OMG, I can't believe what I'm reading! For a lot of reasons, but partly because we've been driving across the country to Phoenix since Thursday — and am way behind on UrbanOhio. Literally, 4 hours ago, we were in downtown OKC at a stop light; my son was commenting about how tall the BOK building looked through the sunroof, as we were right next to it. I pointed out how you could see the reflection of the Devon Energy Center in its facade. 

 

But of course if I'd have read this all last night, I could/would have taken 1,000 pics of it from every angle. Dammit!!!!

 

What is the latest thinking about when SHW will put us all out of our misery by releasing initial renderings?

14 minutes ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

What is the latest thinking about when SHW will put us all out of our misery by releasing initial renderings?

 

They may release renderings for different buildings or blocks of buildings at different times. Looks like things will start with the base HQ building and possibly the Public Square center. The first renderings could come out in a month or two depending on how comfortable they are with their interior programming. But Planning Commission will probably want to see how these buildings relate to the overall site plan and thus their surroundings (after all, it's in an historic district) so they may have to have some a scenes at least for the rest of the site.

15 hours ago, KJP said:

Frankly, SHW couldn't run an effective PR campaign if their lives depended on it. I feel sorry for the many employees of SHW. They deserve to know what their employer is doing, as do the citizens of this city, county and state -- especially since $100 million of our tax dollars are now invested in this project. I wish SHW didn't play these childish/paranoid PR games and instead involved the community in this important project. Many of my sources chose to be my sources for that very reason. And for that I thank you.

 

Right. This is the stodgy company that fired that guy who brought so much good attention via social media. 

On 1/16/2021 at 1:13 PM, 646empire said:

It’s an office building in Ohio, not some secret military base in the middle of the pacific. Why is it so much anxiety surrounding this project? To be honest I don’t believe that company executives (or the actual people who are making these HQ decisions) are on this website or any other planting decoys and misinformation like the CIA. Sherwin is going to build what they want to build period. I would assume because of the location they may put a little razzle dazzle on the building but don’t be surprised if it ends up being a standard glass box. I remember when General Electric announced its global operations center for Cincinnati’s riverfront and everyone assumed it would be some architectural marvel and it turned out to be a plain old glass box. Come to find out they never wanted anything special just plain old modern space with some newer amenities like a gym and lounge pods and such. GE also got incentives from the city and state but it doesn’t matter they are gonna order up whatever they see fit in whatever budget they put forth. Sherwin is a paint company, I never expected some super tall or glitzy HQ everything I’m reading is spot on what I expected when this project was first announced. Great American Tower, Cincinnati’s newest tall building was done fine in my opinion, nothing stunning but just enough in style and height *and something similar would work great at the Cleveland site

 

Taking a moment to recover from the Browns game (great season)  - checking the thread and seeing the Great American Tower mentioned.  I don't know about anybody else, but I'd be quite fine with a building like this for SW - except that the crown feels a little...um, "feminine" (no offense to our lady forum members)  for a gritty town like Cleveland.  But It really shows how a spire can extend the perception and actual height of a building.  I'd want a little more height in SW's actual building, too.  Great American Tower's roofline (495 feet)  is actually not as high as  Erieview Tower - it's the ornate tiara that pushes it to 665'.   I don't have any reason to think that a proudly conservative company would do it, but it'd be nice to get  a tapered top or a spire of some kind to create a better simpatico with the Big 3.  Considering the larger rectangular dimension of the current unofficial HQ base building,  (especially with it's height clearly extending up into the skyline at 600' or so)  I think the a strictly flat roof/top would have less synergy with the other tall towers around the square. 

On 1/16/2021 at 1:41 PM, Silent Matt said:

That’s a handsome building. Except for that monstrosity on top of it.

The building is ok, but the giant hair net on top of it is embarrassing. 

1 hour ago, 3231 said:

The building is ok, but the giant hair net on top of it is embarrassing. 

There are a plethora of adjectives we could throw at it but I think it’s still better than a flat topped BOK knockoff. But that’s just me.

