Nice first post Urbanmyth.  Don't be lazy, your input is welcomed.  :lol:

There is a very good chance that Jacobs’, K&D's and FEB towers will get built. It would be interesting to see the skyline with the three towers vs. one super-tall. I'm elated that the PS parking lot may be history, no matter if the building is 20 or 50 stories tall.

First time poster here.

 

After reading this thread, I have a question for some of you people in the know.

 

Is there plenty of excess class A office space downtown for businesses to move into RIGHT NOW?

 

Specifically, if I wanted to lease 6 or 7 consecutive floors of class A office space for my business tomorrow is it available? 

 

One of the reasons I ask, is because it seems like every business that is looking for this amount of space needs to have a new building built.

No, there is hardly any contiguous class A office space available downtown (and not much total available, single-digit class A vacancy rate right now).

^^It is currently around a 10% vacancy for class A office space.  You may find a few floors togehter somewhere (BP building?) but it is a sellers market

IF I'm not mistaken Class A is less than 12% and Class B less than 20.

 

So there isn't much continunous space to rent at the moment.

^That's correct. On cleveland.com, someone posted a comment about different towers that have different available spaces and how a new building isn't needed at all.

 

The problem is that they were citing buildings like the Terminal Tower - even though it's a icon of Cleveland, even though it's one of the most favorite buildings in the region - the tower portion of the building itself 98 feet square (aka very small floorplates that aren't conducive to modern corporate layouts), and the available floors are scattered throughout the building. In the case of 200 Public Square, the floorplates are substantially larger but again - the available floors AREN'T contiguous.

I thought the Class A vacancy rate was actually 9% right now, but either way, it's low enough that new space is needed for large companies.

Vacancy rates in downtown's top buildings, known as Class A, hover around 10 percent.

 

From 7 pages back, 7 pages in 3 days! Wow.

216, one other thing.  If you want this 50-60-70 story tower so badly (and personally, I do, and hope some day, WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT, we get another one), you have 3 options.  Go track down Peter B. Lewis and convince him that Progressive needs to abandon the 10 or so building compound they have (and own) over in Mayfield Hts. / Lyndhurst (and in the process probably cripple that town).  After he says no, you can go looking for the CEO of Eaton, perhaps put a gun to his head and force him to not build a multi building "campus".  Eaton with another one or two of the "large tennants" might get this done.  Assuming neither one of those avenues work out too well for you, here is the final option.  You will need to get most of these "large" tennants out on the market. You will need a hotel.  You will need residences.  In the process of this you will have to steal the FEB tenants, wiping that out.  You'll steal any possible tennants for the ameritrust project, the hotel from the ameritrust project, the highrise residences from the ameritrust project.... so I guess that's dead.  Residences will more than likely be stolen from pesht and 668 so we can shelve those... There you go.  You now have a "signature" building on public square surrounded by nothing.  I realize you're probably just going to bash me because I dont "dream" big enough, and I'm part of the problem, blah, blah, blah... Well here's my dream, to walk around downtown and not be surrounded by surface parking lots and abandoned buildings.  We currently have an opportunity to eradicate 70% of that problem in almost one swoop with pesht, feb, 668, ameritrust, the jacobs property, and the john hartness brown buildings.  And you know what, I'm not interested in losing all that just so we can have a neat sky scraper like some of the bigger cities.  When we've filled in all the "holes in the donut", and one of these fine young companies moving into the city grows to the point it's needed we'll worry about another skyscraper.

 

mccleveland of course you are correct in regard to business tenants for the tower, but what about mixed use? some apts? hotel rooms? ground floor retail? all or even some of that would make the building significantly taller & more of a signature. it almost makes you wonder if jacobs has some kind of gentleman's agreement with other developers and the city not to add on that kind of stuff.

Exactly because if he took all that was needed for the tower, it would be taking from the other developments.  Would you rather have one tower or it spread out all over downtown?

Not all developers are into mixed use. Based on Jacobs other developments, I doubt he knows what that means.

Did not see it on this thread, does anyone have a picture of the building that was on that site 20 years ago?

^Caution, your reaction to them will depend on what era the photos are from.  There were two pre-war buildings there that were "modernized" and combined, I believe, in the 60s.

