February 7, 200817 yr The best part of this article is the piece of mind that this project pretty much has a concrete completion date for this portion become of Eaton's 2011 centenial deadline--which can hopefully propel everything else to not be delayed fromt he original timelines. Unfortunitely I have to leave Cleveland for two years to do my military service starting in 2009, but I'm scheduled to return 2011...hopefully I will the see the beginning of the lakefront development bridging from FEB, as well as many other projects well underway and/or ready for completion. In a way, maybe it will feel like a time warp to finally seeing these projects completed!
February 7, 200817 yr ^ Im with you... Except what if they dont build it with brick's? :| KJP, I'll teach you what I know about explosives! :wink::drunk:
February 7, 200817 yr I'm really taken off guard by this. Who the hell does Eaton think they are to request an office campus in downtown?!?
February 7, 200817 yr Lets wait for the renderings before we light up the torches and assemble the mob
February 7, 200817 yr By then it'll be too late, so we can at least set up a marshalling yard and start divvying out the oil. clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
February 7, 200817 yr ^I think it's very good to have that kind of fighting attitude. After all, Cleveland has had to put up with too much crap being built within its limits over the years. I'm just wondering if it is already too late. I don't mean to challenge anybody here, but is there realistically anything we can do at this point to make a real change or are we going to have to just sit back and take this thing like we have everything else? It seems to me like they are already too close to start all over again from step one.
February 7, 200817 yr It sounds like no one has any balls anymore because they are afraid they are going to offend a big institution. Talk about leading for the short-term. The campus idea could be interesting if they integrated it with mixed-used development, such as how urban universities like NYU, Columbia and Boston University mingle with the city. Of course, I'm doubtful this is what they mean in this instance. Maybe this is what Stark was going crazy about a couple weeks back when he called this the "worst kind of suburban sprawl" or whatever he said...
February 7, 200817 yr With all the traveling that these supposedly intelligent executives do across the entire planet you would think that they would pick up at least a shred of urban design sensibilities. If Eaton wants a freaking campus move to Solon, I really couldn't give a damn. And seriously, they want that site bad enough that they will pay to move an entire rail line? Are you kidding me? Maybe we can reconfigure the Cuyahoga River to E12th and Superior to give them riverfront property. This is ridiculous.
February 7, 200817 yr The city CAN NOT let eaton just build a corporate campus that could fit into any suburb along the city's prime lakefront. That just can't happen. I'm with you... count me in if a suburban-like campus makes it past the planning commission. I don't know if this was posted yet, but there are newer renderings of the Flats East Bank on Forum Architects website... http://www.forumarc.com/portfolio/flatseastbank/feb1.html
February 7, 200817 yr I don't know if this was posted yet, but there are newer renderings of the Flats East Bank on Forum Architects website... they were posted a bit earlier, but could help the new folks. I agree, however, I would like to ask eaten what their definition of a "campus" is. They say they don't want a skyscraper, but nothing "official" has been said. Shall we email the chairman?
February 7, 200817 yr Even if it is a suburbanized corporate park at least they would be staying downtown and not moving to the burbs. who the f-ck cares if downtown becomes a suburban office park, cleveland is already trying to turn itself into one big suburb and now this crap comes along. id rather eaton move to solon or get the hell out of town altogether if they want to do this even the companies located downtown have a suburban mentality The port "will do all that is necessary to turn the [corporate campus] concept that has been shown to us into a reality," Wasserman wrote. ridiculous look at these 2 morons chiming in on cleveland.com already.... Posted by Paddington1 on 02/07/08 at 2:04AM A $13 billion company wants to stay in Cleveland and you guys are complaining? Who cares what the site looks like or what kind of crappy rails they have to move? It's a miracle anyone would want to stay in Cleveland in the first place...and Eaton can/will be a catalyst for future growth. You can't beat that with a bat! Posted by Rocksider on 02/07/08 at 2:10AM Ladies and gentleman, any development of that area is better than what is there now (been down there lately?...ick). Downtown Chicago has many office campuses near their lakefront. I'd like to think that we might be like them someday as their development seems to do the job nicely. It is really kind of funny to me when I hear how poorly things are being done with regards to economic development in our city. Sometimes, I think many of you don't want anything to happen just so you can keep bitching. Stop talking about "better ways" and have a little faith in the fact the their is finally talk and proof of actual progress. clueless screw it. key should tear down key tower and make a 5-story building spreading over 2 acres downtown tear down terminal tower, its too old and too tall
February 7, 200817 yr they are an extremely large company with only an interest on how these plans impact their bottom-line and their shareholder's stakes. although it would be nice for them to build with an eye towards aesthetically pleasing architectural stylings and special care for the overall urban fabric of a city, unfortunately, more often than not, the impetus behind these decisions are driven by cost and nothing else.
