48 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

Checking out that Hilton- SW angle evening time (JonesDrones on IG) 

😆 This is a really fun illusion. It resembles the preposterous fictional hotel I imagined when reading a favorite story, "Martin Dressler" by Steven Millhauser.

 

"Martin couldn't resist digging a hole from which an extraordinary building would grow; a hotel like nothing that had ever been seen or imagined...

The Grand Cosmo opened five days after Martin's thirty-third birthday. It was a city (several highly-diverse cities) within itself - "it was a complete and self-sufficient world, in comparison with which the actual city was not simply inferior, but superfluous."

Edited May 21, 20241 yr by ExPatClevGuy

A couple of views from tonight. Heading west on superior. Then from the viaduct. 

Crazy the difference of only 1 year 

Took this photo and it made the building look as if it was in stealth mode. 

Seen from the crib this morning

 

What a great view! Phase 2 + something else with decent height to fill that gap and something to step down from 200 Euclid to the east would really fill the skyline out well. It's a shame this view isn't more accessible. It shows the true scale of the skyline we already have.

Even if it turns out that SW2 is "only" the height of the Justice Center (that's probably a best case scenario at 420' based on what we know at this early juncture)  - what a great addition it will be to the extension of the skyline on the western side - and visually, would look really great from this southern looking vantage point.   And if there ever is anything of height from Bedrock on that Nucleus site - that might take care of that "step-down" from 200 PS. 

Edited May 23, 20241 yr by CleveFan

When the design of the SW building was initially shared, many were underwhelmed.  What are your thought now it nearly finished? 

26 minutes ago, newyorker said:

When the design of the SW building was initially shared, many were underwhelmed.  What are your thought now it nearly finished? 

 

I still wish it was taller than Queen City, other than that it's good.

It’s better than I thought at first, but not as good as it could’ve been.

The tower is fine.  Still hate the shack on the Jacobs lot.  Should have been twice as big, look less like a suburban medical office building and should have contained more public amenities.  

1 hour ago, newyorker said:

When the design of the SW building was initially shared, many were underwhelmed.  What are your thought now it nearly finished? 

My thoughts are about the same. Meh. It's not the worst glass box monstrosity I've ever seen, but it does nothing to inspire or even evoke beauty. I think it's telling that so many of the pictures of the new tower are positioned so that it reflects our grand dame that is the Terminal Tower. Glad our city center is growing, glad for the density, glad to see holes in the skyline filled up, but I consider this a below average skyscraper in the looks department. Though I'm personally still waiting on the art deco revival, so maybe I'm not the person to ask. 

We are all thrilled to see the surface parking lots gone. As for the tower, it's OK.  It fills another void in the skyline. I would have preferred it being a bit taller and gradually tapered towards the top.  It's unlikely we will see any towers of substantial height downtown in the foreseeable future, so that is why I was hoping this would be taller.

2 hours ago, newyorker said:

When the design of the SW building was initially shared, many were underwhelmed.  What are your thought now it nearly finished? 

It looks too much like the Hilton hotel unfortunately, so it lacks individuality. However, the height does do a great job at evening out out western skyline. I just wish they built a tad bit taller and chose a different crown instead of the slopes. 

Thanks for asking.

'Not P+C's best work from the viewers' perspective, but probably judged as excellent by SW's own standards.

 

It shows a missed opportunity to do something more interesting and recognizeably distinctive than rigid planar surfaces of glass - in a town where our other tall building have more singularly identifiable sculptural elements.

 

It does looks like several other buildings in several other towns, which was to be expected with the Internationalist style cubes of yesteryear, but nowadays the bar is much higher.

 

That said, hope against hope, there is an opportunity for redemption at street level in the warehouse district, which I (many?) would love to see incorporate the historic building at W3rd and St. Clair.