On 1/16/2021 at 3:00 PM, KJP said:

 

They may release renderings for different buildings or blocks of buildings at different times. Looks like things will start with the base HQ building and possibly the Public Square center. The first renderings could come out in a month or two depending on how comfortable they are with their interior programming. But Planning Commission will probably want to see how these buildings relate to the overall site plan and thus their surroundings (after all, it's in an historic district) so they may have to have some a scenes at least for the rest of the site.

Ken, please forgive my ignorance on such matters, but how much weight or influence does the Planning Commission have? Could they, for instance, say, “No, we don’t want a four story museum on public square. We would prefer the 600 foot skyscraper there.” ? Or is it more just about the looks of the buildings?

Edited January 18, 20214 yr by Silent Matt

10 hours ago, Silent Matt said:

Ken, please forgive my ignorance on such matters, but how much weight or influence does the Planning Commission have? Could they, for instance, say, “No, we don’t want a four story museum on public square. We would prefer the 600 foot skyscraper there.” ? Or is it more just about the looks of the buildings?

 

They can say what they want but legally, as long as a proposed building conforms to the building code, they can't do anything but approve it.

The city planning commission has denied projects that failed to get certificate of appropriateness from landmarks. They'd get a chance to review if any of the parcels are in a designated historic district, like the Warehouse District. Though I imagine somebody like Sherwin Williams would get considerable leeway compared to somebody building a house in Ohio City.

be careful what you wish for great american in cinci is a severely mixed bag.

 

i like it looks and height-wise as its nice and the hairnet gives it personality. so something like that would be fine, albeit conservative. 

 

however, i despise the base of that building. that is doing downtown urban completely wrong. its like the base for a prison or an outer loop office. and its just lazy, off the shelf ugly. i would hope for a much more interactive base for sw’s setting. thats going to be up to city hall and the public to demand and monitor for sw hq and all the rest of the sw campus.

well i agree this seems to be turning into a muddled mess, and no surprize with such an uncreative agency as pickard in charge, lets keep hope alive.

 

the latest campus iteration, keeping the hq tower off the square and putting an sw experience building there, maybe it isnt the worst thing in the world???

 

it could be part interactive company museum, with fun stuff to do for families and schoolkids, part anchor superstore and partly a restaurant or lunch food hall and the like that opens up to face the square a bit. 

 

what i dont understand though, is they also need a high end hotel and i dont see space for it in the new plans, so why not partner and put it here on the square too? that would give this sw experience building some hotel added height and presence. a modern mixed use building with all that and even if its low-rise could still be a unique look on public square if they do it right.

https://forum.urbanohio.com/topic/17064-cleveland-random-visualizations-massings/?do=findComment&comment=1000323&_rid=3501

 

This has changed my mind about putting the HQ on Weston lot. It looks great.

 

Edited April 19, 20214 yr by Silent Matt

The symmetry of the tower being at 3rd and Superior doesn't bother me as much when you consider that the BP tower is set away from the Square behind its atrium/podium. Provided its built right up onto the sidewalk, it would be ~340ft from the curb on PS, vs ~260ft for the BP Tower (measured on Google Maps). From the above massing, I think that helps bring attention to both Terminal Tower and Key as Cleveland's two landmark towers, whereas currently the focus is brought mostly to Key.

On 1/8/2021 at 12:29 PM, GISguy said:

Also the fact that their streets aren't 47 lanes wide helps, unlike our SLC-esque wide streets. 

We're not talking Wilshire or Olympic Blvd here.

 

Cleveland's Avenues are not that wide compared to most other cities, including Detroit.

 

Superior "appears" to be wider than it is in this area because of the sea of parking lots. 

6 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

We're not talking Wilshire or Olympic Blvd here.

 

Cleveland's Avenues are not that wide compared to most other cities, including Detroit.

 

Superior "appears" to be wider than it is in this area because of the sea of parking lots. 

 

Lol.  I just got home from walking on Wilshire Blvd to Western Ave and back for a bit of Korean market shopping.  I live on Plymouth Blvd between Wilshire and Olympic, so your post got me excited.  For the record, Wilshire really isn't too wide, all things considered.

 

As concerns SW, I agree with Silent Matt, I think the tower looks good a bit farther away from the Square.

