dude take a pill.

 

for one thing you are totally forgetting something that is pretty important to this project. jacobs owns the lot he is building on. it's his lot. he doesn't own the other lots in the warehouse district. kind of a problem for building anything elsewhere, no?

 

granted, it should have been taken away from him by the city via eminent domain due to neglect long ago....but that's another story.

 

 

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

 

 

 

You explain to me how a 1000 ft skyscraper creates urbanity. Key tower sure didn't create it.

I think someone needs to be put into timeout

I agree. I'd say a month is good enough. Folks, if you can't make an argument without insulting people - find another forum.

 

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

 

If it's so bad - take your month off and find somewhere else to go.

http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080602/SUB1/688593882/1071/TOC&Profile=1071

 

If they build it, who will come?

Jacobs' downtown tower plans coincide with site searches by Baker, Huntington

 

By STAN BULLARD

 

4:30 am, June 2, 2008

 

The public airing last week by Richard E. Jacobs Group of plans for a 21-story office tower on Public Square shows the stakes for developers are rising as they vie for the few tenants likely to anchor new office buildings in downtown Cleveland.

 

Brian Conroy, co-manager in the Cleveland office of real estate advisory firm UGL Equis, views the May 28 announcement by Jacobs Group of the proposed joint venture with big, Houston-based developer Hines Interests as a sign that more is afoot than touting the proposal.

^Interesting that it doesn't mention Squires Sanders and Dempsey as a potential tenant.

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?

 

when you have several buildings that are at least 350ft tall and up compared to maybe 1 in the WHD, the Justice Center.

 

Cleveland does not have any super-tall buildings.

 

Yeah, having what is now the 2nd tallest building (by a few feet) between NYC and Chicago isn't super-tall.  :roll:  Thanks for the pointless cleveland.com-style criticism.

I wouldn't be sure he doesn't have his anchors lined up whether they're talking about them or not.

 

Agreed; time is ticking on the 2011 & 2012 expiration dates.

Cleveland does not have any super-tall buildings.

 

Yeah, having what is now the 2nd tallest building (by a few feet) between NYC and Chicago isn't super-tall.  :roll:  Thanks for the pointless cleveland.com-style criticism.

 

As I have said before - a supertall is 1,000 feet or more. Cleveland does not have any supertall buildings. It may seem like splitting hairs but it's true - unless we're talking 1,000 feet or taller, the term "supertall" doesn't apply.

Liked the Crain's article... and I like KJP's assessment that the City is pulling these developments together.  With all the attention they're putting on the FEB and Euclid Avenue, it's important that they focus enough on these big opportunities as well.  As several of you have said, I could care less about the ultimate height of this building, so long as it has an appropriate street context and relationship to Public Square, Superior, Franfort, and W. 3rd.  This block is THE key bridge to the WHD.

Cleveland does not have any super-tall buildings.

 

Yeah, having what is now the 2nd tallest building (by a few feet) between NYC and Chicago isn't super-tall.  :roll:  Thanks for the pointless cleveland.com-style criticism.

 

As I have said before - a supertall is 1,000 feet or more. Cleveland does not have any supertall buildings. It may seem like splitting hairs but it's true - unless we're talking 1,000 feet or taller, the term "supertall" doesn't apply.

 

Yeah, I realized that shortly after posting.

 

But if we really want to split hairs, he said "super-tall" not "supertall".  :-P

 

I still think people are having the small male unit complex (pope warned me to keep it clean), and not thinking about what actually makes sense in the context of what will be built west of he building and what is best for the city at this point.

Is there really any evidence that the city is working together to pull these independent development efforts together or is this wishful thinking ? It's taken for granted that Stark and Jacobs are working together in some fashion, but there really hasn't been any indication of that.

Just the word of what city and state officials have told me. But the worst thing you can do is take for granted that Stark and Jacobs are working together. They're not. And I doubt they ever will. Ever see oil and water? They don't mix. Neither do Stark and Jacobs.

 

However, the city and state are working with Stark (on the TIF) and the city and federal government are working with Jacobs (on the UDAG loan restructuring from Key Tower). This was the "big news" to which I alluded over at the Pesht thread.

Cleveland does not have any super-tall buildings.

 

Yeah, having what is now the 2nd tallest building (by a few feet) between NYC and Chicago isn't super-tall.  :roll:  Thanks for the pointless cleveland.com-style criticism.

 

As I have said before - a supertall is 1,000 feet or more. Cleveland does not have any supertall buildings. It may seem like splitting hairs but it's true - unless we're talking 1,000 feet or taller, the term "supertall" doesn't apply.

 

Yeah, I realized that shortly after posting.

 

But if we really want to split hairs, he said "super-tall" not "supertall".  :-P

 

I still think people are having the small male unit complex (pope warned me to keep it clean), and not thinking about what actually makes sense in the context of what will be built west of he building and what is best for the city at this point.