 

Doing it right during phase II won't change the drab Home Depot DIY angles of the tower, but over time other towers will grow and add to the mix, and make this one appear somehow less prominent. It will do okay in SW's seemingly self-selected suppporting role on the horizon.

 

What I can say about it is that SW's mod-blue-glass contribution to the skyline has been delivered, and it is immeasurably better than the surface lots it replaces - in multitudes of noteworthy ways.

Edited May 24, 20241 yr by ExPatClevGuy
Tweaks to my turns of phrase, spelling, and the like.

To me it reflects their corporate culture/brand. Also sort of reflects Northeast Ohio’s approach to design generally. Conservative, utilitarian, not showy. 
 

I’m glad they built it. I do think it’d be nice to see more creativity around town but I think that requires a pretty dominant personality to make it happen—Dan Gilbert type folks. SW is old and beholden to shareholders, so I get why it is the way it is. 

 

The new SHW Headquarter is a nice addition to the skyline.  Much like the company, the design is very conservative and on trend. The design borrows details from the former EY Tower in the Flats and The Hilton.  This takes away any uniqueness the building could have brought to the skyline.  I am grateful for the addition to our collection of skyscrapers. Hopefully more innovation and risks are taken in the future.

Edited May 24, 20241 yr by dave2017

Not as striking as Key Tower or 200 PS or Terminal Tower - but still a nice addition to the skyline and, as many have indicated, seemingly on brand for SHW

I think it’s an outstanding addition to the skyline. Its simplicity, reflectivity and position off Public Square gives it maximum impact from pedestrian level and a multitude of skyline views. The way it appears transparent/translucent at times sets it apart from the the other three tall towers, giving Cleveland a shot of very modern adrenaline. The final impact will come when the crown is complete with the vertical strips that will wrap it are complete, in addition to the vertical light strips on the Eastern and Western facades. Ultimately, it’s turning out to be exactly what I hoped for- almost. I would be extremely happy with 10 more stories.

I'm still pretty underwhelmed, tbh.  I think it looks VERY similar to buildings built in the 1970's (John Hancock in Boston, Owens+Illinois in Toledo), and I was never really a huge fan of that style.  Pickard Chilton's website shows a long list of underwhelming buildings in this style, that all look like they belong on a Columbus outerbelt.  I judge these things by how long I could sit, stare, and get lost in the building.  The other big three on Public Square can keep my attention for hours, with their setbacks, corners, angles, details, and design.  SW?  About 30 seconds.  I'm also more of a fan of actually lighting the structure (to show off the design), rather than bolting lights onto the outside just for show (feels more like a sign than a lit building).  I mean my God, look at the Terminal Tower at night.  Majestic.  Also, there are some ugly angles and viewpoints to this building - more than any other Cleveland highrise.  Being that tall, I wish it looked good from all angles, but it's beautifully slim from some directions, and chunky and fat from others.  That being said, I tell myself SW has more of a sense of humor than I thought, and boldly delivered two paintbrushes, and that keeps me from hating it.

Edited May 24, 20241 yr by chrino21

It looks as expected. A nice and inoffensive addition to the skyline since we don't have many glass skyscrapers. I wasn't expecting anything else for the reported price tag. We poured over other Pickard Chilton designs early on. The best looking examples were way more expensive for smaller sq footage buildings. I agree the east-west view is not its best angle. It looks fat and flat.

 

The ground floors seem nicely detailed so the pedestrian view should be nice. I still think the tower should have been built on the Jacob lot. 

"Also, there are some ugly angles and viewpoints to this building - more than any other Cleveland highrise.  Being that tall, I wish it looked good from all angles, but it's beautifully slim from some directions, and chunky and fat from others.  That being said, I tell myself SW has more of a sense of humor than I thought, and boldly delivered two paintbrushes, and that keeps me from hating it."

