What I think is the absolute best part of this entire story is the fact they while a bunch of companies' leases are coming up, no one is looking to leave the city. 

 

For me, and I ain't no city planner, it seems that the quality of life investments that the city has made over the past 20 years such as Gateway, WHD, RRHof, Science Museum, E.4th, the Silver line etc., are starting to bear fruit.  People want to be in Cleveland, and companies are happy to be based here!

well put, Punch

Absolutely, I think that it's like building a sports program, you can't go 0-12 and expect to recruit the start QB, you gotta start by building a foundation for success, and I think Cleveland has laid that foundation and can now start to compete with other markets.

I don't want to sound negative because this is great news, but what about the older buildings these companies would leave? New construction will be great for the city, but I don't want current downtown companies to just shuffle around. Preferably, a suburban company would relocate into the city (although to be perfectly honest I'm not sure what large companies in the suburbs would be willing or able to move).

 

I would be concerned about this shuffling of companies if the companies weren't growing, and didn't need the space to keep growing. One-for-one trades don't create growth and leave behind cancerous vacancies (which is why I hate urban sprawl in no- or low-growth metros like Greater Cleveland). If the trade in office locations creates growth, jobs, taxbase, spin-off retail/restaurants/residential/supportive office uses, greater vibrancy etc. then I'm all for it.

I don't want to sound negative because this is great news, but what about the older buildings these companies would leave? New construction will be great for the city, but I don't want current downtown companies to just shuffle around. Preferably, a suburban company would relocate into the city (although to be perfectly honest I'm not sure what large companies in the suburbs would be willing or able to move).

 

I would be concerned about this shuffling of companies if the companies weren't growing, and didn't need the space to keep growing. One-for-one trades don't create growth and leave behind cancerous vacancies (which is why I hate urban sprawl in no- or low-growth metros like Greater Cleveland). If the trade in office locations creates growth, jobs, taxbase, spin-off retail/restaurants/residential/supportive office uses, greater vibrancy etc. then I'm all for it.

 

Exactly.

 

My question is, what kind of a glut in office space will these companies leave behind? Is this a concern at all? Just wondering if anyone has more info or better speculation on this.

regarding the PD, I was busy pinching myself!  :-D

 

anyways, what great news to end the weekend on an action filled, gorgeous, and sunny weekend in the city!  I'm leaving work early!! :clap:

I really like Henry Gomez. The articles he writes always seem to paint Cleveland in a positive light. He wrote this article, and also the article on various residential projects that are happening in DT Cleveland. Before he started covering real estate, he was the person that kept giving us updates with the tech sector in Cleveland (especially when the Idea Center was leasing). Its funny how he leaves that post and we haven't heard about anymore 15-50 employee companies relocating downtown.

 

It is hard to believe that in the next few years we may have a highrise residential building in the air (515, Lighthouse Landing etc.) 2 new office structures, and I would guess that with the new c.c./med. mart that a new hotel can't be that far off.

 

My dream scenario would be: Eaton and Keycorp (just the division that has an expiring lease) to Public Square in a  30+ story building. Ernst and Young to the WHD, B&H to 200 Public Square, and the rest stay put. I think this would give us two new substantail buildings, and we would not see a huge glut of office space.

 

One question I have for people is if these firms are looking for new space because there is not enough, how much would the usually want to increase to accomodate future growth? I know every situation is different, but I would find it hard to believe that a company would look for new office space because they are going to increase the amount of employees by 10% in 5 years.

My dream scenario would be: Eaton and Keycorp (just the division that has an expiring lease) to Public Square in a  30+ story buildin

 

30+ story? thats not even 500 ft. try 60+ ......leave the 30 story buildings for some other vacant lot in downtown. i think if jacobs could build something that ho hum on public square he wouldnt be sittin on the parking lot. afterall, there was a 63-story skyscraper proposed before.

 

think big

The rumblings I'm hearing is that B-H and Eaton may move as a package. Based on their growth projections, they'll likely need 500,000 to 600,000 square feet. That equates to a 25-30 story building in the footprint available. If Jacobs builds a larger skyscraper based on speculative leases, he might be able to get financing for a skyscraper that's 60-80 percent leased from the outset (in other markets with higher rents he might be able to get financing for building that's 40-60 percent leased). So maybe we're talking a 40-story skyscraper, but I've heard rumblings that a 60-story 'scraper is being proposed.