 

i rather jacobs get a mixed-use complex and build something more impressive than a generic office box right now. wait, wait, wait is all we ever do!  :wink:

So Jacobs tower could open by late 2011.

 

I can't help but think what a great site this would be for Eaton Corp. 

 

Does anyone know if they'd have any interest?  Or are they still thinking about a campus in the WFL?

 

 

Clearly they are not interested in being in a high rise downtown.  This was my disappointment, being Clevelands largest fortune 500, it would have been a great presence on Public Square, but from everything Ive heard they want a campus, whether in the flats or the suburbs. 

I've been away, so sorry if this has been discussed....but Jacobs hinted that an out of town tenant was possible.  Does anyone know if this is in the works and if so is it way out of town or a suburban co. moving in?

Nothing has been announced.

I've been away, so sorry if this has been discussed....but Jacobs hinted that an out of town tenant was possible. Does anyone know if this is in the works and if so is it way out of town or a suburban co. moving in?

 

From the sounds of it, he's just saying it as a possibility. I'd highly doubt that we'd see someone large moving in.

not to restoke the coals of a deadly flame...

 

 

but..

 

 

what makes everyone on here seem to think that this small building will interact better with the street than a taller one?

 

there is an inherent quality about the scare of a taller building versus a smaller one to someone walking by.. but nothing a good design couldnt very easily fix.

 

i would love to see this building able to have a Phase II where it would become the skyscraper that was destined to be on that property.

not to restoke the coals of a deadly flame...

 

But you're going to anyway, right?!

not to restoke the coals of a deadly flame...

 

 

but..

 

 

what makes everyone on here seem to think that this small building will interact better with the street than a taller one?

 

there is an inherent quality about the scare of a taller building versus a smaller one to someone walking by.. but nothing a good design couldnt very easily fix.

 

i would love to see this building able to have a Phase II where it would become the skyscraper that was destined to be on that property.

 

I think that you are confusing design and urban planning issues.

 

what makes everyone on here seem to think that this small building will interact better with the street than a taller one?

 

I look at it this way, I'd rather have 1,000 employees holed up in a poorly planned building, than 5,000 employees holed up in a poorly planned building.

not to restoke the coals of a deadly flame...

 

 

but..

 

 

what makes everyone on here seem to think that this small building will interact better with the street than a taller one?

 

there is an inherent quality about the scare of a taller building versus a smaller one to someone walking by.. but nothing a good design couldnt very easily fix.

 

i would love to see this building able to have a Phase II where it would become the skyscraper that was destined to be on that property.

 

In my opinion once you go above 2 stories height is irrelevant when talking about addressing the street. If a 10 story building has stores lining the street it would have the same effect as a 110 story building with the same number of stores on street level. Only difference is a lot more people would be coming in and out of the 110 story building. Right now a smaller building makes sense because office demand isn't enough to justify a 70 story tower and all the other proposed office buildings being built. I understand Jacobs as a business man sees this as an opportunity to make moves while there is a demand, but I personally would have liked this to have been at least 600'

 

As said before this is just preliminary and there are too many variables out there right now (new convention center, growing demand for luxury downtown living spaces and other office properties that may or may not get built), to think that the rendering will be what's actually constructed there in a few years.

 

what makes everyone on here seem to think that this small building will interact better with the street than a taller one?

 

I look at it this way, I'd rather have 1,000 employees holed up in a poorly planned building, than 5,000 employees holed up in a poorly planned building.

 

What does that even mean?

 

what makes everyone on here seem to think that this small building will interact better with the street than a taller one?

 

I look at it this way, I'd rather have 1,000 employees holed up in a poorly planned building, than 5,000 employees holed up in a poorly planned building.

 

What does that even mean?

 

Lets assume the worse and we end up with another Key Tower with no presence on the street. I'd rather have fewer people held hostage in a smaller building, than more people held hostage in taller building (this is a very weak argument to prefer a smaller building).

I see.. whatever floats your boat I guess.. I'd love to see a conversation between you and the "we need a big building for the skyline" person on here.. that'd be hilarious.

Jacobs building is good for the skyline because it ads density. I believe thats what makes a good looking skyline. Cleveland needs in the "future" taller buildings away from public square 40+ stories to give the city a more populated look. Not just buildings in one area look at chicago for instance. it would be nice to see some skyscrapers along lake Erie. This is my opinion.

I see.. whatever floats your boat I guess.. I'd love to see a conversation between you and the "we need a big building for the skyline" person on here.. that'd be hilarious.

 

That conversation has been had by me and many others on this forum dozens of times, because we all know a city's true greatness is measured by the height of its skyline.

yes i agree a city is measured by its height but in the case of Jacobs 21 story tower this is good because it adds density but if we could get some developers to build along the lake or the river with some highrises like i said it would really make Cleveland standout. But of course this is easier said than done due to our economy.

