my bad on the formatting or the lack thereof :?...source: :

 

National Vacancy and Availability Index statistics published by CB Richard Ellis' Corporate Communications Department

 

Oh no biggie, the question was bound to come up (re source).

 

Also, welcome to the forum, huzah.

Zaceman, everything I have heard points towards the possibility of a large scale office development within 1-2 years if current trends continue.

Well this should mesh well with the Stark project. The office space will most likely be class A and will be underconstruction (hopefully) within two years.

If i remember the last "cleveland office market update" they (cbre or someone) predicted new construction to pick up in 18-24 months for a sizable class a space

Well this should mesh well with the Stark project. The office space will most likely be class A and will be underconstruction (hopefully) within two years.

 

or maybe it will be the Stark project..

Well this should mesh well with the Stark project. The office space will most likely be class A and will be underconstruction (hopefully) within two years.

 

or maybe it will be the Stark project..

 

thats what I meant. I meant the declining vacancy rates and demand would be perfect justification for new offices built in the warehouse district. I know its not the most important thing, but I hope any new office built down there exceeds 500' it could be a office/condo/hotel mix, but please lets get some (or one) new talls to balance out the skyline.

Has anyone calculated the possible impact, direct or spinoff, of the Medical Mart on lowering vacancy rates assuming it goes in at Tower City?

I wouldn't expect a 500' building in Stark's project if for no other reason that the Historic Warehouse Distrct's masterplan doesn't allow for it. And there's a reason why -- it would overwhelm the other buildings in the district. But a 20-story building nearer to Superior would conform with the district's masterplan. And for City Planning Commission and City Council to support it, they will look to see if a building plan is OK'd by the Historic Warehouse District's Design Review Committee.

I wouldn't expect a 500' building in Stark's project if for no other reason that the Historic Warehouse Distrct's masterplan doesn't allow for it. And there's a reason why -- it would overwhelm the other buildings in the district. But a 20-story building nearer to Superior would conform with the district's masterplan. And for City Planning Commission and City Council to support it, they will look to see if a building plan is OK'd by the Historic Warehouse District's Design Review Committee.

 

True, a 500' tall building would overwhelm the other buildings and possibly look out of place. That said the Stark and Wolstein projects will probably serve the need for new office space for the next few years.

What about the spot on Public Square?  Is that constrained by the Warehouse district plan?

Well if they were getting ready to build a 1000 footer there I'd say not. Though I'm not 100%.

With a few larger tenants in the market with sizeable requirements for quality space, new construction downtown is foreseeable and is receiving more attention

 

:clap:

 

better not suggest a 500 footer.....i got bashed for sayin i hoped for one in the pesht thread

 

i also remember gettin bashed a long time ago for sayin i predict there will be a new skyscraper under contruction by 2010 (not necessarily completed). hopefully we can see office tower construction start the same time as the warehouse distrct.

 

and NO dont use that public square lot, they need to keep that lot empty until someone proposes a 1000 footer for it

^^I have mixed feelings about the lot... since it is owned by Jacobs.  The lot was not built on in the early 90s, and more than likely will raise in property value after the construction starts on the Pesht project.  If the value of the property raises too high and the demand for a new skyscraper falls (if there is another glut in office space with the building of Pesht), then we could see a surface lot for another 10 years.  I'm hoping a market study will be done (if ever) for a mixed-use highrise on the site, with residential/office/hotel space.  The new convention center might help justify the need for added hotel space, and I'm sure there would be enough Clevelanders who would want that type of living experience in the center of the city (I'm definitely one of them :mrgreen:).

"better not suggest a 500 footer.....i got bashed for sayin i hoped for one in the pesht thread. i also remember gettin bashed a long time ago for sayin i predict there will be a new skyscraper under contruction by 2010"

 

By "bashed", he means people simply pointed out pertinent facts and he took that as an insult. :roll:

 

ideally i would want a mixed-use office/retail/hotel/residential scraper on the public square lot as you said. the proposed signature tower in nashville is like this and over 1000 feet. obviously this building is still a proposal right now but i think something like that could be built in downtown cleveland.

