Jump to content
KJP

Cleveland: Downtown: Sherwin-Williams Headquarters

Recommended Posts

Please, let's be real. Cleveland does not have the office market at this point to digest a such a huge tower. 

 

how do you know? there are still several companies lookin for office space, theres the new convention center/medical mart being built, opportunity for new hotel space, mixed retail, new residential, etc. jacobs could easily fill a building like he had been planning if he had the vision and finances. people said the same exact thing when key tower went up yet our class A vacancy rate is LOWER than what it was after key was built.....15 years later. our CBD is expanding. our downtown population is rising.

 

 

But honestly, Key Tower does nothing for street life. Image if we had three 20-story towers interspersed throughout the WHD--that would create so much more life and give downtown a much more active feel.

 

STOP TALKING ABOUT "STREET LIFE"! how the hell does a 20-story building create more street life than a 60-story one? this is the CBD, where believe it or not. SKYSCRAPERS EXIST.  want to talk about street life and creating life downtown? go to the pesht thread, FEB thread, or midtown/CSU college town. THOSE ARE WHERE DENSE STREETSCAPES THAT INTERACT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD NEED TO BE BUILT. this building is ONE BUILDING ON ONE SINGLE PLOT OF LAND. its not some huge mixed-use neighborhood being created like starks warehouse district plan. i seriously dont understand what part of this you dont understand.

 

 

Your complaining about "height" on Public Square, there is no need for all the towers to be centered around Public Square.  There are other places where a 30 story plus tower can be constructed.

 

im also complainin about your grammar. where would a better location be for a skyscraper taller than key be ? serious question

 

or for that matter that the citizens of the city have any control (or really say other that of the design committees and planning commission) in regards to how a private developer decides to spend his millions of dollars on his property

 

they dont, so why is 2 cents sayin this?

 

#

# Where any of you in the board room discussing this project?  NO!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, if you follow Kunstler's "victims" of the Long Emergency, supertalls are among the casualties. Supertalls (higher than 20 stories) are energy-suckers, according to him.

 

Even without a post-peak oil economic collapse, I agree that this building is the right scale for the times. It won't forestall expansion of the downtown office market for years to come, compared to a supertall that would put so much leasable space on the market that it would depress prices and take years to fill.

 

And, from the rendering (I realize it's very preliminary), but it appears Jacobs is proposing to put the parking below ground with greenspace on half of the site and the tower on the other. If so, the question is which half? And will the half of the parking structure that has the greenspace on it allow a second tower to be built on it?


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you know? there are still several companies lookin for office space, theres the new convention center/medical mart being built, opportunity for new hotel space, mixed retail, new residential, etc. jacobs could easily fill a building like he had been planning if he had the vision and finances. people said the same exact thing when key tower went up yet our class A vacancy rate is LOWER than what it was after key was built.....15 years later. our CBD is expanding. our downtown population is rising.

 

i know because I pay attention to the office market. You obviously do not. How many cities in the US have seen 16 years pass without putting up a single office building? We need to understand our strengths and weaknesses. We are seeing some office tenants relocate within downtown. This is not expansion, is it relocation. It is good to a point. Please let me know which other office tenants are looking to expand in or to downtown that would justify such a large building. The current roster does not justify such growth.

 

STOP TALKING ABOUT "STREET LIFE"! how the hell does a 20-story building create more street life than a 60-story one? this is the CBD, where believe it or not. SKYSCRAPERS EXIST.  want to talk about street life and creating life downtown? go to the pesht thread, FEB thread, or midtown/CSU college town. THOSE ARE WHERE DENSE STREETSCAPES THAT INTERACT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD NEED TO BE BUILT. this building is ONE BUILDING ON ONE SINGLE PLOT OF LAND. its not some huge mixed-use neighborhood being created like starks warehouse district plan. i seriously dont understand what part of this you dont understand.

 

I have an idea. Let's build a 200-story building on Public Square. It would make us look so cool. 

Streetlife is so overrated--kind of like oxygen's importance to the human race.

