Jump to content
Guest gotribe

Cleveland: 925 Euclid Ave / ex-Huntington Bldg Redevelopment

Recommended Posts

Not sure where to put this.  Wasn't sure if there was a Huntington Thread.  But anyhow, something we have all been waiting for!  I guess this is in stiff competition with the May Company building on the catalytic tax credit...The source is Crains.

 

Former Huntington Building would be revamped as mixed-used development in $231 million project

 

A proposal has surfaced to remake the 925 Building, better known as the former Huntington Building at East Ninth Street and Euclid Avenue, as a mixed-use building in a $231 million project.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140909/FREE/140909791#

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Long time lurker, first time poster. This could be huge, Huntington bulding looking for the same Tax credit as the May Company building for a mixed use rehab. I'm not sure how to post links but it is in today's Crain's Cleveland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to hear!!! Although I DO NOT like the talk of converting the Hannah Annex being converted to parking. Cimperman is the one who turned in the application. I'd like to hear what he has to say about the parking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I recall, this is the largest building in the CBD, maybe a close second.  I think it warrants it's own parking.  Especially with a large residential component.  If I was in the hunt for a downtown apartment, I would want onsite parking.  Now, if it was all office, I would agree across the street would be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Long time lurker, first time poster. This could be huge, Huntington bulding looking for the same Tax credit as the May Company building for a mixed use rehab. I'm not sure how to post links but it is in today's Crain's Cleveland.

 

Welcome! I hope you keep posting.

 

I've been waiting to hear about a project here. This will be a biggie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is it either this or the May Co building? If so, which one would you prefer?

[/quoteif I remember right, it only goes toward one project in the entire state, so neither may get it.

To answer your question though, I would prefer Huntington.  It's such an enormous building that could get passed up for years considering the amount that would have to go into it.  Look at the price tag.  $231 million!  This is what it may take to entice a developer.  May, being on The soon to be renovated/repurposed PS, and smaller in scale may be more feasible without the assistance.  But, as I said, neither may be awarded...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^It's going to one of these two projects...

 

Since last fall, developers John Carney, Bob Rains and David Goldberg have been working with State Rep. Kirk Schuring, a Canton Republican, to find a way around the $5 million cap. This month, they succeeded. House Bill 483 contained a special provision for "catalytic projects" - which can win up to $25 million in state credits over five years, drawing $5 million per year.

 

The state can recognize one such project every biennium. To be deemed "catalytic," a redevelopment project must spur economic development within 2,500 feet of the building. And, in the first two fiscal years, at least, the rehabilitation work has to cost more than $75 million. The law doesn't specifically mention the May Co. building, but it's clear that's what Schuring had in mind.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/06/may_co_apartment_revamp_could.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question I thought the address in the story was 925 Euclid Ave.

 

You are correct. I mistakenly used the address Google had for the former Huntington Building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this is great news!  It sounds like this might have some hurdles to clear, in particularly financing.

 

I'm torn but if I had to pick either this project or the May Company building I think I would have to choose the May Company.  But E9th and Euclid is taking a complete 180 from where it was just two years ago!  Very exciting!  :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

I change my mind, Huntington Building!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant they just use the massive parking garage across the street that has an underground tunnel connecting to the building?

 

I'm sure they would if they could. Parking costs a lot of money. Why would a developer want to get rid of so much valuable rentable SF if the parking wasn't necessary for the project? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is it either this or the May Co building? If so, which one would you prefer? 

 

I'd prefer to see the May Co building go first. It looks so bad on both the Prospect and Public Square sides. It would infuse a lot of life onto lower Prospect and onto Public Square. A redevelopment of May Co would also put more pressure on the Jacobs PS lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know for certain if Chaim Schochet (aka Optima) is not involved in this project? If he is, the guy is a younger, Ukrainian version of Fred Geis and his deep pockets. I can understand Schochet wanting to see if he can get the tax credits since they offer free capital. But if he can't within his desired timeframe, I hope he moves forward without them if only because he probably can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant they just use the massive parking garage across the street that has an underground tunnel connecting to the building?

 

I'm sure they would if they could. Parking costs a lot of money. Why would a developer want to get rid of so much valuable rentable SF if the parking wasn't necessary for the project?

 

 

Don't forget, parking can be an income generator to! Parking at The 9 for residents is $300+ a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I complained about this a while back... While the Huntington Building needs an interior makeover (badly I might add), I hope the primary focus is on the abandoned buildings downtown (e.g., May Co.). They look really bad. Fingers crossed that this doesn't derail that project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is OUTSTANDING news- however, I would also like to see the May Co. receive the funding from the state between the two buildings first.  I would bet that both of the buildings would be asking for some of the highest rents in the city.  Hell- could you imagine actually living in the Huntington and going through that lobby every day on your way to your apartment unit?   

 

Taking that building off of the market for office use takes a big chunk of square footage of vacant office space out of the market for downtown... and as KJP stated in another thread, we could very well be seeing a new office building soon based strictly off of the moves the downtown market has made.  Hopefully, IF the Huntington doesn't make the cut for the state funds, I hope the owner and developer are able to secure the needed funding for the project to move forward.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking that building off of the market for office use takes a big chunk of square footage of vacant office space out of the market for downtown... and as KJP stated in another thread, we could very well be seeing a new office building soon based strictly off of the moves the downtown market has made.  Hopefully, IF the Huntington doesn't make the cut for the state funds, the owner and developer are able to secure the needed funding for the project to move forward.   

