Posted March 20, 200916 yr http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2009/03/asher_family_rhode_island_deve.html Asher family, Rhode Island developer plan major Warehouse District project Posted by Michelle Jarboe/Plain Dealer Reporter March 19, 2009 18:08PM Weston Inc., a Warrensville Heights development company run by the Asher family, has formed a partnership to remake the property with Gilbane Development Co. of Providence, R.I. On Thursday, the companies provided a glimpse of their plans for more than 7 acres bounded by West Third and West Sixth streets and Superior and St. Clair avenues. That land, much of which the Ashers own, is part of the site where Bob Stark long hoped to build stores, homes and offices. Last fall, Stark dropped his plans after the Ashers refused to extend his options to buy their land. The Ashers said they would tackle a project of their own through Weston's growing development arm...
March 20, 200916 yr We'll this information has already been posted properly. :wink: Anyway, I think this deserves it's own thread, but the title should be changed to reflect that it's in Cleveland and it's the Ashers project. Might I suggest, "Cleveland: Historic Warehouse District - Asher-Weston Project"
March 20, 200916 yr haha thank you :) i changed it. but anyways what does everyone think about this project?
March 20, 200916 yr It seems like if they wanted to make some major bank, they should just build a bunch of one bedroom apartments. Forget retail, forget expensive condos, forget office buildings. The developer would be printing money with $500/month apartments. That other stuff comes later.
March 20, 200916 yr It seems like if they wanted to make some major bank, they should just build a bunch of one bedroom apartments. Forget retail, forget expensive condos, forget office buildings. The developer would be printing money with $500/month apartments. That other stuff comes later. I was think the same thing. Build out one and one bedroom + den units and keep the number of 2 bedrooms low. and eliminate the parking. 2,400 garage-parking spots That number of parking spaces is ridiculous! There are already garages near and what is the point of building on a parking lot only to replace them? The people that live there are most likely going to be walkers and shop withing a 10 block radius of their home. Investing in this area will make more people want to come and visit and we should be engaging and challenging them to use public transportation to and from Downtown.
March 20, 200916 yr So...the "Pesht" thread was 4 years and 66 pages in the making. Anyone want to place bets on the over and under before a shovel actually goes into the ground for this project?.....?....yeah me neither.
March 20, 200916 yr 2,400 garage-parking spots That number of parking spaces is ridiculous! There are already garages near and what is the point of building on a parking lot only to replace them? The people that live there are most likely going to be walkers and shop withing a 10 block radius of their home. I am really not a big fan of parking either, but I think that in this case it can serve a purpose. FCE has complained that the city will lose parking when MMPI puts in the MM and the CC is rebuilt. While 300 parking spaces will be lost by that project, this one will create many more than that just a couple blocks away. So maybe FCE and the naysayers on the Mall site can shut their mouths about losing parking. Also, I think one of the problems with getting something going in the Warehouse District is that so many people use all of those parking lots on a daily basis. If more parking is provided in the Warehouse District by this project it may be easier to fill in that sea of parking in the future. While I don't think that 2400 parking spaces is needed with this project, it certainly does seem to shut down some of the pathetic arguments about parking problems in the Warehouse District and with the new CC.
March 20, 200916 yr That number of parking spaces is ridiculous! There are already garages near and what is the point of building on a parking lot only to replace them? The people that live there are most likely going to be walkers and shop withing a 10 block radius of their home. Investing in this area will make more people want to come and visit and we should be engaging and challenging them to use public transportation to and from Downtown. I hear you, MTS, but I'm not too upset. Downtown's got to crawl before it can walk. 1st, we need to get the people back downtown; so if some nice-to-high end retail, hotels and offices lure them, if driving is the mode that gets 'em down here, for now, keep it attractive to them. Also anytime you can bring a large no. of parking slots indoors (and replacing that hideous sea of WHD surface parking), you're still creating density and excitement, and that's what we need. And like others have noted, it absorbs the no. of spaces perceived to be lost... I'm just thrilled to see development planning life back in the WHD. I always thought Stark was more of a talker... let's hope these new people are do-ers.
