2 hours 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.

True, however, they are getting millions of dollars in incentives from the city and state, so they should be willing to make a few concessions.

2 hours ago, Htsguy said:

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.

 

I'm going to suspect that the PC was posturing, and knew none of this was going to happen.  Though perhaps it was a way to get concession on landscaping, etc.

"The global coatings giant is extremely security conscious especially when it comes to industrial espionage and does not want any public access to any structure within its new HQ complex."

They had to know this going in.   In fact this was likely one of the major reasons the tech center ended up in Brecksville.   We discussed this even here, early on.

 

Any large company looking at locating downtown is going to have its specific concerns and priorities and it behooves the city to be aware of which ones are non negotiable going in.    Progressive and its integral parking comes to mind.    One could even say kudos to the city and the PC for posturing instead of actually pushing.

So there will be no public access to the building on the Jacobs lot? I thought they were putting a paint museum in there? 

They could’ve created a higher pavilion and significantly added to the street interaction with a restaurant on a new top floor without creating some security  breach - a separate entrance and elevator could’ve done that. 
 

That could’ve  served SW employees AND local residents and been a nice concession to concerns about connection to the community.  

11 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."

I think we have to see what the “fountain and some trees” actually look like. When you use a reductionist description of course it sounds blasé, but depending on the design it could also be an important and unique extension of Cleveland’s most important public space. I’m not necessarily optimistic but you never know! There’s currently only one fountain downtown as far as I’m aware (the splash pad doesn’t count).

Edited August 28, 20213 yr by LlamaLawyer

I am not of the opinion that that liner retail will stay vacant for long especially with 55 public square being redone and that vacant retail area being revived. This area has been yearning for retail for a while. Caught in between some of the cities largest employers and the County building. 

2 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

So there will be no public access to the building on the Jacobs lot? I thought they were putting a paint museum in there? 

 

One of my earlier articles on the subject erroneously referred to it as a paint museum. Despite my best and repeated efforts to correct that error, that first, false impression continues to live on in infamy.

 

Please use this description, which I repeated in my latest article:

 

"The pavilion will be the HQ's cultural hub, offering a learning center, conference facility and a Center of Excellence to showcase the company's history and achievements to VIPs and new recruits."

 

Yeah, admittedly one of the uses can technically be called a paint museum, but it's not for the general public. If they don't want to impress you, you're not allowed in.

15 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

One of my earlier articles on the subject erroneously referred to it as a paint museum. Despite my best and repeated efforts to correct that error, that first, false impression continues to live on in infamy.

 

Please use this description, which I repeated in my latest article:

 

"The pavilion will be the HQ's cultural hub, offering a learning center, conference facility and a Center of Excellence to showcase the company's history and achievements to VIPs and new recruits."

 

Yeah, admittedly one of the uses can technically be called a paint museum, but it's not for the general public. If they don't want to impress you, you're not allowed in.

One day when I'm 60 and many of you are all gone from this earth, and the expanded Mall is the new heart of the city, no one's going to care that Sherwin Williams has a closed off two story building bordering public square. 

 

My brother lives in Germany (he might even be reading this), even there not every street corner has public access. Far from it.

 

Take a deep breath. It's going to be okay. This building will spur plenty of development around it that does have public access I'm sure. Even more importantly the above 55 public square I just mentioned should have a restaurant with rooftop (I think) access next door. 

 

 

I thought the reason for making it a separate building was due to public access. But since that is not the case, perhaps they could have put the training and conference center somewhere in the tower. For a company as frugal as SHW, it seems odd that they would put such a small building on what is probably the most expensive lot in the city.

1 minute ago, LibertyBlvd said:

I thought the reason for making it a separate building was due to public access. But since that is not the case, perhaps they could have put the training and conference center somewhere in the tower. For a company as frugal as SHW, it seems odd that they would put such a small building on what is probably the most expensive lot in the city.

It's their premier talent attraction, retention, and visiting client "wow" building. I think the point is not to have it lost in a bigger building. They probably believe the value to those first items outweigh the cost of the land. 

I'm going to help get you off the hook, Ken.  Your earlier description left out a key word that should add some necessary perspective.   We should all be happy we won't be invited inside!

 

Anyway,  I too will wait to see how the proposed fountain and building design for the pavilion fall into place.  Exciting times for downtown.  Thanks @KJPfor keeping us so well informed. 

 

D.O.

3 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

I thought the reason for making it a separate building was due to public access. But since that is not the case, perhaps they could have put the training and conference center somewhere in the tower. For a company as frugal as SHW, it seems odd that they would put such a small building on what is probably the most expensive lot in the city.

