They could build the excellence center on superior next to the hq.

3 hours ago, smimes said:

 

Look, I agree with you that SW is part of the community and should be making every effort to interface their building with the community as a whole, especially considering the subsidies they are getting.  And considering that it's been reported that they will conform to the Urban Overlay zoning on W3, I think they are making reasonable efforts here.  But I am not aware of any particular subsidy being contingent on any particular design plan.  If the City of Cleveland (or County or State) wanted the tower built on the Jacobs lot, then they would have made the subsidies contingent on that fact.  But to our governments (which represent the community), it doesn't matter whether the tower is built on the Jacobs lot or the W3 lot.  They just care that it is being built to retain the jobs in the region/downtown.  The tower being located 200 ft from PS doesn't change the transformative impact that this development will have for the City (or County or State) either financially or for the walkability/vibrancy of this area.  

 

By the nature of corporate governance, the priorities of any CEO is to the company first.  The c-suite reports to the Board of Directors, who are elected by the shareholders.  If the shareholders are unhappy, they can elect new Board members, who can ultimately fire the c-suite.  Plus, compensation of the c-suite is usually closely tied to shareholder performance.  I guess I'm confused as to why you think these decisionmakers are beholden to some unknown and vague requests by a few members of the community, rather than to their employees and doing what makes most sense financially for the company. 

 

In regards to why even buy the Jacobs lot at all:  SW considers this as their "next 100 year home," so given the opportunity to make one contiguous footprint, why wouldn't SW buy the land next to them?  Moreover, the learning center is for trainings and other events that bring people to Cleveland.  Having this building on PS showcases PS and the city to these visitors.  

Somebody gets it!

3 hours ago, X said:

If your goal is to build a new HQ in the most cost effective manner in order to protect shareholder value then why would you buy the most expensive acre in Cleveland?  I get trying to do a thing on a budget, and I get creating a signature corporate statement cost be damned.  I don't get doing half of one and half of the other.

 

Well, there's that.

 

2 hours ago, tastybunns said:

How is a multi-billion dollar company keeping secrets so well. Some sort of espionage must be going on, unless their circle is that tight? For something as simple as design choices for an HQ should probably be publicly made and publicly decided. Everyone knows it's HQ'd in Cleveland so why the big fuss about secrecy? Surprise?

 

They suck at PR and they suck at keeping secrets. Their paint is pretty good, tho'.

Their paint is exceptionally good, but I may switch to Behr or Benjamin Moore pending the outcome of this project.

Edited March 3, 20214 yr by Frmr CLEder

Sherwin-Williams should release downtown HQ designs as early as it can, for full public input

Updated 5:57 AM; Today 5:57 AM

By Editorial Board, cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer

 

The Sherwin-Williams Co.’s decision to keep its headquarters in Cleveland has been a double win for downtown. It was, first and foremost, a welcome affirmation of the painting giant’s commitment to Cleveland, where it was founded more than 150 years ago. But equally huge has been the fact that, despite the pandemic, Sherwin-Williams has not pulled back (so far) on its original $630 million building plans in Northeast Ohio, even as some other firms cancel or retrench.

 

Encouragingly, Sherwin-Williams recently unveiled bare-bones design plans that show three structures. A “Learning Center & Amenity” building will be on Public Square, bounded by West 3rd Street, Superior Avenue, West Roadway and Frankfort Avenue to the north. Across West 3rd Street, also bounded by Superior to the south and Frankfort to the north, will be an “Office Tower” of unspecified height. And on the north side of Frankfort, with West 3rd to its east, will be a “Parking Garage.” To the west and north, bordering West 6th Street to the west and St. Clair Avenue to the north, are “Future Development” sites. Apart from this footprint, with some tentative landscaping, and a small plaza at the northwest corner of the office building, details are not further specified.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2021/03/sherwin-williams-should-release-downtown-hq-designs-as-early-as-it-can-for-full-public-input.html

So idk, just looking at the oblique imagery is there any chance they may be trying to emulate the BP Building/200 PS? I just did a rough measurement of the BP atrium and it's ~95 ft from the base to the roof and goes up to about 173 ft at its tallest point. Obviously it wouldn't be a contiguous building like BP (aside from a bridge), but just a thought.