March 20, 200916 yr I'm surprised by how few apartments this project would involve. Apartments seem to be the strongest sector in the downtown real estate market and they would only build 150. That doesn't make sense. Also, does anyone else think they are trying to get the 2 big tenants who committed to the flats? Other than Baker Hostetler I can't think of any other major tenants still looking for space, and since Baker in the National City Building I would imagine that they could easily stay put and expand.
March 20, 200916 yr I'm surprised by how few apartments this project would involve. Apartments seem to be the strongest sector in the downtown real estate market and they would only build 150. That doesn't make sense. Also, does anyone else think they are trying to get the 2 big tenants who committed to the flats? Other than Baker Hostetler I can't think of any other major tenants still looking for space, and since Baker in the National City Building I would imagine that they could easily stay put and expand. Why doesn't it make sense? It doesn't specify apartment sizes. I think they are right sizing the market. I'd rather have 150 rented with long term leases, quickly than 400 built with high turnover or 150 vacant.
March 20, 200916 yr It doesn't make sense because the market for downtown apartments, one bedrooms in particular, is pretty hot right now and the condo market is far weaker. Granted, the market could change by the time this project is actually built, but given the success of recent apartment projects downtown like East 4th I think its reasonable to build more than 150.
March 20, 200916 yr It doesn't make sense because the market for downtown apartments, one bedrooms in particular, is pretty hot right now and the condo market is far weaker. Granted, the market could change by the time this project is actually built, but given the success of recent apartment projects downtown like East 4th I think its reasonable to build more than 150. Again, we don't know the size of the units nor financing requirements.
March 20, 200916 yr I am a pretty optimistic person, but Ive heard this song before..until they start phases and i see the product, its tough to jump on board. I do agree that there should be alot of apartments.
March 20, 200916 yr Isn't 668 Euclid going to be apartments? That what 5-6 blocks away. I think focusing on the hotel may be more benificial with its proximity to the MM/CC (assuming its built). Also, the parking garages may be needed as if they add more restaraunts/bars to the area it is really going to become a destination spot for all of suberbia to go to. And the parking at WHD is not that plentiful to begin with. I like taking the rapid to avoid this problem and if this is developed then I won;t have to walk through the creepy, at night at least, full square block of surface parking.
March 20, 200916 yr The people that live there are most likely going to... shop within a 10 block radius of their home. I don't think so. Not unless they're shopping for Subway or copies of the Grapevine. First of all, this is awesome and I'm happy about it. People are excited about building on this land and I can't help but believe one of them will get it done soon. The article is vague about exactly what would go in. It does seem a little tilted toward office, given that WHD is already established as residential, but keep in mind how well positioned it is with regard to all the courts. This is a great spot for law offices.
March 20, 200916 yr The people that live there are most likely going to... shop within a 10 block radius of their home. I don't think so. Not unless they're shopping for Subway or copies of the Grapevine. I talking about once its built out! Geezus! People move to places like this for convience and location.
March 20, 200916 yr Who want the under on a 50 pages of comments in this thread within 6 months, I 'll take the over... but seriously I hope that we can something built on that block, and by something I mean the right something and this seems to fit the bill, smaller scope than Stark but still BIG. I don't know what to think of the parking.
March 20, 200916 yr At least it's garage parking with street level action. Also consider this: if a glut of garage parking is introduced, won't that make it less profitable/desirable to keep other lots downtown unbuilt? Like the ones to the east, the one on fourth, or the one by the city club?
March 20, 200916 yr At least it's garage parking with street level action. Also consider this: if a glut of garage parking is introduced, won't that make it less profitable/desirable to keep other lots downtown unbuilt? Like the ones to the east, the one on fourth, or the one by the city club? The city has been preaching that, but why let people build lots when we've spent millions to improve and (half ass) promote the use of public transportation? The HL runs a block from this! It's assbackwards to me!
March 20, 200916 yr With regards to the northern half of the project, why would they put the hotel facing W 3rd and the offices facing W 6th? If I'm staying at a hotel, I would much rather walk out the door and be on a street full of restaurants and bars than on W 3rd, which doesn't have much. And an office building really shouldn't care which street they're on. Seem's backwards to me.