 

the frustrating thing is progressive had plans to build a 60 floor 837 ft building nearly 20 yrs ago yet cancelled plans and now sits on scattered office buildings in the suburbs. progressive has 28.338 employees which is more than key's 19,801. i think that they are the only realistic chance at a significant office tower (new tallest) being built here. they are a major S&P 500 corporation with the employee force and guap to get over the glacial sediment height limit. trouble is, i doubt they have any plans to move from the burbs to downtown  :-( if they said yes though....we'd be lookin at a significant addition to the skyline

 

ideally i would want a mixed-use office/retail/hotel/residential scraper on the public square lot as you said. the proposed signature tower in nashville is like this and over 1000 feet. obviously this building is still a proposal right now but i think something like that could be built in downtown cleveland.

 

the frustrating thing is progressive had plans to build a 60 floor 837 ft building nearly 20 yrs ago yet cancelled plans and now sits on scattered office buildings in the suburbs. progressive has 28.338 employees which is more than key's 19,801. i think that they are the only realistic chance at a significant office tower (new tallest) being built here. they are a major S&P 500 corporation with the employee force and guap to get over the glacial sediment height limit. trouble is, i doubt they have any plans to move from the burbs to downtown  :-( if they said yes though....we'd be lookin at a significant addition to the skyline

 

Keycorp doesn't fully occupy Key Tower. Just like Eaton doesn't fully occupy their tower, Sears at maximum only occupied 50% of The Sears Tower in Chicago. The largest tenant usually gets or buys naming rights, otherwise a building like Key would just be called 127 Public Square.

 

So basically you don't need a fortune 500 company all you need is enough demand for space that could be driven by one pretty big company and lots of smaller ones that adds into one huge tower.

 

As far as Progressive Corp, we've been there, done that in this thread. their in the burbs and will proabably be there for years to come. The only thing that might get them back downtown is if they get the sudden urge to consolidate all their offices into one building.

^Or a strategically placed womd... after hours and on a weekend, of course and with plenty of warning.

People, give me Paris/(minus La Defense)/Amsterdam over Houston/Atlanta ANY day!  Height is nice but wouldn't you rather have every empty lot in the CBD occupied with a 100-200 ft building rather that adding Ameritrust and Progressive? 

 

Downtown Cleveland has magnificent civic spaces.  It's one of the most civic-oriented cities I've seen in this country.  We'd gain a true understanding and deep respect for Public Sq, Group Plan, Gateway, Riverfront, and the Lakefront if we had the density to back it up.  We need contrast between the open spaces and "dense" core.  Central Park wouldn't be "Central Park" if it wasn't for the extreme density around it.  That's what the original intent was and luckily people bought into that idea so that nearly 1 1/2 century later, it's one of the world's most famous parks. 

 

As we always say here, just wait 5 years!!!  FOR REAL!  :-)

I agree. While massings showing the office components of Stark's and Wolstein's plans suggest buildings no taller than 20 stories, Jacobs proposes something approaching 60 stories for his Public Square property. The interesting thing is that there's enough movement in the office market just among eight expanding financial/legal firms to support the office components of all three developments.

Keycorp doesn't fully occupy Key Tower. Just like Eaton doesn't fully occupy their tower, Sears at maximum only occupied 50% of The Sears Tower in Chicago. The largest tenant usually gets or buys naming rights, otherwise a building like Key would just be called 127 Public Square.

 

So basically you don't need a fortune 500 company all you need is enough demand for space that could be driven by one pretty big company and lots of smaller ones that adds into one huge tower.

 

As far as Progressive Corp, we've been there, done that in this thread. their in the burbs and will proabably be there for years to come. The only thing that might get them back downtown is if they get the sudden urge to consolidate all their offices into one building.

 

Also, SOHIO didn't fully occupy the SOHIO Building.  IIRC, Floors 15 thru 30 and 31-34 were tenant floors. 

 

On the flip side, just because you occupy an entire/majority of a building that doesn't mean you're name is on it or should be placed on.  Lets take a look a the Landmark Office Towers.  Its Sherwin Williams WW Headquarters.  Sherwin Williams, Republic Steel and SOHIO all had their headquarters in the complex.  If I'm not mistaken, the "Republic" building (AKA LTV ) is the only building in the complex with a company's name attached.

