Why Is Downtown Cleveland Building Small Buildings (Columbus, Cincinnati: lease, low crime)

[reretarff]

Originally Posted by SquareBetterThanAll

I think a lot the overly negative responses are in response to who posted the question and not the topic at hand.

In my opinion it is 100% supply and demand. Cleveland doesn't have any restrictive zoning in that regard and there is no other outside push to limit the size of buildings. Actually, while the skyline isn't bad, Cleveland's skyline isn't particularly impressive compared to other midsize cities.

There just isn't a need for large amounts of additional office space. Even the large projects that have been built are just responses to existing tenants looking for new class A space (like Flats East Bank) and not because there is an overall demand for more office space.

The comments about skyscrapers being good for tourism and other things like that aren't going to make a difference, really, as anyone that does care about those sorts of things isn't going to build one they aren't going to use themselves (like local government) and anyone that is going to build one doesn't care about tourists (like developers, who only care about ROI) or companies (who only care about utility or, maybe, vanity of the company itself).

The reality of it is developers are only going to build buildings when there is a demand and we don't have the economic growth in the region to support anything like that. The best we can hope for is that local businesspeople start getting motivated to move Downtown from the suburbs, much like Dan Gilbert has done in Detroit. I think he's up to having moved 7.500 of his employees to Downtown Detroit and renovated like 7 or 8 buildings to do so so far. Unfortunately I don't see Progressive or others like that making that sort of move anytime soon.

Thank you for being the only person to give a good, straight forward answer.

[Cleverfield]

Originally Posted by reretarff

That's completely different. They are old European cities with some of the best restaurants in the world. But unfortunately, American cities like Cleveland don't have that quality because they are so new and get more American tourists than foreign tourists.

So we should build skyscrapers for which there's no need or demand in order to attract tourists? Who's going to build them? The taxpayers? So they can sit empty? I don't understand your logic. My point was that other things attract tourists besides skyscrapers. If increasing tourism is your goal there are a multitude of much more practical, less costly, less nonsensical ways to do it.

[reretarff]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

So we should build skyscrapers for which there's no need or demand in order to attract tourists? Who's going to build them? The taxpayers? So they can sit empty? I don't understand your logic. My point was that other things attract tourists besides skyscrapers. If increasing tourism is your goal there are a multitude of much more practical, less costly, less nonsensical ways to do it.

I'm not saying it's a good idea to build a bunch of sky scrapers for the heck of it, but if a building were to be built downtown, I would prefer it to be a sky scraper. The newest projects usually get the most attention and get more people to buy apartments there, especially now that there is a large need for them, and people would buy office space there. Cleveland has 5 sky scrapers that I consider the 5 main sky scrapers. Key Tower, BP Tower, Terminal Tower, One Cleveland Center and The Federal Courthouse Tower. These buildings are popular and receive the most attention. A lot of people would rather have an office in one of these tall sky scrapers, than anywhere else. (Without considering cost, etc.)
If a new sky scraper were built, then more people would live downtown, more restaurants would be downtown and more people would work downtown because more offices would be available.

[ctownballr27]

What about Galleria? It's the fourth tallest building downtown. #TheMoreYouKnow

[ctownballr27]

Originally Posted by reretarff

I'm not saying it's a good idea to build a bunch of sky scrapers for the heck of it, but if a building were to be built downtown, I would prefer it to be a sky scraper. The newest projects usually get the most attention and get more people to buy apartments there, especially now that there is a large need for them, and people would buy office space there. Cleveland has 5 sky scrapers that I consider the 5 main sky scrapers. Key Tower, BP Tower, Terminal Tower, One Cleveland Center and The Federal Courthouse Tower. These buildings are popular and receive the most attention. A lot of people would rather have an office in one of these tall sky scrapers, than anywhere else. (Without considering cost, etc.)
If a new sky scraper were built, then more people would live downtown, more restaurants would be downtown and more people would work downtown because more offices would be available.

Your logic is off bro. YOU ARE JUST PLAIN WRONG.

[reretarff]

Originally Posted by ctownballr27

What about Galleria? It's the fourth tallest building downtown. #TheMoreYouKnow

Ok the hashtags are getting annoying. And I know how tall the Galleria is, but it's not the most "visible" building in downtown.

[reretarff]

Originally Posted by ctownballr27

Your logic is off bro. YOU ARE JUST PLAIN WRONG.

How is my logic wrong? There is a need for apartments downtown and if a tall sky scraper with say 40 floors were built and contained like 2000 or more apartments, or maybe it was mix use and contained offices along with a restaurant of two on the first floor, then it would attract more people. Whenever something new is built downtown, most Clevelanders want to see it. This happened with the BP building and the Horseshoe Casino.