 

Here's a shot of one of them from Cleveland Memory:

http://images.ulib.csuohio.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/postcards&CISOPTR=2131&CISOBOX=1&REC=17

 

Yes, there were two buildings, but this is the only picture I could find. It's one from MayDay's collection. It shows the former Marshall and American Trust buildings (1 and 33 Public Square).

 

Here you can see them being demolished for the Ameritrust Center circa 1990:

 

 

I found a good one on Cleveland Memory.  The date listed is 1980.

http://images.ulib.csuohio.edu/u?/herrick,466

Here's another, older picture from Cleveland Memory:

http://images.ulib.csuohio.edu/u?/postcards,2134

Good find, FrqntFlyr, especially the modern one!

Thanks.  There's really a treasure trove of info on Cleveland Memory.  I had never really tried to look on there.  The only problem is that it can be like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack!  The northwest quadrant looking west is by far the least represented view in the pictures posted on there.

What do you guys think would be a good amount of retail space in this tower, especially for those who think it should be mixed use or just have more retail to encourage more foot traffic.

 

I know the paper said that the tower was going to have 4,800 square feet of street level retail as of now. Is that to little or good enough with the other projects coming in the near future.

 

After looking at frqntflyr's 1980 pic I realize that Jacobs new building would almost be "kicking" 55 Public Square off of Public Square. And that in itself is an improvement.

Also noticed that 55 Public Square is also 21 stories, so with today's higher ceilings Jacobs tower would most definitely be taller, therefore not looking "lost" in the mix.

The area within the boundaries of Superior, West 3rd, Rockwell and West Roadway is about 50,000 square feet. I suspect that the building isn't going to take up this entire footprint. Plus there's deductions for atrium floor space, elevators, service areas, security desk, mechanicals, etc. If they're left with 25,000 square feet I'd be amazed. I'm just guessing here, but I suspect 12,500 square feet may be the max -- if the building takes up the whole footprint. Depends on how big the footprint would be...

After looking at frqntflyr's 1980 pic I realize that Jacobs new building would almost be "kicking" 55 Public Square off of Public Square. And that in itself is an improvement.

I’m not sure about it 'kicking' 55 PS off of PS but it certainty gives a good prospective of what a 21-story building would look like. Add 8 stories with modern glass, take away the horrific Ameritrust sign and that’s not too shabby.

Ok Mr. Jacobs, lets set up a meeting and discuss my proposed tower for the site.  My stipulations include a minimum of 12,000sf of ground floor retail, a hotel, if a parking garage is included, it shall be two levels only with one being below grade.  There shall not be any restaurants/ cafes to promote pedestrian traffic directed to Tower City or Peshst for dining options. 

 

What's that you say, the market conditions right now don't justify such a large tower?  Ok, let's cut the tower in half, however my stipulations still apply with the option to discuss the deletion of the hotel.....

 

 

 

^^ I'm sorry, this is only the second time I've seen this particular model for the Jacobs property; was it a Jacobs proposal? Regardless, if anyone knows, when was it first revealed and who did sponsor the work?

^^ I'm sorry, this is only the second time I've seen this particular model for the Jacobs property; was it a Jacobs proposal? Regardless, if anyone knows, when was it first revealed and who did sponsor the work?

 

Thats not Jacobs model.

Not all developers are into mixed use. Based on Jacobs other developments, I doubt he knows what that means.

 

jacobs used to be into it --- ameritrust tower was to be mixed use.

 

as for the building itself, at this point we shouldn't get too critical of an initial placeholder rendering. we'll see how it changes from now until completion. jacobs may or may not add tenants or mixed use, but regardless i wouldn't be surprized if this project still gets tweaked a lot and the final result looks much different from what we see now.

 

thankfully, it really looks like this is going to happen and at long last those surface parking lots will be gone.

 

I've been on vacation all week and just got back to find this.  At first, I was a little bit angry that we weren't getting something like what Firenze98 has a few posts up, but I've calmed down and I'm really starting to warm up to something of this size.  If Pesht and this go forward simultaneously it will really make that part of downtown a nice dense area.  If they do it right then I'd take that over a supertall any day. 

^^ I'm sorry, this is only the second time I've seen this particular model for the Jacobs property; was it a Jacobs proposal? Regardless, if anyone knows, when was it first revealed and who did sponsor the work?