 

Sherwin Williams has been in the building since inception and owned the majority of leases in the building for I would say at lease 3 decades.  They purchased the complex when SOHIO moved to their new headquarters building.  After SOHIO moved the majority of its staff into the new building many of us were still in the Midland.  Our group didn't move into the "new" building for four years and the Credit Card division stayed in the Midland Building right up until the end.

jesus christ.....

 

i know that they dont occupy the whole damn building. i dont think any 1 company occupies any building fully. the point is significant office towers are usually anchored by a large tenant. key tower was built as the society center for society bank before key bank took them over. progressive is probably the only corporation here that could ANCHOR a tall skyscraper by itself. but its all a moot point because they want to stay in the burbs. theyre stupid for not wanting to consolidate all their offices into 1 building HQed downtown and instead remain on scattered buildings way out. if i were the downtown alliance, i would be pushing progressive to relocate its headquarters downtown.

 

and like KJP just said.....we DO have the support for something major. its a matter of getting it built, which this city doesnt move forward to do.

 

cle2032- cleveland is never going to have anything remotely like paris and amsterdam, especially since the city tore down all of its dense urban fabric in the core for urban renewal projects. that being said i'll take more height downtown since we arent going to have street walls throughout the whole city. our downtown is nothing like atlanta's .....cleveland actually has an organic downtown that has structure to it and is compact. just add height and we're good! atlanta's downtown feels discombobulated at street level.

 

100-200 ft buildings no business being built in the CBD right now

i bet progressive thinks you're stupid too.

jesus christ....

100-200 ft buildings no business being built in the CBD right now

 

I couldn't disagree with you more. We have so many holes in downtown. If we could fill in the surface lots with 10-20 story buildings, it would do so much for the urban feel. Tall towers  often concentrate many people in one location. They also tend to provide many of the necessary services inside the building because it has its own economy of scale. Additionally, the parking needs of huge structures can compromise the surrounding area. While towers can be serve as a boost to a city's ego, its the smaller buildings that create downtown neighborhoods that improve the downtown experience.

"its a matter of getting it built, which this city doesnt move forward to do."

 

When you have a comprehensive understanding of what the city does to spur development, financially or otherwise - let us know.

the city does things to spur development?  :-o

 

 

I couldn't disagree with you more. We have so many holes in downtown. If we could fill in the surface lots with 10-20 story buildings, it would do so much for the urban feel.

 

which holes do you speak of? the holes i can think of are the western portion of CBD/warehouse district which are already going to be developed and the far eastern portion (avenue district is already starting there). we were discussing the public square jacobs lot. do you think that lot would be more suited for a 10-20 story building as opposed to a 1000 footer? would that give downtown a more urban feel? skyscrapers belong in the CBD. the skyline of a city does matter and does influence people's opinions and civic pride.

 

 

i bet progressive thinks you're stupid too..

 

care to elaborate why theyd think i'm stupid? or do you just not like the fact that every statement i've made makes more sense and quotes from articles posted here have backed me up

 

I agree. While massings showing the office components of Stark's and Wolstein's plans suggest buildings no taller than 20 stories, Jacobs proposes something approaching 60 stories for his Public Square property. The interesting thing is that there's enough movement in the office market just among eight expanding financial/legal firms to support the office components of all three developments.

 

i'll quote KJP again in case you didnt notice this

 

The interesting thing is that there's enough movement in the office market just among eight expanding financial/legal firms to support the office components of all three developments.

 

speakin of which do you know anything else about the jacobs proposal? like actually thinking about designs for that lot maybe?

 

the city does things to spur development?  :-o

 

 

I couldn't disagree with you more. We have so many holes in downtown. If we could fill in the surface lots with 10-20 story buildings, it would do so much for the urban feel.

 

which holes do you speak of? the holes i can think of are the western portion of CBD/warehouse district which are already going to be developed and the far eastern portion (avenue district is already starting there). we were discussing the public square jacobs lot. do you think that lot would be more suited for a 10-20 story building as opposed to a 1000 footer? would that give downtown a more urban feel? skyscrapers belong in the CBD. the skyline of a city does matter and does influence people's opinions and civic pride.

 

You referred to the "CBD". Are you defining CBD as public square and nothing else??

no. where downtown are the holes that would be better served with 10-20 story buildings? the warehouse district parking lots are already being filled with buildings of that size.

no. where downtown are the holes that would be better served with 10-20 story buildings? the warehouse district parking lots are already being filled with buildings of that size.