March 20, 200916 yr With regards to the northern half of the project, why would they put the hotel facing W 3rd and the offices facing W 6th? If I'm staying at a hotel, I would much rather walk out the door and be on a street full of restaurants and bars than on W 3rd, which doesn't have much. And an office building really shouldn't care which street they're on. Seem's backwards to me. They could plan to have multiple points of access. Remember, it's early in the game and just a rendering. ETA: The hotel portion of the development would face the MM/CC. If the project includes street level retail, it really doesn't matter the location of the Hotel. Walking around a corner is not a big deal.
March 20, 200916 yr Thanks for making me go over to the dark side to see this! :wink: http://blog.cleveland.com/pdgraphics/2009/03/20fgWESTON.pdf
March 20, 200916 yr Obviously, I preffered Stark's plan to build all in one phase. But maybe this is just more practical and realistic. 327 was correct as to this being the ideal location for law firms. It is centrally located between the County/Municipal courts, the Federal Courthouse, bankruptcy court, the State agencies building and the County admin building. This is why 55 and 75 public square addresses are so popular for downtown firms even though a lot of the offices in those buildings are pretty crappy IMO save for a few.
March 20, 200916 yr But the views in those buildings are sweet. One of these days I'll figure out how to post pictures. I'm in the 55, facing Tower City.
March 20, 200916 yr But the views in those buildings are sweet. One of these days I'll figure out how to post pictures. I'm in the 55, facing Tower City. Instructions http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3838.0.html
March 20, 200916 yr But the views in those buildings are sweet. One of these days I'll figure out how to post pictures. I'm in the 55, facing Tower City. I've seen that view from near the top of 55, it is nice. However, you are lucky that the Ameritrust Tower was never built ;)
March 20, 200916 yr It would block terminal tower but I'd still have the whole square, plus the entire suburban rim. The worst part now is how the AT&T bldg totally blocks my view of Shaker.
March 20, 200916 yr It would block terminal tower but I'd still have the whole square, plus the entire suburban rim. The worst part now is how the AT&T bldg totally blocks my view of Shaker. OK. You've got to post pictures!
March 20, 200916 yr My boss's office has all that plus the west shore. Mind blowing. This is why I don't want squat things built downtown, the views are too good to pass up. It pleases me greatly that this WHD plan, unlike Starks, puts the biggest stuff on West Superior to complete the wall.
March 20, 200916 yr It seems like if they wanted to make some major bank, they should just build a bunch of one bedroom apartments. Forget retail, forget expensive condos, forget office buildings. The developer would be printing money with $500/month apartments. That other stuff comes later. Bingo. It is such a simple model...so why isn't anyone following it? Well, let's assume the following: $500/mo apartment is around 500 s.f. At year-round occupancy, an owner gets $6,000/yr, or $12/s.f. Class B office space in Downtown Cleveland is about $18/s.f.* Even at the current 20% vacancy rate, it still makes more sense for a developer to construct office space than residential (at those prices). Raise the residential rent a bit, and you come closer, but still not quite close enough to break even with office. Granted, there are other considerations (cost of construction, which is slightly higher for office, even when accounting for residential utilities, vacancy rates, overhead, etc.), but there is a reason why downtowns tend to have significantly higher office than residential populations. *Grubb & Ellis Research, Office Market Trends Cleveland, Fourth Quarter 2008
March 20, 200916 yr This is also why residential construction tends towards the rehabs of older buildings, which are generally former (and oftentimes long-vacant) Class C offices that couldn't pull Class B rents. The Huntington Building might be rehabbed for residential space, but you can bet that they'll try their damnedest to retain and attract office uses, even with NatCity going dark next door.
March 20, 200916 yr Good to see that someone new is working on this project. I like some of what's going on, but I must say I would rather see the parking garages "wrapped" by other uses (i.e. The Avenue District), than just stacked on top of what will hopefully be active street level uses. Also, I'm not so sure about the idea of making Frankfort the focus of the street level activity. I'd rather see them build off of W. 6th and St. Clair's already active streetlife.
