44 minutes ago, cfdwarrior said:

I get, we should be happy that SW stayed and like has been mentioned, this is a place of business and they are free to do what they feel fit.  That being said, I am still disappointed that they didn't do a better job of making the HQ iconic.  It is nice, but that is about it...nice.  I wonder how many other companies in, let's say NYC, take the time to buy prime real estate to build one average building, then surround it with low rise parking and a training center.  They build the training center on the prime real estate, then build the tower on the secondary lot and surround it with a parking garage...all in the name of "respect" to the other buildings around it.  You could probably build 6 to 8 SW HQ's on the land available.  Instead, they build a campus with a tower thrown in.  I AM glad they stayed, I AM glad there will be a new high rise downtown...but man, what a blown opportunity.  Imagine if the Weston plan would have came about and the SW HQ would have been put on the Jacob's lot.  Just my opinion.

 

I'm disappointed that it won't be taller than Queen City Center.   :)    We all have our wishes, but they are the ones who have to work in it.

I was in Kansas City over the weekend and this is their tallest building. It’s actually the tallest building in the state of Missouri. 624’. Just a street view perspective if height when looking up at the SW tower.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really don't understand why people are disappointed with the tower design. That's just how people build towers now. Look at the past few years of skyscraper construction in New York. Since 1 WTC and 432 Park were finished (in 2014 and 2015) is there any new skyscraper construction in New York that is really that much better than Pickard Chilton's design for the SHW tower? I mean, sure, the SHW tower is conservative and some of the stuff being built in New York is more interesting, but is any of it really better? I personally think that 1 WTC and 432 Park are simply better than the SHW design. But those are also probably the first and fifth most iconic buildings in New York. Of the NY skyscrapers built since then, I think the SHW tower will hold a candle to any.

Nice looking building in KC but for me the best thing about that photo is how the 3 buildings create a nice little line-up. We have some nice looking skyscrapers but they all appear in isolation. No density.

 

My favorite view of downtown Cleveland is standing on the southwest corner of East 9th looking north. That's a nice looking row of building's there even though none of them are the tallest. We have too many parks and parking lots.

 

Look at Cincinnati. They don't have really tall buildings but they do have density. 

8 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

The degree to which he did complain about public access and skywalks was pretty roundly scoffed at on the fora I saw.   For good reason.

This is a place of business, not a piece of public art.

The city seems to have learned it's lesson from Progressive.  They are posturing, as politicians will, but not enough to risk their save of a critical piece of their central business district.

I'm picking up on the "public art" piece here...Of course having SHW in Cleveland is the top priority and I'm sure the building will end up being "fine".  But I think architecture is a form of public art and is therefore open for critique.  SHW doesn't want to hear it, the architect won't act on it, but we're still free to give it!  They'll still do what they want and that's fine.

 

I think the Litt article hit on a few issues that are architecturally out of sync.  Such as, why does the front of the building sprawl out onto a public park with almost open arms, yet not let people in?  Why build a tower in the heart of town that begs people to look at it, and not do something more aspirational like Terminal Tower?  Sometimes I think this project is saying one thing, but then doing another.  I think that's what Litt is hitting on.  I've been to architecture school and these are the exact kind of questions that would be getting asked in a studio class.  I think it's fair to critique it as such.  But on the other hand, critique isn't always the same as criticism.

I am not sure why so many people think every project in Cleveland needs involvement from Cleveland artists.   To me the building is beautiful and a beautiful building is art.   If we all want to see bad examples of architecture there are many.    I'm celebrating this as a win for the city especially after Progressive and Eaton went to the burbs.    Three cheers & lets get to groundbreaking.   

I think architecture can be a form of art, but architects should not confuse themselves into believing they are artists.

23 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

The degree to which he did complain about public access and skywalks was pretty roundly scoffed at on the fora I saw.   For good reason.

This is a place of business, not a piece of public art.

The city seems to have learned it's lesson from Progressive.  They are posturing, as politicians will, but not enough to risk their save of a critical piece of their central business district.

 

 

i didn’t say anything about artwork and what “fora” are you talking about?

 

sw can build what they want and we can praise and criticize it all we want, thats just fun stuff, but more importantly the city has every right to push back against skywalks and street-facing sides of the campus.

 

if many people are like you and are indeed fine with not speaking out about mediocrity and worst of all a fortress style campus design in the heart of downtown, then unfortunately that is what it will be. i understand the politics, but there is way to do it short of pissing off sw until they move out of town. it’s not a big ask to push, after all, there is public money involved and i would hope zoning. also, this milquetoast mayor doesn’t turn into a complete jerk on a dime like mike white would. so i just thought litt could have been a bit more bold and pointed.

If anyone wants to watch:

 

Sherwin Williams Special Joint Meeting on Sept. 14, 2021 at 2:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3ZDp1XcjvE

 

19 minutes ago, Whipjacka said:

If anyone wants to watch:

 

Sherwin Williams Special Joint Meeting on Sept. 14, 2021 at 2:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3ZDp1XcjvE

 

No public access for the pavilion including the barista.  Disappointing for sure.