February 7, 200817 yr ^ I don't think that's true at all. Most of the United States' great architectural works have been funded by large corporations. I don't think it's a matter of cost; it's a matter of taste.
February 7, 200817 yr The reality of the situation us that Eaton is know as a very politically conservative company and that has apparently effected their opinions on architecture and how they visualize their new headquarters. A few months ago I saw a proposal for Eaton by one of the largest firms in the city for Stark's project. It was an authentically contemporary proposal and would have made a strong statement for Eaton and may have become an icon for the company. Unfortunately however, their conservative aesthetic views were not in line with this proposal and it wasn't investigated further. I cannot imagine a situation where a corporate campus will seamlessly integrate with the urban fabric, and this is just an f'ing shame. Eaton could have become part of something larger than itself, but it is choosing to corner itself and its significant workforce into an inaccessible nook of the city never to be seen again.
February 7, 200817 yr politically conservative [snip] could have become part of something larger than itself, but it is choosing to corner itself I understand many conservative economies theories, but I think many times they get so lost in the bottom line they forget that there's more to life than just making a little bit more money. To many of them, Quality of Life is a "liberal term" never to be mentioned.
February 7, 200817 yr I'll wait for the plans/renderings to come out before I pass any judgment. All that "campus" says to me is that it will be more than one building. Tyler Village is a "campus" and I think that its layout (regardless of the age of the buildings) fits an urban setting. For comparison's sake, the proposed site for eaton is only 2/3 the size of Tyler Village. Due to demand, I assume that any Eaton campus will not be quite as dense as Tyler and I imagine that Eaton wants a campus setting for the greenspace that can be offered. Now I realize I am not in the majority on this board, but I am happy to have greenspace downtown. Several major cities around the world incorporate greenspace quite well into urban settings (e.g. Singapore). Chicago also has plenty of "green" on its lakefront. Plus, once the port moves, there will be open real estate to develop between any Eaton Campus and the lake.... it is not like the "campus" will abut the lake. All this said, I may change my tune once the renderings come out.
February 7, 200817 yr Barf. Like so many other things in town, yeah! for the income tax base...but otherwise, yawn. Maybe we can reconfigure the Cuyahoga River to E12th and Superior to give them riverfront property. Don't give them any ideas.
February 7, 200817 yr Due to demand, I assume that any Eaton campus will not be quite as dense as Tyler and I imagine that Eaton wants a campus setting for the greenspace that can be offered. Now I realize I am not in the majority on this board, but I am happy to have greenspace downtown. Several major cities around the world incorporate greenspace quite well into urban settings (e.g. Singapore). Chicago also has plenty of "green" on its lakefront. Hts, I hope you're right that this thing might not be too lame. But Tyler village has over 1 million square feet- it's roughly 4 times larger than Eaton's space needs, so I don't think the density will be at all comparable. As for green space: I'm thinking it's going to be more like the Sherwin Williams riverfront campus...which isn't open to the public.
February 7, 200817 yr What I would hate to see is something like the Owens Corning "campus" in Toledo. It engages the waterfront and like a lot of Pelli designs, the materials used on the facade are handsome but look at how it interacts with the area immediately west (to the right of this photo, where the rest of downtown Toledo is): Photo from Hines Properties: clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
February 7, 200817 yr There has to be an example, somewhere in the world, where a company was able to integrate a group of buildings into an urban context.
February 7, 200817 yr The reconfiguring of the Waterfront Line is totally ridiculous. How much would something like that cost? $10,000,000? $20,000,000?
February 7, 200817 yr There has to be an example, somewhere in the world, where a company was able to integrate a group of buildings into an urban context. See NYC-Battery Park See Chicago See Toronto Need I go any further?
