at it.  It's still a big name...the interior will be nice for sure since that is what they do best and their architecture and urban planning are getting noticed.  Maybe they will use this a chance to shine.  They outsource the engineering to the pros anyway....so in reality your getting a SOM engineered building with Genslers name on it.

MTS, get off your high horse. I cannot believe nobody has called you on your arrogant attitude and self-righteous sentiment. In all seriousness, I tried to "ignore" you but I am not certain this forum has that feature. If not, your presence alone makes a compelling case for its inclusion. You are so contentious and LOVE to pick fights. Grow up and discuss the issues like a man. I will not go away "to Cleveland.com" simply because you don't like my opinion.

 

Very glaring how you fail to counter my statement on the merits but instead ask me "why I am here?" I will not tote the company line on this dud and if it means I have to leave, then perhaps you are correct, I shouldn't be in a place that doesnt tolerate dissenting views and the open exchange of opinions.

 

I don't think it requires Dubai-caliber money to build to 700 feet. In fact, Chicago currently has something like 7 towers over 700 feet going up right now.

 

And aren't you guilty of "spending other people's money" too when you tell me that it costs too much?

A classic example of Cleveland's uncanny tendency to settle for second-best. Demand better, folks.

 

Psychological influences are strange. I don't see how Jacobs' development plans resemble what the rest of Cleveland is "settling for". I didn't know that we were are shareholders in Jacobs Inc.

Its not Cleveland bashing. Quit being so parochial and so damn sensitive. You're like the wounded little red headed step child. 

 

Boy, this guy is off to a great start, isn't he?

 

In purely objective terms, Cleveland is a small-time city. If not, what would you deem NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, D.C.? To deny that fact is to damage your credibility. Any negative implications surrounding the term "small-time" are applied only by you.

 

Especially when you start off with...

 

Stop being homers and lets call this what it is: a small time development for a small time city.

 

And what exactly is considered "big-time" development?  A super-tall skyscraper?  You have much to learn about the development of cities if this is the case. 

I think 21 stories could be acceptable (personally would prefer 30 better scale into the neighboring buildings). I never really liked the idea of a 1000 ft. building. I think it might help the city more quickly draw in additional builders to some of the area's MTS listed above for additional 15 to 30 story buildings. A goliath building with untold thousands of square feet ready to rent will draw any future downtown expansion/relocation. The need for Class A space not reach critical build-another-building mass for quite some time and this building renaissance that will occur in the next five to seven years will remain slightly more fragmented, through greatly improved.

 

What cannot be accepted is a 21 story building on Public Square, after two decades of foreplay, being anything less exceptional. I fully realize this is only one rendering and no doubt will change greatly between now and the beginning of construction. And for a first rendering, it looks very clean and kinda cool. I hope it's intent is to serve as a placeholder, It, however, SHOULD NOT be used as a starting point or basis for further design. It is an any city design. I can even seeing it working in different locations downtown...NOT Public Square. Too important to rubber stamp any design review just because it constitutes construction.

 

That being said, thank God this looks like something will actually happen! (cross fingers and toes)

Badge, No, I'd be pissed if a supertall was proposed. Do us a favor and don't put words in our mouths or preferences in our heads. In a stagnant office market, a supertall is a market killer and not supported by the current economics of downtown. Developers aren't idiots. They're smart, experienced people who have crunched numbers you haven't, and for that matter have gathered demographic and market data you've never seen. They know a hell of a lot about the Cleveland market than you do.

 

And who are we to demand better from Jacobs? It's his property and his project. You think Jacobs should be writing on a forum that your house, Badge, has a lousy paint job and you don't cut your grass enough? I'm sure he could complain, but how would you respond? Probably the same way Jacobs would respond to our critiques.

 

The fact that developers are proposing to build anything in a metro area that has seen a net decrease in office demand since 2001 is remarkable (especially in light of how tightly lenders are holding on their money these days). Developers do recognize that the downtown office market is growing slightly, and see a small trend toward urbanism in this metro area. They want to be on the cusp of it by sticking their toes in the water. They're not ready to jump in when the market is still shaky. And it's not "Cleveland defeatism" -- it's a few developers trying to eke some sustainable new construction out of a very tiny trend that is favoring downtown Cleveland. I commend them for this, which could potentially create a desire for more office space. That can be a big part of healing this metro area's stagnant economy, which continues to transition in the post-industrial age.