 

I think that would be financially irresponsible, depress market rents throughout downtown and would hurt the street vibrancy that Stark spoke of. Downtown rents are in the low-$20s per square foot. It needs to be at least in the mid-$20s before new construction can happen based on spec, and I understand that having a major anchor helps reduce the risk in a low-rent market. But that's all the more reason where I would reduce the spec space.

 

Imagine if downtown were limited to buildings that were in the 15-30 story range, had lots of sidewalk retail and restaurants on their ground floors, with office buildings, residential buildings, and hotels intermixed, I doubt you'd ever see a time of day when downtown's sidewalks weren't covered with pedestrians.

I really like Henry Gomez. The articles he writes always seem to paint Cleveland in a positive light. He wrote this article, and also the article on various residential projects that are happening in DT Cleveland. Before he started covering real estate, he was the person that kept giving us updates with the tech sector in Cleveland (especially when the Idea Center was leasing). Its funny how he leaves that post and we haven't heard about anymore 15-50 employee companies relocating downtown.

 

It is hard to believe that in the next few years we may have a highrise residential building in the air (515, Lighthouse Landing etc.) 2 new office structures, and I would guess that with the new c.c./med. mart that a new hotel can't be that far off.

 

My dream scenario would be: Eaton and Keycorp (just the division that has an expiring lease) to Public Square in a  30+ story building. Ernst and Young to the WHD, B&H to 200 Public Square, and the rest stay put. I think this would give us two new substantail buildings, and we would not see a huge glut of office space.

 

One question I have for people is if these firms are looking for new space because there is not enough, how much would the usually want to increase to accomodate future growth? I know every situation is different, but I would find it hard to believe that a company would look for new office space because they are going to increase the amount of employees by 10% in 5 years.

 

I like Gomez as well, but he seems to pick up on stories only after KJP and Crains has already written about them.

60 stories is what i heard too, but not the B-H and Eaton part. i think eaton will go into the WHD along with ernst and young having a building with their name on it. those are the 2 buildings fronting superior in those renderings. i think jacobs could propose something mixed-use....with companies looking for new space, the convention center being built, and downtown population growing you could take advantage of all those components. get some smaller companies expanding, put a hotel inside for the convention center, and add residential units. dont know where B-H would go...possibly 1 public square, existing space, or maybe that triangular parcel right across from stark. i would like to see that developed, i hate passing by there and seeing that lot.

 

i understand what youre sayin about market rates though, i just think this would be a perfect time to pursue something like that. where else would you want a 1000 footer downtown? to me public square is the perfect location. i dont get what you mean about hurting street vibrancy. i doubt a 60-story building would have a bad effect whereas a 30-story wouldnt. stark building up those parking lots right by is going to help street vibrancy. with a tall building there the big 4 would all blend in together plus you would have a 30+ building right next to it. thats just my thoughts.

 

i know everyone including myself hates the fact theres a parking lot right on public square but if something 300-400 ft was built there would be no chance in the future to put a new tallest right there.

I like Gomez as well, but he seems to pick up on stories only after KJP and Crains has already written about them.

 

I can't speak for other articles he's written, but Gomez was working on his latest article for at least as long as I was working on mine about Stark.

 

i doubt a 60-story building would have a bad effect whereas a 30-story wouldnt. stark building up those parking lots right by is going to help street vibrancy. with a tall building there the big 4 would all blend in together plus you would have a 30+ building right next to it. thats just my thoughts.

 

I'm not crazy about a 30-story-tall building either. The tallest a downtown building should be is in the 10-20 story range. How many tenants need more than that? The U.S.-led pursuit of height in the early 20th century became an exercise in ego and "size matters" among builders. It was almost as if they were compensating for some other "area" where they were coming up short -- and less driven by economics. Yes, I know all the stuff about high property values, especially on Manhattan, warranting skyscrapers. Where else are they warranted by geography? San Fran? Boston? Maybe even Pittsburgh?