Edited March 5, 20214 yr by GISguy

2 hours ago, GISguy said:

So idk, just looking at the oblique imagery is there any chance they may be trying to emulate the BP Building/200 PS? I just did a rough measurement of the BP atrium and it's ~95 ft from the base to the roof and goes up to about 173 ft at its tallest point. Obviously it wouldn't be a contiguous building like BP (aside from a bridge), but just a thought.

Maybe, but why?

@XCompositional balance of the four towers?

6 hours ago, MuRrAy HiLL said:

https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2021/03/sherwin-williams-should-release-downtown-hq-designs-as-early-as-it-can-for-full-public-input.html

Julie S. Young, the firm’s vice president for global corporate communications, told the editorial board via email that....

 

“We will follow the City of Cleveland’s standard rules and procedures,” she added, “along with their recommendations for ways to consider input from the public during the design review process.” 

 

 

excellent timing for that editorial -- and it was polite and well stated.

 

this part was also very encouraging to hear:

 

Julie S. Young, the firm’s vice president for global corporate communications, told the editorial board via email that, “we are still working through our site development and design process for our new global headquarters...."

This is kind of neat. You can see where the sun is at any given moment in relation to the square. You can change the date and height of the building at the point to see how long the shadow is. And drag the slider across the top to change the time of day. Kind of relevant as I'm sure you'll hear complaints about shadows cast over the square. Not from me though -- it's the middle of downtown.

 

https://www.suncalc.org/#/41.4996,-81.695,16/2021.09.30/16:53/100/3

 

  

 

Of course we only see the sun about 40% of the time in Cleveland.

 

SUNDAY, MARCH 7, 2021

Sherwin-Williams' HQ may alienate young talent it wants to attract

 

Sherwin-Williams' (SHW) stodgy corporate culture is colliding with its desire to attract young talent. That collision is becoming more evident as the planning advances on SHW's new global headquarters. That's unfortunate for SHW and for Cleveland since one of the major goals SHW has for its new HQ is to attract young talent to its company and to Cleveland.

 

We have seen before that SHW doesn't excel at public-relations nor does it seem to accommodate creative young people sometimes. Both were in evidence when it fired a part-time employee and college student Tony Piloseno who had amassed over 1.2 million followers on his paint-mixing TikTok channel that was giving SHW free publicity. Bloomberg named it one of the five worst PR disasters of 2020.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/03/sherwin-williams-hq-may-alienate-young.html

 

Great article Ken.

 

Lots to digest but since so much is still up in the air just wanted to comment on two items.

 

I am pretty sure design review is going to push back on the bridges, at least the one over West 3rd (which I have always assume was going to be part of the design from day one so no big surprise), especially if Freddi Collier is truly against it.  The $64,000.00 question is whether the city is going to risk upsetting the apple cart and will push hard on this point.  History shows it will not.

 

Second.  In my mind, and I am sure legally, Frankfort is a city street not an alley.  I don't care how SHW and its architects feel.  If code requires something other than dead space along the garage they better have a plan, although this may be another issue where the city might not want to push hard, especially if they do a nice job with the West 3rd street presence.  I do understand to some point using Frankfort as a service street since these functions have to go somewhere.  However a good architect should be able to  incorporate service areas into the building and still not create a dead zone.

"Sherwin-Williams' (SHW) stodgy corporate culture is colliding with its desire to attract young talent."