 

My understanding is that 925 Euclid hasn't been marketed as an office building for a while and thus its high vacancy has not counted in the overall downtown market. There are, however, about 100,000 square feet of office users left in the building who may have to find new addresses that will count in office market data -- hopefully downtown. The Great Reshuffling continues.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^is the occupancy of 100,000 sq ft counted in office numbers? it would be a bit dishonest to count the rented space but not the vacant space.... who does this counting--is it the real estate firms who write the statistics reports or Downtown Cleveland Alliance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real Estate firms do the counting, and they all count things a little differently.

 

True. CBRE, M&M and others all do their own market reports. Each shows somewhat different data.

 

Anyway. Point is about 100,000 square feet of office users are still there. I think it would be great to keep them there. It would help ensure round-clock activity for retailers and restaurants in the building's vast lobby and the large but often overlooked retail arcade below. This is one building where city-within-city would certainly apply. Between this and the former Ameritrust complex across the street, there would be a lot for residents to do without going outside much in the depths of winter. That's why I would love a winter garden concept for 925's lobby. I picture it with live trees, a couple of small fountains and even a goldfish pond like the one in PNC's plaza.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four large projects - former Huntington, May Co., Goodyear, Music Hall - vie for hefty state tax credits

By  Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer 

on October 03, 2014 at 7:00 AM, updated October 03, 2014 at 7:06 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Two of downtown Cleveland's largest - and emptiest - marquee buildings are vying for major state tax credits to help fuel redevelopment.

 

And they face potentially fierce competition from iconic properties in Akron and Cincinnati.

 

There can be only one victor.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/10/former_huntington_building_may.html#incart_river

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to be very competitive. I want the May Co. building to get it because it has become such an eyesore in such a prominent area, and Public Square really needs some new apartments to justify its renovation. However, I feel like the Music Hall has the edge... a lot of people have been talking about it since it was denied funding by the county commissioners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think timing for the May Company building to win this is perfect, as Republican convention and Public Square renovation add some urgency.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 925 Euclid is kind of a long shot, but mostly because the law authorizing the $25 million tax credits was written specifically with the May Co. building in mind.

 

May Co.'s developers requested the tax credits because they need them. I think 925's developers requested the credits because they want them. The players involved with 925 Euclid could probably afford to pay cash for the $231 million worth of improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with each of you! I think for transformational, May Co has this one. Music Hall already is in existence and used. Yes, it needs updates, but it's not out of commission nor is 925 plus Chaim was super rude when the County was selecting their location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is going to be very competitive. I want the May Co. building to get it because it has become such an eyesore in such a prominent area' date=' and Public Square really needs some new apartments to justify its renovation. However, I feel like the Music Hall has the edge... a lot of people have been talking about it since it was denied funding by the county commissioners.[/quote']

 

 

But Music Hall is currently used by its current use--the symphony and opera. Plus it doesn't even have local support:  "In August, Hamilton County Commissioners voted to put a quarter-cent sales-tax hike on the November ballot to help cover the costs of fixing Union Terminal, another iconic Cincinnati building. But, after much debate, they cut Music Hall out of the package."  Music Hall is beautiful, but if people in Cincinnati don't want to fund an arts/public use, why should people in say, Toledo, Columbus, and Cleveland fund it?

 

May Co and the Huntington Bldg will actually ADD activity around the project so, to me, they are more 'catalytic'. And such revenues will add to the State's bottom line. And from the State's perspective, I'd say Huntington is more catalytic because it includes more than one use (residential) (May Co), but residential, commercial, and hotel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Ahh okay. My only source for that is my planner friend in Cincy who could perhaps be a little biased.

 

And I agree that the Huntington building is more catalytic, but I think the May Co. building needs it more. It would just be a sad sight to have a newly renovated Public Square, with that dirty vacant building fronting it. Of course, it would also be a sad sight to still have that big surface lot next to Public Square, but hopefully that also changes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hudson Holdings of Florida emerges as potential 925 Building buyer (photos)  :clap: :clap:

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A hot rumor in local real estate circles moved a bit closer to reality this week, with the formation of two companies that link a Florida investment group to the hulking and largely vacant 925 Building on Euclid Avenue.

 

Records filed with the Ohio Secretary of State make the connection between Hudson Holdings of Delray Beach and the downtown Cleveland building, best known as the former Huntington Building or the historic Union Trust Building. Hudson, according to its website, is a mixed-use developer that favors downtown locations and works with historic buildings and distressed landmarks.

 

Corporation records dated Monday show that HH Cleveland Huntington L.P. and Hudson Cleveland Real Estate Manager LLC, two newly formed companies, are tied to the 925 Euclid Ave. address and to Andrew "Avi" Greenbaum, one of Hudson's principals.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/05/hudson_holdings_of_florida_eme.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Crain's:

 

Florida group lines up as potential buyer for Huntington Building in downtown Cleveland

 

The next play may be taking shape for the vacancy-riddled former Huntington Building in downtown Cleveland.

 

Delray Beach, Fla.-based real estate developer Hudson Holdings LLC recently formed Ohio limited liability companies linked to downtown’s second-largest multitenant office building, at 925 Euclid Ave.

 

The name of Andrew Greenbaum, a principal of Hudson, appears as the manager on articles of organization filed May 11 with the Ohio Secretary of State’s office for Hudson Cleveland Real Estate Manager LLC. The agent for that new company, Tom Smith, also is the agent for HH Cleveland Huntington L.P., a limited partnership formed the same day. Both documents list 925 Euclid as the location for the concerns.

 

The Hudson Holdings website portrays it as a mixed-use real estate developer for both construction and rehabilitation projects, particularly those located in urban areas. The firm owns five Florida hotel, restaurant and office properties, according to the website.

 

More: http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20150514/FREE/150519904/florida-group-lines-up-as-potential-buyer-for-huntington-building-in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×