 

Do we in Cleveland need skyscrapers? What high property values are prompting them? Is land is such short supply here that we can't expanded downtown outward before we need to expand upward? Having taller buildings doesn't make Cleveland a better city any more than having bigger winky-tink makes you a better man. In fact, I argue that tall buildings hurts downtown Cleveland. Consider European cities which are comprised primarily of 5-15 story buildings, with one office building next to a hotel next to a department store next to a theater next to an apartment building. You never see the streets devoid of pedestrians and you almost never see surface parking lots.

 

How many people stay in tall buildings throughout the day and, worse, drive into their parking garages in the morning and out again in the evening -- never setting foot on a downtown sidewalk? If I'm in a 60-story building, I may be tempted to be stay in for lunch and wait until I get back to the suburbs to go shopping rather than hike over to Tower City, or the Galleria or the Arcade for something they probably don't have.

 

With 100,000 people working downtown, 15,000 residents, 15,000 CSU students and lots of visitors, we should have a lot more amenities downtown. We have too many monolithic cocoons downtown, not enough buildings designed to be interactive and placed where they can interact with each other. How tall they are is a major factor in their "interactiveness."

 

Having taller buildings doesn't make Cleveland a better city any more than having bigger winky-tink makes you a better man.

 

Tinky-Winky agrees!

 

Can someone explain to me how a 10 story building makes walking around downtown more attractive than a 60 story building does, because I don't see that logic.

OK, take a 60-story building surrounded by windswept, economically dead parking lots and divide the building's office space by six. Put restaurants, a video store, clothing stores, coffee shops, a drug store, post office, etc. on the ground floors of those buildings with structured parking above the stores and the 10 stories of office space above. Now take those six buildings and spread them among hotels, department stores, residential and other uses -- including where parking lots now stand.

 

But I'd rather show you how a 60-story building vs. six 10-story buildings with mixed use buildings and street presence is more attractive to pedestrians....

 

Here's downtown Cleveland and its 60-story (almost) building, near 52, 46, 40, 35, 34, etc etc. story buildings. All surrounded by more than 70 acres of surface parking lots downtown.

 

 

 

Now imagine if the top-10 or 15 tallest buildings downtown were chopped up into 5- to 20-story buildings and built where surface lots are, complete with an embracing street presence. Also, imagine mixing these buildings among residential, retail, civic and other uses to encourage people to venture out of their office cubicles, live downtown and have more eyes on the street at all hours of the day to provide a greater sense of security. That's urban dynamism. And it might give you something more like this.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now doesn't that look like a more attractive, vibrant setting in which to power-walk or leisure-stroll at all hours?

 

Not a single surface parking lot in sight! Wonder why? Because the offices are kept closer to street-level in mid-rise buildings, rather than swept up into skyscrapers (er, coccoons) that leave scars (er, parking lots) behind. And they're mixed with other uses and have a better street presence than most Cleveland skyscrapers do.

Amen!  Density Density Density!!! 

If agree that the tallest a downtown building should be is in the 10-20 story range. However, I also agree that Jacobs should build taller with mixed use (condos/apartments/office/retail).

^ground level retail only happens in one place, the ground floor. You could have a 1776 ft skyscraper, and you're still only going to have one ground floor to create a street atmosphere.

^ That is, until flying cars are the norm.

 

(The Fifth Element)

 

 

^^ I understand that. Again, I'm only talking about the potential building on Public Square, not the others. Also some of the proposed buildings in the WHD show up to three levels of retail.

 

^ Musky, you thief!  :-)

OK, take a 60-story building surrounded by windswept, economically dead parking lots

 

umm.....it wouldnt be surrounded by "windswept, economically dead parking lots". there would be buildings all around it....55 public square, terminal tower, BP, key, and the warehouse district buildings on the lot next to it.

 

i still dont get your logic. how is a 10-story building better suited for the public square lot than a 60-story? i doubt people are going to jump in their cars and head downtown because 1 public square is 10 stories instead of 60. it wouldnt blend in well.

 

i guess you dont like skyscrapers

 

 

 

You're not looking at the whole picture. KJP's not talking about Cleveland specifically - he's talking about principals of mixed-use planning. One of the basics is that a cluster of mixed-use mid-rises do more to improve the pedestrian traffic and vibrancy of an area, than a single supertall building that's strictly an office tower would.