 

I really feel like SW is dropping the ball here.   This is prime real estate if there ever was any in Cleveland.   I realize they don't want public access to the building, but a rooftop bar/event space overlooking public square here would be great for the city, and their corporate events (they could close it down for private functions when necessary). 

 

Edit:  I had a bar I once visited in Latvia on the mind when typing this so wanted to add a picture of a glass-enclosed, year round event space that could be... 

8 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

I'm going to suspect that the PC was posturing, and knew none of this was going to happen.  Though perhaps it was a way to get concession on landscaping, etc.

"The global coatings giant is extremely security conscious especially when it comes to industrial espionage and does not want any public access to any structure within its new HQ complex."

Companies who claim these silly concerns crack me up. It's like NYC and any similar "world-city" isn't filled with corporations that have security concerns??

S-W isn't exactly a forward-looking company. When I interviewed there for a position in their IT department, it was pretty regressive and conservative. Everything from their time away policies to now their remote/hybrid policies to dress code doesn't scream progressive. And while locking down buildings may be necessary for any corporation, the real issue is network security. Breaches nearly always happen not in a physical space but in the virtual.

13 hours ago, TheCOV said:

Companies who claim these silly concerns crack me up. It's like NYC and any similar "world-city" isn't filled with corporations that have security concerns??

I disagree from personal experience. I’ve worked in their current headquarter buildings. We were pretty much escorted everywhere throughout their buildings. Security regarding company secrets definitely was a priority.

 

1 hour ago, Watertiger1962 said:

I disagree from personal experience. I’ve worked in their current headquarter buildings. We were pretty much escorted everywhere throughout their buildings. Security regarding company secrets definitely was a priority.

 

I totallt get that. But these lawns and spaces created to have a sense of the tower being set in some kind of moat is silly.  The tower eventually fronts a street.

P&G did the same BS in Cincinnati when building their HQ back in the 80's. They razed two blocks of historic architecture to create a pergola filled lawn that no one uses. Its a terrible private use of land in the center of the city. If it were a public park, it may be different.

11 minutes ago, TheCOV said:

I totallt get that. But these lawns and spaces created to have a sense of the tower being set in some kind of moat is silly.  The tower eventually fronts a street.

P&G did the same BS in Cincinnati when building their HQ back in the 80's. They razed two blocks of historic architecture to create a pergola filled lawn that no one uses. Its a terrible private use of land in the center of the city. If it were a public park, it may be different.

While I totally disagree with this plan and concept (especially the small size of the "bunker" on the Jacobs lot) I do see the "parkland" being used much more than the P&G lawn (which is attractive but truly ridiculous) simply because it will basically be an extension of Public Square and the front door of 55 Public Square will more or less spill onto the site.  If done right the fountain could be quite a draw, especially for office workers at lunch time.

 

 

Edited August 29, 20213 yr by Htsguy

A lot is going to hinge on the fountain.  Let’s hope they aim higher than, say, Landerhaven on this one.

The green space left on the Jacobs site doesn't seam that big.   Planting areas, fountain, art, etc.  I think they will need to pick and choose wisely.   I am excited to see more developed renderings of the buildings.  I have high expectations.

22 hours ago, TheCOV said:

Companies who claim these silly concerns crack me up. It's like NYC and any similar "world-city" isn't filled with corporations that have security concerns??

 

Whether or not their concern is valid is pretty much irrelevant.   The city needs companies like this down there a lot more than they need to be there.  

Progressive's desire for integral parking (which was legit not only due to strong employee desire but the fact that people start and leave there at all hours) was blown off, and they remained in Mayfield Heights.

Tell SW that they must do things according to the aesthetic desires of the city and they could have ended up in Brecksville.   Or worse, Atlanta.

On 8/28/2021 at 7:59 PM, TheCOV said:

Companies who claim these silly concerns crack me up. It's like NYC and any similar "world-city" isn't filled with corporations that have security concerns??

 

 

actually its a mixed bag in nyc too. the difference is ownership.

 

for example, the companies that fill the new one vandy tower lease the space. they have a public observation deck above them and a big lobby/restaurant on the ground level and transit access beneath. there is no interaction, you can’t get to their floors, but still they have to be ok with their being a lot of public access in the building.

 

now i would imagine things will be quite different in the nearby new park avenue chase tower when that gets built because chase owns it. it may not even have a chase branch at the ground level (and btw there are no renders of that yet even tho it is u/c).

 

so yeah unfortunately sw can do what they want for the public, or nothing at all, unless the city presses for it and tries to ensure existing zoning is followed. once we get renders it wouldn’t hurt to bombard sw with our thoughts about it too.

