I was good friends of the son of a former CEO of Eaton, who was largely responsible for locating the offices at their current location.

 

He told me how difficult it was for his father to convince his board and  his peers to keep the location downtown, due to the sorry state of Cleveland at that time, but he felt he had a civic duty to see this through and support the city anyway he could.

 

Many CEO's make the decisions based on very personal reasons, and what works for them, be it a tax issue, a driving issue, whatever.

 

Yeah, those 500 jobs lost from the 120,000 downtown is a real killer. It would be nice to have them, but they're not essential. Cleveland still keeps half the income tax and the 100 percent of the revenue from the sale of the land in Highland Hills.

 

The issue isn't so much the numbers of people lost by Eaton's re-lo to Highland Hills, it's the prestige of losing a corporate HQ of our largest Fortune 500 company; and in a city that has taken far more than its share hits from corp HQ losses (by out of region/state relocation, closure, etc) and job losses than most major cities.  And it's certainly not a death blow to downtown to lose Eaton, but it's a solid boot to the solar plexus re all the positive things we're attempting to accomplish downtown: the med mart/cc, the growth of high-density housing, restaurant & retail, esp lower Euclid, yada-yada-yada.  Also, I'm guessing that since the availability of a 'campus' has been such an issue, it seems Eaton's planning on consolidating other units at it's HQ location, wherever that may end up being.  The end result being we may not just losing those jobs in the current Eaton Center, but the potential of adding many more to downtown – that is to say, a huge opportunity cost to downtown.

 

…. The “suburbs don’t need Cleveland” is one of the dumbest, counterproductive invectives leveled at cities, esp Cleveland.  It’s really a waste of time trying to argue with those who hold such views.  Cleveland.com is their natural home.

 

The issue isn't so much the numbers of people lost by Eaton's re-lo to Highland Hills, it's the prestige of losing a corporate HQ of our largest Fortune 500 company;

 

So you're saying it's style over substance?

 

The “suburbs don’t need Cleveland” is one of the dumbest, counterproductive invectives leveled at cities, esp Cleveland. It’s really a waste of time trying to argue with those who hold such views. Cleveland.com is their natural home.

 

I guess some of us here keep hoping that people are smarter than that and can be educated to our way of thinking. As hopeful people and supporters of Greater Cleveland, we have to believe that.

 

BTW, discussing whether Cleveland will lose prestige in addition to jobs is fine for this thread. But the continued debate on whether the suburbs and Cleveland need each other should be discussed at:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3595.0.html

 

Or, in general at:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7292.0.html

OK... I think a lot of people needed to do a lot of venting after this very controversial announcement of a proposed move for this company.  At this point how about we refrain from further posts until we have some more NEWS to report on the topic... And if anyone has anything further to say regarding off topic personal comments I suggest using the PM button.

Strong editorial in the PD:

 

How Cleveland fumbled away Eaton Corp. - Brent Larkin

 

In a span of less than 10 months, four Fortune 500 companies have seriously contemplated abandoning major Ohio cities.

 

More at:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion/122310923655540.xml&coll=2

well, there is a difference between being a gentleman and being a stealth mayor. an eaton dream campus on some of that port authority land and whatever other parcels nearby might have been do-able under a stronger mayor's leadership.

I thought that column was way off base (it's was a column expressing Brent Larkin's opinion, not an editorial expressing the Plain Dealer's opinion). No company should kept at any cost. Eaton's HQ has fewer than 500 employees, yet they would have turned a part of the lakefront into a private, suburban campus rather than a dense, walkable, mixed-use neighborhood. The former would have precluded the latter. For fewer than 500 employees, I don't think that was worth losing. And since Cleveland will get a portion of the income taxes from Eaton and revenue from the sale of land, I don't see how Cleveland is losing all that much here.

I can honestly say that the mayor has had my support until this announced move. It is clear that there was leadership missing, which is the leadership that the citizens of the city elect the mayor to hold.