 

I thought this comment from Chrino21 was spot on.  I find myself always looking for a better angle with this building.  I'm not a fan of it from the west, it seems just too chunky which seems to take away from its height and the contrasting angles at the top seem to compete with each other and oddly juxtaposed (the angle from the west is too gradual to make much of a statement, but then you see that east facing angle poking out...) 

Then Im also not a fan from the south either as its just kinda awkward.  The building lacks harmony.     

Perhaps the best angle I have seen was coming down Buckeye towards the opportunity corridor, the time of day may have played a role but the sharper angle stood out nicely (I couldn't see the awkward west facing angle), so it made quite a statement. 

Im anxious to see those things taken out of the window to see if it helps with the overall look, and I guess Im anxious to see the lighting to see how it may help, although I would have preferred a more dramatic top lighted from within similar to their 1180 Peachtree building in Atlanta.      

Edited May 24, 20241 yr by willyboy

55 minutes ago, ArtMasterCLE said:

I think it’s an outstanding addition to the skyline. Its simplicity, reflectivity and position off Public Square gives it maximum impact from pedestrian level and a multitude of skyline views. The way it appears transparent/translucent at times sets it apart from the the other three tall towers, giving Cleveland a shot of very modern adrenaline. The final impact will come when the crown is complete with the vertical strips that will wrap it are complete, in addition to the vertical light strips on the Eastern and Western facades. Ultimately, it’s turning out to be exactly what I hoped for- almost. I would be extremely happy with 10 more stories.

Love this take!

 

The fact that it doesn't closely resemble the other large towers on the square allow it to stand out from the other three and really anything else on the Superior/Euclid axis of downtown.

 

Throw in the unique roof top and it stands out amongst the rest of the downtown towers.

 

Is this building spectacular on its own? No. That said the reflective glass curtainwall, roof shape and bump outs give it all the contrast and uniqueness (in Cleveland at least), that it needs.

3 hours ago, willyboy said:

I'm not a fan of it from the west, it seems just too chunky which seems to take away from its height...

But that will be partially obscured if/when tower 2 is built. 

 

That is the problem In Cleveland.  The handful of tall towers stand out.  Whereas in a city like Toronto with dozens of tall towers, they all blend in together.

 

Edited May 24, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

I love the blue glass, if only because it's not our usual beige. It may not age well because it's common enough around the country but, for now at least  it modernizes the skyline here and we needed that. My only complaint is the top. I think it looks clunky. But, l suppose it's like a lot of movies...good start that reels you in but the finish is lackluster. 

 

What can put the development over the top is not phase ll but what the buildings on the St.Clair, West 6th area look like. A smart architect would design several 5-6 story buildings that bridge the old wharehouse structures with the modern glass tower. Unfortunately l'm not expecting that.

Others have noted the same, but I'll hop on - I wish it was a bit more distinctive than the Hilton. Kind of weird how they're almost twins of each other. Oh well, it is what it is...glad to see that parking lot gone and frankly the shack isn't as bad as we originally made it out to be - kind of happy they built on the lot further back.

Not really a fan of warmed over 80's style Ray-Ban Modern.  But it is ok enough as a tower.  The Shack, on the other hand, is a bitter disappointment, and bafflingly so.  Why take such a prominent site just to do so little with it?  What a sad lack of vision and public spirit.

 

Better than a parking lot, though.

5 hours ago, newyorker said:

When the design of the SW building was initially shared, many were underwhelmed.  What are your thought now it nearly finished? 

 

I think that its a nice addition to the skyline.  I also begrudgingly am somewhat glad that SW didn't go higher.  It now seems to force them to go higher on the second phase.  Even though it would've been nice for them to go higher, I'm optimistic about what the second tower will add to the skyline (imagine going higher on the first tower and the second tower looking somewhat like the Marriot next to Key Tower).  I love the diversity to the skyline that it adds.