14 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Whether or not their concern is valid is pretty much irrelevant.   The city needs companies like this down there a lot more than they need to be there.  

Progressive's desire for integral parking (which was legit not only due to strong employee desire but the fact that people start and leave there at all hours) was blown off, and they remained in Mayfield Heights.

Tell SW that they must do things according to the aesthetic desires of the city and they could have ended up in Brecksville.   Or worse, Atlanta.

This. All of this. 

Will we be able to watch the schematic presentation on youtube this morning like we were able to for conceptual?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1 hour ago, GREGinPARMA said:

Will we be able to watch the schematic presentation on youtube this morning like we were able to for conceptual?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Probably. Since the return of Planning Commission meetings after the start of the pandemic, all meetings are shared on YouTube.

 
Probably. Since the return of Planning Commission meetings after the start of the pandemic, all meetings are shared on YouTube.

Thanks for the timely response. Do you have a time? 9am?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1 hour ago, GREGinPARMA said:

Thanks for the timely response. Do you have a time? 9am?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I haven't see the schedule other than the Sept. 14 date but they usually start planning commission meetings at 9 am.

I guess no meeting at 9. Atleast not one being streamed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@GREGinPARMA It's Sept. 14 (see my prior post and my latest article)

On 8/29/2021 at 3:23 PM, Down_with_Ctown said:

A lot is going to hinge on the fountain.  Let’s hope they aim higher than, say, Landerhaven on this one.

I wonder if SW idea of a fountain for public use would be a drinking fountain...I'm thinking more like the opening credits for Married With Children (Chicago...and yes I just dated myself)

 

Kevin Barry posted the renderings - 

 

 

Also a new article on Cleveland.com as of 4 pm ….

What happened to the angled roof?  The pavilion looks nice but rather "suburban" and quite tiny in relation to the other buildings on Public Square.  I don't see a fountain.

 

Edited August 31, 20213 yr by LibertyBlvd

the pavilion looks beautiful

3 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

What happened to the angled roof?

It's there. 

3 minutes ago, CleWestSide said:

the pavilion looks beautiful

 

It's a nice enough building, in isolation.  Placing it on Public Square feels like a slap in the face.

The tower is very sleek and sharp. I'm a big fan. It'll add such a modern and shiny new addition to the skyline.

 

I'm still not wowed by the pavilion, but I do appreciate the balcony/seating areas along with the amount of transparency via the windows. Still crossing my fingers that a water element/public art feature out front or around the pavilion is still in development and that we'll see further details with that eventually.

 

BUT all things being said - this is soooo exciting to finally see actual renderings! Very cool.

From the Schematic Design submitted to the City:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

It's there. 

OK, I do see the angle now.  Initially, it seemed like artistic perspective.

well, that's as complete as the square is going to get. set back and 40 feet tall. 

Here is the complete PDF

 

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21052637/sherwin-williams_schematic-design-city-submittal_83121.pdf

I think it’s as good as we could ask for. Downtown will feel so much different. It looks great.

My initial impression is: Wow, this is a shockingly flat-flat-flat, cold and sterile surface treatment if I've ever seen one.

Overall I give this tower a six out of ten.  Yes it is fresh-on-the-scene (for now,) and shiny, and it may look fine from afar, but for now that's all it's got. 

 

I'm unmoved by this uninteresting stylistic miss by Pickard+Chilton for Sherwin Williams.

- Six out of ten for being a brand-new bore.

- Pointy and shiny with no flair

- This includes bonus points for replacing a ton of surface parking, and keeping so many jobs downtown.

- The pavilion looks interesting & inviting, but nobody is invited and SW seems to have no interest in doing so.

Edited August 31, 20213 yr by ExPatClevGuy

^Not not sure why it's shocking at this point. Looks just like the [tall] white bread in a plaza we were promised.

Where would any signage go without covering window space? 

@StapHanger ..because there was reason to be optimistic that care would be taken to offer excellent design.

 

1.  Like the tower.

 

2. Skybridges could have been worst but not monumental like requested by members of the Planning Commission (if necessary).

 

3.  Pavilion looks so meek and out of place, especially from a distance.

 

4.  West 3rd looks better than I thought but still not my ideal.

Edited August 31, 20213 yr by Htsguy

I love it all. COME ON BABY. Definitely changes the feel of the skyline and Cleveland 

I like the tower. Paint Museum needs 4 more floors at least

2 minutes ago, ogibbigo said:

I like the tower. Paint Museum needs 4 more floors at least

@KJP just read your paint museum reference and is now retiring from journalism.😉

Grateful for all glass and no beige!