July 20, 20213 yr I could do without the sky bridges and was hoping for a bit more of a sloped roof for the pavilion, but the skyscraper will be all world! @KJP and @Geowizical thank you for your outstanding work leading up to this! Your insight and renders are spot on.
July 20, 20213 yr After seeing him move the massing to the Jacobs lot briefly, I am ecstatic they chose to build it where it isSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
July 20, 20213 yr Looks great (apart from the sky bridges). The peaks almost suggest two angled paint brushes... but that might just be my own residual brain damage from grueling commercial painting jobs in my early 20s. 😆
July 20, 20213 yr Some quick screen grabs. clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
July 20, 20213 yr I do agree on tower placement... seeing the tower on the Jacobs lot suddenly feels like its suffocating Terminal Tower. Right now our new big four seem nicely and evenly spaced apart to allow each to shine.
July 20, 20213 yr Did anyone notice the one guy say something along the lines of “and the proposed Magellan development directly to the North”? @KJP
July 20, 20213 yr You know I could be saying: But I'm actually pretty happy about everything. I do hope the tower comes with some dynamic skyline lighting. None the less this will be great to jump start development in the Warehouse District. Talk about slapshotting a 3 pointer into the End-Zone for a Home Run amirite?
July 20, 20213 yr I am not disapointed in the tower. And I could give a crap about the bridges. Lets go its been a long wait.
July 20, 20213 yr 53 minutes ago, KJP said: Look familiar? What is the building behind the new tower across from Rockefeller? "Future development"? @KJP and @Geowizical excellent teamwork! Thank you!
July 20, 20213 yr Author 7 minutes ago, Florida Guy said: What is the building behind the new tower across from Rockefeller? "Future development"? @KJP and @Geowizical excellent teamwork! Thank you! Future expansion for SHW "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
July 20, 20213 yr 39 minutes ago, Sapper Daddy said: @KJP and @Geowizical thank you for your outstanding work leading up to this! Your insight and renders are spot on. 4 minutes ago, Florida Guy said: @KJP and @Geowizical excellent teamwork! Thank you! Pleasure! Time for me to get to work...
July 20, 20213 yr Exactly. Aside from the very interesting look of the tower my biggest takeaway is the second tower. Based on all the discussion and limited news about future expansion l was fully prepared for that expansion to take place far into the future but to see it in these plans, well we may not gave to wait all that long. The other thing is the building on the Jacob's lot look better with the cut-out and rooflines of varying heights rather than a plain two story block.
July 20, 20213 yr We’re filling the parking lot with a big city tower with a very distinct profile and signature roofline. And it’s climbed a little closer to the height of 200 PS. A very good compliment to the Big 3 - can’t wait to see steel rising! @KJPand @Geowizicalhad it amazingly close - great work! Congrats Cleveland. Edited July 20, 20213 yr by CleveFan
July 20, 20213 yr Committee just approved the conceptual design, but not the height of the pavilion or the parking garage streetscape. They want to see retail added to the parking garage/frankfort, the height of the pavilion raised, and the top of the pavilion to be accessible to the public with a lounge/bar.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
July 20, 20213 yr Even though it is "only" 616' (I say we start a petition to increase the height another 53', for the lolz), this building is massive. It fills in the skyline and then some.
July 20, 20213 yr Author SHW HQ concept approval + excluding NW block (the site of future development) + provide traffic study with pedestrian circulation + consideration of pavilion height increase with public roof access + treatment of street level experience of entire site, especially temporary lots and Frankfort and be demonstrated through drawings + retail strategy "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
July 20, 20213 yr 5 minutes ago, GREGinPARMA said: Committee just approved the conceptual design, but not the height of the pavilion or the parking garage streetscape. They want to see retail added to the parking garage/frankfort, the height of the pavilion raised, and the top of the pavilion to be accessible to the public with a lounge/bar. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Wow I agree with their comments 🤯
July 20, 20213 yr It'll look nice on the skyline. Otherwise it's pretty meh. The Pavillion is a goddam travesty. No publicly accessible uses, weak presence along Public Square. Why does it need a setback for chrissakes? It means what little bit of activity it generates will be pulled back away from the square onto the private plaza. I'm sure that's the point.
July 20, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, MayDay said: Some quick screen grabs. What's the source/link to the news?
July 20, 20213 yr You know there is big Sherwin Williams HQ news when you see this: Thanks to everyone who keeps us in the know!!! It's very much appreciated.
July 20, 20213 yr 1 minute ago, surfohio said: What's the source/link to the news? CLE City Planning Commission - Sherwin Williams Special Joint Meeting on July 20, 2021 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67LBrxaVHZ8
July 20, 20213 yr My thoughts: The tower looks like it will be quite breathtaking. I'm interested to see how the cladding turns out, but even if it's very bland this will be gorgeous. If there is some public access added to the roof of the pavilion, that would help it tremendously. Even if it's only public part of time! If Sherwin Williams wants a private hang-out area, maybe just make it public Saturday and Sunday and holidays but keep it private Monday through Friday. That would be a vast improvement over nobody-but-SHW-employees-ever-go-in. The request for more retail is probably more important than the skywalks.