20 minutes ago, superior said:

 

I think that its a nice addition to the skyline.  I also begrudgingly am somewhat glad that SW didn't go higher.  It now seems to force them to go higher on the second phase.  Even though it would've been nice for them to go higher, I'm optimistic about what the second tower will add to the skyline (imagine going higher on the first tower and the second tower looking somewhat like the Marriot next to Key Tower).  I love the diversity to the skyline that it adds.

Do you mean higher on the second tower to mean higher than the first tower or higher than what they originally planned for the second tower?  I'd be shocked if phase 2 is taller than phase 1 BUT if it is in the 20 story range - it will be a nice addition to the skyline

1 minute ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

Do you mean higher on the second tower to mean higher than the first tower or higher than what they originally planned for the second tower?  I'd be shocked if phase 2 is taller than phase 1 BUT if it is in the 20 story range - it will be a nice addition to the skyline

 

I mean higher than what SW originally plan for the second tower.  Which I believe will add a little more balance to the skyline.

24 minutes ago, superior said:

 

I think that its a nice addition to the skyline.  I also begrudgingly am somewhat glad that SW didn't go higher.  It now seems to force them to go higher on the second phase.  Even though it would've been nice for them to go higher, I'm optimistic about what the second tower will add to the skyline (imagine going higher on the first tower and the second tower looking somewhat like the Marriot next to Key Tower).  I love the diversity to the skyline that it adds.

 

I feel the same way regarding the 2nd tower.  

 

I feel like SHW1 is a nice addition, though I will admit that I was hoping for a tower that was taller than Key Bank initially when the leaks started coming out about SHW's intentions on building a new headquarters.  It adds depth to the skyline even when coming in from the east.  For those who haven't yet done so, take a ride down Superior towards downtown.  I have yet to take a photo from the street (I'll dodge traffic just to get the best angle 😆) but downtown looks great with the new addition.  From the Shoreway heading into downtown from the east, around E. 55th St. you'll begin to see a new depth in downtown that didn't exist before. 

 

I've come to realize that in my view downtown will never truly feel "complete".  I'll always want to see something new- either big or small to add both density and people.  So I like what the tower adds, but I'll never be satisfied 😄   

It sufficiently embodies... capitalism. The market spoke and a revenue generating asset sprung out of the ground. A stock price jump manifest.

 

That's about as much as it evokes for me lol. 

 

Edited May 24, 20241 yr by ASP1984

On 5/15/2024 at 8:09 PM, BoomerangCleRes said:

Been a little hazy today, I wonder when the crane will start coming down 

As a visual artist, I always tend to look for collective impact and the individual roles played by each of the major players on any skyline. Looking at @BoomerangCleRes ‘s photo, the four main towers are aligned horizontally from this angle, allowing us to see the uniqueness of  each and the interplay between them. Each has a specific role to play. The overall impression is a skyline with diverse architecture and excellent verticality. Imagine if each of four towers were constructed of heavy stone with a tapering top. The result could be too monotonous.

5 hours ago, willyboy said:

I'm not a fan of it from the west, it seems just too chunky which seems to take away from its height and the contrasting angles at the top seem to compete with each other and oddly juxtaposed (the angle from the west is too gradual to make much of a statement, but then you see that east facing angle poking out...) 

 

 

Im anxious to see those things taken out of the window to see if it helps with the overall look, and I guess Im anxious to see the lighting to see how it may help, although I would have preferred a more dramatic top lighted from within similar to their 1180 Peachtree building in Atlanta.      

I agree with you bro. I would have liked to see it a little narrower from the east and west perspectives, and a little taller. One saving grace about the chunkiness is the reflective nature to where it almost blends in with the sky. In that respect, it is a bit of a chameleon as it changes with the weather. 

Edited May 24, 20241 yr by TMart

Happy Memorial Weekend everyone!  Today was a cool conversation to hear a lot of folks' reactions to the SW building as it now takes final shape.  I'm generally pleased with the end result.