I can honestly say that the mayor has had my support until this announced move. It is clear that there was leadership missing, which is the leadership that the citizens of the city elect the mayor to hold.

 

What should he have done?  Given away taxes to Eaton and then had to face every other company asking for the same thing?  Given them prime lakefront land for a pice of sh1t office park?

 

As I said before, screw Eaton, Beachwood can have their 500 employees and suburb-loving management.  Some day I'm sure they'll all regret moving to a fad of a suburb.

I thought that column was way off base (it's was a column expressing Brent Larkin's opinion, not an editorial expressing the Plain Dealer's opinion). No company should kept at any cost. Eaton's HQ has fewer than 500 employees, yet they would have turned a part of the lakefront into a private, suburban campus rather than a dense, walkable, mixed-use neighborhood. The former would have precluded the latter. For fewer than 500 employees, I don't think that was worth losing. And since Cleveland will get a portion of the income taxes from Eaton and revenue from the sale of land, I don't see how Cleveland is losing all that much here.

 

I totally agree.

 

Cleveland has this poverty mentality that it needs to get out of, otherwise it's going to constantly be bullied by companies that think they can do whatever they want to get what they want because Cleveland is so desperate to keep them. It's ridiculous.

I thought that column was way off base (it's was a column expressing Brent Larkin's opinion, not an editorial expressing the Plain Dealer's opinion). No company should kept at any cost. Eaton's HQ has fewer than 500 employees, yet they would have turned a part of the lakefront into a private, suburban campus rather than a dense, walkable, mixed-use neighborhood. The former would have precluded the latter. For fewer than 500 employees, I don't think that was worth losing. And since Cleveland will get a portion of the income taxes from Eaton and revenue from the sale of land, I don't see how Cleveland is losing all that much here.

 

I totally agree.

 

Cleveland has this poverty mentality that it needs to get out of, otherwise it's going to constantly be bullied by companies that think they can do whatever they want to get what they want because Cleveland is so desperate to keep them. It's ridiculous.

 

I think, YOU think, we have a poverty mentality and not living here you cant accurately speak to that.  It's really unfair that you have this reoccurring theme about the city.  Yes, we all have our own opinions, but I think you're opinion is some what exaggerated.

 

What proof do you have, that backs up your claim, that Cleveland is more desperate than DC, Boston, Miami, Newark or Houston?

Sorry MTS, but Cleveland does have a poverty mentality. It is widespread and touches on many issues, not just job retention. It astonishes me when some residents complain that new development in their neighborhood will cause their property values to rise and force them out. Others question the need for funding incentives for development when social service needs are so great. Kucinich's complaints that the Euclid Corridor was a waste of money because it has caused too much disruption to the city, and bus service to move the poor and elderly are supposedly ignored. I've heard these gripes and more. It's astonishing.

 

We don't need this poverty mentality to extend to decisions on whether to keep all businesses here at any price. Had we given Eaton more incentives to stay, then you'd hear complaints that this is corporate welfare at the expense of those who actually need welfare.

I thought that column was way off base (it's was a column expressing Brent Larkin's opinion, not an editorial expressing the Plain Dealer's opinion). No company should kept at any cost. Eaton's HQ has fewer than 500 employees, yet they would have turned a part of the lakefront into a private, suburban campus rather than a dense, walkable, mixed-use neighborhood. The former would have precluded the latter. For fewer than 500 employees, I don't think that was worth losing. And since Cleveland will get a portion of the income taxes from Eaton and revenue from the sale of land, I don't see how Cleveland is losing all that much here.

 

I totally agree.

 

Cleveland has this poverty mentality that it needs to get out of, otherwise it's going to constantly be bullied by companies that think they can do whatever they want to get what they want because Cleveland is so desperate to keep them. It's ridiculous.

 

I think, YOU think, we have a poverty mentality and not living here you cant accurately speak to that. It's really unfair that you have this reoccurring theme about the city. Yes, we all have our own opinions, but I think you're opinion is some what exaggerated.