 

Your complaining about "height" on Public Square, there is no need for all the towers to be centered around Public Square.  There are other places where a 30 story plus tower can be constructed.

where would a better location be for a skyscraper taller than key be ? serious question

 

I think PHS would be a great location for a skyscraper. If the tall buildings are spread out over a cbd, it helps create the feeling that the downtown is larger. Take a look at downtown from 490 or 90--it appears that we only have three buildings in our downtown. That said, a skyline is the least important thing for a downtown. An active streetlife is what brings and keeps people downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, from the rendering (I realize it's very preliminary), but it appears Jacobs is proposing to put the parking below ground with greenspace on half of the site and the tower on the other. If so, the question is which half? And will the half of the parking structure that has the greenspace on it allow a second tower to be built on it?

 

what the hell does downtown need greenspace for? all this "green space" "pocket park" "plaza" stuff is stupid. theres enough of that already. what downtown needs is buildings at street level on these gaping parking lots.

 

want to build a 20-story tower? build it on the lot directly across from the public square lot in starks plan or somewhere else in the city's numerous parking lots downtown that need to disappear

 

the comments by people are an overall "lets settle for anything that gets built because hey! at least something is being built in cleveland finally" attitude

 

im amazed that jacobs would sit on this lot wanting to build an iconic scraper taller than key and announces this uninspired 20-story tower now

 

i know because I pay attention to the office market. You obviously do not. How many cities in the US have seen 16 years pass without putting up a single office building? We need to understand our strengths and weaknesses. We are seeing some office tenants relocate within downtown. This is not expansion, is it relocation. It is good to a point. Please let me which other office tenants are looking to expand in or to downtown that would justify such a large building.

 

i do too, nice blanket statement. other cities overbuilt and have higher vacancies than cleveland does or have officials/developers without a suburban mentality and making it harder for businesses to be downtown

 

companies in cleveland....ones located downtown .....arent expanding? please. there arent LARGE companies located in the burbs that the city shouldnt be luring downtown with proposals?

 

like i pointed out before, office vacancy rates are the lowest theyve been in years. thats not a sign of expansion?

 

Squires, Sanders, and Dempsy,  Baker & Hostetler, Huntington Bank are just a couple looking for new class A space. i dont know the exact #s of space they take up so i would have to look them up and put the figures together

 

office + ground floor retail + hotel for convention center + condos = easily able to build a new tallest

 

 

older buildings could easily be converted to residential for the growing downtown population and office space for other smaller up and coming (tech) companies that are looking to be downtown

 

 

 

 

I think PHS would be a great location for a skyscraper. If the tall buildings are spread out over a cbd, it helps create the feeling that the downtown is larger. Take a look at downtown from 490 or 90--it appears that we only have three buildings in our downtown. That said, a skyline is the least important thing for a downtown. An active streetlife is what brings and keeps people downtown.

 

playhouse square? youre seriously complaining about "street life" on one lot on public square where a skyscraper could be built yet youd rather see a 60-story building in playhouse square? talk about ass backwards. as if there arent enough gaps in the skyline how would a 1000-footer over there look compared to filling a gap where the big 3 are? theres active streetlife downtown on superior and euclid.....oh wait......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
where would a better location be for a skyscraper taller than key be ? serious question

 

Are you serious?  Just to name a few.

[*]East Ninth and Lakeside

[*]Pick a spot between Huron and Canal streets

[*]The parking lot on Euclid, between East 6 and East 9 Streets.

[*]The parking lot on Prospect, between East 6 and East 9 Streets.

[*]East 9 and Bolivar.

 

Nobody here is saying it's "perfect" but its what is economical NOW.  You can't provide the P&L/Financial Package or Real Estate forecast for this project, so how can you make statements like "it has to be taller" and base comments solely on a RENDERING?

 

Is any of this sinking in man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, let's wait and see what happens with the proposal.  Remember, nothing about the design is final, and we all know that he has been waiting for the right time to build on that lot.  You never know, the plans could definitely expand.  What's good to know is that he is serious about building on this lot, FINALLY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where would a better location be for a skyscraper taller than key be ? serious question

 

Are you serious?  Just to name a few.

[*]East Night and Lakeside

[*]Pick a spot between Huron and Canal streets

[*]The parking lot on Euclid, between East 6 and East 9 Streets.

[*]The parking lot on Prospect, between East 6 and East 9 Streets.

[*]East 9 and Bolivar.