 

For example, look at a photo of Paris where pedestrian traffic is high. There aren't any supertalls in the immediate area here, just a lot of 4-8 story mixed-use buildings:

 

On the other end of the spectrum, this area of downtown Columbus isn't lacking for skyscrapers or parking lots. Like many areas that are surrounded by towers that are only open M-F 9-5, it's lacking pedestrians and vibrancy. Now, as KJP suggests - imagine if the handful of tall buildings were instead a dozen mixed-use mid-rise buildings that created a cohesive urban fabric.

 

It would really behoove you to read posts thoroughly; you would learn so much if you did.

I guess in my previous post I should have included that I was assuming this tower would be built during/after pesht is at least under construction, meaning there would be street life adjacent to this new tower and possibly even on its ground floor. Additionally the tower would be mixed use. I don't have a problem with skyscrapers, just part of the modern urban landscape in big cities.

 

A sixty story tower spread into 6 ten story ones would lend its self to more street retail, but still I don't think an office worker working on the sixtieth floor of a tower will say "Hmm, since I'm on the 60th floor I don't think I'll go shopping downtown today."

 

 

I don't dislike skyscrapers -- they are awe-inspiring in a magnitude that appears bigger than human life. However, my big fear with building something enormous in downtown Cleveland is basically that it'll kill the whole market. Wouldn't it be better to incrementally increase the quality and size of office space rather than blow up the dam and let all the water flood the valley?

 

Lets take NYC as an example. The skyscrapers of Manhattan are a testament to the greatness of American wealth creation. From afar, they are magnificent. But the best place to experience them is in the neighborhoods where people live and shop, where you run into neighbors on the street and sit watching cute girls or guys walk by from a sidewalk cafe.

 

Sure, I think it'd be cool to get a giant skyscraper downtown, but I'm not convinced we have a dynamic enough economy and downtown office market right this second. I'm not an expert at this, but it would seem crazy to me to build something huge when you still have vacancies at 18% for the entire downtown. I mean, it doesn't take that long to build a building. If there was real demand, something would get built. I'm not in favor of speculative building though. That to me is no different than building developments in Wadsworth... Sorry for the rambling.

I'm not debating KJP's post as it is quite clear. Although I'm curious, what if you had to choose one of the following:

 

1. Three twenty story buildings (with one on PS)?

 

2. One sixty story building on PS (no others)?

 

3. No building on PS and three or more ten story buildings on the current surface lots?

 

4. Or other; your REALISTIC alternative?

^I'm 100% with KJP on this one.

 

I don't think its a matter of 3 20-story buildings veruss 6 10-story buildings. Its more a matter of a placement in downtown. Once you get into skyscraper mode, developers take advantage of the economy of scale that they have inside their building and build in a lot of retail and services. People never leave the building when this happens.

so if skyscrapers are the doom and gloom of downtown cleveland, why does manhattan have plenty of street vibrancy. theres certainly a hell of a lot more taller buildings there than here. the 1st 3 pics of washington dc dont look more inviting to me than many streets downtown. the problem in DT cleveland isnt tall buildings, its a lack of retail and people. the difference between us and european or select north american cities is that they have a lot more people around the core which lends itself to more retail/mixed-use. people have an attitude that every square mile of cleveland inside its borders is this terrible place so they stopped going there to live and shop. downtown stores closed and moved out to the burbs. stark has the right idea in what he wants to do.

 

that pic of paris isnt even the CBD, its just a random neighborhood there. if we are going to get into that we would have to build streetwalls of dense mixed-use buildings all over the city. thats just a regular ole 'hood there. obviously i would take a european city or dc with their dense neighborhoods over just a bunch of skyscrapers. it just puzzles me why someone would want a 30 story building on the public square lot as opposed to something taller if it can be built. i dont think it makes any difference there and you have what KJP is talking about with mixed-use right next to it in the WHD.

 

my ideal scenario would be build really dense blocks of brick buildings on the eastside adjacent to downtown. build that whole area up the way it used to be and demolish the innerbelt. the whole corridor between downtown and university circle has the potential to be a great vibrant neighborhood if it is built up.

 

 

look how there are dense blocks of rowhouses and the like right in downtown. here you walk to the end of downtown (e. 12th) and all of a sudden its completely desolate with nothing there. THATS where you want to build the 10 story superblocks at.