Jacobs building is good for the skyline because it ads density. I believe thats what makes a good looking skyline. Cleveland needs in the "future" taller buildings away from public square 40+ stories to give the city a more populated look. Not just buildings in one area look at chicago for instance. it would be nice to see some skyscrapers along lake Erie. This is my opinion.

 

Yeah, chicago's got a reaaal bad skyline going on there....

 

yes i agree a city is measured by its height but in the case of Jacobs 21 story tower this is good because it adds density but if we could get some developers to build along the lake or the river with some highrises like i said it would really make Cleveland standout. But of course this is easier said than done due to our economy.

 

Uh, I was using sarcasm, are you using sarcasm on sarcasm....?

alittle bit haha

not to restoke the coals of a deadly flame...

 

 

but..

 

 

 

 

what makes everyone on here seem to think that this small building will interact better with the street than a taller one?

 

there is an inherent quality about the scare of a taller building versus a smaller one to someone walking by.. but nothing a good design couldnt very easily fix.

 

i would love to see this building able to have a Phase II where it would become the skyscraper that was destined to be on that property.

 

There are 6 pages on this thread that talk about the difference.

we all know a city's true greatness is measured by the height of its skyline.

 

And we have a 970 foot p3n1s!

One project that could possibly change this project is the convention center. If rebuilt at the current site the county would need to start looking for office space immediately, in which they could turn to Jacobs which could easily add 15-20 stories to accommodate them. Also if the convention center is chosen for the tower city site Jacobs could add a hotel to his project adding possibly another 10 floors. If they decide it's too expensive to build at this time or if medical mart for whatever reason backs out we'll pobably just get the 21 story building being presented.

If the county is going to move its offices into new quarters, it's going to move all of them into a single consolidated building as they had planned to do at the old Ameritrust Center. To put all those offices in one building will require a pretty large building in its own right.

 

I've heard rumblings that Stark is trying to get DFAS into a building on his project site, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's trying to do the same with the county. I'm sure the port authority could give him some good financing on both.

If the county is going to move its offices into new quarters, it's going to move all of them into a single consolidated building as they had planned to do at the old Ameritrust Center. To put all those offices in one building will require a pretty large building in its own right.

 

I've heard rumblings that Stark is trying to get DFAS into a building on his project site, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's trying to do the same with the county. I'm sure the port authority could give him some good financing on both.

 

I was pretty much thinking the same thing.  And also, with the amount of available open land/parking lots in the vicinity of PS, I really do not think it will be necessary to raise the buliding height based on needs for covention center needs.  It really isn't as if there is a land crunch around the proposed sites for a convention center.  Hotels and office buildings will have plenty of land to pick from in Starks development.  I couldn't be happier with the proposed hieght of Jacob's Tower. 

Will this building be built right up to the sidewalk or will it be set back from the street so there can be room for "greenspace" right across from Public Square. I know it was the first rendering and all, but in it they showed a pathway leading up to the building with trees and benches in front of the building. Or is it too early to know this answer for sure?

^Oh boy...you're in trouble now if your post (it is not clear) is advocating green space in front of the building rather than building right up to the sidewalk.  :wink:  Set backs (and for good reason most of the time) are not well received on this forum.

 

That said, if I recall the "rendering" the green space was one of the quadrants of public square.

^ That rendering is actually showing the NW quadrant of public square....  but it certainly premature to know their exact site plan.

Let it be known that i am TOTALLY AGAISNT setbacks, especially on public square, sorry for the misunderstanding there.

With the square right across the street there is no reason this building needs to be setback from the sidewalk.

Let it be known that i am TOTALLY AGAISNT setbacks, especially on public square, sorry for the misunderstanding there.

With the square right across the street there is no reason this building needs to be setback from the sidewalk.

agreed.  and I'd be shocked if they did anything like that.

I don't think that there would be room for a setback. I cringed when I first saw the rendering but then I realized the green space was Public Square.

The lot where it will be built is not big enough to allow the green space in front AND a garage in the rear.

Unless they're proposing to put the garage below ground and the greenspace on top of it.

 

I think there is room for a setback, which I don't support. Remember that the proposed Ameritrust Tower was to have a 50,000-square-foot base.

Agreed, but all the early indications I have read have the garage fronting W. 3rd St.

I think it would be better hidden on Rockwell.  Or how about NO GARAGE?!

 

 

^there probably would be traffic issues, but it would be nice to front the garage on Frankfort (if that is the name of the street that is to the immediate north).

^there probably would be traffic issues, but it would be nice to front the garage on Frankfort (if that is the name of the street that is to the immediate north).

 

We meant the same street.  LOL....BUT, you're right, Rockwell is East of Ontario and Frankfort is West of Ontario.