February 7, 200817 yr Then why is everyone ready to jump off a ledge before we see any renderings? (BTW, where in Chicago?)
February 7, 200817 yr We've had the debates and one side would rather have offices spread out over several smaller buildings vs. one skyscraper. Isn’t this exactly that? Is it the word “campus” that is conjuring up scary thoughts? Wouldn’t this work better here than in the CBD? Seriously, I’m no expert (there’s a shock) these are genuine questions.
February 7, 200817 yr Author I wouldn't mind a reconfiguring of the Waterfront Line's right of way. The existing loop makes development of that dock area very difficult. And yes, it might cost $10 million or more to reconfigure it. That's fine, but can that be done -- and build a building (or several of them) in time to meet Eaton's 2011 deadline? Yeah, the corporate park doesn't sound too appealing to me, but everyone has their own definitions. I hadn't seen the new renderings of the Flats East Bank, which looks pretty good. If Eaton follows the same type of genre, and ensures a publicly accessible area with ground floor public uses (restaurants, cafes, shops etc), then I'll be content (to address Florida Guy's question -- it's all about the mixed-use, on-the-sidewalk stuff, with more greenspace the closer you get to the water's edge). If this is not, and will be more like Owens Corning's single-use office campus in Toledo, then I will form a militant organization to disrupt, if not demolish this project. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 7, 200817 yr "Is it the word “campus” that is conjuring up scary thoughts?" Yes. clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
February 7, 200817 yr I'd be surprised if their "campus" is open to the public, but I'm happy to be surprised. What scares me is not the word "campus", but the 8.5 acres. That is an absolutely gigantic site for a few hundred thousand square feet office unless its built on corn fields.
February 7, 200817 yr And another example of a "campus" in the lower right: clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
February 7, 200817 yr Author If this is their vision of an office campus, with public spaces and green spaces, then I'm happy. Yep, I realize this is what's proposed farther south in the Flats East District. But it would make sense to continue this land use pattern all the way north to the lake. It's also very similar to what the city had included in its lakefront planning initiatives, which was the result of extensive public input. If Eaton wants swift approval of their land use plans by the CPC, then I would think Eaton would want to design something very close to the city's plan. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 7, 200817 yr Looking over the Forum renderings I'm a little struck at how very similar if not exact the street layout is especially under the Main Ave. bridge. Other than that the other pictures could've been anywhere in the world. If River St. is going to still be there then Wolstein should try to keep some of the buildings mentioned earlier in the thread to keep some character in tact. I'm more confused as to why bother to build a suburban campus on a spot that would seem to call for a single building. I can't see a company like Eaton taking full advantage of the WaterFront line. Perhaps I'm wrong on that account. I doubt they run enough trains for peak rushes. Say 200-300 Eaton employees at 7:30am want to take the train on a snowy day from Tower City. Would the Waterfront line be able to accommodate that?
February 7, 200817 yr re ^ I don't think that's true at all. Most of the United States' great architectural works have been funded by large corporations. I don't think it's a matter of cost; it's a matter of taste. really? care to name a few of these such examples in cleveland?
February 7, 200817 yr re ^ I don't think that's true at all. Most of the United States' great architectural works have been funded by large corporations. I don't think it's a matter of cost; it's a matter of taste. really? care to name a few of these such examples in cleveland? Not so much in recent history, but it's been known to happen. Next! clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
February 7, 200817 yr those are some pretty photos, but the terminal tower for one i know was financed by the van sweringen brothers, real estate speculators...not a Fortune 500 publicly-traded company.