 

Pick an empty lot, any lot!  :roll:

Personally, extremely tall buildings don't do much for me. They're cool and all, but they don't create character on the human level. I mean, the Empire State Building is magnificent from everywhere except right next to it. Personally, I'd rather Cleveland have more neighborhoods like Ohio City, the East Village, Harlem, Brooklyn, etc.

 

I agree with everyone else, there are too many holes all over the place. They are sprinkled all over, and they break up the landscape. For example, St. John's Cathedral on Superior has a parking lot in the back, which is used by people who work downtown during the week. All OVER the place behind the Theater District there's parking. It looks like Main Street in Hudson with all the parking behind the businesses.

 

However, when I really look at the CBD from Google Maps, I can't help but think it looks f-ed up. What the hell were people thinking?

Quick experiment looking at the potential development locations in the Cleveland CBD, or approximate cbd boundaries. I outlined all the surface parking lots and some garages, vacant lots and parcels identified in one study or another as potential development, including CSU but not the Avenue District

 

Decipher as you will.

 

As always, scroll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

oh come on, it would have been funny if you circled browns stadium

 

i bet progressive thinks you're stupid too..

 

care to elaborate why theyd think i'm stupid? or do you just not like the fact that every statement i've made makes more sense and quotes from articles posted here have backed me up

 

Last I checked Progressive has a much more successful business model, positive organic growth, a great work culture and a helluva lot more money. I'd like to think they know what they are doing and know how to run their own damn business.

 

You? you're just whining on a internet blog/forum.

and in my 78 posts ive contributed more to this board than your 1 or 2 word responses that usually abate threads.

 

oh but progressive has a much more successful business model, positive organic growth, a great work culture and a helluva lot more money than me! of course they do, i dont own or run a business nor do i have money. i never will. whats your point? im not allowed to say it would be better for cleveland's sake and their own sake for progressive. once again, are you here to insult me or tell me why the city shouldnt lobby progressive to move downtown ? you're pretty stupid if you like the fact theyre in the suburbs....maybe you live in them?

 

i guess since youre not a member of city council you cant disagree with certain policies they make or how they plan this city. george dubya went to yale, hes smarter than you and has lots of money so you cant disagree with his policies. this is exactly what youre telling me.

 

people really hate me on here for wanting positive things to happen and asking for more. its as if some of you have to disagree with a point i make because you see "CTownsFinest216" to the right of the post. much of the problems in this city dont have anything to do with cleveland being unattractive for businesses, a bad place to live, white flight. they have everything to do with people at the top being incompetent leaders and not getting it.

 

im contributing to this thread which is discussing business in cleveland. you are resorting to personal insults because you have nothing better to say.

 

there's enough movement in the office market just among eight expanding financial/legal firms to support the office components of all three developments.

 

he agrees with me and said what ive been sayin on this message board. go disagree with him ! quick!

 

"people really hate me on here for wanting positive things to happen and asking for more."

 

:roll:

people really hate me on here for wanting positive things to happen and asking for more. its as if some of you have to disagree with a point i make because you see "CTownsFinest216" to the right of the post.

 

No, I think it has more to do with your delivery. Even if you make sense, no one will pay attention to you if you say it an inch from their nose. Your passion is evident. Use it as much to refine the delivery of your message.

 

much of the problems in this city dont have anything to do with cleveland being unattractive for businesses, a bad place to live, white flight. they have everything to do with people at the top being incompetent leaders and not getting it.

 

Believe me, most "get" it. And many believe the same things you and I do. But they also "get" that their re-elections are funded by people who have differing opinions. They also know their political lives are at the whim of citizens who may or may not have a concept of good urban planning. Frankly, many citizens have never heard of New Urbanism, Smart Growth or Transit-Oriented Development. They just want their garbage picked up on time. The police and fire departments to come when called. And their streets and sewers kept in good condition.