Badge, welcome to UO. Glad to see another sign up.

 

Your input ignores basic economic and urban planning principles. Of course we'd love to have a handful of new 60-story towers going up downtown. However, we are not at the point where that is economically feasible.

 

There appears to be a disconnect between how a city looks from afar and how it works on the sidewalks. If we built cities for those who drive by on the local highways, then we'd have a dead skyscraper sculpture garden on your hands. We will have a vibrant 24-hr city only when we have various contiguous blocks of mixed-use, sufficiently dense structures.

 

What would Cleveland feel like if Key Tower and the BP building were broken down into 10 ten-story buildings and scattered throughout the WHD and along Prospect. Imagine the in-fill that those buildings would have generated by now. Cleveland would be a much more vibrant city. 

 

YOUR post ignores economic principles. How could a Fortune 500 company such as Key have broken itself into multiple 10 story buildings?

 

Nobody is saying build one 1200 foot tower and be done with it. However, when you select a premier site, you don't put an office park tower on it.

 

Further, it doesnt matter if say 10,000 office employees are at one address on PS or scattered in 5 different locations within a quarter-mile radius of PS.

 

Finally, Cleveland is small-time as a result of decisions to build small. It could take a step in the other direction by building bigger. Also, you fail to address my argument that the building is architectural dreck.

Last time I checked, the streetlife in NYC and Chicago, cities boasting 2 of the greatest and tallest skylines in the world, is pretty damn good.

 

Have you ever hung out around the base of the Sears Tower?

 

What would Cleveland feel like if Key Tower and the BP building were broken down into 10 ten-story buildings and scattered throughout the WHD and along Prospect.

 

Sounds like Washington DC or Central London.....

For some reason, I am here trying to remember who had the quote about people on forums like a person at a party walking in, saying hello and then calling the hosts wife fat (or something like that) :-)

 

On a completely unrelated note: welcome to UO Badge!

This thread was locked after discussions sank to some pretty immature levels last night and required a cooling-off period. I'm unlocking it now, and while I don't expect you to agree, I do ask you all to keep the debate civil.

Last time I checked, the streetlife in NYC and Chicago, cities boasting 2 of the greatest and tallest skylines in the world, is pretty damn good.

 

Skylines are irrelevant to NYC having great nightlife.. have you ever been to the financial district after work hours?  It's a ghost town.

 

I find it hilarious people complained for years about "that stupid surface lot" and now when a tangible project is on the table, everyone complains. 

 

Would you rather a smaller, full building be built?  Or a giant, half empty, building?

I find it hilarious people complained for years about "that stupid surface lot" and now when a tangible project is on the table, everyone complains. 

 

 

Especially over a rendering!  There has been no project scope or inforamtin given!

Man what happened to the "good old days" on this board when people shared information of what they knew on projects... or offered well thought out opinions on both sides of an argument.

 

Now I just see a lot negative screaming that is rife with unitelligent comments that show a general inability to grasp economic principles, viability, urban landscape, and the general process it takes to get things done...

 

eesh.

Here's an interesting statistic:

 

It's been 17 years since a building taller than 10 stories has been built downtown by a non-governmental entity. And the only 10-story+ building that was built downtown since 1991 was the Stokes Federal Courthouse Tower. That's the slowest period of private office construction downtown since the dry spell between 1930-1955 after Terminal Tower opened and construction on the Illuminating Company's 55 Public Square building began construction.

I think it is important to look at this project in a level headed non-simcity way.  I think building a monster scraper would be a huge mistake at this time.  Decisions shouldn't be made based on how we compare to chicago or new york.  If we do, we are going to feel inferior a lot of the time.  Instead we need to build on what we have in place and what is going right.  We are fortuate that we have a lot of things happening right now.  The office market situation with leases expiring and relatively low vacancy is a great thing and allowing projects like FEB to get off the ground and projects like this to move in that direction.  It should not however give us a reason to get out of control.  There is still a lot of uncertainty in the overall economy, and especially the economy here in Cleveland.  As someone mentioned earlier, lending has tightened.  A few of the big name banks here in town have had the lending faucet shut off almost entirely.  I commend Jacobs for taking advantage of an opportunity and filling a need with this project.   

