16 minutes ago, StapHanger said:

 

Guessing Vocon was just a site search design consultant.  For a building like this, seems likely SW will aim a little higher for architecture talent.

 

Vocon has been doing the programming and spatial/massing work too.

Edited February 6, 20205 yr by KJP

If Sherwin-Williams hopes to start this summer (according to their FAQ) we might see massings by March, then renderings in June. You don't get this far in the process without an idea of programming on each site. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a concept massing from Vocon sooner than later

 

For comparison we got massings from Stark for nuCLEus in the fall 2014 to get conceptual approval from the planning commission, then actual renderings in January 2015 for design approval.

 

What is a similar sized building in Cleveland with 1,000,000 SQR Feet?

1 minute ago, KJP said:

 

The 1.8 million refers to the total HQ+R&D. The total that SHW is proposing is 1.5 million square feet. But the HQ is smaller than what I was told and the R&D is larger than I was told.

 

What doesn't make sense to me is that the proposed HQ is one million square feet which is basically a wash compared to what they have in the Landmark Building and over in the Skylight Office Tower. So I don't see much of a consolidation here unless they are going to build additional structures to accommodate the employees at Hinckley and others from around the country.

1 million square feet spread over the Jacobs and Westons lot is going to have all the height junkies seeking therapy.  I on the other hand am so happy the Jacobs lot will be no more that I will buy no other than SHW paint the rest of my life.  Here is hoping the base of the design will really enliven Public Square

8 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

The 1.8 million refers to the total HQ+R&D. The total that SHW is proposing is 1.5 million square feet. But the HQ is smaller than what I was told and the R&D is larger than I was told.

 

What doesn't make sense to me is that the proposed HQ is one million square feet which is basically a wash compared to what they have in the Landmark Building and over in the Skylight Office Tower. So I don't see much of a consolidation here unless they are going to build additional structures to accommodate the employees at Hinckley and others from around the country.

1 million square feet in a new building might be able to hold more employees than 1 million sf in a more outdated building. 

I am confused. So there is NOT a skyscraper going on Public Square? I thought the consensus was at least 30 stories? What is Stan Bullard referring to?

Obviously things need to play out more and a new HQ being built downtown is better than the opposite or a company leaving. That being said, after seeing that press release, seeing that potentially we wont see the Minneapolis team come here like we first thought, the new HQ space not being bigger than what they already have, a rumor of NO SKYSCRAPER, potentially not building on the Jacobs lot and the whole Brecksville thing, I can't help but feel underwhelmed. 

Edited February 6, 20205 yr by MyPhoneDead

I’m gonna go with them understating the cost and size as to not wanting to spook shareholders. 

Edited February 6, 20205 yr by marty15

@KJP do u think there will be spinoff development downtown as a result of the new HQ?

I love how his tweet says, "No Public Square Tower", yet in his article he states no details have emerged about the height of the HQ. From what I've seen, nothing indicates there's a chance a new tower won't be built on the Jacobs lots.

 

I'm still holding out for a 30+ story tower on the Jacobs lot and a mass of 3-5 story buildings on the Weston lots that help blend in well with the Warehouse District.

My sources say that SW plans for Weston lots have been downgraded to a one-story retail paint store with 2k surface parking spots. 

4 minutes ago, ASPhotoman said:

I love how his tweet says, "No Public Square Tower", yet in his article he states no details have emerged about the height of the HQ. From what I've seen, nothing indicates there's a chance a new tower won't be built on the Jacobs lots.

 

I'm still holding out for a 30+ story tower on the Jacobs lot and a mass of 3-5 story buildings on the Weston lots that help blend in well with the Warehouse District.

totally obnoxious tweet from Stan Bullard

There was mention of mixed use at the R&D site (could be a separate development) but no mixed use at the HQ, I hope we don't have to deal with blocks of single use office space. We'd be building something just to build it like we have in the past (Key, BP etc.) with no long term look at the benefits to an area when it comes to public use. Public Square honestly isn't very public. They need commercial space fronting the major streets. These mistakes aren't easily reversible, we have to get it right if we want to transition properly with the future of cities (live, work, play).