 

Nobody here is saying it's "perfect" but its what is economical NOW.  You can't provide the P&L/Financial Package or Real Estate forecast for this project, so how can you make statements like "it has to be taller" and base comments solely on a RENDERING?

 

Is any of this sinking in man?

 

Prospect is SCREAMING for some type of development.  That street has one too many surface parking lots east of East 14th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I think design is very important. However, this block is such a huge and damaging hole in our urban fabric. I'm willing to accept a half-*ssed design if we could plug this hole in downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prospect is SCREAMING for some type of development.  That street has one too many surface parking lots east of East 14th.

 

I'd love to see something huge on Prospect across from E.4th street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop being homers and lets call this what it is: a small time development for a small time city. Putting the issue of height aside for the moment, the building is bland and forgettable despite occupying what may be the city's premier lot. It looks as if it could've been built in the late 80's.

 

Getting to height...21 storeys??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Even those who maintain that a supertall is not necessary--to those: can you say "Sour Grapes" (if a 1200 foot monster was announced, you'd all be jumping for joy and you know it)--would admit that 300 feet is ridiculous for this site. It must be at least 700 feet, preferably 1200. There are no lake views. There is no ooohhh or ahhh factor. It doesn't do anything to bolster civic pride the way having the formerly tallest between NYC and Chicago did. You want to build one of these mini-scrapers? Fine, bury it out of sight in suburbia-downtown (FEB).

 

A classic example of Cleveland's uncanny tendency to settle for second-best. Demand better, folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the "street-life" mumbo jumbo is a way for people who, deep-down, are disappointed with the announcement of the height of the mini-scraper to reconcile themselves with the decision to build a fire hydrant on a premier site.

 

Last time I checked, the streetlife in NYC and Chicago, cities boasting 2 of the greatest and tallest skylines in the world, is pretty damn good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Again, no need to jump to conclusions about the tower as of yet.  No, I don't have any insider information, but we know what was proposed for the site before (not that we need that at this particular point in downtown's growth, but just as a historical reference).  The Ameritrust Tower was also mixed0use, with a hotel being part of the development.  We'll see if Jacobs has any mixed-use prospects in mind with this new tower as time goes on.  We may see the height of it rise along with the demand of a new address on Public Square.

 

Also, cut the "small-time city" stuff out of this discussion.  No need for Cleveland bashing here.  Take that to Cleveland.com

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fair enough mytwosense, but i dont see how any of those locations are more logical than jacobs lot. aesthetically speaking a tallest there makes the most sense filling a gap between the big 3 and doesnt make it seem as barren. business wise it makes sense being in the center of the CBD on public square. easy access to tower city, other businesses and venues, convention center/med mart, and public square is the transportation hub of cleveland.

 

i agree that those areas are ripe for development......which is why i think a 20-story building should go in those gaps, not public square.

 

 

you guys are underestimating this lot/project and think that anything can be plunked down as a quick fix

 

 

thank you badge.......someone who understands my thinking. though i was all alone there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not Cleveland bashing. Quit being so parochial and so damn sensitive. You're like the wounded little red headed step child.

 

In purely objective terms, Cleveland is a small-time city. If not, what would you deem NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, D.C.? To deny that fact is to damage your credibility. Any negative implications surrounding the term "small-time" are applied only by you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop being homers and lets call this what it is: a small time development for a small time city. Putting the issue of height aside for the moment, the building is bland and forgettable despite occupying what may be the city's premier lot. It looks as if it could've been built in the late 80's.

 

Getting to height...21 storeys??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Even those who maintain that a supertall is not necessary--to those: can you say "Sour Grapes" (if a 1200 foot monster was announced, you'd all be jumping for joy and you know it)--would admit that 300 feet is ridiculous for this site. It must be at least 700 feet, preferably 1200. There are no lake views. There is no ooohhh or ahhh factor. It doesn't do anything to bolster civic pride the way having the formerly tallest between NYC and Chicago did. You want to build one of these mini-scrapers? Fine, bury it out of sight in suburbia-downtown (FEB).

 

A classic example of Cleveland's uncanny tendency to settle for second-best. Demand better, folks.

 

Welcome to urbanohio, now keep the ridiculous comments to cleveland.com.

 

WHEN YOU HAVE THE MONEY TO BUILD A DUBAI-ESQ TOWER PLEASE DO SO.

