4 hours ago, Pugu said:

 

I agree that from the angle CLE's image was taken, the Cinci skyline looks more balanced. CLE's looks like it has some empty spots between and around the tallest three. But it looks better not because of DENSITY---but because it seems all the bldgs are around the same height (and maybe narrower streets)--and the place/angle/distance from which the picture was shot. If CLE had a bunch more buildings and all were at the height between the BP Bldg and Key Tower, then CLE's skyline would look similar--a cohesive and gapless skyline. But for those photos then, its a question then of "height consistency" or "building height and number of buildings", not density of activity to affect street life!

Like you said “if” - but we DON’T. 

I agree - Cincy’s skyline is sexy and proves the point that hight doesn’t matter. Much like DC and PIT - density is key as it adds vibrancy on the street. 

One more photoshopped view of the southeast sides

Edited July 28, 20213 yr by dave2017

40 minutes ago, dave2017 said:

One more photoshopped view of the southeast sides

Thanks Dave! Please do every angle possible 😁 These look great.

 

That second tower is taller than 55 public square, which stands at 300 feet. So this baby is at least going to be 330 feet. I’ll take it.
 

What if, like the Marriott at Key Tower, the second building is like a mini version of the 616 footer?

Edited July 28, 20213 yr by Silent Matt

A sloping roof up to the HQ tower (if executed tastefully) could also serve as a nice step/ramp down to the WHD.

Many folks look at a skyline and want to see a density of towers. When I look at a skyline, I'm just as interested in seeing interesting forms. Cleveland's big three all have classic, highly-interesting and unique forms. There are few post modern buildings as classically designed as the Sohio/200 Public Square tower.

I would ultimately agree that Cincinnati's skyline is "better" than Cleveland's, whatever that means, but I'd also note that it's very much a matter of the viewing angle. Cincinnati also has several hills surrounding the city, including an incredible view up on a hill in a park across the river in KY. CLE is mostly flat.

 

The view of Cleveland from Edgewater Beach looks like 3 buildings. Up the hill at the Cleveland sign (Upper Edgewater), with the additional altitude it looks more substantial even though it's still dominated by the 3 buildings.

 

My favorite place to view the CLE skyline is the Ariel International Center on E. 40th. Especially the rooftop. The shorter towers near E.9th are closer to you and the taller towers at Public Square are visible behind them, so you get much more of a dense feeling. Great lake views also.

Edited July 28, 20213 yr by mu2010

1 hour ago, ink said:

Many folks look at a skyline and want to see a density of towers. When I look at a skyline, I'm just as interested in seeing interesting forms. Cleveland's big three all have classic, highly-interesting and unique forms. There are few post modern buildings as classically designed as the Sohio/200 Public Square tower.

200 has grown to be one of my favorites- from certain angles it is without a doubt a showstopper.

 

Im hoping the same will hold true for the SHW tower after the finished product is up and we’ve all had the chance to take in the effect it has on the city.

8 hours ago, dave2017 said:

One more photoshopped view of the southeast sides

That’s looks great Dave.  That’s certainly the least blobby interpretation I have seen and reinforces that it needs a clean exterior skin on it.  

Double drilling!

^ wow. to see the drills there really gives ya a big lift. it makes it very real.

 

i am on the side of fill that longtime eyesore parking ocean in by any means necessary — the heck with the size of the buildings lol.

I dislike to "open" look of the parapets presented at the top of the tower.  IMO, These should be enclosed spaces for authenticity and cleanliness of the overall look. 

 

There are a number of means to accomplish this that can allow them to be visually closed but concealed or perforated enough for all needed ventilation.

 

 

17 minutes ago, ExPatClevGuy said:

I dislike to "open" look of the parapets presented at the top of the tower.  IMO, These should be enclosed spaces for authenticity and cleanliness of the overall look. 

 

There are a number of means to accomplish this that can allow them to be visually closed but concealed or perforated enough for all needed ventilation.

 

 

 

Perhaps they will... remember these are just massings.

I’m sure no one else is interested but I would love to see how this building would look from different angles in the skyline with an extra 300 feet added.  Anybody up for some photoshop play?  

Seems pointless at this juncture.

2 hours ago, Larry said:

I’m sure no one else is interested but I would love to see how this building would look from different angles in the skyline with an extra 300 feet added.  Anybody up for some photoshop play?  

I would be interested. 😁

9 hours ago, w28th said:

Seems pointless at this juncture.