Definitely a missed opportunity about the public access with the pavilion. But at least they said the roof will be decorative, and not just a bland white surface for the other buildings to look down on.

 

Still not ideal and what a lot of us would like to see, but it could be worse.

Welp, I guess it's better than a surface parking lot.

Just turned it on, there's a lot of renderings coming through. Hopefully someone can get the hard copies of this presentation.

 

Bummed about public access - it's been discussed ad nauseum in here, but that lobby really should be open. Seems like it won't change, but I sure hope it does.

 

Seems like there's been some pushback about the size of the retail spaces, just mentioned: 

2600 Sq ft total of retail- 9'-9.6' ceiling height in retail spaces.

In lieu of the attachments/document being posted, here are a handful of screenshots:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 20213 yr by GISguy
Removed renderings that are already on the forum

I dunno.  It looks kind of bulky.

no, you see the lines break up the building as it creates a conversation between the other towers. 

I'll admit I don't watch or attend these meetings but it's shocking how the chair is trying to move things along so fast. "We're 20 minutes in and we need to move on, make your comment quick" this is arguably one of the largest projects in the last 20-30 years, I think they can stay late and get through all their comments and concerns.

What happened to the fountain on the Jacob's lot that they previously talked about? I also didn't hear anything about public access to the barista that was previously stated.

1 minute ago, MikeyB440 said:

What happened to the fountain on the Jacob's lot that they previously talked about? I also didn't hear anything about public access to the barista that was previously stated.

 

They claim there'll be company programming going on during the day in the center and it won't be possible, due to security concerns, to have the building open to the public. They make it sound like it'll be open to official meetings (and presumably rentals) afterhours. 

17 minutes ago, GISguy said:

I'll admit I don't watch or attend these meetings but it's shocking how the chair is trying to move things along so fast. "We're 20 minutes in and we need to move on, make your comment quick" this is arguably one of the largest projects in the last 20-30 years, I think they can stay late and get through all their comments and concerns.

Yeah I don't get what is the rush.  This should be reviewed with no time constraints.  "I regret we have 5 minutes to make a motion and haven't even talked about the tower"  WTF.

Lots of gray hairs. Where’s all the young blood?

its crazy, they cant conceptually justify this pavilion 

Edited September 14, 20213 yr by Whipjacka

9 minutes ago, marty15 said:

Lots of gray hairs. Where’s all the young blood?

6 minutes ago, Whipjacka said:

its crazy, they cant conceptually justify this pavilion 

 

FWIW I believe the two members who voted against the Pavilion were the youngest. 

Can somebody on the forum explain what the time limitations were all about.  Was there some sort of announcement at the beginning or reasoning that I missed,  This meeting turned into amateur hour.

11 minutes ago, marty15 said:

Lots of gray hairs. Where’s all the young blood?

 

Too busy getting cut off by said white/grey hairs. Frustrating how pompous some of these people are.

 

...But I don't want to drag this too far off topic

Edited September 14, 20213 yr by GISguy

So wait is that it then? No public access to any component of the pavilion?

 

Just now, YO to the CLE said:

So wait is that it then? No public access to any component of the pavilion?

 

 

no, honestly, it sounded like they don't want people on the lawn, either

1 minute ago, Htsguy said:

Can somebody on the forum explain what the time limitations were all about.  Was there some sort of announcement at the beginning or reasoning that I missed,  This meeting turned into amateur hour.

 

I would think that they, like us, could and would talk through the end of the week about every possible detail. My experience with this design review board is that they like to talk to prove how smart they are to the other committee members. 

I actually really liked the comment about studying to flip the pavilion’s design/orientation across the horizontal axis. In this case, the wider part of the plaza is in front of 55 Public Square and funnels people north toward Frankfort, with the more built up street frontage being along Superior. I actually never thought of this and really liked it, especially since this emphasizes the pedestrian movement and pedestrian focus on Frankfort they seem to be  going for. 

Unfortunately that idea got quickly shot down, but it did have several other members in support of it along with further study. 

 

A) why are people in this city often so quick to shoot down other ideas?

B) why the need the rush such important and influential discussions??

 

I’ll never understand those two things. But appreciate the people who ARE trying to break the status quo and push this city forward. We need more of it.

3 minutes ago, urbanetics_ said:

A) why are people in this city often so quick to shoot down other ideas?

B) why the need the rush such important and influential discussions??

 

I’ll never understand those two things. But appreciate the people who ARE trying to break the status quo and push this city forward. We need more of it.

 

This meeting has been very frustrating to watch and has made me a lot more pessimistic than I was when I turned this on. The way things have been pushed along I'm pretty convinced that SHW/PC is going to placate the committees with updated schematics but will end up opting for the original design and nobody will bat an eye.

22 minutes ago, Whipjacka said:

 

no, honestly, it sounded like they don't want people on the lawn, either

"semi-private, semi-public space"  

 

So how many times will the general public walk within this pavilion plaza, and try to open the front doors, only to have them jolted by locked doors?

I understand SHW signage will obviously indicate it is a company's building.

These meetings should be longer to have a better time for Q&A and a debate.    Whoever said the barista should be open to the public is spot on.  I would want to have coffee there.