 

It was an architectural project by some students, if I recall correctly.

I like the look of the rendering very much; it's kinda sexy and its modern airy, light-weight feel would balance off the heavy stone, bricks 'n mortar massing of the classic Public Sq. area buildings... I was a tad disappointed Jacob’s building isn't taller; if anything to balance off our existing super-talls on the other 3 quadrants; this would really enclose Public Sq. as the energy nucleus of Cleveland, as it truly deserves to be.

 

But I'm thrilled to get that ugly Public Sq. hole filled, and this building, esp with ample street retail, would go a long way toward doing just that.  My only other reservation is whether Jacobs is rushing up this office building without, yet, a final word on the convention center (notably the proposed MM/CC halfway between Tower City and the Mall linked to some space in the Warehouse Dist) that could cause this location to be better suited for other uses -- namely a large-scale hotel.

 

Take a good look at the photo of the buildings that previously occupied this site: FrqntFlyr post # 370 (btw great find). Notice the hole just behind these buildings (west), yes it's been there forever. So again I ask the question; why does this 21 storey structure need to be on the Jacobs site as opposed to the Stark site 1 block west? Why this hole instead of that hole? I've asked before and nobody bit so here's my Oliver Stone take on this question.

 

Jacobs knows there are only so many anchor tenants to go around.  If Wolstein gets his share, which seems likely, and Stark gets his well there's just not anything left in this go around of office development. So Jacobs approaches the city and says - don't sign off on the TIF unless Stark agrees to drop the office component of his project. You guys owe me for... (I'd make up something here if I was making the movie), and I want this now cause I'm not gettin any younger. The city folds like a cheap suit and Stark has no choice. By his own admission he needs public assistance to move "Pesht" forward. The rest of us are left saying things like; at least that hole is getting filled, to bad it's not a little taller.

 

What do we do about it? I'm glad you asked. We pressure the city, because we can, to use their enormous powers. They force Jacobs to drop Hines and team up with Stark to build this tower on the southeast corner of "Pesht". As part of the development they must dig up the Jacobs lot and construct a 2 level parking garage underground. They cover it, and beautifully connect it to the northwest quadrant of P.S. creating an open and flowing rectangular space between "Pesht" and P.S. This only minimally alters traffic patterns of the square. In return Jacobs is guaranteed that even if it doesn't happen in his lifetime, his heirs will build a sublime tower on this site. High in the clouds on the pinnacle of this grand building stands a statue. It will be a statue of Mr. Jacobs overlooking his many accomplishments and, regardless of the tenants inside, the building will always be known as... wait for it.. The Jake.

 

Now I must go pry my tongue from inside my cheek.

 

BTW thanks guys for the info on the model 

I like the look of the rendering very much; it's kinda sexy and its modern airy, light-weight feel would balance off the heavy stone, bricks 'n mortar massing of the classic Public Sq. area buildings... I was a tad disappointed Jacob’s building isn't taller; if anything to balance off our existing super-talls on the other 3 quadrants; this would really enclose Public Sq. as the energy nucleus of Cleveland, as it truly deserves to be.

 

 

But I'm thrilled to get that ugly Public Sq. hole filled, and this building, esp with ample street retail, would go a long way toward doing just that.  My only other reservation is whether Jacobs is rushing up this office building without, yet, a final word on the convention center (notably the proposed MM/CC halfway between Tower City and the Mall linked to some space in the Warehouse Dist) that could cause this location to be better suited for other uses -- namely a large-scale hotel.

 

 

 

Cleveland does not have any super-tall buildings.

Notice the hole just behind these buildings (west), yes it's been there forever. So again I ask the question; why does this 21 storey structure need to be on the Jacobs site as opposed to the Stark site 1 block west? Why this hole instead of that hole?

 

The building goes to the developer that can provide the best option for the tenant. Stark owns one hole, Jacobs the other. Since Stark has announced his “scaled down” proposal for his site, one can assume he wasn’t able to land any of the available tenants for his new office tower.

 

Until a formal announcement is made, this building may or may not get built. So far just the FEB tower has made a formal announcement that they have singed tenants for their project.