A good chunk of the area immediately adjacent to Downtown, where CSU is now, was never very dense brick rowhouses like you've shown.  One or two streets were made up of dense apartment buildings, but overall it looked more like the area on the other side of the Innerbelt in the East 30's than anything in Philly/Boston/NYC. 

 

That said, I agree that it would be a nice place to put high density residential- low to mid rise apts with ground floor retail, townhouses, etc.

^Stay tuned...

Varsity Village news?

OK, CTownsFinest216, let's pretend for a moment that we're selfish developers like Jacobs and we don't care about the totality of downtown, or mixed-use or promoting pedestrianism. We're just going to look at our property and what can be built there on cold, hard economic facts. Now, the largest single tenants coming on the leasing market have space needs in the range of 200,000 square feet to 300,000 square feet.

 

It's been rumored that Eaton and Baker Hostetler want to go together to a new building. Their combined space needs are roughly 500,000 SF, including their estimated future growth. If our building's footprint filled out the entire area represented by the Public Square plot of land and we built upward from that, 500,000 SF would require a building roughly 30 stories tall. Why would we build taller than that when downtown office rents are in the low-$20s and overall vacancy rates are only slowly improving into the upper teens?

 

The only reason I could think of is bragging rights. It isn't the high value of the property. While the Public Square site is probably the most expensive parking lot in the city, it doesn't carry a Manhattan price tag (where the land area is constrained by water on all sides, surrounding what is arguably the most dynamic corporate center in the world). Even in Manhattan, there was no economic justification for building the Chrysler Building or the Empire State Building. Those were result of competitions between two developers seeking to outdo each other. There is an excellent program on the History Channel about this.

 

If we, as developers, had a conscience and a desire for helping downtown's vibrancy, there's even less of a reason to build a 60-story 'scraper downtown. And, lest we forget, downtown IS a neighborhood. It's Cleveland's fastest growing residential area. It deserves our support to eradicate parking lots, to use the expiration of leases to eliminate them and promote mixed use, and to not flood the office market with excess space by putting up a mammoth building that cannot be economically justified. The only benefit from that would be bragging rights.

 

I'd rather brag about replacing parking lots with office buildings scaled to their user's space needs and which have retail, restaurant and other ground-floor functions that are of utility to those who work, live and visit downtown.

A good chunk of the area immediately adjacent to Downtown, where CSU is now, was never very dense brick rowhouses like you've shown.  One or two streets were made up of dense apartment buildings, but overall it looked more like the area on the other side of the Innerbelt in the East 30's than anything in Philly/Boston/NYC. 

 

i never said it did. a large chunk of the near eastside sure as hell wasnt an urban prarie though with parking lots and 1 or 2 houses on a whole street. i just picked that pic of philly to illustrate how real cities are built up densely around downtown. i couldve shown an image of cincinnati too.

 

Varsity Village news?

 

speaking of which, CSU is probably cleveland's biggest hidden urban gem. that whole area could turn into something like clifton in cincinnati.

 

OK, CTownsFinest216, let's pretend for a moment that we're selfish developers like Jacobs and we don't care about the totality of downtown, or mixed-use or promoting pedestrianism.

 

how is jacobs selfish because he proposed a tall building for public square?

 

do you think the the warehouse district isnt getting built or something? because you keep talking about how we need mixed use and how a 60-footer would be surrounded by parking lots. this is 1 single lot in the middle of public square, how much ground floor retail are you expecting out of 1 building? the skyscraper could be an office/retail/hotel/residential mixed use project anyways. we're talking about 1 lot in the center of the skyline here. we arent talkin about puttin 60 story buildings in every vacant lot. how is this going to kill pedestrianism or mixed-use downtown? there are also mixed-use possibilities that already exist along our main avenues downtown. when is 515 euclid going to have storefronts?

 

i dont even know what to say anymore....

 

you seem to be so against a skyscraper and i have no clue why

 

Even in Manhattan, there was no economic justification for building the Chrysler Building or the Empire State Building.

 

it turned out OK for them didnt it

 

if you want to be technical, theres no economic justification for building half the projects in cleveland right now. we dont NEED to build anything right now in cleveland since its losing population and the metro is stagnant. a bunch of mixed used buildings all over downtown like you want isnt economically justifiable since no one shops downtown and not enough people live downtown.