Edited February 6, 20205 yr by MyPhoneDead

To me, these numbers are the square footage of office/lab space and do not include the parking components.  It simply wouldn't make sense to say the "R&D Center + Parking" is 500,000 sq. ft.  Extending that to the HQ, they likely are saying the actual office square footage is 1,000,000 sq. ft.  

 

6 minutes ago, ASPhotoman said:

I love how his tweet says, "No Public Square Tower", yet in his article he states no details have emerged about the height of the HQ. From what I've seen, nothing indicates there's a chance a new tower won't be built on the Jacobs lots.

 

I'm still holding out for a 30+ story tower on the Jacobs lot and a mass of 3-5 story buildings on the Weston lots that help blend in well with the Warehouse District.

 

I think you're right.  Key and 200PS are both over 1M Sq.ft.  A lot of that space on the Weston lots has to be dedicated to structured parking.   Hard to see them fitting 1M Sq. ft. in without going at least 30 stories.

36 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

The 1.8 million refers to the total HQ+R&D. The total that SHW is proposing is 1.5 million square feet. But the HQ is smaller than what I was told and the R&D is larger than I was told.

 

What doesn't make sense to me is that the proposed HQ is one million square feet which is basically a wash compared to what they have in the Landmark Building and over in the Skylight Office Tower. So I don't see much of a consolidation here unless they are going to build additional structures to accommodate the employees at Hinckley and others from around the country.

 

Thanks for the clarification. That makes a lot more sense. Frankly, with a conservative public company that just had a kind of disappointing earnings report, I could see an announcement of "approximately" 1,000,000 sq. feet turning out to really mean 1,300,000 sq. feet.

11 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Apparently not.

 

 

Thanks. I had good sources on the HQ but no so good on the R&D it seems. But we'll see what the actual announcement is.

 

You're too modest, sir.  You've spent the last year or so running circles around the local press.  For us here on Urban Ohio, SW's announcement is almost anti-climactic.  But hopefully the rest of the city wakes up to this tremendous news and starts thinking positively about Cleveland and its future!  

Okay now I'm confused too. They are saying "west of Public Square" not "ON the west side of Public Square" but the map shows it on the Jacobs lot as well. Didn't they or aren't they in the process of purchasing the Jacobs lot? or is it the Weston lots or both? ?

IT includes the Jacobs lot.  I asked Michelle on Twitter and she confirmed.  No clue why Stan tweeted that.

3 minutes ago, Florida Guy said:

Okay now I'm confused too. They are saying "west of Public Square" not "ON the west side of Public Square" but the map shows it on the Jacobs lot as well. Didn't they or aren't they in the process of purchasing the Jacobs lot? or is it the Weston lots or both? ?

Technically the Jacobs lot is west of Public Square. 

17 minutes ago, ASPhotoman said:

I love how his tweet says, "No Public Square Tower", yet in his article he states no details have emerged about the height of the HQ. From what I've seen, nothing indicates there's a chance a new tower won't be built on the Jacobs lots.

 

I'm still holding out for a 30+ story tower on the Jacobs lot and a mass of 3-5 story buildings on the Weston lots that help blend in well with the Warehouse District.

I believe it will be 10-20+ story buildings on the Weston lots since they will need to include both parking and office space over the next ten years and a 30-40 story HQ on the Jacobs lot with a small amount of underground parking for the top people.

 I think we need to look at the Weston proposal as to what might be built. Because I'm not convinced the Public Square lot is a part of this. So picture the Weston proposal but not quite so fancy, with a very large parking structure.

^ Look on the previous page. ASPhotoman posted a picture from a PDF that SW published showing the Jacobs lot as part of their HQ. It's not just speculation.

 

 

The maps, published by SW, indicates Weston and Jacobs.

5 minutes ago, SgtBarone said:

Technically the Jacobs lot is west of Public Square. 

Yes "technically" but will it have a Public Square address? 