I guess all this explains the secrecy of the past couple of years lol....no wonder they didnt want any of these plans leaked.  

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2021/09/sherwin-williams-names-five-minority-construction-firms-for-cleveland-hq-brecksville-rd-projects.html

I know it can be a real challenge to design something truly original, but have you noticed the similarities between Sherwin Williams design and the Bocom financial towers in Shanghai. 

The Shanghai Towers show more of a divergence between ne another - and they’re more arresting  particularly at their rooflines.  The SW HQ reminds even more of the less dramatic Residences at the Ritz Carlton in White Plains  Plains NY 

 

I wish SW was closer to the sexier Shanghai towers.  But we’ve all done more than our share of second guessing, opining and wishful thinking.  I’m just looking forward to our skyline changing in the most noticeable  way in 30 years. 

@OH_Really  If only! 

If the Bocom Tower in Shanghai were Cinderella. then we got the Stepmother.

 

The tower in Shanghai is not so very different from SW in concept, yet it dares to be distinctive and cut a more strikingly confident figure of its own. It calls one to look twice in order to admire it, yet it isn't far-out, kooky, or wild.  It may be less practical than the SW tower, but SW could have borrowed one more element from this design by swiping some of it's actual flair on the upstairs end.

 

I guess we should be happy, but let's not try to compare our new tower in Cleveland to buildings that are actually beautiful, memorable, & marvelous to gaze upon. Doing so will just make us all feel bad.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 20213 yr by ExPatClevGuy

4 hours ago, ExPatClevGuy said:

@OH_Really  If only! 

If the Bocom Tower in Shanghai were Cinderella. then we got the Stepmother.

 

The tower in Shanghai is not so very different from SW in concept, yet it dares to be distinctive and cut a more strikingly confident figure of its own. It calls one to look twice in order to admire it, yet it isn't far-out, kooky, or wild.  It may be less practical than the SW tower, but SW could have borrowed one more element from this design by swiping some of it's actual flair on the upstairs end.

 

I guess we should be happy, but let's not try to compare our new tower in Cleveland to buildings that are actually beautiful, memorable, & marvelous to gaze upon. Doing so will just make us all feel bad.

 

 

 

 

I like our tower better than the one pictured 🤷🏾‍♂️

Yeah, I hope to be surprised and pleased that I like it too.

 

The risk fo me is that it will look fat, flat, and bland, even with the modestly angled top.

 

The architect's fuzzy renderings as presented so far only show the most flattering angles of this mammoth tower. From what they show, it just doesn't sing the same aspirationall design song that it's three tallest neighbors sang in their own eras of design & construction, even 200 PS.

Edited September 25, 20213 yr by ExPatClevGuy

The building is just the Cleveland Hilton Hotel 2.0. Thats all.

On 9/13/2021 at 7:42 PM, scg80 said:

I think architecture can be a form of art, but architects should not confuse themselves into believing they are artists.

Some Architect's are artists who get paid. 👨‍🎓

 

First permit applications were submitted today to the city for the SHW HQ for zoning reviews. This is primarily for the parking garage and for a plat consolidation. The garage renderings were already shared publicly as part of last week's joint planning meeting. Here's a cover letter for it....

 

EDIT: I found other zoning review apps submitted for other parts of the HQ.

 

 

On 9/22/2021 at 8:35 AM, jbee1982 said:

The building is just the Cleveland Hilton Hotel 2.0. Thats all.

My sentiments exactly! Just two Hiltons slapped together in opposite directions.

On 9/14/2021 at 2:41 PM, Whipjacka said:

no, you see the lines break up the building as it creates a conversation between the other towers. 

Like this one by I.M. Pei in Boston:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hancock_Tower#/media/File:John_Hancock_Tower.jpg

 

On 9/25/2021 at 5:59 AM, shack said:

Like this one by I.M. Pei in Boston:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hancock_Tower#/media/File:John_Hancock_Tower.jpg

 

At least they were not afraid to go tall. It is 62 floors and 790 feet.

As has been said here many times, height for the sake of height is the height of insecurity and waste.

6 hours ago, KJP said:

As has been said here many times, height for the sake of height is the height of insecurity and waste.

Case and point.

Edited September 26, 20213 yr by Florida Guy

No indication from the article if this will have any bearing on job numbers in Cleveland:

 

"...Cleveland-based Sherwin-Williams Co. plans to acquire Specialty Polymers Inc....a maker and developer of water-based polymers for applications like architectural and industrial coatings. The company, which has about 150 employees, operates facilities in Woodburn, Oregon, and Chester, South Carolina...."

 

Sherwin-Williams to acquire Specialty Polymers

https://www.crainscleveland.com/manufacturing/sherwin-williams-acquire-specialty-polymers

 

On 9/26/2021 at 10:59 AM, KJP said:

As has been said here many times, height for the sake of height is the height of insecurity and waste.

Yes, however, in the case of SHW, they are anticipating future growth.

 

I guess those Van Sweringen brothers were a little insecure.  😀

 

Edited September 29, 20213 yr by LibertyBlvd

I’ll take a little more insecurity for the supposed upcoming “Roaring 20’s” of Cleveland development, please.