 

And, lest we forget, downtown IS a neighborhood. It's Cleveland's fastest growing residential area.

 

which is why we need to build high-rise residential and have things like a target, grocery store, department store, other retail

 

It deserves our support to eradicate parking lots, to use the expiration of leases to eliminate them and promote mixed use, and to not flood the office market with excess space by putting up a mammoth building that cannot be economically justified. The only benefit from that would be bragging rights.

 

isnt that whats happening right now?

 

 

aint that the whole point of stark? avenue district?

 

 

Varsity Village news?

 

We sure hope so.

 

It looks like I'm going to bite this bait...

 

Ctown216, are you SERIOUS when justifying that Cleveland needs highrises b/c Manhattan has highrises?!?! :-o  You're forgetting one thing they have and one thing we don't have yet...DENSITY, PEOPLE!  The only place to go is up over in NYC and if you're a developer trying to make some money, you have to build up to take in as much money from as many tenants as possible.  Our land is not as valuable here and the demand isn't here to warrant a bunch of 700-100' towers with footings equally as long. Come on...

 

Believe it or not, 4-300' towers would contribute 100x more to the vibrancy of downtown than 1-1200' building.

 

Oh, and go to La Defense in Paris v.s. any arrondissement and tell me what's more vibrant.  Most outsiders don't even know about La Defense

how is jacobs selfish because he proposed a tall building for public square?

 

Who said he was? You have a nasty habit of oversimplifying things. Know Jacobs history -- his fight against competing retail complexes in Columbus while he refused to upgrade his Northland Mall; his fight against Crocker Park in Westlake, etc. And, by the way, developers are inherently selfish. Jacobs seems to take it to another level.

 

do you think the the warehouse district isnt getting built or something?

 

And how is Stark proposing to develop the Warehouse District? What if Stark proposed a 60-story building?

 

you seem to be so against a skyscraper and i have no clue why

 

I guess you didn't like all the reasons I've stated. And I'm not against a skyscraper. I'm against a 60-story skyscraper in this economy and at this time.

 

Even in Manhattan, there was no economic justification for building the Chrysler Building or the Empire State Building.

it turned out OK for them didnt it

 

Not for about 10-15 years. Both buildings were heavily vacant for much of the 1930s and even into the 1940s. That was the case in the nation's center for corporate headquarters, on a island that already had incredible density.

 

if you want to be technical, theres no economic justification for building half the projects in cleveland right now. we dont NEED to build anything right now in cleveland since its losing population and the metro is stagnant. a bunch of mixed used buildings all over downtown like you want isnt economically justifiable since no one shops downtown and not enough people live downtown.

 

I guess you missed my statistic that more than 130,000 people are downtown in a given 24-hour period. Where do they shop? Where do inner-city residents shop? In the suburbs. Why?

 

And, lest we forget, downtown IS a neighborhood. It's Cleveland's fastest growing residential area.

which is why we need to build high-rise residential and have things like a target, grocery store, department store, other retail

 

Bingo.

 

aint that the whole point of stark? avenue district?

 

Yes. And how are they being built/proposed to be built?

 

So why do you want a 60-story skyscraper?

Even in Manhattan, there was no economic justification for building the Chrysler Building or the Empire State Building.

it turned out OK for them didnt it

 

Not for about 10-15 years. Both buildings were heavily vacant for much of the 1930s and even into the 1940s. That was the case in the nation's center for corporate headquarters, on a island that already had incredible density.

 

There might be a little more to that story, of course.  I think some things happened in the '30's and into the 40's that may have impacted demand for office space more than just overbuilding!

 

It'd be interesting to know how the numbers work out on that lot and what density is needed to break even.  It's also surprising that given what a key piece of development property it is that there is so little discussion about what would be the best use for it.  Maybe it should be a 60 story skyscraper, maybe there is something very different that would be the "highest and best use".  I don't know, but it'd be an interesting charette.

There might be a little more to that story, of course. I think some things happened in the '30's and into the 40's that may have impacted demand for office space more than just overbuilding!

 

It was overbuilding for the economy which existed at the time (not especially for the Chrysler Building which came earlier), and that's my point. All construction is (or should be) based on the economics of the moment, whether it's the Chrysler and Empire State buildings in the Great Depression, or the buildings that might get built in Downtown Cleveland as a result of the Great Reshuffling in our still-sluggish economy.