July 20, 20213 yr 19 minutes ago, GREGinPARMA said: Committee just approved the conceptual design, but not the height of the pavilion or the parking garage streetscape. They want to see retail added to the parking garage/frankfort, the height of the pavilion raised, and the top of the pavilion to be accessible to the public with a lounge/bar. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Did they mention or discuss the skybridge?
July 20, 20213 yr Did they mention or discuss the skybridge?Quite extensively. The design committee got much more pushback and negative feedback over them than positiveSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
July 20, 20213 yr It's unlikely the city will block the skybridge, but I'm hoping they use it and vacating Frankfort as leverage for these conditions. 32 minutes ago, KJP said: SHW HQ concept approval + excluding NW block (the site of future development) + provide traffic study with pedestrian circulation + consideration of pavilion height increase with public roof access + treatment of street level experience of entire site, especially temporary lots and Frankfort and be demonstrated through drawings + retail strategy
July 20, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, KJP said: Future expansion for SHW So I don't know who made or owns the models, but what is the other structure that is the same color as the tower and future expansion in the background?
July 20, 20213 yr I like the way they broke up the massing of the tower. It looks like two slender towers instead of one bulky tower-that was a good move. The vertical notch on the east and west elevations also breaks up the large expanse of wall which also accentuates the verticality and make the building look more slender. I think the angled tops look nice too. I didn't mind it on the Jacobs lot either, but think it works just as well where it is. Not much to say about the pavilion or garage that hasn't already been said.
July 20, 20213 yr Two reoccurring comments I’ve seen in this thread have been that the pavilion isn’t ideal for its location on Public Square, but also that the tower is much better situated off the Jacobs Lot. In that case, what would have been a better alternative to satisfy both? Retail/apartments/something else?
July 20, 20213 yr 4 minutes ago, BuckeyeNative said: Two reoccurring comments I’ve seen in this thread have been that the pavilion isn’t ideal for its location on Public Square, but also that the tower is much better situated off the Jacobs Lot. In that case, what would have been a better alternative to satisfy both? Retail/apartments/something else? Hotel on top of the pavilion imo
July 20, 20213 yr 1 minute ago, BuckeyeNative said: Two reoccurring comments I’ve seen in this thread have been that the pavilion isn’t ideal for its location on Public Square, but also that the tower is much better situated off the Jacobs Lot. In that case, what would have been a better alternative to satisfy both? Retail/apartments/something else? incorporate the welcome center into the tower pedestal and leave jacobs lot as future headquarters expansion. or keep the pavilion on public square, build it up to the street and build it to be at least 5-6 stories. They can talk about front porches and welcome mats all they want, but the pavilion does not at all address the context of the buildings on public square. The only answer they really had towards making the site publicly accessible was that there would be glass walls.
July 20, 20213 yr Does SHW have any idea when the "future expansion" might happen? It bugs me to think that surface parking lots could remain for several decades.
July 20, 20213 yr 10 minutes ago, Whipjacka said: incorporate the welcome center into the tower pedestal and leave jacobs lot as future headquarters expansion. or keep the pavilion on public square, build it up to the street and build it to be at least 5-6 stories. They can talk about front porches and welcome mats all they want, but the pavilion does not at all address the context of the buildings on public square. The only answer they really had towards making the site publicly accessible was that there would be glass walls. So, per KJP's reporting the pavilion will be 2 stories, but have high floor to floor heights and will likely be about 50' tall. That is the height of a normal 4 story building. For reference, the courthouse across the square is 65' tall. Atrium at 200 PS looks like it might be 75' tall
July 20, 20213 yr I doubt that SHW has really put much thought into the “campus” aspect of downtown Cleveland. They are running a company, expanding, getting the Brecksville location built and trying to nail down the main tower itself as far as layout and design. It sounds like SHW got some good feedback today. I would wonder if the activity on Jacob lot is not because of the expected feedback and they are assessing how vertical they can go without serious stabilization. I could see a hotel partner being brought in to build above the pavilion for a boutique hotel. SHW would get what they want and not have to sink more money into the build and get money from the hotel for leasing the air rights above the pavilion.