From Improvising Schema: http://improvisingschema.blogspot.com/2008/05/cleveland-gets-banal-high-rise.html

 

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Cleveland Gets a Banal High Rise

As the Cleveland real estate and business community rejoices over yesterday's news that the Jacobs Group and Hines are partnering to build a 21-story office tower in the heart of Cleveland, one thought kept crossing our minds - why are we being stuck with another impersonal glass box in Cleveland?

 

The problem with the design proposal by uber-architecture firm Gensler is that it is frankly another banal building which does not acknowledge its context nor attempts to contribute to the linear progression of the architectural vernacular.

I like the response in the comments section of that blog from "Christopher":

 

.........

So, let me understand this: without seeing a site plan, architectural renderings, or anything other than a conceptual illustration of the possible facade, you wrote 666 words eviscerating the project? At the very least, you could provide a critique of Gensler's other projects in order to provide some context for your opinion.

 

*sigh*

 

Well, at least you're attempting to be more optimistic and positive and less cynical, because I hesitate to imagine what your reaction would be like otherwise.

...........

 

I'm not saying there isn't a basis for concern about what's built, I just think it's a wee bit early to (as the comment said) "eviscerate" the proposal based on ONE rendering.

Exactly.  Thanks for posting that.  I missed that part. 

yea that article is a bit harsh.

 

i mean they really should build this:

 

or maybe even this:

 

 

 

i mean that would fix the city, get rid of all the crime, make new york city liek soooo jealous and make me want to take the ECP to visit it and take tons of skewed perspective photographs of it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

 

 

I have no problem with the building rendering.  we dont need a huge skyscraper.  Cleveland needs new looking buildings and something thats really glassy and 'light' looking like The Heidelberg Print Academy building:

 

 

being able to see the inner workings of a building in that way with it looking highly contemporary makes it feel like it interacts so much more with the street level.  So this glassly-classy rendering im seeing has the potential to do that i think. 

Cleveland does not have any super-tall buildings.

 

In the Cleveland/Midwest context: we do.  Terminal Tower for about 50 or so years was the tallest building btw NYC and Chicago.  More recently, Key Center held that distinction until Philly just opened the Comcast Center, earlier this year, that tops it...

 

... Key, Terminal Tower and BP are pretty darn tall to me...

At first, I was hoping Jacobs would build a very tall tower, but upon further reflection, I really don't care. I am hopeful the building interacts better with the street, though. I work in Key Tower, and that thing is like a 57-story sarcophagus. I go in at 8:30 and don't walk out until 6:30-7:00. There are thousands of people in it, but it's lonely nonetheless. I much preferred my old job's location in a 12-story building. It was easy to get out on the street.

Cleveland does not have any super-tall buildings.

 

In the Cleveland/Midwest context: we do.  Terminal Tower for about 50 or so years was the tallest building btw NYC and Chicago.  More recently, Key Center held that distinction until Philly just opened the Comcast Center, earlier this year, that tops it...

 

... Key, Terminal Tower and BP are pretty darn tall to me...

 

I am so happy to hear that they are "pretty darn tall" to you; however, nobody really cares what your definition of a super-tall building is. The definition of a supertall is as follows:  a supertall is generally a completed structure that is at least 300 meters or 1000 feet tall.  If a building is being proposed, it must be at least 1 kilometer tall to be classified as a supertall.

 

 

http://www.allaboutskyscrapers.com/supertalls_megastructures.htm

I like the response in the comments section of that blog from "Christopher":

 

.........

So, let me understand this: without seeing a site plan, architectural renderings, or anything other than a conceptual illustration of the possible facade, you wrote 666 words eviscerating the project? At the very least, you could provide a critique of Gensler's other projects in order to provide some context for your opinion.

 

*sigh*

 

Well, at least you're attempting to be more optimistic and positive and less cynical, because I hesitate to imagine what your reaction would be like otherwise.

...........

 

I'm not saying there isn't a basis for concern about what's built, I just think it's a wee bit early to (as the comment said) "eviscerate" the proposal based on ONE rendering.

 

What other rendering exists to critique? I see no problem with someone writing a review of the rendering that was released.