 

What proof do you have, that backs up your claim, that Cleveland is more desperate than DC, Boston, Miami, Newark or Houston?

 

The key word here is MENTALITY. People are constantly looking at the glass as half empty in Cleveland. That viewpoint needs to change.

 

Also, I think I'm pretty knowledgeable in the things of Cleveland. I lived there for the vast majority of my life. And I'm sorry to say, by and large MTS, things haven't changed all that much. You'd like to think so, but I'd like to say you're mostly wrong. Yes, things are showing signs of improvement, but the things that have kept Cleveland down for decades are still there, and I have seen very little improvement in those areas. One of those areas is an unwillingness to get over this negative, poverty mentality. It's a horrible disease, I think. It rots the city inside out.

Look, fact is Larkin is old school and he has had a prominent spot in the local print media at least since the 60's if not earlier... He likes to tweak the powers that be on occasion but more often than not he goes along and along and along...

 

I give credit to the port on this and Wasserman -- an outsider. Many in this city, and even on this board, were willing to accept the Eaton "campus" as part of FEB but that campus would not have been the highest and best use of that port land period. You cannot argue that. Forget about the railrod tracks, the RTA WFL loop, these are obstacles that have been dealt with in other cities of much less size and stature than Cleveland.

 

If the port vacates and sells that land as the long term plan dictates, the expectation has to be a world class lakefront neighborhood, nothing less. What Eaton wanted was 180 degrees from that.

KJP & Jpop-tart.  I hear you.

 

But the examples you site are not unique to Cleveland.

 

OK...I don't want this to get off topic.  :wink:

Look, fact is Larkin is old school and he has had a prominent spot in the local print media at least since the 60's if not earlier... He likes to tweak the powers that be on occasion but more often than not he goes along and along and along...

 

I give credit to the port on this and Wasserman -- an outsider. Many in this city, and even on this board, were willing to accept the Eaton "campus" as part of FEB but that campus would not have been the highest and best use of that port land period. You cannot argue that. Forget about the railrod tracks, the RTA WFL loop, these are obstacles that have been dealt with in other cities of much less size and stature than Cleveland.

 

If the port vacates and sells that land as the long term plan dictates, the expectation has to be a world class lakefront neighborhood, nothing less. What Eaton wanted was 180 degrees from that.

 

I agree. I'm hoping for much better for that site now that Eaton won't be wanting their bullshit suburban campus squeezed into a prime downtown urban spot. I really hope they're not still planning to go ahead with the same designs for that spot because I personally think much better could happen for that area.

"What proof do you have, that backs up your claim, that Cleveland is more desperate than DC, Boston, Miami, Newark or Houston."

 

I don't think there is any question that Cleveland is more desperate than many of these places.  I know here in DC companies are moving here like crazy, they don't even really have to offer crazy incentives to get them here (even though I think Cleveland wins with regard to quality of life issues).  DC also has a huge, young talent pool, and everything seems to just play off of each other and the city has been growing like crazy. 

 

"From the outset, Eaton's desire for a campus setting downtown posed a square peg-round hole dilemma".

 

This is very true though.  When they decided they had to have a campus it sort of gave Cleveland a huge disadvantage (by campus it apparently wouldn't have been acceptable to have a spot in gloomy midtown :roll:) and they certainly were not interested in the Stark proposal which would have been ideal.

 

I also give Wasserman credit here, since Eaton wanted the Flats space to be something that it really wasn't, and I also thought in the long run it wasn't really the best use.       