Not that it's all that relevant to the point at hand, but the Chrysler building broke ground in 1928, a year before the crash, when the economy was by all accounts pretty good.  And per the NY Times, it never suffered the low occupancy rates that plagued other buildings in the 1930s (like the Empire State Building).  I think the Empire State Bldg fits your point well - by its 1931 groundbreaking, there wasn't much economic need for a huge skyscraper.

 

From the NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/garden/26push.html?ex=1189051200&en=f2babd569f772cb6&ei=5070

By the opening of the Chrysler Building in the summer of 1930, over 70 percent of the space had been rented, compared with the average opening occupancy for an office building in the 1920's of 52 percent. Its tenant roster held some of the marquee names in American business, including the Western Union Telegraph Company, General Electric and, of course, the corporate offices of Chrysler.

 

As the Chrysler Building thrived, others failed. The Manhattan Company Building, Chrysler's rival in the 1929 height race, quickly began to bleed cash. The soft rental market drove down its rental rates from $8 to $3 per square foot, and its owner lamented that he had to sell the building in 1935 for $1.2 million - less than he had paid for its high-speed elevators. The Empire State Building, although it stole the height crown in 1931, merited the sobriquet "Empty State Building" as early as 1932 for its lack of tenants. In contrast, Chrysler maintained his high occupancy rate throughout the 1930's, and in 1937 retired his $7.5 million mortgage leasehold bonds 11½ years ahead of schedule.

 

 

Not to wade into this general debate too much, but... I think you guys are essentially arguing about whether having a 60+ story bldg there is the best thing to do right now. If we knew that all the parking lots in and around downtown were going to be built out with great mixes of retail, office, and residential, and that they'd all be filled up, and in a reasonable amount of time, I think pretty much everyone would be in favor of a biggie - it would improve the skyline (with a more tangible benefit of boosting civic pride), and inject a whole bunch of density. 

 

The debtate comes in about whether all that additional development is really coming and whether there's enough of it.  CTF216 keeps pointing to Pesht, the Avenue District, etc. as evidence that it is.  KJP keeps pointing out that even after those developments, there will still be tons of surface lots around downtown.  Comes down to this: Is the add'l density of the highrise better than the more continuous flow (and more street-level retail) that you get from erasing the surface lots?  My personal guess is that right now, we're probably better off with the lower (15-30 story) buildings, mainly b/c the office market still isn't that hot and even with the great developments that are being planned, there's still a lot of surface lots that break up the urbanity (and ultimately vibrancy) of downtown.  Additionally, I'm skeptical that the mkt could absorb 1 million sq ft of office space in Pesht, however many sq ft over in FEB, AND a 60-story skyscraper (another million?) on public square.  But that's all my novice take... If Jacobs wants to build a monster, that's pretty much his prerogative since he's the guy putting up the $$.

Slightly off topic (at least from the direction this thread has taken)... the last I heard, Jacobs was basically in the process of liquidating assets for "estate settling" purposes (I believe that's the quote from Crains and/or PD). God bless him if he's still going, but the last time I saw him he was definitely getting up there. Is this alleged Public Square proposal something he's planning or something his successors are working toward?

Slightly off topic (at least from the direction this thread has taken)... the last I heard, Jacobs was basically in the process of liquidating assets for "estate settling" purposes (I believe that's the quote from Crains and/or PD). God bless him if he's still going, but the last time I saw him he was definitely getting up there. Is this alleged Public Square proposal something he's planning or something his successors are working toward?

 

he's going to need a legacy until the indians finally sell off naming rights for his stadium!

I suspect the The Richard E. Jacobs Group will go on without him (from what I understand it already has, even though he's still alive). It may change its name again as it has in the past. It went from Meade-Jacobs (Lewis Meade and David Jacobs) in the 1960s (Richard joined the firm later) to Visconsi, Mead-Jacobs and then to Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs Co. The Jacobs brothers bought out Dominic Visconsi and it became The Jacobs Group. When David Jacobs died in 1992, the company name was changed to its current name, the Richard E. Jacobs Group.