 

Cleveland's leaders are constantly pulled in a thousand different directions every day. Ever walk with a councilman through his/her neighborhood? Meet with them at their ward office and see/hear the parade of constituents and their phone calls pour in? Attend a council meeting? They are not incompetent (OK, a select few are -- but no different than in the suburbs), and certainly not because they don't always say and do the things you want them to. They must compromise, even with their own beliefs if they want their careers to survive. So just because you may pay their salaries, doesn't mean that you are the only one paying.

i will be in the minority when i say this because i obviously think and see things differently than most do. things are done certain ways (and not just in cleveland) because it suits "their" (city officials) best interests. there is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes that we dont know about and people are getting "favors" done under the table (no lewinsky). politicians are corrupt. im not sayin that every single one is or every single one is incompetent, i know there are people out there who truly have a passion for making cleveland better. the bottom line is im going to lump them into the incompetent pool until they actually put their money where their mouth is. being where ive been and seeing what ive seen i dont put much faith in politicians....theyre all the same to me. i think people in general are only out for their own interests. sometimes i dont know what to think. the city has turned businesses off before.

 

They must compromise, even with their own beliefs if they want their careers to survive

 

they are conservative and too concerned about pleasing a "yes man" whether thats citizens or whoever they answer to. you cant please everyone. i see unlimited potential in cleveland. the first thing that comes to mind when i think about this city is the potential it has.

 

 

i believe cleveland will have a building boom similar to the late 80s/early 90s in the next couple yrs. there are several firms large enough to warrant a few buildings and several with leases expiring. vacancy rates are down and downtown cleveland continues to see positive growth. i would not be surprised to see something big. thats my opinion and im sticking to it.

 

cleveland's own motto is progress & prosperity. we have been a progressive city and were progressive even back in the early 90s with projects getting done. there is vision here but things in the way of that vision being realized. it frustrates me to no end when we dont get it. almost makes me wanna run for mayor or something

 

No, I think it has more to do with your delivery. 

 

i am very blunt and will never apologize for being so

I'm no urban planner, economist, sociologist, or any "ist" but to me, people make a city, not just politicians. What you see around here in NEO is a reflection of what people have demanded. In the newspaper and elsewhere, you always hear that people from here have a sense of desperation. If they were that desperate, they'd get off their butts and demand more from their politicians, their employers, their churches, their friends, their families, their neighbors and themselves.

 

Living in a community isn't a spectator sport. Not everybody has to be an activist or "downtown booster," as Connie Schultz seems to imply is now negative. People just need to understand that every little decision they make has a cumulative effect, and when people are making a whole bunch of decisions that don't make us as a whole better, we're placed in a bad position.

 

Personally, I find the overall crappy attitude and lack of a sense of urgency from the general populace far more alarming than anything Dennis Kucinich says.

Blunt can be very respectable. But it helps to listen first why people have a belief that is different from yours. Then you might be able to find some common ground. If you instead choose to insult people as incompenent or even as crooks, the only person you are marginalizing is yourself. And if you thought it was frustrating to have an intense passion for something, try adding loneliness to it. It's probably a good way to end up in the nut house.

 

There's a reason why things don't change quickly, here or anywhere else. It's because things evolve from one commonly held belief to another that's only slightly different. A friend of mine once gave me a thoughtful essay on why public smoking went from being a freedom of choice and something that cool people do -- to a restricted, scorned public activity in less than 25 years. The gist of the article was that anti-smoking activists didn't seek to reduce freedom of choice (a most cherished belief) -- they used freedom of choice against public smoking.

 

I state all this as an example of how to cause change without asking people to change their core beliefs. They may be willing to sacrifice some things for the greater good, but if you're not willing to make a sacrifice, why should they?

CTownsFinest216 -Perhaps a lot of your frustration stems from the fact that we believe in "grass-roots" solvency; (I don't mean to speak for everyone, but this is my perception).  If we generate a positive spin and "can-do" attitude on the internet, then things will start to trickle out and eventually up.

 

Also, another key rule of politics is "don't run a race against an institution you expect to be working with."  It may help some politicians get elected, but it makes their goal even more difficult to achieve once they're in office. Ultimately you're going to have to work with the real people already in the system to get anything done. Railing against them isn't going to make you're job very easy.

 

So if you're going to be critical about the leadership and status quo and want to make an impact, then its important to offer positive reinforcement to steer them in the right direction.

 

 

 

Surprised this hadn't been posted yet...must be a busy Thursday night out in UrbanOhio land!