Over the weekend I had an interesting conversation with my parents about this topic. My parents are baby boomers. For the most part, my parents are hip and progressive, and very rarely do we disagree on topics like this. However, this topic led to long debate about urbanism in Cleveland. My parents really didn't see what the big deal was. My mom said, "Eaton is only moving to Beachwood...it's probably better for their employees." I was shocked. I explained the idea of keeping the core city strong and developing a culture that will attract and retain young talent. My parents looked at me like I was crazy. My dad said "when you have a family you want care about a cool urbanism." Again, I was totally shocked. Then I realized this is the problem with Eaton's short-sighted decision. This may be a general statement, but it seems baby boomers don't understand this new trend toward urbanism. Moreover, my parents didn't really understand the importance of creating a culture that will attract and retain young talent.  My parents raised me to be open-minded and forward thinking. This was the first time in my life I looked at my parents as old.

I also give Wasserman credit here, since Eaton wanted the Flats space to be something that it really wasn't, and I also thought in the long run it wasn't really the best use.

 

I completely agree.  I really don't understand how people (Mr Larkin) can be turning this back on the city or the port.  Eaton wanted something that shouldn't happen, a suburban office park on prime lakefront property.  If Eaton really wanted to improve the community of downtown Cleveland they would have found a way to make this work by comprising.  Apparently their suburban complex was something they couldn't comprise on, so they are gone.  I blame this on Eaton!  Don't let the door hit your a$$ on the way out!

It will be the start of many such observations. I no longer look to my parents for ideas or guidance, but for historical perspective since they experienced some incredible times, including the Great Depression and World War II.

 

Yet my father doesn't see the move of Eaton to the suburbs as a positive. He doesn't understand the desire for an office campus. My mother doesn't have an opinion on the move.

I totally agree with sir2gees, the old guard is stll stuck in the mindset of office parks, surface lots and long commutes.  It will be at least a generation before we start to see more effort paid to innercity and urban work/living lifestyles.  Until we are the decision makers, which should coincide nicely with an ever-increasing effort to reduce carbon footprints and fossil fuel usage, you could see another Eaton happening again.  Regarding the current leadership at these huge companies, dealing with cost of living issues has never needed to be a top priority, so even with $4/gallon gas, among other things, this has zero impact on them.  They are simply out of touch.  You and I, on the other hand, having grown up in an environment that has placed a greater emphasis on "going green" will eventually pay dividends, just not the financial kind these CEOs are most familiar.

 

 

But does anyone think the issue of "raising children" played a role in Eaton's relocation?  I don't.  If it did, then it was way down the list.  Everything I read suggests it was about tax breaks and the want/need to expand "out" versus "up", the latter of which is what I was alluding to above.

But does anyone think the issue of "raising children" played a role in Eaton's relocation? I don't. If it did, then it was way down the list. Everything I read suggests it was about tax breaks and the want/need to expand "out" versus "up", the latter of which is what I was alluding to above.

 

I think it would be interesting to know if Eaton polled their employees about move locations.  At a major downtown company I used to work for, they considered moving to Independence and sent out a survey to everyone asking their preference - stay downtown in the current building, move to another building (with a couple of possible choices), move to a suburban location such as independence.  Of course, we never got to see the results of the survey but the company ended up staying downtown and just moving to another location.

 

Another good and related question is how many of eaton's employees live on the E side.  If they did a survey like that and, say, 70% of their employees live on the E side, I can see why that would have been the winning choice.

Recent messages which had more to do with schools in the city of Cleveland were moved to this thread:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2658.0.html

 

It was a very interesting discussion. Too bad it doesn't belong here!

 

Nice job Rob!!  I want to send him a message and thank him.  Good to see more young people not afraid to stand up and speak out.

 

I realize that I am a little late to the party - someone just pointed me over to this thread.

 

Thanks to everyone who has given feedback to my PD letter.

 

For anyone who is interested, that letter was based on a more in-depth "open letter" that I wrote about a week earlier.

 

http://blog.robpitingolo.org/2008/09/open-letter-to-clevelands-leaders.html

 

Unfortunately, I am yet to hear from anyone with any position of power in Cleveland. It is great that so many of us are passionate about this (and similar) issues; but disheartening to feel like it just isn't getting the leadership’s attention.

Rob .. awesome letter. :)

 

Did you send it directly and individually to people in leadership positions?