I find it hilarious people complained for years about "that stupid surface lot" and now when a tangible project is on the table, everyone complains. 

 

 

 

 

Especially over a rendering!  There has been no project scope or inforamtin given!

 

Well, what's done is done.  It's a new day!!  We can get back to our proper discussions about the property now and not worry about the hissing matches last night!!

All I can say is I don't want to end up with an over built city, AKA Atlanta or Miami.

 

Right now ATL has 3 towers built in the last 15 years that are atlease 50% vacant, yet built two new buildings.

 

E & Y built their own building and move out of the Bank of America Building.  The space cannot be filled.  A law firm moved out of One Peachtree and built their own building which they cannot fill, leaving two buildings half empty.

 

Yet ATL has a nice skyline and no street life, unless you count the 100's of homeless folks out and about.

I understand your point, but is it necessary to knock another city to make your own look good? Aside from a tangent, the vacancy rates/homeless populations of other cities have nothing to do with this project.

I understand your point, but is it necessary to knock another city to make your own look good? Aside from a tangent, the vacancy rates/homeless populations of other cities have nothing to do with this project.

 

I'm not knocking ATL, just providing a point that "height" doesn't necessarily mean the project is succesfull, needed or makes a city better other than visual.

Does anyone have a picture of the lot in question?  I always get the PS lot confused with the ones that are technically in the warehouse district...

Does anyone have a picture of the lot in question?  I always get the PS lot confused with the ones that are technically in the warehouse district...

 

You can see it on goggle street or msn maps.  Its sandwiched in between the CEI building (he thats a throwback) and the renaissance hotel on Superior.

 

Its bound by Public Square, Superior, West 3 and Frankfort.

The lot that is bound by Frankfort and W3rd right?

 

Edit: Thanks mayday & MTS

I'm OK with the height.  Ideally I'd like to see this thing at about 25-30 stories to give a difference of scale with 55 PS being almost the exact same height right next to it.  But I am not OK with the current design.  This is still a really prominent piece of real estate and I think the design needs to reflect that.  You don't have to be tall to be impressive.  Honestly if they would have released this story with the rendering we last saw of Starks 20 story office building I'd feel much better.  What they are showing for this space right now is a 21 story glass rectangle... which will be sitting right next to a 20 story glass rectangle. About the only difference is that one runs N-S and one runs E-W.  I know that 55 PS also has that crappy reflective glass and concrete typical of the era... but I'm still not pleased with what I'm initially seeing.  That being said I know that at this stage that is really a glorified massing that probably only indicates the building will be glass, so I'll with hold judgement.

 

  Regarding street life.  I don't know what it is going to take for developers in Cleveland to get this.  We've failed miserably at creating street level activization pretty much since the city was created.  I mean does anyone know any of the shops that are in the basement of the Huntington (wine store, clothing stores, post office, fine jewlery)? Does anyone have any idea of the diamond district inside the City Club building (some of the nicest jewlery stores you will come across all right next to each other), Key Tower, BP... The list goes on... it's frightening.  When the county was looking to build their new building around the rotunda, there were a multitude of groups preaching this... and yet they  were HELL BENT on creating an internal arcade.  This aspect is actually more important to me than anything else jacobs does.  It is [glow=red,2,300]imperative[/glow] that he engages the sidewalks with some activity.

Thank you, and well said. And no I didn't know about the stores in the Huntington or City Club buildings -- and I thought I was pretty informed about downtown's hidden treasures!

 

You've made your point well.

I'm OK with the height.  Ideally I'd like to see this thing at about 25-30 stories to give a difference of scale with 55 PS being almost the exact same height right next to it.  But I am not OK with the current design.  This is still a really prominent piece of real estate and I think the design needs to reflect that.  You don't have to be tall to be impressive.