February 7, 200817 yr Author Don't forget the amazing atriums in the Huntington building, National City Bank building, and others. really? care to name a few of these such examples in cleveland? Buy a book on Cleveland architecture sometime. There's countless examples of great architecture funded by corporate interests. There's even some Cleveland architecture book by some skyscraper geek, found at: http://www.amazon.com/Clevelands-Downtown-Architecture-Images-America/dp/0738532029 those are some pretty photos, but the terminal tower for one i know was financed by the van sweringen brothers, real estate speculators...not a Fortune 500 publicly-traded company. OK, now we're splitting hairs. The Van Sweringen brothers had controlling ownership interests in numerous large railroad companies (most were Fortune 500 companies) in this country by the end of the 1920s. And the Terminal Tower complex was built by the Cleveland Union Terminals Co., itself a $1.7 billion (in 1930 $$) corporation when the complex opened. CUT Co. was owned, in part, by the Van Sweringen brothers, as well as New York Central Inc., one of the largest companies in the world in 1930. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 7, 200817 yr also, the Key Tower, nee Ameritrust, WAS a large public corporation, however, if you chop off the top 50 floors, this would fit the space requirement Eaton is looking for (approx. 25,000 sq. ft/floor x 7 floors = 175,000 sq. ft). Now, with having said that, look at the bottom 7 floors that remain. Does that fall under the context of a "United States' great architectural work" as Jamiec mentions above? Certainly not. my point is that everyone needs to temper their expectations given who we are dealing with....
February 7, 200817 yr also, the Key Tower, nee Ameritrust, ......... No, the "Society for Saving" bank.
February 7, 200817 yr Don't forget the amazing atriums in the Huntington building, National City Bank building, and others. really? care to name a few of these such examples in cleveland? Buy a book on Cleveland architecture sometime. There's countless examples of great architecture funded by corporate interests. There's even some Cleveland architecture book by some skyscraper geek, found at: http://www.amazon.com/Clevelands-Downtown-Architecture-Images-America/dp/0738532029 those are some pretty photos, but the terminal tower for one i know was financed by the van sweringen brothers, real estate speculators...not a Fortune 500 publicly-traded company. OK, now we're splitting hairs. The Van Sweringen brothers had controlling ownership interests in numerous large railroad companies (most were Fortune 500 companies) in this country by the end of the 1920s. And the Terminal Tower complex was built by the Cleveland Union Terminals Co., itself a $1.7 billion (in 1930 $$) corporation when the complex opened. CUT Co. was owned, in part, by the Van Sweringen brothers, as well as New York Central Inc., one of the largest companies in the world in 1930. i'm just saying we now live in a much different world than when most of these privately-held companies designed their work space. i'm not saying there don't exist exceptions to this, but they are becoming exceedingly rare... i would be very curious to see what any recently-designed present-day (1990-current) Fortune 500 headquarters look like for comparison sake. just look at walmart's or microsoft...this is what we should expect
February 7, 200817 yr I actually worked in the new Owens-Corning building for a few months in 2000 before I moved to Cleveland. Let me tell you-- I got a damned workout. I don't remember the particulars, but the building is like 3-4 stories tall and about a quarter mile long. When you had to go from one end to the other it was hike. Not to mention they had no structured parking, so you had to walk quite a distance to get into the building. I just can't understand why a company would want to be laid out like that when they could be vertical-- elevators/stairs make everything much closer together.
February 7, 200817 yr i would be very curious to see what any recently-designed present-day (1990-current) Fortune 500 headquarters look like for comparison sake. just look at walmart's or microsoft...this is what we should expect Maybe in Independence but not in the CBD! Comcast Tower under construction in Philly (2007):
February 7, 200817 yr also, the Key Tower, nee Ameritrust, WAS a large public corporation, however, if you chop off the top 50 floors, this would fit the space requirement Eaton is looking for (approx. 25,000 sq. ft/floor x 7 floors = 175,000 sq. ft). Now, with having said that, look at the bottom 7 floors that remain. Does that fall under the context of a "United States' great architectural work" as Jamiec mentions above? Certainly not. my point is that everyone needs to temper their expectations given who we are dealing with.... That doesn't even make sense. That's like saying the Mona Lisa would be ugly if you only had a quarter of it.
February 7, 200817 yr This is a big topic on cleveland.com today with some informed comments, and some not so informed comments. It made me think that we should designate a day and bumrush cleveland.com with the ideas and positive outlook that are discussed here on a daily basis to squelch out the negative vibe and piss off the naysayers over there.
February 7, 200817 yr I agree, but even *I'm* not keen on using the term "bumrush". ;-) clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
February 7, 200817 yr I agree, but even *I'm* not keen on using the term "bumrush". ;-) LMAO!! You Sir, have been on a roll the past two days! I love me some "funny" MayDay. No pun intended.
February 7, 200817 yr ^Um, I wasn't aware that "bumrush" was a double entendre, or is it something else entirely?? :wtf:
Create an account or sign in to comment