 

That simple opening sentence made my hopes sink as soon as I read it.  At this point in the game it seems a little late that there may be a culture change.  Due diligence, is it still a thing?  Wouldn't it be prudent to see what attracts new, young employees?  What would help this project "fit" into the urban fabric, attract young employees, be a functional workplace, and be the crown jewel of the city?  I am sure that someone involved in the planning of this project HAS to have their finger on the pulse of public opinion (UrbanOhio).  I get it, they answer to the shareholders.  I also get that cranking the creativity of this project isn't going to bankrupt this company!  You would think that shareholders would want the very best talent they can get working for SW, which in the long run would drive shares UP.  There are always exceptions to the rule, but you need to spend money to make money.  C'mon you "stodgy" son's of guns, look around the country/world and see how the companies that are attracting young talent are doing it.  Step out of the past and into the future!

35 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

Great article Ken.

 

Lots to digest but since so much is still up in the air just wanted to comment on two items.

 

I am pretty sure design review is going to push back on the bridges, at least the one over West 3rd (which I have always assume was going to be part of the design from day one so no big surprise), especially if Freddi Collier is truly against it.  The $64,000.00 question is whether the city is going to risk upsetting the apple cart and will push hard on this point.  History shows it will not.

 

Second.  In my mind, and I am sure legally, Frankfort is a city street not an alley.  I don't care how SHW and its architects feel.  If code requires something other than dead space along the garage they better have a plan, although this may be another issue where the city might not want to push hard, especially if they do a nice job with the West 3rd street presence.  I do understand to some point using Frankfort as a service street since these functions have to go somewhere.  However a good architect should be able to  incorporate service areas into the building and still not create a dead zone.

I think the pedestrian bridges create an interesting leverage opportunity for the city. In my opinion, it would be a good trade if the city offered SW the pedestrian bridges in exchange for street level restaurants and retail, particularly on the jacob's lot. (After all the pedestrian bridges give them access to their amenities center, and more entrances just reduces security, so maybe the whole first floor could be public use?) Though I'm not sure if anyone will have the backbone to make this trade. 

 

I don't mind the pedestrian bridges too much, particularly if they are more than one floor off the ground. (Perhaps the city could also leverage this and make the jacobs lot building a bit taller so as not to look out of place?)

 

On an earlier point in this thread, I'm not opposed to having the tower setback a block from public square, IF that prevents public square from spending the afternoon in the shade, it's beautiful in the late afternoon sun, particularly when the sun is hitting the soldiers and sailors monument. 

17 minutes ago, Ethan said:

I think the pedestrian bridges create an interesting leverage opportunity for the city. In my opinion, it would be a good trade if the city offered SW the pedestrian bridges in exchange for street level restaurants and retail, particularly on the jacob's lot. (After all the pedestrian bridges give them access to their amenities center, and more entrances just reduces security, so maybe the whole first floor could be public use?) Though I'm not sure if anyone will have the backbone to make this trade. 

 

I don't mind the pedestrian bridges too much, particularly if they are more than one floor off the ground. (Perhaps the city could also leverage this and make the jacobs lot building a bit taller so as not to look out of place?)

 

On an earlier point in this thread, I'm not opposed to having the tower setback a block from public square, IF that prevents public square from spending the afternoon in the shade, it's beautiful in the late afternoon sun, particularly when the sun is hitting the soldiers and sailors monument. 

There’s no need for the city to make that offer - street level active use is already required on “main” roads, including W 3rd. (Although maybe this would be a way to push it on Frankfurt.)

 

I don’t mind the tower being on the west of W 3rd at all. I do mind an under-utilized Jacobs lot with a building inaccessible to the public. I’d love to see a mid-rise there. It would be fun to have a food hall similar to the one at Van Akin on the ground level. Perhaps the SHW museum could also be on this level, and offer some public access.  Then have the training facility on levels 2-4, then the upscale hotel above that. The building could be 10-14 stories and fit in great with Renaissance Hotel, Higbee building, and May Company. 
 