March 20, 200916 yr Good to see that someone new is working on this project. I like some of what's going on, but I must say I would rather see the parking garages "wrapped" by other uses (i.e. The Avenue District), than just stacked on top of what will hopefully be active street level uses. Also, I'm not so sure about the idea of making Frankfort the focus of the street level activity. I'd rather see them build off of W. 6th and St. Clair's already active streetlife. Actually I like that Frankfort is going to be the focus. It's sort of New Orleans, West Village, Cocoa Nut groove, East Fourth fun to me.
March 20, 200916 yr Honestly, I'd like to see Frankfort and W. 4th (which I'd like to see punched through this superblock all the way to Superior) become great urban residential streets. I was picturing stoops to townhouse units, with apts stacked on top of them. If this or a similar development makes it to the lots on the other side of W. 6th, I'd like to see a similar street punched through there (W. 7th or 8th?), also dense urban residential in nature.
March 20, 200916 yr Honestly, I'd like to see Frankfort and W. 4th (which I'd like to see punched through this superblock all the way to Superior) become great urban residential streets. I was picturing stoops to townhouse units, with apts stacked on top of them. If this or a similar development makes it to the lots on the other side of W. 6th, I'd like to see a similar street punched through there (W. 7th or 8th?), also dense urban residential in nature. Having W. 4 run through is not a bad idea, it's an excellent idea. Although, a w7/8 would only be from st. clair to frankfort as there are building on superior already. The only exception would be if the entire block were built with a 10/15 story building.
March 20, 200916 yr Crains basically has the same info.... http://crainscleveland.com/article/20090320/FREE/903209968 Weston to pursue development of key block in downtown Cleveland By STAN BULLARD 8:52 am, March 20, 2009 Despite the dire recession and sour real estate lending climate, real estate owner and developer Weston is continuing to pursue its plans to develop downtown Cleveland’s “super block” west of Public Square between Superior and St. Clair avenues. The Asher family, which owns Weston, plans to develop two mid-rise towers on the Superior side of parking lots it owns between West Third and West Sixth streets. Other buildings on the block would house a mix of condominiums, apartments and, on Frankfort Avenue in the center of the block, entertainment-oriented retail. The plan also includes a boutique hotel, perhaps of as many as 110 rooms. James Asher, Weston president, said the company’s focus is on attracting large office tenants who might want to expand downtown. If it is able to land one of those companies as an anchor tenant, it might proceed with the office component of the project, he said. The stalled Flats East Bank Neighborhood was the only one of four proposed downtown Cleveland office building projects to win anchor tenants before the onset of the recession and financial collapse. Such tenants were critical to winning construction financing prior to the downturn and likely will be even more important in the future when the lending climate improves. Weston has formed a joint venture with the Gilbane family, which owns the Gilbane Inc. construction firm, for the development, Mr. Asher said. He declined to say how much of the project each partner would control. Previously, Weston had partnered with Robert L. Stark Enterprises of Cleveland on plans for its site, but they parted ways last fall. Mr. Asher described Weston’s plans for the site as a master plan that could be adapted to market demand.
March 20, 200916 yr Yeah I like how Frankfurt is a narrower street, so it would have more of that E 4th effect. I would want the larger more architecturally impressive stuff on the main avenues. I undertand that officees give higher returns to developers, but that doesn't explain how other cities can have substantial non-project residential high rises and we can't. Case in point: Cincinnati, where I just was. Tall and attractive residential buildings all over the place. Not so much in their downtown core, but at distances where we tend to have ugly CMHA high rises instead. It can be done, it has been done, therefore we can do it. Edit: I love the idea of W 4th cutting through. More frontage is created.
March 20, 200916 yr Honestly, I'd like to see Frankfort and W. 4th (which I'd like to see punched through this superblock all the way to Superior) become great urban residential streets. I was picturing stoops to townhouse units, with apts stacked on top of them. If this or a similar development makes it to the lots on the other side of W. 6th, I'd like to see a similar street punched through there (W. 7th or 8th?), also dense urban residential in nature. Having W. 4 run through is not a bad idea, it's an excellent idea. Although, a w7/8 would only be from st. clair to frankfort as there are building on superior already. The only exception would be if the entire block were built with a 10/15 story building. There's a gap between Perry-Payne and The Rockefeller Building that would be just perfect for a small residential street.