 

I 100% agree!  Thats why I was surprised with 21, I was hoping for 25-30 with some sort of street level retail and possibly a obersvation deck/restaurant. 

 

Yet until we know more, we're all just speculating and complaing about nothing.

 

Regarding street life.  I don't know what it is going to take for developers in Cleveland to get this.  We've failed miserably at creating street level activization pretty much since the city was created.  I mean does anyone know any of the shops that are in the basement of the Huntington (wine store, clothing stores, post office, fine jewlery)? Does anyone have any idea of the diamond district inside the City Club building (some of the nicest jewlery stores you will come across all right next to each other), Key Tower, BP... The list goes on... it's frightening.  When the county was looking to build their new building around the rotunda, there were a multitude of groups preaching this... and yet they  were HELL BENT on creating an internal arcade.  This aspect is actually more important to me than anything else jacobs does.  It is [glow=red,2,300]imperative[/glow] that he engages the sidewalks with some activity.

 

This a disagree with.  We had some of the densest streets and shops in any American city. 

 

SOHIO building shops offered entry from inside and out.

 

IIRC, Arcade type shoping was prominent when built.  I like them and provides us with a unique building style not found in the states.

 

Gong forward though, I would like more engagine sidewalks, streetscapes and store fronts.

 

 

Regarding street life.  I don't know what it is going to take for developers in Cleveland to get this.  We've failed miserably at creating street level activization pretty much since the city was created.  I mean does anyone know any of the shops that are in the basement of the Huntington (wine store, clothing stores, post office, fine jewlery)? Does anyone have any idea of the diamond district inside the City Club building (some of the nicest jewlery stores you will come across all right next to each other), Key Tower, BP... The list goes on... it's frightening.  When the county was looking to build their new building around the rotunda, there were a multitude of groups preaching this... and yet they  were HELL BENT on creating an internal arcade.  This aspect is actually more important to me than anything else jacobs does.  It is [glow=red,2,300]imperative[/glow] that he engages the sidewalks with some activity.

 

This a disagree with.  We had some of the densest streets and shops in any American city. 

 

SOHIO building shops offered entry from inside and out.

 

IIRC, Arcade type shoping was prominent when built.  I like them and provides us with a unique building style not found in the states.

 

Gong forward though, I would like more engagine sidewalks, streetscapes and store fronts.

 

 

I'll grant you the old buildings... That's just the way things were done back then, looking back on it... they were wrong, but everyone did it.  And I probably did jump the gun on the "since we were created" bit.  I keep forgetting that most of the meaningful buildings we had that had street level retail and amenities downtown were demolished for almost no real reason.  :)

SOHIO is about the only building that remotely got this right.  And it's not their fault that Frank & Pauly's got into tax trouble and those limey bastards took half the employees out of that building... but I still don't like the "atrium" style mall they created.  That's just personal opinion.

McCleveland - you're assuming because it has the same amount of stories as 55 PS that it will be the same height.  That very well may not be the case.  For example, the Stokes Courthouse is 5 stories less but well over a 100 feet taller than the McDonald Investment building.  Ceiling height, especially in the lobby and "penthouse", could play a major role in increasing/decreasing the height of RJ's proposed tower as compared to other towers containing the same amount of stories.  On the flip side, Reserve Square has 4 more stories than 55 PS but is 30 feet shorter in height.

 

I am going to side with those who argue that a supertall would frustrate what appears to be a consesus goal among downtown developers of density.  A dense, vibrant downtown must come first.... then we can get our hopes up for another 200m+ skyscraper.

 

For those who saw the rendering the in the PD this morning, what is that in the background (lower left portion of the rendering).... perhaps phase 1 of Pesht??  Hard to tell because it does not indicate what angle it is taken from, although I assume it is showing the angle from Superior coming through PS.     

It's the angle from Superior (55 PS would be off to the right) but it's a faux background. It *should* be the Rockefeller Building, but the facade is more akin to the Skylight Office Tower.