Unfortunately that seems very unlikely. The city and county will have to push hard for it, and I don’t see the current administration doing that. 

 

44 minutes ago, Ethan said:

I think the pedestrian bridges create an interesting leverage opportunity for the city. In my opinion, it would be a good trade if the city offered SW the pedestrian bridges in exchange for street level restaurants and retail, particularly on the jacob's lot. (After all the pedestrian bridges give them access to their amenities center, and more entrances just reduces security, so maybe the whole first floor could be public use?) Though I'm not sure if anyone will have the backbone to make this trade. 

 

I don't mind the pedestrian bridges too much, particularly if they are more than one floor off the ground. (Perhaps the city could also leverage this and make the jacobs lot building a bit taller so as not to look out of place?)

 

On an earlier point in this thread, I'm not opposed to having the tower setback a block from public square, IF that prevents public square from spending the afternoon in the shade, it's beautiful in the late afternoon sun, particularly when the sun is hitting the soldiers and sailors monument. 

@Ethan

In regard to late afternoon sun and without any investigation of the sun coordinates described above, aren't we going to lose that sunshine on the square regardless of which lot the main tower is constructed? Hope not. What we need is a tall, skinny headquarters. 

 

@KJP  Great article.  Enjoyed your references to "inside baseball."  

Keep it up!  As a former Clevelander, I'm reading your content daily on this site and your blog. 

Edited March 7, 20214 yr by DO_Summers

8 minutes ago, DO_Summers said:

 

In regard to late afternoon sun and without any deep investigation of the coordinates, aren't we going to lose that sunshine on the square regardless of which lot the main tower is constructed? 

Probably, late afternoon sun might be a lost cause. Still if setting the building back more moves the time onset of a shaded public square back a few hours it may be worth it.

 

I checked out the sun positioning web-app that someone a posted a few days ago, and it's hard to say, but it's possible that the slightly more directly westward placement (and thus slightly more southern) on West 3rd could end up being more of a problem than than it's proximity to public square. I am speculating here, and hopefully this is/was considered during the design process. 

 

What I'd like to avoid is the situation that Mall A has with Key Tower, where it often seems to spend all afternoon in the shade. 

 

@Boomerang_Brian I am onboard with the ideal you are describing, and if the city can get them to add the active use without bargaining then great, but all the comments I've been reading about Fortress Towers have me worried. 

So where would we like the service entrances to go?  Key tower has theirs on Ontario.  The Huntington Building has theirs on Superior, and Terminal Tower has theirs on Prospect.  Do we all want it on Superior or West 3rd?  The outrage for a building that hasn't even been revealed yet is baffling.  And I believe young people care less about exposed ductwork and ping pong tables  and more about good starting salaries and the opportunity to advance quickly.   SW does a very good job with that.  Plus, open offices are loud as hell, so thank god they are attempting to reduce the noise.  Deep breaths, It might end up being a nice building that serves the company well.  

41 minutes ago, mack34 said:

The outrage for a building that hasn't even been revealed yet is baffling.   

 

I'm not seeing outrage from anyone, but simply concern which, by all accounts, appears warranted. 

Reading Ken's article made me realize that I'm pretty thankful to not work at SHW - because they seem like a company who is dead inside. It also buffed away whatever luster they might have had on account of this project. Uptight, stodgy, corporate cultures like that deserve unending mockery and ridicule because at the end of the day, life is too short to take yourself that seriously. You are a paint company. Get over yourselves. If you can't be bothered to put any soul or creativity behind a once in a century opportunity, you come off looking boring, unappealing, and foolish. The masses will not come flocking to work for you.

