Dino

The cut out section for a roof terrace on the tower gives me hope that something cool might be planned for the Center of Excellence- perhaps another roof garden or connected terraces above street level. The way that the view of Public Square was described as such a big amenity, I can't believe they would put a standard flat roof with mechanical equipment right out front, and only three stories up where everyone from every building will see it. Fingers crossed!

Does anyone know if relocating the port to E. 55th is still a possibility? Or is that off the table?

I'm assuming that a new stadium will come with major City and County contributions as well as perhaps a new tax or bond issue. I think that's a fair assumption since every NFL stadium built in the last 10 years has cost well over $1B. That's the hundreds of millions I believe are at stake- not the Haslam's. If the Haslam's are paying for it all, then sure, I would support a new stadium. However, if the political powers that be are going to support a major publicly funded project, I think it would be smarter to invest in something we don't already have or build on what we do have. A modern airport, downtown RTA loop, land bridge, transit hub, are some examples of how I think we might use public funds to enhance Cleveland. And I'm all for improving the existing stadium, adding a roof, etc., just at a fraction of the cost of building new. I guess I just don't think the existing stadium is as terrible as some people do. I travel to Kansas City often, and it's somewhat comparable to Cleveland. KC's baseball and football stadiums are both about 50 years old, and they've renovated instead of replacing them. Those stadiums aren't top of the line, but they aren't bad either. 5 years ago, KC built a downtown streetcar line that is free to ride and is currently building a new $1.5B airport (guess what, that's the cost of a new NFL stadium, and probably a cheap one at that). Those recent investments would have been more difficult had they built new stadiums. I just think that's a more sustainable way to build up your city; constantly adding newer and better elements instead of rebuilding what you already have. And it's not a lazy argument. I respect the opinion that a new stadium would be great. It would. But the easy thing to do is to wipe the slate clean and start over, wouldn't it?. That's what I always did in Sim City. I just don't think that makes sense in this case.

There's probably better sites for the stadium than the lakefront, but it's already there and only 22 years old. I can't imagine hundreds of millions being spent to start all over. I think rebuilding it would be a huge waste. The location isn't THAT bad and those hundreds of millions could be used on so many things that would do more for Cleveland.

I think the money spent on fixing those sheds up would put a strain on the overall budget. I agree it would be awesome if they were kept, but I also understand the decision to spend the money on the building and not the parking. I view this as sacrificing a pawn to save the queen.

I love rehabs and really believe in the ethics of reusing what you've got. Unfortunately in America, regulations, and more importantly, financial incentives, heavily favor new construction. Historic tax credits are one of the few exceptions. When you factor in life cycle costs and embedded energy, rehabs are much better for the environment, even if they aren't as efficient or well insulated. Plus rehabs are more labor intensive meaning more of the cost goes to local labor and material, as opposed to new construction that relies primarily on cheap materials manufactured elsewhere, with local labor costs kept as low as possible. This is why rehabs tend to be more expensive, but because the money stays local, more reason to incentivize it. There are other benefits to incentivize preservation, but sustainability and economics are powerful arguments and aren't used enough when discussing preservation/rehab projects and subsidies.

Good idea! With all the projects being planned right now I wish there was more collaboration or discussion on how different projects or developers could help each other. Does this happen at a high level the general public is unaware of? Or does it just not happen at all?

Those buildings have wood decks in the back that were (or still are?) used for patio seating. A boardwalk project could replace those decks free of charge to the building owners in exchange for a public access easement. And any restaurant could still use most of it for outdoor seating. Could be win-win.

Great idea. Between highways, train tracks and surface parking lots, downtown sometimes feel like a collection of tiny areas instead of a big downtown. The more the pieces are connected the better.