The look overall is still on the conservative safe side, but the angled roof and setbacks within the building really help visual interest. The coloration and glass lend a definitely more  modern look to the skyline overall - I think we needed that infusion.   At least, SW didn't do a flat roof- I think the final product

is a big improvement on that - and viewing from the east that higher sloped side has a significant degree of style/flair as it seems to point upwards towards the summit of the Terminal Tower.

 

Overall, I think the building is an above average skyscraper - albeit one that would not be the highest-ranked here, where the other big 3 - particularly the TT and Key, are very impressive towers

worthy of any city in the world.  Even 200 P.S. is a more interesting skyscraper than the average glass box that we often see in other cities, IMO.  So SW is probably my 4th (or tied for 3rd) most favorite of the big 4, but a nice change of style and compliment to the other big 3.  SW's height and position in the skyline adds a whole lot towards a bigger city look for CLE.

 

If I could've tweaked the design, I also would've reduced the bulk of the building a bit and added enough height to make it Cleveland's 2nd tallest.  Not a dramatic reduction to a thin tower, but enough to reduce the wide/bulky quality when viewed from the west or east.  SW did a pretty good job of breaking up that bulk with a design that almost makes it look like two towers when viewed from certain perspectives - that breakup of the massive bulk of the building is a welcome relief.  I think I would've preferred one sloped side  but with a little more dramatic and higher slope to it.

And, obviously,  the garage podium would support a future tower - and the Shack would instead be something like a 15 story hotel - but I guess SW wanted a clear view towards their tower from the square.

 

So, some nitpicks and critiques- but I think it's still an attractive skyscraper and a strong addition for downtown. And who knows - the lighting atop the crown may be  very striking when added.

 

I just hope that we won't have to wait 20 years for a new significant tower (or towers) to appear.  Maybe SW2 will end up being taller than originally expected and end up surprising and thrilling us.  I guess we'll know more about that as early as next year.  

Edited May 24, 20241 yr by CleveFan

Very good discussion with great observations for and against.  Good stuff everybody!

Does anyone have the schematic of the crowns that SW were going to choose from? I remember seeing it somewhere but I can't find it online. I think there were four or five options SW were deciding on. 

 

 

30 minutes ago, MayDay said:

 

Looks so dense I thought this was a different city amazing how much our skyline changes depending where you are 

SHW definitely filled in the gap here 

The only thing I have is I want SW 2 to be something completely different. Maybe terra cotta? Or like WTC 5. I don't want another fancy glass filing cabinet in the sky - this is cool and striking, but add another and it will take away from that affect. Cleveland is a very architecturally diverse city and that needs to be continued in the SW compound.

My thoughts for Building 2 would be something similar to the Cleveland Library Stokes Wing.  Boxy with some sort of stone at the base (with touches of glass) and then glassy after this pedestal in either a round or oval shape and of course pretty tall so it makes a statement on the skyline.

Cylindrical could make sense, could spin it as two paint brushes and a paint can 

5 hours ago, columbus17 said:

The only thing I have is I want SW 2 to be something completely different. Maybe terra cotta? 

 

 

I want this, The Fitzroy in NYC, somewhere Downtown. 

 

I'd love more Beaux-arts and art deco-y buildings in the city. With having the Terminal Tower and the Guardians being 2 of the biggest symbols of our city, it'd be a cool point of pride to lean into. 

The second tower should stay similar to the primary tower with a slight variation. They need to relate to each other. 

SHW1 just now…

17 hours ago, PlanCleveland said:

 

 

I want this, The Fitzroy in NYC, somewhere Downtown. 

 

I'd love more Beaux-arts and art deco-y buildings in the city. With having the Terminal Tower and the Guardians being 2 of the biggest symbols of our city, it'd be a cool point of pride to lean into. 

 

Art Deco points towards the architectural future that I wish the world had taken instead of International School bland boxes.

Cross posted from my threads (part 1 uploaded, part 2 in progress) from the Goodtime III in City Photos.