March 20, 200916 yr Honestly, I'd like to see Frankfort and W. 4th (which I'd like to see punched through this superblock all the way to Superior) become great urban residential streets. I was picturing stoops to townhouse units, with apts stacked on top of them. If this or a similar development makes it to the lots on the other side of W. 6th, I'd like to see a similar street punched through there (W. 7th or 8th?), also dense urban residential in nature. Having W. 4 run through is not a bad idea, it's an excellent idea. Although, a w7/8 would only be from st. clair to frankfort as there are building on superior already. The only exception would be if the entire block were built with a 10/15 story building. There's a gap between Perry-Payne and The Rockefeller Building that would be just perfect for a small residential street. I forgot about that parking lot.
March 20, 200916 yr I hope W 9th isn't forgotten in all this. The parking lots behind the W 6th strip of buildings are almost as ugly as the other ones. W 9th also has a big gap behind the RR Brotherhood building next to P-P. It would be nice to come over the bridge and not see any open space until you get to the square.
March 20, 200916 yr Case in point: Cincinnati, where I just was. Tall and attractive residential buildings all over the place. Not so much in their downtown core, but at distances where we tend to have ugly CMHA high rises instead. It can be done, it has been done, therefore we can do it. Well, I'm not saying that it can't, hasn't, or oughtn't be done; I'm just explaining why it's difficult to do new construction for smaller, lower-rent residences. Given your Cincinnati example, I would assume that not only are the property costs in those locations lower than in Downtown Cincinnati, but that the rents are significantly higher than the hypothetical $500/mo 1BR mentioned earlier. Also, public housing tends to buck the trend when it comes to the market since the developer (the gummint) isn't as concerned about rate of return as a private developer would be. Likely what will happen in the long term will be that offices will move in and places like the Rockefeller will gradually vacate and, in five to ten years, convert to some pretty awesome apartments. C'mon, folks! It's urban planning 101-level concentric-ring theory! Catch the fever!
March 20, 200916 yr I don't expect 500/month singles downtown anytime soon. That probably isn't reasonable to ask for. I'd love to see a primarily 1br tower go up somewhere downtown though. The units wouldn't be super cheap, but the more we have on the market the cheaper they can get.
March 20, 200916 yr I don't expect 500/month singles downtown anytime soon. That probably isn't reasonable to ask for. I'd love to see a primarily 1br tower go up somewhere downtown though. The units wouldn't be super cheap, but the more we have on the market the cheaper they can get. Then how do you cover long term costs? This will stagnate new building and conversions.
March 20, 200916 yr Case in point: Cincinnati, where I just was. Tall and attractive residential buildings all over the place. Not so much in their downtown core, but at distances where we tend to have ugly CMHA high rises instead. Hum... Perhaps Cleveland's are all together instead of spread out. Gold Coast? :-)
March 20, 200916 yr SO just how do you propose extending e4th? That would run it right through the Arcade and I'm pretty sure thats a historic landmark. I do like the idea of focusing on Frankfort as I think that creates a better vibe than the wider w6th. Also, my bad on the lack of parking on w6th. I forgot about the super lot on 9th. Although technically its not on 6th :)
March 20, 200916 yr SO just how do you propose extending e4th? That would run it right through the Arcade and I'm pretty sure thats a historic landmark. I do like the idea of focusing on Frankfort as I think that creates a better vibe than the wider w6th. Also, my bad on the lack of parking on w6th. I forgot about the super lot on 9th. Although technically its not on 6th :) WEST 4TH PUMPKIN.
March 20, 200916 yr West 4th, not East. Technically it only exists between St. Clair & Lakeside, I think. This would take it through the middle of the parking lots, across Frankfurt, and up to West Superior. I dig the idea of a crossroad in the middle of the super-block. Not sure if it's compatible with Weston's plans though.
Create an account or sign in to comment