 

I love it how several people, can hypothetically spend someone else's money.

 

for all you've written, how do you come to those conclusions from ONE RENDERING?!

 

All the "street-life" mumbo jumbo is a way for people who, deep-down, are disappointed with the announcement of the height of the mini-scraper to reconcile themselves with the decision to build a fire hydrant on a premier site.

 

Last time I checked, the streetlife in NYC and Chicago, cities boasting 2 of the greatest and tallest skylines in the world, is pretty damn good.

And Chicago and NYC have nowhere to go but UP!  Not all those two cities towers are 20 or above.  So stop the dramatics already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not Cleveland bashing. Quit being so parochial and so damn sensitive. You're like the wounded little red headed step child.

 

In purely objective terms, Cleveland is a small-time city. If not, what would you deem NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, D.C.? To deny that fact is to damage your credibility. Any negative implications surrounding the term "small-time" are applied only by you.

 

Then why are you here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Badge, welcome to UO. Glad to see another sign up.

 

Your input ignores basic economic and urban planning principles. Of course we'd love to have a handful of new 60-story towers going up downtown. However, we are not at the point where that is economically feasible.

 

There appears to be a disconnect between how a city looks from afar and how it works on the downtown sidewalks.  If we built cities for those who drive by on the local highways, then we'd have a dead skyscraper sculpture garden on our hands. We will have a vibrant 24-hr city only when we have various contiguous blocks of mixed-use, sufficiently dense structures. I can sense that a lot people who don't understand how a city works simply revert to "big is best" view on things. Take a look at Portland's downtown--are tall skyscrapers making that place a vibrant city?

 

What would Cleveland feel like if Key Tower and the BP building were broken down into 10 ten-story buildings and scattered throughout the WHD and along Prospect. Imagine the in-fill that those buildings would have generated by now. Cleveland would be a much more vibrant city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not Cleveland bashing. Quit being so parochial and so damn sensitive. You're like the wounded little red headed step child.

 

In purely objective terms, Cleveland is a small-time city. If not, what would you deem NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, D.C.? To deny that fact is to damage your credibility. Any negative implications surrounding the term "small-time" are applied only by you.

 

If we are a "small-time" city, then why do you suggest we develop skyscrapers as if we were a "big time" city. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the comments that a 21 story building is fine.  I'd much rather see a more filled in denser shorter skyline like Cincinnati, Philadelphia....etc than the 3 building skyline currently.  I think a few more 20 floor or so buildings would accomplish that. 

 

Also, I remember reading that Cleveland has an issue with having to dig really far down to hit the bedrock that is needed for the footings of a tower taller than a certain height, unlike Chicago and other midwest cities.  Taking that into account, this does make economical sense....but I am not an expert on this subject...I just seem remember it being an issue.

 

As for Gensler, why not let them have a crack at it.  It's still a big name...the interior will be nice for sure since that is what they do best and their architecture and urban planning are getting noticed.  Maybe they will use this a chance to shine.  They outsource the engineering to the pros anyway....so in reality your getting a SOM engineered building with Genslers name on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MTS, get off your high horse. I cannot believe nobody has called you on your arrogant attitude and self-righteous sentiment. In all seriousness, I tried to "ignore" you but I am not certain this forum has that feature. If not, your presence alone makes a compelling case for its inclusion. You are so contentious and LOVE to pick fights. Grow up and discuss the issues like a man. I will not go away "to Cleveland.com" simply because you don't like my opinion.

 

Very glaring how you fail to counter my statement on the merits but instead ask me "why I am here?" I will not tote the company line on this dud and if it means I have to leave, then perhaps you are correct, I shouldn't be in a place that doesnt tolerate dissenting views and the open exchange of opinions.

 

I don't think it requires Dubai-caliber money to build to 700 feet. In fact, Chicago currently has something like 7 towers over 700 feet going up right now.

 

And aren't you guilty of "spending other people's money" too when you tell me that it costs too much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A classic example of Cleveland's uncanny tendency to settle for second-best. Demand better, folks.

 

Psychological influences are strange. I don't see how Jacobs' development plans resemble what the rest of Cleveland is "settling for". I didn't know that we were are shareholders in Jacobs Inc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not Cleveland bashing. Quit being so parochial and so damn sensitive. You're like the wounded little red headed step child. 