Edited March 7, 20214 yr by ASP1984

19 minutes ago, ASP1984 said:

Reading Ken's article made me realize that I'm pretty thankful to not work at SHW - because they seem like a company who is dead inside. It also buffed away whatever luster they might have had on account of this project. Uptight, stodgy, corporate cultures like that deserve unending mockery and ridicule because at the end of the day, life is too short to take yourself that seriously. You are a paint company. Get over yourselves. If you can't be bothered to put any soul or creativity behind a once in a generation opportunity, you just look boring, unappealing, and foolish. The masses will not come flocking to work for you.

this post is way too premature.  Besides, I thought this thread was recently closed due to no real news despite it having a 14 year history limited to any real news the last 15 months or so.

 

to now bash a 150 year old Fortune 500 committing to building its HQ and expanding jobs in long  downtrodden CLE based on speculation about a lack of exposed bricks and ducts office motifs and too high-low cubicle sides...all without even a sketch drawing of what CLE is getting on any level.

 

the CLE-SEA comparison is not appropriate as well. 
 

Remember, SW is a paint company. 

 

6 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

I'm not seeing outrage from anyone, but simply concern which, by all accounts, appears warranted. 

Yet it’s all still speculation, rumor, and other assorted no real news.  If all this comes to pass when plans aka real news is release, then criticism will at least have a basis. 

18 minutes ago, CLENYC said:

Yet it’s all still speculation, rumor, and other assorted no real news.  If all this comes to pass when plans aka real news is release, then criticism will at least have a basis. 

 

Why the kid gloves? This is a corporation, it's incapable of having its feelings hurt. 

55 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

Why the kid gloves? This is a corporation, it's incapable of having its feelings hurt. 

No plans, drawings, or even a sketch of any details have been announced or otherwise released.
 

It’s fine to criticize but what is being criticized here that has any basis in reality?  
 

People criticized, for example, the rumor of a low rise HQ building on the Jacobs lot...now the HQ is on the w 3rd lot...trashing a local Fortune 500 based on rumors is, to put it simply, not fair.  
 

has SW actually done something yet to warrant criticism of its unannounced HQ plans-details?
 

is there any actual news? That was the premise going forward when the thread closed.

Edited March 8, 20214 yr by CLENYC

Thanks, as always to @KJP - he's obviously put a lot of time into getting as much info as he can - I'm sure sources have to be extremely cautious about what they're saying, given SW's famous penchant for secrecy.  Like others, I don't fully understand the extent to which they go to in that regard, but anyway.....

 

Also, a thanks to the forum moderators.  They have been very fair about giving posters a chance to react, when it's on topic, to the most reliable new information that we get. The NEO TRANS articles have been the vanguard for that - and the newest being published today.  Of course, there's going to be reaction.

 

I fully respect the perspective of those that wish not to opine prior to specific renderings from the company.  On the other hand, I am very appreciative of the feedback from  many of the most high-information people regarding architecture and development in Cleveland - e.g. this forum.  Interestingly, I haven't really heard any feedback at all advocating for the BOK-inspired design.  There's two major camps - one) those that dislike (rather strongly, it seems) many of the design elements that we are hearing about - and 2) those that dislike the critical opinions based on the absence of an official rendering.  If there's a third camp that really just loves the BOK-inspired design, they're a very quiet group.  

 

But, if I may, just a slight push-back on the notion that we're not getting new information.  Bit by bit, Ken's articles have provided fresh insights into certain design details about the HQ tower - both  exterior and interior.  Also, more info as to the apparent ethos  of the top brass  as it relates to the forthcoming world HQ and what that means to the board and to the world marketplace.  That last part is critical - because there must be a tricky calculus in pleasing those potentially divergent audiences.  The question of how the look/image of the headquarters  plays with young and future talent necessary to give SW a competitive edge in a world marketplace is vital.  

 

We are getting greater detail about how SW is contextualizing Frankfurt.  We also got a more specific picture of what the office environment might look like on a typical floor of the HQ.  (I thought of "Mad Men" or that 1960 era office...). The general picture of the CFE on the Jacobs lot appears reasonably defined - details to follow, but we certainly have a good sense of its general proportions -  that appears to be a fait accompli. If you didn't want a 2-3 story building on that hallowed lot, you're probably out of luck.  