I don't know, it could permanently dead the "Cleveland needs a super tall to be a World Class city and this is the last time we will have this opportunity conversation." 

22 hours ago, Silent Matt said:

I would be interested. 😁

I did 2 versions looking northeast. One at the proposed height and one with an additional 300 feet

Edited August 2, 20213 yr by dave2017

Probably not a popular opinion, but I think the shorter version looks better in the above mock-up. The angle of the SW crown works better with key tower when it’s not competing against it.

32 minutes ago, mkeller234 said:

Probably not a popular opinion, but I think the shorter version looks better in the above mock-up. The angle of the SW crown works better with key tower when it’s not competing against it.

 

I think by now, this is the popular opinion! 🙃

Also great work @dave2017!

Edited August 2, 20213 yr by Geowizical

Why are you torturing us?

 

Also--that last image at night is beautiful!

Edited August 2, 20213 yr by Pugu

3 hours ago, dave2017 said:

I did 2 versions looking northeast. One at the proposed height and one with an additional 300 feet

—————-
Thanks Dave! These look great! Especially the real height night time shot! I do like that 916 footer tho 🤩 🙂

 

Ok, that's pretty bad-a$$, @dave2017!

big buck hunter bonus game points for the night render!

^^A couple of buildings in a possible Bedrock development and a 54 story nuCLEus would look nice in that photo.

2 hours ago, freethink said:

^^A couple of buildings in a possible Bedrock development and a 54 story nuCLEus would look nice in that photo.

Just for kicks

Edited August 3, 20213 yr by dave2017

22 minutes ago, dave2017 said:

Just for kicks

Love it… a man can dream!

Just turned it up to 11. 

8 hours ago, dave2017 said:

Just for kicks

 

Dave's a killer!

 

 

On 7/29/2021 at 12:56 PM, Mov2Ohio said:

 

Perhaps they will... remember these are just massings.

These are more detailed than basic massings, so this matter should be addressed.

Edited August 3, 20213 yr by ExPatClevGuy

When should we see fencing being erected around the perimeter of the lots?

10 minutes ago, dski44 said:

When should we see fencing being erected around the perimeter of the lots?

 

I'm thinking December-January.

3 hours ago, ExPatClevGuy said:

These are more detailed than basic massings, so this matter should be addressed.

Umm, not really, all they do is show the final shape of the main building. 

They are more than a box massing. None of the building details are shown, especially not any building equipment or screening accessories.

Memories...

 

 

whats even sadder is there has been more money to be made collecting piddly parking lot fees than redeveloping these sites all these years. and that the lot owners had paid off the city officials to allow it.

18 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

whats even sadder is there has been more money to be made collecting piddly parking lot fees than redeveloping these sites all these years. and that the lot owners had paid off the city officials to allow it.

 

Until a land value tax comes along (read: never) we're going to be stuck with speculative lot owners for a looooong time. You'd hope the CBD could have a special assessment district like this but I'm sure it's illegal somewhere in the law.

Edited August 5, 20213 yr by GISguy

13 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

Until a land value tax comes along (read: never) we're going to be stuck with speculative lot owners for a looooong time. You'd hope the CBD could have a special assessment district like this but I'm sure it's illegal somewhere in the law.

 

 

true, but i think there are a lot of clever and even more drastic strategies the city could use if they all weren’t on the take from these lot owners. rezoning, taxing, eminent domain, and i am sure much more. unfortunately, the election money changing hands brings decades of hands off stasis.

 

edit - just realized this is off topic, not to mention thankfully its water under the bridge for this site at long last. maybe we need a dedicated how to get rid of parking lots thread?  😂

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 5, 20213 yr by mrnyc

I was in Westchester County, NY this week and couldn't help but notice the twin 44 story, 484' Ritz Carlton towers by the late architect Costas Kondylis & Partners (constructed 2005-2009). Each tower has an angled roof opposing the other in a way that reminds me of the Sherwin Williams proposal, with other similarities.

I was also struck by how poor the hollow space behind the angled parapets looked from a distance, especially from I-95. Together, they are the tallest buildings in White Plains.

 

 

Edited August 17, 20213 yr by ExPatClevGuy

I think that's a pretty good comparison to SHW.  Nice find!

https://www.sherwin-williams.com/buildingourfuture/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/210701-Sherwin-Williams-City-Concept-Submittal.pdf

 

FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 2021

Sherwin-Williams HQ plans offer busy two weeks of review, debate

 

For Clevelanders who love to "ooh" and "ahh" over photo-realistic renderings of proposed skyscrapers, the first two weeks in September are going to unwrap an early Christmas present for them. That's when a joint committee of city planning review panels will receive and review more detailed designs for the new Sherwin-Williams (SHW) headquarters.

