Cleveland Development Discussions (Beachwood, Eaton: wage, ordinances, deals)

[Cleveland_Collector]

Originally Posted by RobF1129

Cleveland isn't NYC where a skyscraper needs to be 800 feet to be noticeable. The convention center hotel will be a skyline changer at 370 feet. To give you some perspective it'll be 50 feet taller than the Ernst & Young Tower and sitting at a higher elevation.

But to answer your question for the moment...no. However, given the desire of millennials to live in a bustling urban setting - companies looking to acquire young talent and accommodate them by setting up shop close to where they live and play - the demand for updated class A office space by companies leads to development in a city's downtown to either attract or retain those companies - and the existence of surface parking near Public Square that given the right opportunity is prime real estate.

If you're looking for skyscrapers of that magnitude in Cleveland (and I'll admit I'm being bullish) but I would say tune in some time in the next decade and we may see one or two popping up

People simply do not understand that super-tall buildings (over 40 stories or so) are not only expensive to build but also pose efficiency, maintenance and systems issues (HVAC, elevators, water/sewage, electrical harmonics, etc.) that smaller buildings do not. They're built generally when there is no other choice but to do so. This is usually when real estate is cost prohibitive (like in Manhattan). Earlier in 20th century America, they were often seen as a symbol of success. Today, they're largely seen as inefficient and impractical when there is enough real estate available to build more, smaller buildings. That's why you don't see all that many of them built these days unless you go to places that are still enamored with them (UAE, China, etc.). The reality of the situation is that buildings like the Burj Khalifa, while quite the spectacle, are ultimately ridiculous once you start to recognize the presented challenges of the project -- challenges which could simply be avoided by making the thing shorter, wider and with a silghtly larger footprint.

[WindowShopper]

Residence at 1717 are supposed to be opening in July. It looks like the Westin on 9th and St. Clair is pretty close to finishing as well. The exterior looks pretty good, they have their signage up facing 9th st.

[JoeP]

The convention center hotel will be a skyline changer at 370 feet.

It will be a nice addition. 370 ft is not game changing unless we're talking about Youngstown...

[RobF1129]

Originally Posted by JoeP

It will be a nice addition. 370 ft is not game changing unless we're talking about Youngstown...

Projected height will replace the AT&T building on Huron Road as the 12th tallest building in the city. Call it game changing or don't..it's semantics

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

People simply do not understand that super-tall buildings (over 40 stories or so) are not only expensive to build but also pose efficiency, maintenance and systems issues (HVAC, elevators, water/sewage, electrical harmonics, etc.) that smaller buildings do not. They're built generally when there is no other choice but to do so. This is usually when real estate is cost prohibitive (like in Manhattan). Earlier in 20th century America, they were often seen as a symbol of success. Today, they're largely seen as inefficient and impractical when there is enough real estate available to build more, smaller buildings. That's why you don't see all that many of them built these days unless you go to places that are still enamored with them (UAE, China, etc.). The reality of the situation is that buildings like the Burj Khalifa, while quite the spectacle, are ultimately ridiculous once you start to recognize the presented challenges of the project -- challenges which could simply be avoided by making the thing shorter, wider and with a silghtly larger footprint.

I don't think the lack of commercial high-rise buildings in the U.S. has to do with them being inefficient or impractical; impractical only in the context of today's lack-luster, low job creating economy, also known as no or low demand.

The smaller, low-rise, larger footprint commercial buildings are in suburbs or other non-CBD where the cost of the land is less prohibitive.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Why would we need an 800 foot skyscraper? Talk about a dumb and wasteful idea.

Cleveland needs an 800' skyscraper it's just that there's no demand for one.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Cleveland needs an 800' skyscraper it's just that there's no demand for one.

Why does Cleveland need an 800 foot skyscraper exactly? So people can feel important because, hey, there's a big building, we must be important?

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Why does Cleveland need an 800 foot skyscraper exactly? So people can feel important because, hey, there's a big building, we must be important?

No, because new, large commercial buildings are a sign of economic commitment and growth. Jobs fill office buildings; big office buildings means big job numbers with companies expanding or relocating to fill the space. New jobs in the city mean more people using transit, spending money etc. People working in these buildings might not feel important but they would be happy to have a job. Maybe a new company relocating to CLE in one of these buildings would hire you so you could return to CLE. Or maybe some of the young college grads could move to CLE and get out of their minimum wage jobs they're stuck in.

Are you seriously saying that if a developer announced a 50 story 1 million+ sq. building on Public Square or any of the many, sometimes vast, surface parking lots downtown, you would be ''no big deal, who needs that''?

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Are you seriously saying that if a developer announced a 50 story 1 million+ sq. building on Public Square or any of the many, sometimes vast, surface parking lots downtown, you would be ''no big deal, who needs that''?

Yes. It's wasteful, will be empty, and end up being an embarrassment.

Lots of great cities don't have many impressive skyscrapers, and guess what- they're doing fine. I live in one. Totally overrated and pointless.

[JoeP]

Call it game changing or don't..it's semantics

Calling it semantics suggests that we're talking about similar things. "Game changing" by definition suggests, well game changing, BIG. It's a welcome addition and I hope that Cleveland sees more, but a nice addition and a game changer are two different things, and that not a matter of wording or semantics.