 

The pictures I saw of the BOK Plaza (and Devon Center) at street level - in the forum recently -  were a pretty revealing and disappointing picture of what to expect.  Granted, we don't know with absolute certainty what SW will present - but we know the exemplar for the design and logically, we have a general picture of what's to come - unless there's a big change in the narrative.   And we also know what the culture/image of the company is.  Ironically, for a design-related business, it's doesn't conjure up creativity and imagination. 

 

 So, yeah, this is the time to opine, in my view. Maybe a collective sense of the city's hopes for the best version of this HQ will find their way to that C -suite.  If it means a little more concession to a forward-looking mid- 21st century image - I'll take it - and I'm thankful to hear from our community.   

 

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 20214 yr by CleveFan

1 hour ago, CleveFan said:

Thanks, as always to @KJP - he's obviously put a lot of time into getting as much info as he can - I'm sure sources have to be extremely cautious about what they're saying, given SW's famous penchant for secrecy.  Like others, I don't fully understand the extent to which they go to in that regard, but anyway.....

 

Also, a thanks to the forum moderators.  They have been very fair about giving posters a chance to react, when it's on topic, to the most reliable new information that we get. The NEO TRANS articles have been the vanguard for that - and the newest being published today.  Of course, there's going to be reaction.

 

I fully respect the perspective of those that wish not to opine prior to specific renderings from the company.  On the other hand, I am very appreciative of the feedback from  many of the most high-information people regarding architecture and development in Cleveland - e.g. this forum.  Interestingly, I haven't really heard any feedback at all advocating for the BOK-inspired design.  There's two major camps - one) those that dislike (rather strongly, it seems) many of the design elements that we are hearing about - and 2) those that dislike the critical opinions based on the absence of an official rendering.  If there's a third camp that really just loves the BOK-inspired design, they're a very quiet group.  

 

But, if I may, just a slight push-back on the notion that we're not getting new information.  Bit by bit, Ken's articles have provided fresh insights into certain design details about the HQ tower - both  exterior and interior.  Also, more info as to the apparent ethos  of the top brass  as it relates to the forthcoming world HQ and what that means to the board and to the world marketplace.  That last part is critical - because there must be a tricky calculus in pleasing those potentially divergent audiences.  The question of how the look/image of the headquarters  plays with young and future talent necessary to give SW a competitive edge in a world marketplace is vital.  

 

We are getting greater detail about how SW is contextualizing Frankfurt.  We also got a more specific picture of what the office environment might look like on a typical floor of the HQ.  (I thought of "Mad Men" or that 1960 era office...). The general picture of the CFE on the Jacobs lot appears reasonably defined - details to follow, but we certainly have a good sense of its general proportions -  that appears to be a fait accompli. If you didn't want a 2-3 story building on that hallowed lot, you're probably out of luck.  

 

The pictures I saw of the BOK Plaza (and Devon Center) at street level - in the forum recently -  were a pretty revealing and disappointing picture of what to expect.  Granted, we don't know with absolute certainty what SW will present - but we know the exemplar for the design and logically, we have a general picture of what's to come - unless there's a big change in the narrative.   And we also know what the culture/image of the company is.  Ironically, for a design-related business, it's doesn't conjure up creativity and imagination. 

 

 So, yeah, this is the time to opine, in my view. Maybe a collective sense of the city's hopes for the best version of this HQ will find their way to that C -suite.  If it means a little more concession to a forward-looking mid- 21st century image - I'll take it - and I'm thankful to hear from our community.   

 

 

 

 

But I was commenting specifically about the post stating that SW is old, stodgy..deserving of ridicule and unending mockery...that the masses would not want work in...all based on design floor space give n take speculation.

 

we were also told design delayed into mid ‘22 without a reason...I opined that perhaps SW may want to review space needs post pandemic...response “sh!t happens”...thread locked.