^ I went to undergrad and Med School in LA so I know those "Boulevards" very well, including La Cienega, Fairfax, Highland, Crescent Heights, Crenshaw, Pico, Santa Monica, Melrose, La Brea, Sunset and Ventura Blvds. In West LA, BH, Brentwood to Santa Monica and south, the Blvds. get pretty wide and Prospect, Euclid, Superior, St. Clair and Lakeside could easily fit within their geographies. As you move East, Cleveland's Avenues actually get narrower.

 

I'll await all further SW judgements until we actually see something substantive.

Edited January 19, 20214 yr by Frmr CLEder

If this is the direction they are going, well, so be it, though I still think it is a bit too tall and too blocky if it's going to be so tall.

 

The important thing becomes, really, what the "paint museum" piece is like. It's got to be tall "enough", at the very least taller than the old post office and original library building, and it's got to be expressed as strong enough to hold its own and do justice to the square.

 

 

Edited January 19, 20214 yr by postpanglossian
too long?

I also still worry about how the tower will feel among the buildings of the warehouse district, and I certainly hope that the beautiful wall of W. Superior Avenue is actually enhanced -- and not just interrupted by an exaggerated punctuation mark, especially one that is not only excessively vertical but also clad in such a way that it becomes too flimsy looking, appearing to belong in the culture and climate of the sunbelt.

 

10 hours ago, postpanglossian said:

I also still worry about how the tower will feel among the buildings of the warehouse district...

I agree.  Hopefully, whatever is built across the street from the old warehouse buildings on W 6th and St. Clair will blend in nicely in terms of height and style.  That's why I'd rather see one tall tower on the Jacobs lot and relatively shorter buildings on the other sites.

First time post, but thought these designs would fit well on Public Square.  Skyscraper and 20 story:  

Edited January 19, 20214 yr by CleveDeco
new image

^ like a classic era throwback hq tower designed by robert a.m. stern? hmm, now that would be high class. and big bux!

Posted today on PC’s instagram. Is this something similar to what we should be expecting? I think I can get onboard with a design like this.

^I saw that today as well.  I especially liked the street level design (not depicted in the above pic)/

40 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

^I saw that today as well.  I especially liked the street level design (not depicted in the above pic)/

Same! We just need some renderings already

Also, that new Dominion Energy tower above is 1 million sq ft. but only 20 stories tall. And it houses roughly 1,000 employees

12 hours ago, CleveDeco said:

First time post, but thought these designs would fit well on Public Square.  Skyscraper and 20 story:  

 

Add a gradient wash to the elevation, and we have the return of Hugh Ferris. This Would either be a mind stretcher, a great departure point (with a better top), or 90 years too late. I am a lover of art deco skyscrapers too, but probably not for SHW.

Edited January 20, 20214 yr by fgerlak

if they're going to make a replica of the bok building, that means we're also getting 250 foot stretch of superior with that parking garage. it looks like they designed the retail space to fulfil design requirements and not to actually create usable space.   

Love Art Deco, love the idea of these designs ending up on Public Square.  But to anyone who thinks that’s what Sherwin-Williams new HQ will look like I got magic beans for sale.

 

1 hour ago, Sapper Daddy said:

Love Art Deco, love the idea of these designs ending up on Public Square.  But to anyone who thinks that’s what Sherwin-Williams new HQ will look like I got magic beans for sale.

 

Let us dream 😢

If we have to have a box, this would be a better option, has a little more panache. It's the new tallest proposed for Oakland. Kendall Heaton Associates is the architect of record, and Pickard Chilton is the design consultant. 

 

https://sfyimby.com/2021/01/elevations-revealed-as-415-20th-street-heads-to-oakland-design-review-committee.html

2 hours ago, Paul in Cleveland said:

If we have to have a box, this would be a better option, has a little more panache. It's the new tallest proposed for Oakland. Kendall Heaton Associates is the architect of record, and Pickard Chilton is the design consultant. 

 

https://sfyimby.com/2021/01/elevations-revealed-as-415-20th-street-heads-to-oakland-design-review-committee.html

 

This is a great example of what I've been saying above that small details make a big impact on a simple building. Just like the above building is very simple but with interesting "trim" so to speak. We could see a design which is "very similar" to the BOK Park Place building but has design details that set it apart and make it shine.

 

I'm looking forward to real renderings.

I’m looking forward to a massing..

2 minutes ago, audidave said:

I’m looking forward to a massing..