One thing I take from this announcement and Stark's recent scale down is that collaberation in that part of the CBD amongst those two developers is evident.... now.  Anyone remember Stark's harsh words when a tower on this lot was talked about last year?  Seems like the kids found a way to both play in the sandbox.

 

I'll take the project.  Putting aside asthetic enjoyment, the 'functional purpose' of skyscrapers in my book arises out of a necessity Cleveland does not have due to the surface lots that would surround any supertall that Jacobs built there.  Key was great and I love looking at it but it hardly spawned the further development that the current projects all around the CBD have the potential to do.

 

Bring in a NEW fortune 500 or convince Progressive to leave the burbs and my tune changes but only to the extent that I would much prefer a well-designed 200m tower than a "supertall".

 

 

Seems like the kids found a way to both play in the sandbox.

 

Don't bet on it. The only reason why Stark and Jacobs are playing together in the sandbox is because the city is standing between them so everyone can get something done for the betterment of downtown. Otherwise, Jacobs and Stark wouldn't even be talking. They do not like each other.

Badge, dial it down. We're talking about buildings, not a cure for cancer or an end to all war. Discuss this project maturely or go find someplace else to rant.

"What other rendering exists to critique? I see no problem with someone writing a review of the rendering that was released."

 

That was the point - the review was appropriate for a constructed/finished building, but a bit heavyhanded for just one (not terribly detailed) initial rendering. And you're correct - the closest Cleveland has to a super-tall is Key Tower, but unless a building is 1,000 feet - it's not a supertall.

 

"Terminal Tower for about 50 or so years was the tallest building btw NYC and Chicago."

 

It was the tallest in the world outside of NYC from 1930 until 1953 - when the main building was constructed at Moscow State University. It was the tallest in the States until 1967 when the Prudential Center was built in Boston.

 

This afternoon I spent about two hours just driving around Cleveland enjoying the weather.  The whole time down there I would look towards PS and imagine the Jacob's tower in place.  Driving through PS, down W 6th I looked that way, driving down Euclid etc.  I even went to Wendy Park...(A) because I have never been there and (B), I wanted to imagine the tower from the views of Wendy Park. 

 

After doing that I'm actually fine with the fact that we are only getting a 21 story building.  Of course from Wendy Park a 60+ story building looks grand.  But driving around PS and the Warehouse District, the smaller one provides a better transition to the lower height structures that will be and are built in the WHD.  A tall, super tall or whatever is best suited for sites closer to the CBD where height seems to be sort of the norm.

This afternoon I spent about two hours just driving around Cleveland enjoying the weather.  The whole time down there I would look towards PS and imagine the Jacob's tower in place.  Driving through PS, down W 6th I looked that way, driving down Euclid etc.  I even went to Wendy Park...(A) because I have never been there and (B), I wanted to imagine the tower from the views of Wendy Park. 

 

After doing that I'm actually fine with the fact that we are only getting a 21 story building.  Of course from Wendy Park a 60+ story building looks grand.  But driving around PS and the Warehouse District, the smaller one provides a better transition to the lower height structures that will be and are built in the WHD.  A tall, super tall or whatever is best suited for sites closer to the CBD where height seems to be sort of the norm.

 

 

How is height the norm in the CBD?

from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Cleveland

 

Rank  ↓ Name  ↓ Height in feet / m  ↓ Floors  ↓

1 Key Tower 947 / 289 57

2 Terminal Tower 708 / 216 52

3 BP Building 658 / 201 45

4 Tower at Erieview 529 / 161 40

5 One Cleveland Center 450 / 137 31

6 Fifth Third Center 446 / 136 27

7 Federal Court House Tower 430 / 131 23

8 Justice Center Complex 420 / 128 26

9 Anthony J. Celebrezze Federal Building 419 / 128 31

10 National City Center 410 / 125 35

11 AT Tower 390 / 119 28

12 AT&T Huron Road Building 365 / 111 24

13 Rhodes Tower 363 / 111 20

14 Eaton Center 356 / 109 28 1983

15 Marriott at Key Center 320 / 98 28 1991

 

The average from the top 15 buildings downtown is 482ft. If this building is to hit that average at 21 floors, each floor would have to be 22.9ft.

some of you are in denial.......i actually feel sorry for you

 

some of you also think youre a lot smarter than you actually are

 

 

 

Notice the hole just behind these buildings (west), yes it's been there forever. So again I ask the question; why does this 21 storey structure need to be on the Jacobs site as opposed to the Stark site 1 block west? Why this hole instead of that hole?