 

shortly thereafter, SW announces design plans to be released during 2nd half of this year.

 

the mod did state..until there is news...other than a graphic layout...then the design plans for later this year.

 

Edited March 8, 20214 yr by CLENYC

Looking at the Sherwin Williams Headquarters site plan, I wish they would have looked over Weston Citymarks proposal for the same parcels.  

11 minutes ago, dave2017 said:

Looking at the Sherwin Williams Headquarters site plan, I wish they would have looked over Weston Citymarks proposal for the same parcels.  

This was a residential development design though, right?

Edited March 8, 20214 yr by CLENYC

Mix of residential, hotel and offices. A 37-story office building would have been put where the SHW office building is proposed now.

I said before that the Weston Superblock plans would be perfect. This definitely blows the BOK complex out of the water:

 

Couldn't disagree more with the fact that the cubicle office plan will deter employment. The open office floor plan is horrible concept and many of my co-workers (who range from mid 20s to mid 30s) agree with me on this issue. It doesn't take long to realize that the open office floor plan is loud, distracting, and doesn't improve productivity or collaborative efforts like people who support it say it does. And more often than not, if you walk into an office area within SHW, the biggest complaints you'll hear are HVAC, elevators, IT, desire to have a standing/sitting desk, and maybe the bathrooms. Last on that list will be "openness", desire for exposed ceilings,  and lighting within the building (more often than not, many office areas don't even turn on all their lights because most people prefer working in dimmer settings).

 

If young people are looking for distracting workplaces with all these ridiculous amenities that they think are needed at a workplace, the corporate life might not be for them or maybe they need to move to California/Seattle to get those ping pong tables, catered lunches and nap stations. 

@Stang10 What are co-workers saying about the street-level potential settings?

Based on posts and articles in this thread on I understand that a street level retail, restaurant (does that mean public?) component is required for the parking garage. Would this not also be the same for where the office tower and learning center front onto W 3rd?

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.

 

17 minutes ago, Dino said:

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.

 

This guy ameliorates.

5 hours ago, KJP said:

Mix of residential, hotel and offices. A 37-story office building would have been put where the SHW office building is proposed now.

LOL, so that 37 story building could actually have become SHW's headquarters (with adjustments for floorspace and parking needs).  Maybe, it would already be built.   😏   

The Jacobs lot would still have been available for the COE or whatever.  WOW

 

Edited March 8, 20214 yr by urb-a-saurus

4 hours ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

I said before that the Weston Superblock plans would be perfect. This definitely blows the BOK complex out of the water:

 

We MAY actually still end up with something like that.  I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading that the Superblock plan was to be completed in stages.  @KJP's article mentioned SHW is looking for developers to build on the future development lots along W. 6th.  We could actually end up with something like the Superblock plan... just with a large garage instead of an office building (at least for now).  There's no telling if SHW would plan on building on top of their garage- but if this is indeed their next "100 year home", they may choose to do so in the future.

 

I'm not too pressed at this point about the plans without renderings from SHW.  Once they release renderings, we'll have more to chew on.  Until then, I can't fret over it.  

Did the Weston plan have some parking hidden in there somewhere?

 

Edited March 8, 20214 yr by skiwest

It's funny that there are so many opinions on a site plan showing rectangles and squares.   I for one can't wait for the design to be unveiled but I will wait for Sherwin to reveal this on their time frame.  Nothing on Pickard Chilton's and Vocon's websites make me believe this building isn't going to be specular inside and out. 

2 hours ago, CleWestSide said:

It's funny that there are so many opinions on a site plan showing rectangles and squares.   I for one can't wait for the design to be unveiled but I will wait for Sherwin to reveal this on their time frame.  Nothing on Pickard Chilton's and Vocon's websites make me believe this building isn't going to be specular inside and out. 

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!