Thanks, jpop.

 

Unfortunately, despite my initial intention, I never got a chance to send the letter directly to anyone.

 

That said, I know there have been a lot of people who have read it - whether or not any of them are in positions of leadership is unknown.

That said, I know there have been a lot of people who have read it - whether or not any of them are in positions of leadership is unknown.

 

Then I think it's understandable that people in positions of power haven't responded.

Welcome, Rob.  It's great to have you on this board...from reading some of your blog posts, it looks like you should have joined sooner. :)  It's nice to see people recognizing and participating in the growing urbanist trend.

I realize that I am a little late to the party - someone just pointed me over to this thread.

 

You're never too late to attend a party that never ends! Welcome aboard.

Welcome Rob...

Well done Rob, welcome to the forum.

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I appreciate it.

For once, I like some of the dotcom comments.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/06/eaton_corp_wants_chagrin_highl.html#more

 

Eaton Corp. lines up financing for Chagrin Highlands home

by Tom Breckenridge/Plain Dealer Reporter

Tuesday June 09, 2009, 10:45 AM

 

The Eaton Corp. says 53 acres in Chagrin Highlands provides the flexibility and space it needs for a new, $170 million world headquarters.

 

A top Eaton executive said the company's fast growth -- now stalled by the recession -- resulted in operations that have outstripped the 300,000 square feet in its downtown high-rise at East 12th Street and Superior Avenue...

 

 

"Eaton needs a world-class space to attract top talent, train its global work force and entertain dignitaries, Semelsberger said."

 

Nothing impresses dignitaries and top talent like suburban chain restaurants!

come on strap.  red robin is top notch... plus it has bottomless fries.  :)

come on strap. red robin is top notch... plus it has bottomless fries. :)

 

I go for the flair

I-271 is a world-class space?  Manhattan is nothing like I-271, so is Manhattan not a world-class space?  Apparently I'm way too dumb to run a corporation... I can't even figure out what their words mean.

^Please, show me one successful corporation or city that has successfully attracted talent by facilitating the possibility of an urban lifestyle. [/sarcasm]

come on strap. red robin is top notch... plus it has bottomless fries. :)

 

Or they could go to Olive Garden and get bottomless overdressed salad and breadsticks....

The problem with Eaton is the decision makers are old white people who genuinely feel that suburban sprawl is impressive

^It's easy to joke around and casually say such things, but I truly think you're right; that this is the result of some very stale thinking at the top of the leadership pyramid.

There is a difference between place and space.  Eaton clearly feels that to create a world class space, they need room to do it, regardless of the "place." 

There is a difference between place and space. Eaton clearly feels that to create a world class space, they need room to do it, regardless of the "place."

 

There's plenty of space in the Flats East Bank, but nooooooooooo, they won't move there.

Does anybody know where CEO Sandy Cutler lives? I did a quick google but couldn't find it.I did however find he was on the Yale track team with two gold medalers from the 72' Olympics.

 

Google is such a curse and a blessing.

 

I understand research parks/campuses but would you want your business operations in a CBD? I am not all that familiar with that area but won't a 10 story building stickout like a sore thumb?

 

 

This isn't about impressing dignataries, this is about my drive from Chesterland is too far. 

 

"But sir, we have employees on the west side!  What of them?"

 

"Only the awkward question, only the foolish ask twice.  Now get me some coffee." 

This isn't about impressing dignataries, this is about my drive from Chesterland is too far.

 

 

Sometimes that is the most powerful site selection factor for a CEO.

It's ashame there is such a generational gap in leadership and the young "top talent" they are trying to attract. 

 

I wonder if the company will regret this move a decade from now.  Maybe not, but who knows.

There are still plenty of people of the younger generation who are impressed by the burbs and it's promise of free parking, cheap housing and bottomless soup and salad...

 

Oh, wait you said "top talent".. the same ones that flock to NYC, Boston and DC.