 

How about a site plan? 🤔

 

Riverpoint in Chicago is 1,000,0000 sq ft, it would be a perfect fit on the square.

 

Here's a digital render of the design @Paul in Cleveland posted above.

 

To beat fully to death the point I've been making above, I think if you took the facade style off this building and put it on the BOK Park Plaza shape, you could have a very attractive, even "stunning" building.

 

But again, as @KJP said, we don't even have a site plan yet...

1 minute ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 

Here's a digital render of the design @Paul in Cleveland posted above.

 

To beat fully to death the point I've been making above, I think if you took the facade style off this building and put it on the BOK Park Plaza shape, you could have a very attractive, even "stunning" building.

 

But again, as @KJP said, we don't even have a site plan yet...

 

They're very close to having a site plan. It seems they know pretty much where everything will go. And what will be left to others to develop.

14 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

 And what will be left to others to develop.

 

One can only hope this means no Public Square paint museum.

Reading this thread makes me feel like a deviant for pretty much not caring how tall any of the buildings will be or how they will look from 2 miles away as part of the skyline.  But I'm champing at the bit for more info about the site plan, ground floor programming, curb cuts, and renderings from street level.  Looking very forward to KJP's teased update...

12 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 

One can only hope this means no Public Square paint museum.

Agreed.  They could just put a paint exhibit at the science center.

25 minutes ago, KJP said:

And what will be left to others to develop.

 

I love hearing these words. From the beginning, when it became clear that SW would buy both the super block and public square I was afraid. It's way too much land for one company. At the same time I always held out that maybe they just wanted to buy it all, take the best parts that work for their vision and sell off the rest for other uses. Hearing these words gives me hope this may turn out to be the case!

Edited January 21, 20214 yr by viscomi

3 minutes ago, StapHanger said:

Reading this thread makes me feel like a deviant for pretty much not caring how tall any of the buildings will be or how they will look from 2 miles away as part of the skyline.  But I'm champing at the bit for more info about the site plan, ground floor programming, curb cuts, and renderings from street level.  Looking very forward to KJP's teased update...

Agree 100%.  Hate to beat a dead horse but the ground level design is way more important than height.  We are talking about 2 huge blocks in the center of the city.

15 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

Agree 100%.  Hate to beat a dead horse but the ground level design is way more important than height.  We are talking about 2 huge blocks in the center of the city.

 

That's why the

Quote

And what will be left to others to develop.

is so promising to me. I have almost zero faith Sherwin Williams would give us an excellent urban environment across all that acreage. Especially with accessory structures such parking garages. They just want parking, I don't see them going above and beyond the bare minimum to comply with code. Now if they were to just focus on building a straight up parking structure, within the the block (not along ROW) and then sell the frontage land to other developers to install other uses, then we are left with way better urban form/land use. 

50 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

Agree 100%.  Hate to beat a dead horse but the ground level design is way more important than height.  We are talking about 2 huge blocks in the center of the city.

 

Actually, THE most important part about every downtown development is how nice does it look from Parma. 😤

...Or the I-480 bridge over the Cuyahoga River Valley.

Edited January 23, 20214 yr by Frmr CLEder

On 1/21/2021 at 5:58 AM, bwheats said:

 

Riverpoint in Chicago is 1,000,0000 sq ft, it would be a perfect fit on the square.

Call me old fashioned, but I’d prefer a design that isn’t based off a deodorant container! 😝

SUNDAY, JANUARY 24, 2021

Sherwin-Williams HQ site plan, buildings come into focus

 

A site plan for the Sherwin-Williams (SHW) headquarters (HQ) in downtown Cleveland is coming into focus. And what the HQ lacks in height, it might make up for in street presence especially along West 6th Street and St. Clair Avenue.

 

SHW-owned properties along those two streets are proposed to be developed by others. Last summer, SHW acquired the Superblock (bounded by Superior, West 6th, St. Clair, West 3rd) from the Weston Group as well as the Public Square lot from the Jacobs Group. The 6.82 acres of land is used entirely by surface parking lots.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/01/sherwin-williams-hq-site-plan-buildings.html

This all sounds fine except the public square part. That sounds awful.

Why have a walkway?  I dont like that part either.