I guess my curiosity stems from whether a proposal for the Public Square site is more of (as the pope mentioned) a legacy that he's personally wanting to bring to fruition, or more or less a Jacobs Group project. As I recall, Stark's proposal is something that "came to him" after a successful recovery from cancer.

Not to wade into this general debate too much, but... I think you guys are essentially arguing about whether having a 60+ story bldg there is the best thing to do right now. If we knew that all the parking lots in and around downtown were going to be built out with great mixes of retail, office, and residential, and that they'd all be filled up, and in a reasonable amount of time, I think pretty much everyone would be in favor of a biggie - it would improve the skyline (with a more tangible benefit of boosting civic pride), and inject a whole bunch of density.

 

thats exactly how i feel

 

KJP keeps pointing out that even after those developments, there will still be tons of surface lots around downtown.

 

its a moot point though since we are talking about 1 lot at public square that would be surrounded by buildings. the worst swath of parking lots and ones that directly affect the jacobs proposal are the ones in the warehouse district. id love to see every single surface lot downtown disappear but thats not going to happen. bottom line why would anyone want something shorter on THAT LOT?

 

i would trade key tower for denser neighborhoods and 5+ 500 footers downtown but if jacobs wants to come along and build a 60-story building im not going to stop him

 

i say bring it on. we need more height and it will fill the major gap between the big 3 plus add density at street level. now lets get some renderings and details!

 

 

 

 

Ctown216, are you SERIOUS when justifying that Cleveland needs highrises b/c Manhattan has highrises?!?! shocked 

 

when did i ever say this? i didnt. read my posts again.

 

 

 

 

i say bring it on. we need more height and it will fill the major gap between the big 3 plus add density at street level. now lets get some renderings and details!

 

we need? Says who, our collective cleveland ego? the marketplace? Ctownsfinest216?

 

I know stock photographers don't, they haven't had to update their photos for three years now.

Ctown,

 

We all love skyscrapers, but you don't understand the economics nor the urban planning implications for Cleveland if a new one wer to be added to our skyline.

I must say, Philly looks SEXY in that picture!!!

I was browsing Ferchill's site (http://www.ferchillgroup.com) and found a couple of interesting things. Note that North Point is one of their featured office properties. Why? The thing is fully leased. Then I recalled that Henry Gomez's PD article noted that part of the site (right at the corner of East 9th and Lakeside) is in play for a new office building.

 

And, I wasn't aware that Ferchill has 668 Euclid Avenue (which Goldberg was trying to sell). Ferchill says this site, the former Atrium Building, is listed among other properties "currently under development or construction."

 

EDIT: Just checked the auditor's website which still shows 668 Euclid as owned by a Goldberg company (so maybe it's bunk or maybe the transfer hasn't been recorded yet)....

 

PRIMARY OWNER GSK Atrium LLC& Edgerton Properties Limited Partnership 

PROPERTY ADDRESS 668 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44114

TAX MAILING ADDRESS C/O MIDWEST MGMT GSK ATRIUM & EDERTON PROP, 1801 E 9th ST, STE 200, CLEVELAND, OH 44114

LEGAL DESCRIPTION 104 105 106 MEYERS 0001 ALL

PROPERTY CLASS OFFICE BUILDINGS - 3 OR MORE STORIES (ELEVATOR)

And, I wasn't aware that Ferchill has 668 Euclid Avenue (which Goldberg was trying to sell). Ferchill says this site, the former Atrium Building, is listed among other properties "currently under development or construction."

 

There was supposed to be a closed bid auction for 668 Euclid on August 16.  I haven't heard any results from that though.  I believe that Colliers was the listing agent.

I wasn't really sure where this article should go...

 

Key could bolt May Co. location

A move by the banking giant may trigger the Public Square structure’s transformation

  RELATED LINKS

KeyCorp

 

By STAN BULLARD

 

4:30 am, September 10, 2007

 

In a move with massive implications for Public Square’s future, KeyCorp is conducting a search for alternative locations for its 1,000-employee operations and technology center housed in the former May Co. building in downtown Cleveland.

 

While observers expect the building’s owner, a group led by New York real estate investor David Warner, to fight to keep the prized tenant in half of the otherwise empty former department store, Key’s exit could clear the way for an aggressive renovation of the 1 million-square-foot structure on Public Square.

 

More at

http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070910/SUB1/70907021/1071&Profile=1071