 

Boy, this guy is off to a great start, isn't he?

 

In purely objective terms, Cleveland is a small-time city. If not, what would you deem NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, D.C.? To deny that fact is to damage your credibility. Any negative implications surrounding the term "small-time" are applied only by you.

 

Especially when you start off with...

 

Stop being homers and lets call this what it is: a small time development for a small time city.

 

And what exactly is considered "big-time" development?  A super-tall skyscraper?  You have much to learn about the development of cities if this is the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 21 stories could be acceptable (personally would prefer 30 better scale into the neighboring buildings). I never really liked the idea of a 1000 ft. building. I think it might help the city more quickly draw in additional builders to some of the area's MTS listed above for additional 15 to 30 story buildings. A goliath building with untold thousands of square feet ready to rent will draw any future downtown expansion/relocation. The need for Class A space not reach critical build-another-building mass for quite some time and this building renaissance that will occur in the next five to seven years will remain slightly more fragmented, through greatly improved.

 

What cannot be accepted is a 21 story building on Public Square, after two decades of foreplay, being anything less exceptional. I fully realize this is only one rendering and no doubt will change greatly between now and the beginning of construction. And for a first rendering, it looks very clean and kinda cool. I hope it's intent is to serve as a placeholder, It, however, SHOULD NOT be used as a starting point or basis for further design. It is an any city design. I can even seeing it working in different locations downtown...NOT Public Square. Too important to rubber stamp any design review just because it constitutes construction.

 

That being said, thank God this looks like something will actually happen! (cross fingers and toes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Badge, No, I'd be pissed if a supertall was proposed. Do us a favor and don't put words in our mouths or preferences in our heads. In a stagnant office market, a supertall is a market killer and not supported by the current economics of downtown. Developers aren't idiots. They're smart, experienced people who have crunched numbers you haven't, and for that matter have gathered demographic and market data you've never seen. They know a hell of a lot about the Cleveland market than you do.

 

And who are we to demand better from Jacobs? It's his property and his project. You think Jacobs should be writing on a forum that your house, Badge, has a lousy paint job and you don't cut your grass enough? I'm sure he could complain, but how would you respond? Probably the same way Jacobs would respond to our critiques.

 

The fact that developers are proposing to build anything in a metro area that has seen a net decrease in office demand since 2001 is remarkable (especially in light of how tightly lenders are holding on their money these days). Developers do recognize that the downtown office market is growing slightly, and see a small trend toward urbanism in this metro area. They want to be on the cusp of it by sticking their toes in the water. They're not ready to jump in when the market is still shaky. And it's not "Cleveland defeatism" -- it's a few developers trying to eke some sustainable new construction out of a very tiny trend that is favoring downtown Cleveland. I commend them for this, which could potentially create a desire for more office space. That can be a big part of healing this metro area's stagnant economy, which continues to transition in the post-industrial age.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Badge, welcome to UO. Glad to see another sign up.

 

Your input ignores basic economic and urban planning principles. Of course we'd love to have a handful of new 60-story towers going up downtown. However, we are not at the point where that is economically feasible.

 

There appears to be a disconnect between how a city looks from afar and how it works on the sidewalks. If we built cities for those who drive by on the local highways, then we'd have a dead skyscraper sculpture garden on your hands. We will have a vibrant 24-hr city only when we have various contiguous blocks of mixed-use, sufficiently dense structures.

 

What would Cleveland feel like if Key Tower and the BP building were broken down into 10 ten-story buildings and scattered throughout the WHD and along Prospect. Imagine the in-fill that those buildings would have generated by now. Cleveland would be a much more vibrant city. 

 

YOUR post ignores economic principles. How could a Fortune 500 company such as Key have broken itself into multiple 10 story buildings?

 

Nobody is saying build one 1200 foot tower and be done with it. However, when you select a premier site, you don't put an office park tower on it.

 

Further, it doesnt matter if say 10,000 office employees are at one address on PS or scattered in 5 different locations within a quarter-mile radius of PS.

 

Finally, Cleveland is small-time as a result of decisions to build small. It could take a step in the other direction by building bigger. Also, you fail to address my argument that the building is architectural dreck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last time I checked, the streetlife in NYC and Chicago, cities boasting 2 of the greatest and tallest skylines in the world, is pretty damn good.