July 20, 20213 yr Were any final decisions made? Or was this just a presentation of what SHW wants to do? I hope this is just the first iteration and the city can push back. The pavilion thing is ridiculous--not only is it two stories on Public Square (the previous blds were about 12 stories and at a time when the other non-Terminal Tower quadrants didn't have tall bldgs like BP and Key) -- but now we see that it doesn't even use the buidling line to enclose the square, but it is set back? WTF? Is Public Square not big enough of an open space in front of the bldg? "the Pavilion is the front porch to Public Square"--the guy said at the meeting. What the hell does that supposed to mean? I hate the skybridges---but hate 2-story pavilion even more----and even more so with the set-back. Sounds like they're a done deal. Showing the bldg on W. 6 is a bit disingenuous unless those plans are fairly immediate. The tower is okay--a bit bulky and that it is shorter than the BP Bldg is disappointing---shorter than the company that left town 10 years ago. Being as bulky as it is---and that "other bldg" on West 6th---they could have made a slender--and thus TALLER bldg to compensate that they're not on Public Square. Any discussion on keeping Frankort open or retail on the St. Clair side of the parking garage? What is likely to change from the presentation given any possible pushback from the city?
July 20, 20213 yr 10 minutes ago, audidave said: I could see a hotel partner being brought in to build above the pavilion for a boutique hotel. SHW would get what they want and not have to sink more money into the build and get money from the hotel for leasing the air rights above the pavilion. That would add to the pavilion's cost; i'd think if they were thinking of building a hotel on top of it--they would have presented such today---and would not propose the ridiculous set-back from the square to maximize floor plates. Edited July 20, 20213 yr by Pugu
July 20, 20213 yr 10 minutes ago, Pugu said: That would add to the pavilion's cost; i'd think if they were thinking of building a hotel on top of it--they would have presented such today---and would not the ridiculous set-back from the square to maximize floor plates. I feel that the purpose of today’s meeting was to get an update from planning commission and to get feedback. They got both it would seem. The architectural firm can move forward on the main building and SHW has a bit more work to do with the other buildings as far as making them better interactive at street level. It would add to the pavilion’s cost by shoring up to build over it yes. But they would not have to foot the bill to build. That could be taken care of a hotel partner. Edited July 20, 20213 yr by audidave planning not landmark
July 20, 20213 yr Here's another view that popped up on the screen for less than a second. You can see there's a balcony cutout on the west side of the building as well.
July 20, 20213 yr 22 minutes ago, Dino said: So, per KJP's reporting the pavilion will be 2 stories, but have high floor to floor heights and will likely be about 50' tall. That is the height of a normal 4 story building. For reference, the courthouse across the square is 65' tall. Atrium at 200 PS looks like it might be 75' tall you think the pavilion has a similar scale to the rest of the buildings ob PS?
July 20, 20213 yr Author Here is SHW's 58-page City-Concept-Review-Presentation_7.2021.pdf https://www.sherwin-williams.com/buildingourfuture/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/City-Concept-Review-Presentation_7.2021.pdf "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
July 20, 20213 yr This is going to look great in Atlanta! 🤣 Seriously though what an exciting time to be a Clevelander
July 20, 20213 yr 7 minutes ago, Whipjacka said: you think the pavilion has a similar scale to the rest of the buildings ob PS? As I’ve mentioned before, PS has quite the elevation drop from SE to NW, which is where the pavilion will sit. It’s gonna look ridiculous. My hovercraft is full of eels
July 20, 20213 yr Author Some more views "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
July 20, 20213 yr A+ on the tower. Pickard+Chilton breaking the HQ tower into what looks like as many as eight (8) tall & slender elements (four major outies & four minor innies 😄 ) really accentuates its verticality. It brings a decidedly slimming effect to the very broad mass of this building. The angled roofs send one's eyes further skyward. - Mucho nice-o! A+ to the City committees, for requesting more design work on Sherwin Williams' little putt-putt green on Public Square. ⛳ In the end it is creative & singular, and "very Cleveland" - my highest compliment. This is they type of tower I had hoped they might achieve. " ❤️🏗️ " Also, I suggest naming the construction crane Twitter feed after "Hart Crane." (if anyone is asking.) Ichabod Crane, although famous at Playhouse Square, was a fiction from New York. - Lyrical Poet Hart Crane was born in Glenville. Edited July 20, 20213 yr by ExPatClevGuy
July 20, 20213 yr 6 minutes ago, Whipjacka said: you think the pavilion has a similar scale to the rest of the buildings ob PS? Not even close! I'd like to see something substantial on that lot. I was just researching other building heights to try and picture the scale of the pavilion. The courthouse is 65', the Renaissance Hotel is 162' tall, May Co is 150', which means atrium of 200 PS is about 150' as well. The Global Center for Health Innovation (not on PS) is 50' tall. It has a bigger footprint, but is otherwise a pretty good comparison for size.
July 20, 20213 yr Also, based on the images and the model, the pavilion does not appear to shown as 50' tall. It looks more like 30'-40' maybe.
July 20, 20213 yr Jacobs lot is theoretically one of the most expensive and developable pieces of real estate in Cleveland. Why wouldn’t it make sense to build much more on it than just a 2 story building on half the block?
Create an account or sign in to comment