I was curious about the ratio of park space to people, so I did a little research. I used a variety of sources (mostly auditors website for park size and credible websites for the rest) and I'll admit it's not scientific, but its a start. Downtown Cleveland (bounded by the river, lake, E. 18th, and Carnegie) has roughly 45 acres of public park space. This does not include privately owned public space such as the plazas in front of any office buildings (like Erieview Tower, etc.) or any space around the stadiums or museums. Just public parks. Downtown has a population of 20,000. This equals roughly an acre per 445 people. You can do the math if you want to include the roughly 100,000 daily office workers in the calculation. Ohio City has around 10 acres of public parks. I excluded schools because they aren't always open to the public. At roughly 10,000 residents, this equals about an acre for every 1,000 people. Once the 23 acre Irishtown Bend is complete, Ohio City will have 33 acres total or 1 acre for every 300 people. There are about 5,000 daily workers in Ohio City if you want to include them as well. Cleveland as a whole has roughly 1 acre of public park for every 130 residents. This seems to be pretty average for cities of it's size and age. It's on par with Boston, Philadelphia, Buffalo, and Baltimore. The American Planning Association recommends 1 acre per 100 residents. This would apply across an entire city, not just a neighborhood, and it appears this recommendation has not changed since 1965.

I respect your opinion and agree that eliminating the park would be a thorny issue to many.

I agree with w28th. I love the overall idea, but lose the green space. Downtown has more green space than it needs already. We sorely need new development to populate the open spaces we already have.

I think the County owning the land as opposed to a private owner makes a big difference. I see the County being more likely to work with developers on a realistic, if not, advantageous, sale price. I imagine the land swap will be needed to pay for the new project too, so they will be even more motivated to make something work. The reason we ended up with all those surface lots downtown is that there was little incentive for private owners to sell. Still, Lakewood tried to do the same thing with the Lakewood Hospital site, and the developer fell through and left a pit in the middle of downtown. But like the Lakewood Hospital site, I don't think the Courthouse site would sit indefinitely because government typically has more to gain through making a development happen.

Yeah. I suppose we're all going overboard, but it's no different than people obsessing about sports- speculating about trades, debating different players skills, etc. This forum is the closet thing to Architectural ESPN. Excitement + Uncertainty = Wild Speculation!

I'll try to offer a rational critique and not opine... What Ken's article highlights is the discrepancy between what the project says it's trying to accomplish and what the architecture is giving us. Here are a few examples... Site selection indicates something iconic vs. the architecture being very unassuming "Corporate campus" idea indicates interaction and activity vs. the bridges and private COE on Public Square which imply privacy and isolation Centralizing HQ operations vs. intentionally spreading project over 3 separate parcels Attracting new young talent/thinking about the future vs. designs ideas that are not at the forefront of current trends Case in point- While I hate both the Eaton and Progressive headquarters, my opinion is irrelevant. I think what's relevant is that the architecture and design of those projects reflect the corporate goals, culture, and aspirations. There's real clarity there, just like there's clarity with a tech company that provides hip interiors to attract young, tech savvy employees. My critique of the SHW project to date, and I think what Ken's article points out, is that this project has a real identity crisis. So much of the project seems to be at odds with itself. I'm thrilled SHW is staying downtown and that they will be located on Public Square, but choosing that site made a statement that the architecture is not backing up yet.

Based on everything so far it seems like the massing and form will be a lot like the BOK Building- with the connected conference space like Devon. In which case it will look almost identical to the Federal Building on 9th. Not great when your architectural comparison is a 50+ year old building built by the federal govt. Even with the new facade, this is an extremely low bar. Plus, designs get whittled down through the development process. They almost never get more ambitious. This is a real bummer.

Is there any data on the economic benefit this project will have? Or better yet, does anyone know if there is general consensus on the value of cities providing economic development incentives? I get that 3500 jobs leaving Cleveland would have been devastating, but keeping them here also cost the City $100M. I realize the economics are complicated, but I would assume it might take Cleveland 10-15 years to break even on that deal. Meanwhile that money could have been used on things like airport improvements, downtown loop, multi-modal transit center, and other things that would actually make Cleveland a place companies might WANT to be located in. It just feels like cities like Cleveland are between a rock and a hard place. I'm genuinely interested in learning more about this- I figured you all might have some insight. Sorry if this isn't "on topic" Feel free to move it to another thread.

Weren't they all set to build on this site before the Valspar acquisition? Haven't they been considering this project, on this site, for years? I get that this is a big project, but commercial office design isn't exactly rocket science either. And by all indications, they are proposing anything that hasn't already been built a million times.

Good to hear!