 

Have you ever hung out around the base of the Sears Tower?

 

What would Cleveland feel like if Key Tower and the BP building were broken down into 10 ten-story buildings and scattered throughout the WHD and along Prospect.

 

Sounds like Washington DC or Central London.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason, I am here trying to remember who had the quote about people on forums like a person at a party walking in, saying hello and then calling the hosts wife fat (or something like that) :-)

 

On a completely unrelated note: welcome to UO Badge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was locked after discussions sank to some pretty immature levels last night and required a cooling-off period. I'm unlocking it now, and while I don't expect you to agree, I do ask you all to keep the debate civil.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I checked, the streetlife in NYC and Chicago, cities boasting 2 of the greatest and tallest skylines in the world, is pretty damn good.

 

Skylines are irrelevant to NYC having great nightlife.. have you ever been to the financial district after work hours?  It's a ghost town.

 

I find it hilarious people complained for years about "that stupid surface lot" and now when a tangible project is on the table, everyone complains. 

 

Would you rather a smaller, full building be built?  Or a giant, half empty, building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hilarious people complained for years about "that stupid surface lot" and now when a tangible project is on the table, everyone complains. 

 

 

Especially over a rendering!  There has been no project scope or inforamtin given!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man what happened to the "good old days" on this board when people shared information of what they knew on projects... or offered well thought out opinions on both sides of an argument.

 

Now I just see a lot negative screaming that is rife with unitelligent comments that show a general inability to grasp economic principles, viability, urban landscape, and the general process it takes to get things done...

 

eesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting statistic:

 

It's been 17 years since a building taller than 10 stories has been built downtown by a non-governmental entity. And the only 10-story+ building that was built downtown since 1991 was the Stokes Federal Courthouse Tower. That's the slowest period of private office construction downtown since the dry spell between 1930-1955 after Terminal Tower opened and construction on the Illuminating Company's 55 Public Square building began construction.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important to look at this project in a level headed non-simcity way.  I think building a monster scraper would be a huge mistake at this time.  Decisions shouldn't be made based on how we compare to chicago or new york.  If we do, we are going to feel inferior a lot of the time.  Instead we need to build on what we have in place and what is going right.  We are fortuate that we have a lot of things happening right now.  The office market situation with leases expiring and relatively low vacancy is a great thing and allowing projects like FEB to get off the ground and projects like this to move in that direction.  It should not however give us a reason to get out of control.  There is still a lot of uncertainty in the overall economy, and especially the economy here in Cleveland.  As someone mentioned earlier, lending has tightened.  A few of the big name banks here in town have had the lending faucet shut off almost entirely.  I commend Jacobs for taking advantage of an opportunity and filling a need with this project.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hilarious people complained for years about "that stupid surface lot" and now when a tangible project is on the table, everyone complains. 

 

 

 

 

Especially over a rendering!  There has been no project scope or inforamtin given!

 

Well, what's done is done.  It's a new day!!  We can get back to our proper discussions about the property now and not worry about the hissing matches last night!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is I don't want to end up with an over built city, AKA Atlanta or Miami.

 

Right now ATL has 3 towers built in the last 15 years that are atlease 50% vacant, yet built two new buildings.

 

E & Y built their own building and move out of the Bank of America Building.  The space cannot be filled.  A law firm moved out of One Peachtree and built their own building which they cannot fill, leaving two buildings half empty.

 

Yet ATL has a nice skyline and no street life, unless you count the 100's of homeless folks out and about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point, but is it necessary to knock another city to make your own look good? Aside from a tangent, the vacancy rates/homeless populations of other cities have nothing to do with this project.

 

I'm not knocking ATL, just providing a point that "height" doesn't necessarily mean the project is succesfull, needed or makes a city better other than visual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a picture of the lot in question?  I always get the PS lot confused with the ones that are technically in the warehouse district...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a picture of the lot in question?  I always get the PS lot confused with the ones that are technically in the warehouse district...

 

You can see it on goggle street or msn maps.  Its sandwiched in between the CEI building (he thats a throwback) and the renaissance hotel on Superior.

 

Its bound by Public Square, Superior, West 3 and Frankfort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...