 

How will the committee react when it reconvenes Sept. 14? And how might these detailed designs compare to the broad-brush concepts that were conditionally approved by the city in July? Will the designs appear to them as a shiny diamond gift or a lump of coal that needs more pressure to become the diamond?

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/08/sherwin-williams-hq-plans-offer-busy.html

Am I reading this right?  The pavilion will have increased height and a water feature at street level?  
 

From what I pictured before to what I picture after reading that I view that as a big win to the urban landscape.

Doesn't sound like they give up anything substantial. At this point I'd be happy if the required retail spaces were actually usable. What's shown along the garage is likely going to be empty forever. 

 

Quote

Although the city expressed its displeasure at the HQ's inclusion of two pedestrian skybridges, it has no legal authority to block them.

 

The skywalk over W 3rd intrudes over the public right of way, which would require city approval. It's possible the fact they've approved bridges before weakens their ability to deny the encroachment if it's challenged in court, but that's different than saying they have no legal authority.

Edited August 28, 20213 yr by Mendo

So basically: "We hear the city's ideas that could really help with street level interaction with the public. But instead of that, here's a fountain and some trees."

Based on Ken's article it appears to me that SHW pretty much ignored all of the PC's requests.  Seems like all their solutions to street level criticisms was simply to add more landscaping whether it was at the site of the parking lots, on Frankfort or on Public Square.  The treatment of the Jacobs lot is especially remarkable.  Instead of making the building larger on that site as requested by many member of the Commission (I can almost understand their concerns about security in rejecting the public rooftop garden and will give them a break on that point although they could have probably figure out a way to do it if they even gave it a little thought which they apparently had little interest in), they actually are deceasing the square footage of the building.  Basically it looks like the Jacobs lot will be a landscaped extension of Public Square with a small bunker on it.

 

My take is that they basically told the city to go jump in a lake since they know they can get away with given what this project means to the city.

6 hours ago, tykaps said:

So basically: "We hear the city's ideas that could really help with street level interaction with the public. But instead of that, here's a fountain and some trees."

 

Let's not pretend that public interaction is a priority for private companies that aren't in the direct retail business.   For those with an insular culture (Progressive being a major example) it's even a negative.   It's strictly something they do because the city pushes for it.

9 hours ago, Mendo said:

 

The skywalk over W 3rd intrudes over the public right of way, which would require city approval. It's possible the fact they've approved bridges before weakens their ability to deny the encroachment if it's challenged in court, but that's different than saying they have no legal authority.

Maybe my math is wrong, but if the building on the Jacob’s lot is only two stories, will busses and trucks be able to clear underneath the skywalk ? That first floor had better be pretty high.

42 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Let's not pretend that public interaction is a priority for private companies that aren't in the direct retail business.   For those with an insular culture (Progressive being a major example) it's even a negative.   It's strictly something they do because the city pushes for it.

I cannot disagree with you but it really took a lot of balls to simply blatantly ignore the PC's suggests on a number of significant points (or maybe not since they have all the leverage).  I guess what irks me the most is that they are trying to give the impression they have compromised and took the criticism to heart (at least my take from Ken's article) when all they really have done in response is to add some plants.

Edited August 28, 20213 yr by Htsguy

@Mendo I didn't get any information saying the pavilion's height will increase unless the source simply forgot to say it. With the sensitivity of sourcing on this project, there's a limit as to how much pushing I'm willing to do to get more info.

 

@Growth Mindset The floor heights in the pavilion are very high, averaging nearly 25 feet. A truck/bus should have no trouble with a 25-foot (or more?) clearance.

40 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

@Growth Mindset The floor heights in the pavilion are very high, averaging nearly 25 feet. A truck/bus should have no trouble with a 25-foot (or more?) clearance.

 

Standard semi trailer height is 13'6".    Seated coach buses 12'6"->13' depending on what is on roof.   And RTA buses shorter than this....

2 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

Standard semi trailer height is 13'6".    Seated coach buses 12'6"->13' depending on what is on roof.   And RTA buses shorter than this....

More than 15 years ago, there was information supplied on freeway reconstruction projects.  At that time, I believe it was that for all major highway or bridge reconstruction projects (crossing over freeways), the minimum clearance for all bridges was set at 16 feet.  Having 25 feet is more than ample space for clearance.