[Urban Peasant]

In my honest opinion, I'd have to agree with Reretarff on this one for the most part but SqaureBetterThanAll pretty much nailed it.

Even as a little boy, I used to like going through other cities in our region to judge and admire their skylines. The taller the skyscraper, the handsomer and the more skyscrapers a downtown had, the bigger the city I felt. There is something about a city's skyline that awes and inspires tourists to want to visit, which is why so many cities like to show their respective skylines on postcards and souvenirs, Cleveland doing it as well. Depending on individual taste, a tall and handsome skyline might not impress every tourist or even resident as some of these comments in this post show but for the most part, skyscrapers are often looked up to as symbols of power, prestige, and prosperity in our culture and society. The only thriving major city in this nation that has pretty much a lousy even non-existent skyline but still attracts tremendous amounts of power and prosperity is Washington DC. I'll let you all figure out why and how that is so as the answer is obvious.

Back to the Cleve. I mentioned it before in other posts, after visiting Cleveland, the one thing I really wished Cleveland would have (ok other than a WS win for the Tribe ) was a better developed skyline. The skyline doesn't look to bad as Square said but it can definitely be better. It just looks incomplete as of right now, especially around Public Square. Key Tower, the BP Building, and Terminal Tower look isolated with the bare sky as the background. If two or three more buildings of similar height as well as several slightly shorter ones were built, then the skyline would look much better. Cleveland might never have as many buildings of great height in the downtown as Pittsburgh because Cleveland's downtown is not geographically limited but a couple more isn't a bad idea either.

So can you blame someone like Reretarff to wish for more tall skyscrapers in the downtown? I don't think anyone in any city can complain about too many skyscrapers unless they were living in Hong Kong or Singapore. I agree it makes no sense to just build skyscrapers and hope that someone occupies them but in the bigger picture, the desire for more tall buildings in Downtown is one indication of a desire for an overall economically healthier downtown. If developers only want to build small and short buildings, it means there either isn't enough demand for big space in the downtown or the developers are unable/unwilling to spend the money to build bigger buildings. That may mean small but forward progress but it may also be a sign of economic stagnation which if true, is not a reality any of us want.

[reretarff]

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

In my honest opinion, I'd have to agree with Reretarff on this one for the most part but SqaureBetterThanAll pretty much nailed it.

Even as a little boy, I used to like going through other cities in our region to judge and admire their skylines. The taller the skyscraper, the handsomer and the more skyscrapers a downtown had, the bigger the city I felt. There is something about a city's skyline that awes and inspires tourists to want to visit, which is why so many cities like to show their respective skylines on postcards and souvenirs, Cleveland doing it as well. Depending on individual taste, a tall and handsome skyline might not impress every tourist or even resident as some of these comments in this post show but for the most part, skyscrapers are often looked up to as symbols of power, prestige, and prosperity in our culture and society. The only thriving major city in this nation that has pretty much a lousy even non-existent skyline but still attracts tremendous amounts of power and prosperity is Washington DC. I'll let you all figure out why and how that is so as the answer is obvious.

Back to the Cleve. I mentioned it before in other posts, after visiting Cleveland, the one thing I really wished Cleveland would have (ok other than a WS win for the Tribe ) was a better developed skyline. The skyline doesn't look to bad as Square said but it can definitely be better. It just looks incomplete as of right now, especially around Public Square. Key Tower, the BP Building, and Terminal Tower look isolated with the bare sky as the background. If two or three more buildings of similar height as well as several slightly shorter ones were built, then the skyline would look much better. Cleveland might never have as many buildings of great height in the downtown as Pittsburgh because Cleveland's downtown is not geographically limited but a couple more isn't a bad idea either.

So can you blame someone like Reretarff to wish for more tall skyscrapers in the downtown? I don't think anyone in any city can complain about too many skyscrapers unless they were living in Hong Kong or Singapore. I agree it makes no sense to just build skyscrapers and hope that someone occupies them but in the bigger picture, the desire for more tall buildings in Downtown is one indication of a desire for an overall economically healthier downtown. If developers only want to build small and short buildings, it means there either isn't enough demand for big space in the downtown or the developers are unable/unwilling to spend the money to build bigger buildings. That may mean small but forward progress but it may also be a sign of economic stagnation which if true, is not a reality any of us want.

Thank you

[Urban Peasant]

Originally Posted by reretarff

Ok the hashtags are getting annoying. And I know how tall the Galleria is, but it's not the most "visible" building in downtown.

All of the postcards I bought on my visit to Cleveland cut out the Erieview Tower. Too bad because I think it is quite a handsome if simple building. If a couple of these were built around Public Square, it would offset the pointed tips of Key Tower and Terminal Tower and make for some architectural balance.