I hope you're right, but I'm worried that TMUD actually makes spin off development harder. Assuming TMUD continues year to year (I think it's only a two or three year window right now), and assuming several large Cleveland projects utilize it in the next few years, how much demand will there be for downtown apartments or hotel, or office space in 4 or 5 years when a spin off development is likely to happen? The TMUD creates capital, which could create a lot of supply, but it can't create demand. Unless something is already being planned on this site in conjunction with the HQ, I'm worried anything else on this site could be late to the game. Downtown could be overbuilt before the full block is filled in. Again, I'm no expert- but that's what I thought of when seeing the HQ site plan. I really hope I'm wrong though.

I find the scariest part of this plan to be the undeveloped portions of the site. If SHW doesn't develop it, or if it isn't included in some master plan that is concurrent with SHW, I find it hard to envision it getting developed within the next 10 years or even beyond that. I'm no real estate expert but here's a few observations. 1. SHW is only moving a few blocks. This isn't exactly 1000 NEW jobs all of the sudden creating a demand for new apartments, hotel rooms, and restaurants. Sure there might be a small net gain, but with Breen going to Brecksville it won't be much. 2. There are hundreds (maybe a few thousand) of apartments downtown planned and practically shovel ready. And hundreds more if the Landmark is back filled with apartments, which is only logical. I don't see this site being a homerun for more apartments. And if so- it might be a decade away. 3. Hotels can barely fill rooms now. It could be years before the existing hotels downtown bounce back. It's hard to believe someone financing a hotel project with vacancies what they are right now. 4. Spec office space sure seems like a stretch. 5. Timing- SHW will probably need the entire site throughout construction for staging, so any new development would be around 2025 if we're lucky. By then, we'll have hundreds more apartments, maybe even a new hotel somewhere else downtown, and if Nucleus or any other of these planned developments go, there will be little need for new office space either. Plus, Cleveland has been in the middle of a building boom the last 10 years or so. How long do we expect that to last? 6. These sites were previously owned by Weston and Jacobs, right? They are very capable developers, owned them for years, and didn't develop them. I don't see Weston or someone else all of the sudden doing a 180 on this site just because SHW moved a few blocks (unless there's a secret plan in place that no one knows about yet.) 6. SHW expansion- Given how long it took them to move, and how long its taking them to plan this building, how long will it take them to pull the trigger on an expansion project? 7. If these sites aren't being developed concurrently with SHW, they will likely be planned at the end of a building boom and beginning or middle of a recession in an oversaturated market. With those conditions, at that time in the future, you know what I would bet is the easiest and most profitable use of the land? SURFACE PARKING. Most people on the forum have talked about filling in the void as the most essential part of the project. This site plan has me really worried that it won't happen.

@KJP- This is random, but I was wondering why SHW is never mentioned as a possible TMUD project? It's clear they don't need it to make the project work, but if it's there, wouldn't they take it? I assumed they might even seek allocations for phases separately. Is there something prohibiting them from doing so?

I'm really confused by how this is all turning out. SHW never wanted an iconic skyscraper, yet they picked the most high profile location in the City. SHW never seemed interested in a super tall building, yet they bought some of the most expensive real estate available (high land cost usually necessitates height). There was talk about a design that would attract new, young talent, yet the architecture seems stuck in the 50's and 60's (it's going to look like Phase 2 of the 55 Building) It's not my place to judge the goals or objectives of the project, but the decisions so far don't seem in sync with their intentions. It seems to me like this project is pulling in two different directions. It's like they can't decide if they want a high profile, urban HQ, or a low-key, suburban campus. Or worse, they are trying to find a middle ground- those don't usually end up as great projects.

I couldn't agree more

Like most people, I was hoping for an iconic skyscraper over 500'. While it won't impress outsiders as much, I think those of us that live here will benefit more by completely filling in this site with buildings 10-30 stories high. It will go a much longer way in making Cleveland feel like a "big city" again. I think DC is a great example of that-they don't have many buildings over 10 stories, but it's really dense. Plus, the 27 story building might get close to 500' anyway. We are all reacting to massings showing the skyline view, which might have us all feeling a little disappointed. Can we see the massings from a few street level vantage points? Seeing how massive this is at street level might give us a different perspective. How about it Geowizical?