 

McCleveland - you're assuming because it has the same amount of stories as 55 PS that it will be the same height.  That very well may not be the case.  For example, the Stokes Courthouse is 5 stories less but well over a 100 feet taller than the McDonald Investment building.  Ceiling height, especially in the lobby and "penthouse", could play a major role in increasing/decreasing the height of RJ's proposed tower as compared to other towers containing the same amount of stories.  On the flip side, Reserve Square has 4 more stories than 55 PS but is 30 feet shorter in height.   

I've been thinking about floor height, but I was hoping for a more noticeable difference.  I think they'll still be "comparable" height at 21 floors though no doubt the new building will be taller... getting up to 25 with that increase in floor height would give it some separation.

 

I am going to side with those who argue that a supertall would frustrate what appears to be a consesus goal among downtown developers of density.  A dense, vibrant downtown must come first.... then we can get our hopes up for another 200m+ skyscraper.

 

Bingo!

 

For those who saw the rendering the in the PD this morning, what is that in the background (lower left portion of the rendering).... perhaps phase 1 of Pesht??  Hard to tell because it does not indicate what angle it is taken from, although I assume it is showing the angle from Superior coming through PS.      

 

I noticed this too... it either has to be the rockefeller building, or some part of pesht.... but I'm betting on the rockefeller building.  That area of Pesht I believe is intended to be left as a surface lot for the time being... they are building around frankfort.

There definitely needs to be some discussions/cooperation between Stark and Jacobs.  With Stark slowing down his office component in favor of retail and housing I think the opportunity exists for Jacob's building to utilize what Stark will build.  If the building can be designed with barebones amenities inside for bad weather days and allow people easy access to Starks street level retail/restaurants during the good days it should promote the vibrant Cleveland it seems everyone wants to see.

 

On the subject of height I think a tower about midway between the size of 55 and the BP building would be perfect.

After this one is built and we finish filling in the parking lots, it's all up from there. I can't wait, and I can't stress how much I can't wait, for Rockside Road and the I-271 corridor (Beachwood, Landerhaven, Mayfield) to slowly start losing their clients to future growth back in the heart of Cleveland.

After this one is built and we finish filling in the parking lots, it's all up from there. I can't wait, and I can't stress how much I can't wait, for Rockside Road and the I-271 corridor (Beachwood, Landerhaven, Mayfield) to slowly start losing their clients to future growth back in the heart of Cleveland.

 

As much as I am for dt development, I would hate to see the suburban market to take a big hit.  That is really not good for real estate trends.  All that does is drive down the rental rate for suburban market.

I also can get excited about a new building being built downtown, but I am also leery of the affect it will have on certain areas of downtown already.  Will it make the E.9th/Euclid corner more desolate with the Huntington Building's impeding large vacancy? 

 

I know there is discussion on the Ameritrust tower - but believe me when I say that the Bruer project is a long time down the road and for K&D to get financing for that project in the near term will be a near miracle. 

 

You must not overlook that the article mentioned that the Public Square Tower will need to reach 65% pre-leasing prior to construction.  With a 500,000sf building, this could take some time.  With the price of steel right now, you'd be looking at over $40/sf for office space which is nearly DOUBLE what is currently being paid downtown (outside of Key Tower at around $30). 

 

I'm glad to see plans for that parking lot but if the effect is vacating another area of downtown, then I'm leery.  Until there is REAL growth in this town, any new project will have a negative affect on something already existing. 

After this one is built and we finish filling in the parking lots, it's all up from there. I can't wait, and I can't stress how much I can't wait, for Rockside Road and the I-271 corridor (Beachwood, Landerhaven, Mayfield) to slowly start losing their clients to future growth back in the heart of Cleveland.

 

The balls already rolling.  One of my cousin lives and works in Beachwood and  his company is contemplating moving downtown, much to his Chagrin.  Get it, Chagrin as his company is on Chagrin!  :wink:

 

After this one is built and we finish filling in the parking lots, it's all up from there. I can't wait, and I can't stress how much I can't wait, for Rockside Road and the I-271 corridor (Beachwood, Landerhaven, Mayfield) to slowly start losing their clients to future growth back in the heart of Cleveland.