12 minutes ago, freethink said:

 I think we need to look at the Weston proposal as to what might be built. Because I'm not convinced the Public Square lot is a part of this. So picture the Weston proposal but not quite so fancy, with a very large parking structure.

This would be great.

10 minutes ago, Florida Guy said:

Yes "technically" but will it have a Public Square address? 

I don’t see why not. The lot is west of Public Square but it still borders it. It would likely follow the same address conventions as Key, Terminal Tower, 55 PS, 200 PS, etc. 

12 minutes ago, Florida Guy said:

Yes "technically" but will it have a Public Square address? 

YES it will have a public square address.

This is disappointing for now, unless they are not ready to announce everything.  They don't need both Jacobs lot

and weston both for what they announced today.

 

LOL.  Clearly SHW's long awaited, but let's admit it somewhat cryptic, announcement has done nothing to end the debate and speculation with us crazies.  My feeling is they did this on purpose to torture us. ?  Well at least we will have another enjoyable 2-3 months of debate as we read between the SHW lines before renderings are released (indeed one of our debates might be WHEN the renderings will be released).  This is all a discourse gold mine.  Hopefully the sources will keep leaking to add to the fun.

Channel 5 story. https://www.news5cleveland.com/sherwin-williams-announces-world-headquarters-to-stay-in-cleveland

25 minutes ago, simplythis said:

This is disappointing for now, unless they are not ready to announce everything.  They don't need both Jacobs lot

and weston both for what they announced today.

 

They will start with the HQ Tower on Jacobs lot and also build several 20+ story buildings on the Weston lots which will include both office, training, and parking.

They will then build additional office and parking spaces as required over the next ten years on the Weston lots from what I'm hearing.

EDIT:

I'm also hearing that they will be staging on the Weston lots and also may close part of West 3rd Street as they build the SHW HQ Tower on the Jacobs lot.  And then when the tower is completed they will start building on the Weston lots along Superior Avenue.

Edited February 6, 20205 yr by Larry1962
More details

2 hours ago, KJP said:

Note that SHW says it doesn't plan to move the Hinckley flex space (about 250 jobs and 130,000 sf) to downtown nor any Minneapolis staff to downtown or the R&D. I find that very curious...

If the new HQ building will take almost 3 years until its available, I wouldn't want to tell my Minneapolis employees now that they'll be moving in 3 years. I would think that would lead to a situation where you lose a lot of employees in the next two years because they have the chance to look for another job close to home. And it would be difficult to hire for those openings. IMHO. 

8 minutes ago, 3231 said:

If the new HQ building will take almost 3 years until its available, I wouldn't want to tell my Minneapolis employees now that they'll be moving in 3 years. I would think that would lead to a situation where you lose a lot of employees in the next two years because they have the chance to look for another job close to home. And it would be difficult to hire for those openings. IMHO. 

 

SHW has WAY more to gain from underselling this new HQ than from overselling it. Almost none of the people who will be impressed by a big shiny tower and more jobs downtown are people that SHW is worried about impressing. Their shareholders don't care. All they see is a big line item in the expense category.

6 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 

SHW has WAY more to gain from underselling this new HQ than from overselling it. Almost none of the people who will be impressed by a big shiny tower and more jobs downtown are people that SHW is worried about impressing. Their shareholders don't care. All they see is a big line item in the expense category.

 

Urban Ohio readers are not one of the stakeholders that SW is concerned about

By the time Sherwin-Williams is settled into its new buildings, the company could have 400 additional employees in the region, and a net gain of 700 workers in Ohio, according to corporate projections.
 

From Michelle’s article. Are they expanded somewhere else in Ohio? It’s looks like 300 more jobs in Ohio but outside of the region?

3 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

By the time Sherwin-Williams is settled into its new buildings, the company could have 400 additional employees in the region, and a net gain of 700 workers in Ohio, according to corporate projections.
 

From Michelle’s article. Are they expanded somewhere else in Ohio? It’s looks like 300 more jobs in Ohio but outside of the region?