 

But, um, this is some absolutely fantastic news.  While most of this isn't new to any of us, it's a nice summary of the potential for new office construction downtown.  The enthusiasm of the professionals quoted in the article is especially hopeful.

 

And KJP, there is even a link to your latest Stark/Pesht article included on the Cleveland.com page.  All in all, an amazing display of positivity for Cleveland by the PD.

 

New office buildings could tower over Cleveland

Posted by Henry J. Gomez August 30, 2007 17:29PM

Categories: Breaking News, Economic development, Impact

 

At least five big companies with leases soon to expire, including accounting giant Ernst & Young and global manufacturer Eaton Corp., are shopping for new digs. With the central business district's highest-quality buildings short on space, each of these major employers are exploring the possibility of new construction with real estate developers.

 

Others in the market include Huntington National Bank, which has a 200-employee regional base here, and the large law firms of Baker Hostetler and Squire, Sanders & Dempsey.

 

More at http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2007/08/new_office_buildings_could_tow.html

 

^^Here's the graphic with that article (in PDF format)...

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2007/08/31FGOFFICE.pdf

I'm surprised more people haven't chimed on this terrific article from the PD. Very positive, and didn't include the "struggling city" editorializing that seems to find its way into every otherwise positive article from the PD.

 

Maybe UrbanOhioans are too shocked. Or maybe they just need to [glow=red,2,300]WAKE UP!![/glow]

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).

 

Does anyone think that the Clinic would move some administrative departments downtown? I recall hearing that they were contemplating moving some administrative jobs out to the suburbs. Maybe new construction could encourage them to consider downtown.

 

 

 

^^Here's the graphic with that article (in PDF format)...

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2007/08/31FGOFFICE.pdf

 

Thanks for the graphic.  So it looks like Ferchill is proposing to build immediately adjacent to the North Pointe Tower.  Isn't there a big grassy lawn there on the corner of Lakeside and East Ninth now.  It's hard for me to envision if or how it would, but it might be interesting if he somehow built an addition to the corner.

This is great news!  While I will echo the concerns of the above post, permit me to show my happiness in a video.

 

Yes, I'm as happy as this guy...

[youtube=425,350]

Ferchill must be stopped!

I'm surprised more people haven't chimed on this terrific article from the PD. Very positive, and didn't include the "struggling city" editorializing that seems to find its way into every otherwise positive article from the PD.

 

It is very positive and factual. With postings in Pesht thread, Random Dev. thread, and here it is hard to decide where to comment.

 

So it looks like Ferchill is proposing to build immediately adjacent to the North Pointe Tower.  Isn't there a big grassy lawn there on the corner of Lakeside and East Ninth now.  It's hard for me to envision if or how it would, but it might be interesting if he somehow built an addition to the corner.

 

I would much rather see the surface lots developed before the land adjacent to the NPT or the parcel adjacent to the Renaissance.

I'm surprised more people haven't chimed on this terrific article from the PD. Very positive, and didn't include the "struggling city" editorializing that seems to find its way into every otherwise positive article from the PD.

 

Maybe UrbanOhioans are too shocked. Or maybe they just need to [glow=red,2,300]WAKE UP!![/glow]

 

I've been busy posting it on the skyscraperpage.com forum :-)

I'm most interested in the WHD lots and the triangular space owned by Forest City next to the Renaissance ballroom.  The latter spot is currently a big gap in the fabric that will need to be completed to complement Stark's proposed project. 

 

I agree that North Point and the site adjacent to the new Fed Courthouse are not great.

 

And the Flats East Bank?  Well, I could see something substantial down there, but I'd much rather see smaller offices and more creative enterprise (design firms, etc.) than law firms, banks and the like.

 

Regardless, very positive news and the PD doesn't even seem too peeved that KJP scooped them again!  Good show!

I'm surprised more people haven't chimed on this terrific article from the PD. Very positive, and didn't include the "struggling city" editorializing that seems to find its way into every otherwise positive article from the PD.

 

Maybe UrbanOhioans are too shocked. Or maybe they just need to [glow=red,2,300]WAKE UP!![/glow]

 

I have to admit, I was surprised by the article not taking a negative jab at the city!!

Regardless, very positive news and the PD doesn't even seem too peeved that KJP scooped them again!  Good show!

 

There is also a link to KJP's article from this one over on cleveland.com.