 

As much as I am for dt development, I would hate to see the suburban market to take a big hit.  That is really not good for real estate trends.  All that does is drive down the rental rate for suburban market.

 

So it's ok for downtown to be perceived as "dead", and for people to have misconceptions and say incorrect things like "Downtown has nothing to offer", "no body goes down there", "there are tons of empty offices/office buildings downtown", "downtown is unsafe", "there are no jobs downtown" but not OK for the suburbs to suffer at their own fate?

 

Things are changing and lifestyle adjustments need to be made.

I also can get excited about a new building being built downtown, but I am also leery of the affect it will have on certain areas of downtown already.  Will it make the E.9th/Euclid corner more desolate with the Huntington Building's impeding large vacancy? 

 

I know there is discussion on the Ameritrust tower - but believe me when I say that the Bruer project is a long time down the road and for K&D to get financing for that project in the near term will be a near miracle. 

 

You must not overlook that the article mentioned that the Public Square Tower will need to reach 65% pre-leasing prior to construction.  With a 500,000sf building, this could take some time.  With the price of steel right now, you'd be looking at over $40/sf for office space which is nearly DOUBLE what is currently being paid downtown (outside of Key Tower at around $30). 

 

I'm glad to see plans for that parking lot but if the effect is vacating another area of downtown, then I'm leery.  Until there is REAL growth in this town, any new project will have a negative affect on something already existing. 

 

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

CB Ellis thinks this building is gorgeous.                      Chandler Converse, a CB Richard Ellis vice president and specialist in representing tenants, said the partnership between the much-vaunted Hines and locally powerful Jacobs Group would be a potent combination because of their office expertise.

 

“The building is gorgeous and would be very efficient,” Mr. Converse said. “It is ideally suited for law firms, service firms and banking concerns      http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20080528/FREE/330573416/1089/newsletter23

I also can get excited about a new building being built downtown, but I am also leery of the affect it will have on certain areas of downtown already.  Will it make the E.9th/Euclid corner more desolate with the Huntington Building's impeding large vacancy? 

 

I know there is discussion on the Ameritrust tower - but believe me when I say that the Bruer project is a long time down the road and for K&D to get financing for that project in the near term will be a near miracle. 

 

You must not overlook that the article mentioned that the Public Square Tower will need to reach 65% pre-leasing prior to construction.  With a 500,000sf building, this could take some time.  With the price of steel right now, you'd be looking at over $40/sf for office space which is nearly DOUBLE what is currently being paid downtown (outside of Key Tower at around $30). 

 

I'm glad to see plans for that parking lot but if the effect is vacating another area of downtown, then I'm leery.  Until there is REAL growth in this town, any new project will have a negative affect on something already existing. 

 

What exactly is your definition of "real" growth and how does that differ from what is happening now??  :?

 

These companies need space and their current buildings have don't offer that.

 

This gives the larger companies availability to grow and put office space on the market that smaller company's can afford which allows them to grow at a lower overhead.

 

A building full of small or medium sized company's can also kick start a renovation/updates of a building who was previously classified as "class A" space as those tenants - in a full building - will want upgrades that they can pay for as a whole yet still manage expenses.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

^^I agree MTS...I think too many people think the only growth is new companies moving in...not existing ones getting larger.

 

^Many of the companies moving are expanding, aren't they?

lewarctj, makes an interesting point about steel prices. Aside from the fact that the downtown market right now wouldn't support a supertall, so wouldn't alternatives to steel. Didn't K&D build their latest Stonebridge tower out of a composite metal that's cheaper than steel? I would suspect such an alternative couldn't be used for a supertall given the weight involved, but it might be strong enough for a shorter tower of 21 stories. Anyone know what the steel-alternative that K&D used and what's the tallest building that can be supported by it?

 

As for the suburban office market, it's going to keep hurting and downtown is going to keep growing as long as gas prices keep rising. Downtown is the only transit- and pedestrian-centric office market in the metro area, except for perhaps University Circle (and much of that is institutional office space). The downtown office market is Greater Cleveland's only sub-market that's grown consistently since 2005 when gas prices started their upswing. I don't see that changing.

^I've heard that FEB will also be using that composite metal.