20 minutes ago, Dino said:

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!

LOL. Agree!  Instead of a Woj-bomb (Adrian Wojnarowski) we get a NEO-Trans Bomb.  I find myself checking NEO Trans daily to look for the latest trade speculation...I mean CLE development updates.

22 hours ago, KJP said:

@Stang10 What are co-workers saying about the street-level potential settings?

 

Honestly, haven't really heard much concern about the street level presence of the the new HQ. From time to time, people are wondering what the parking situation will be but most agree that it will be limited and very expensive so most will continue to park where they do now (or commute via bus, rapid, etc.). I think everyone would be open to new restaurants/bars/etc. in the immediate area. More often than not people are going out to lunch during the summer/nice days or going to a happy hour after work (pre-COVID that is).

19 hours ago, skiwest said:

Did the Weston plan have some parking hidden in there somewhere?

 

 

1,400 across the whole of the super blocks. Setup was one below grade with two above, lined in front with retails/amenity.
 

 

Apologies if this was already posted...SHW recently sent out notices that all employee's will be returning to the downtown HQ during the week of 5/3.

Edited March 11, 20214 yr by Clefan98

I’m definitely concerned with how the new buildings interact with the street and the city surrounding it...but man, if they build floors like this I can’t imagine it helps recruiting at all.

On 3/3/2021 at 8:54 AM, smimes said:

If you are thinking about convenience for the employees, the positioning makes perfect sense.  As much as we want SW to be thinking about walkability and neighborhood impact, SW executives answer to its shareholders and to its employees.  SW still needs to convince its employees that coming back into the office is necessary and worthwhile--something that I don't think is necessarily easy after people have been accustomed to working from home for the past year.  So, if you swap the learning center and tower, the employees must first walk through the learning center every day to get to their office.  Effectively doubling the walk from the garage for every single employee, every single morning and afternoon.  If you put the tower on PS and the garage where the tower is located, then you have to walk through the garage just to get between buildings, another inefficiency.  

 

The real impact of SW's headquarters being downtown is that it brings people to live and work downtown.  And, I see the building positioning as the C-suite/design team looking out for their employees who may not want to start commuting into the office again.  The other big point here, is that the office tower on Superior can have larger floor plans, which allows for more floor space with fewer levels, making the building more cost efficient (providing value to the shareholders).  This building arrangement also permits that nice setback in front of the learning center, allowing more room for pedestrians and providing a larger walkway from the tower to public square.  

 

 

On 3/3/2021 at 9:29 AM, KJP said:

Smimes is exactly right when it comes to cost-effectiveness. Whenever I ask sources why SHW is considering doing this or that, the answer is usually to save money.

 

I'm not trying to steer dialogue of this topic. I am curious though if there is any credence to people not coming back to an office building for SW. As someone who works in a team environment, it is not as effective being remote. And, if the bottom line is shareholder appeasement, that would be detrimental.

1 hour ago, Clefan98 said:

Apologies if this was already posted...SHW recently sent out notices that all employee's will be returning to the downtown HQ on 5/3.

 

Some are predicting a new surge of cases in April from Spring break traveling/behavior and the new highly contagious B.1.117 (or something like that) variant that is spreading across the US. I read somewhere the number of cases of this variant in Ohio has tripled between Sunday and Tuesday of this week. While the state does NOT genome test every positive case, we don't know how many cases there are---but for however few they do test, it tripled---so that's a big deal. Off-setting this of course is the vaccine deployment. All this to say, I hope 5/3 is not too soon--I would have preferred to see a June or July date. Of course, if cases start spiking up in April as some predict, SW could just push back that 5/3 date---there's still time for such.

One benefit of SHW's existing offices is that has a lot of private offices. That's apparently not going to be the case in the new building. Wonder if they will attach temporary plastic barriers atop the low-rise cubicles they may use? I wonder if they will even need them in when the new building opens in nearly 3 years?