 

thats what im thinkin........this building should be built on the lot directly west, make a street wall on superior. since stark owns or is in the process of owning all the lots west of W. 3rd and this is a jacobs project it has to go on the lot he owns.

 

 

 

and its great that all of you love to point out how we have the tallest building in ohio, tallest between ___ and ____, terminal tower was once the tallest outside nyc yet as soon as someone comes along and points out how underwhelming this proposal is for the site you hate skyscrapers. which is it? make up your mind

 

i bet you now when stark gets his scaled back project off the ground with avenue district or shorter heights people will say "oh im so glad that none of those tall 15-20 story buildings with office, retail, and residential werent built like he originally planned" when you were fine with the renderings before. its the same old thing.

 

there arent any unique buildings in cleveland

 

word?

 

Go track down Peter B. Lewis and convince him that Progressive needs to abandon the 10 or so building compound they have (and own) over in Mayfield Hts. / Lyndhurst (and in the process probably cripple that town).  After he says no, you can go looking for the CEO of Eaton, perhaps put a gun to his head and force him to not build a multi building "campus".  Eaton with another one or two of the "large tennants" might get this done.  Assuming neither one of those avenues work out too well for you, here is the final option.  You will need to get most of these "large" tennants out on the market. You will need a hotel.  You will need residences. 

 

 

yea, im sure regular ole me could do all that  :roll:

 

Well here's my dream, to walk around downtown and not be surrounded by surface parking lots and abandoned buildings.  We currently have an opportunity to eradicate 70% of that problem in almost one swoop with pesht, feb, 668, ameritrust, the jacobs property, and the john hartness brown buildings.  And you know what, I'm not interested in losing all that just so we can have a neat sky scraper like some of the bigger cities.  When we've filled in all the "holes in the donut", and one of these fine young companies moving into the city grows to the point it's needed we'll worry about another skyscraper.

 

then tell jacobs to go build his 21-story bland box on one of the many other fine surface lots in the CBD and leave the public square lot be until he's ready to build something serious. by that time a decent height proposal on public square wouldnt be "surrounded by surface lots and abandoned buildings" assumin stark actually builds in the next decade. that or tell stark he can have the tenants jacobs will get for this project to build the building on w. 3rd and superior. make sense to you yet?

 

Apparently you do, but you think Jacobs/Hines should completely ignore economic realities. I'm guessing you don't have their net worth so here's a little hint - ignoring economic realities doesn't get you into a position to build office towers.

 

i do know they dont have the balls to build big. you dont have george w. bush's net worth so you cant criticize anything he does

 

I get it, you want a tall signature building on our historical "front door", but is building a large building financially viable?  Yes or No? 

 

Yes

 

Is creating a new building going to improve NE Ohioans perception of their city as being "progressive", Yes or No?

 

Yes

 

s building a new skyscrapper going to bring more jobs to the city than what teh tenant has already stated?  "Yes or No"? 

 

obviously yes considering:

 

1- it would at least have to have more office space being used

 

2- it could be mixed use if taller, so that would mean more hotel jobs/staff for residences/retail jobs

 

Will a new skyscrapper on public square a Magic Bullet and cure all that needs to be corrected in Cleveland?  Yes or No?  That's the bottom line.

 

will a 21-story building on public square? will FEB? will the WHD? obviously not. whats your point?

 

Consider this: there are at least three 20+ skyscrapers due. Three?

 

oh jipee jeepers! i dont think i can take it! bellevue washington has a 42-story hotel/condo tower going up. there's also a 33-story tower that is all residential. bet you'll tell me bellevue has more hotel space/residential demand than cleveland does. they also have a hell of a lot more height going up in addition to that.

 

 

shame the old buildings that occupied the lot were torn down in anticipation for a building that never got built. shouldnt they wait until the building is actually going to be built before demolishing old buildings? if they were still there maybe all the other existing parking lots could be built on while jacobs waits until he can actually build something bigger

 

 

am i on urbanohio.com ? i think we should rename this site ohioapologists.com

 

 

keep em comin folks