 

That number is most likely retail store employees - they open 80-100 new locations per year.

Edited February 6, 20205 yr by Clefan98

 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2020

An analysis of Sherwin-Williams' HQ news: it's just the beginning

 

Up in the 90-year-old Landmark Building, where Sherwin-Williams' (SHW) headquarters has been growing and expanding for the duration of that Art Deco beauty's lifetime, the employees' response to The Big News appeared to be less than big.

"There seems to be little to no reaction here today," said an employee in SHW's Performance Coatings Group (PCG). "I can tell you one thing, no one is throwing a party or jumping for joy."

And that seems to be the same reaction to SHW's HQ announcement today across social media or among the urbanistas on the forum at UrbanOhio. It was also my reaction -- at first.

To some, SHW's proposal appears timid. To me, it is intentionally incomplete.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2020/02/an-analysis-of-sherwin-williams-hq-news.html

Thanks @KJP for your work on this.  Even if the City doesn't get a tower out of them staying, there's still plenty to be happy about with the official announcement. I officially owe you a Coke.

 

@MayDay- when's the next meet up date?

Great information @KJP  I for one am eager to hear about the potential "spin off development" you have mentioned before... ?

1 hour ago, Htsguy said:

LOL.  Clearly SHW's long awaited, but let's admit it somewhat cryptic, announcement has done nothing to end the debate and speculation with us crazies.  My feeling is they did this on purpose to torture us. ?  Well at least we will have another enjoyable 2-3 months of debate as we read between the SHW lines before renderings are released (indeed one of our debates might be WHEN the renderings will be released).  This is all a discourse gold mine.  Hopefully the sources will keep leaking to add to the fun.

Assuming the moderators will allow us to debate.   ☺️

1 hour ago, 3231 said:

If the new HQ building will take almost 3 years until its available, I wouldn't want to tell my Minneapolis employees now that they'll be moving in 3 years. I would think that would lead to a situation where you lose a lot of employees in the next two years because they have the chance to look for another job close to home. And it would be difficult to hire for those openings. IMHO. 

This is right on the money...

 

I work for a 90,000 person telecommunications company that was involved in a massive merger 3 years ago. When the merger occurred, they relocated our HQ to Charlotte, NC. At the time, only local employees (already in or around Charlotte) were moved to the new building. The company advised everyone that head counts would remain the same and that all employees across the country would remain in their respective locations.

 

Fast forward 1 year after the merger (and new HQ ribbon-cutting)... They unexpectedly announced the move of 1,000+ offsite employees to Charlotte (affecting employees in Syracuse, St. Louis, Ohio, Florida, etc.). Large relocation packages were offered and all affected employees were given 6 months to decide whether to relocate, find another local position internally, or resign altogether. Roughly 8 months after that, a new (massive) office was opened in Austin and another 500-1,000 employees were facing the exact same situation (only this time, relocating them to Austin).

 

My point is: these decisions happen rapidly and purposely lack transparency as they affect employee morale and turnover rates. These arrangements can be reversed seemingly overnight. My gut tells me they want to keep their workforce in-tact/status quo for 3 years. As they approach completion of the new HQ, it will be time to gradually migrate at least some of the satellite locations. 

Edited February 6, 20205 yr by BJBaes

28 minutes ago, mrclifton88 said:

Great information @KJP  I for one am eager to hear about the potential "spin off development" you have mentioned before... ?

 

Yes, you should be. If it comes through as awesome as it sounds, the WHD is going to be a very different place in 3-5 years. ? 

 

 

3 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Yes, you should be. If it comes through as awesome as it sounds, the WHD is going to be a very different place in 3-5 years. ? 

 

 

38 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Yes, you should be. If it comes through as awesome as it sounds, the WHD is going to be a very different place in 3-5 years. ? 

Can we expect another great article about the WHD?

We should consider that Sherwin Williams may hold on to their current HQ building and repurpose all (or portion) of it for back-office functions that don't require so much proximity to the new campus;  certain of which may be fine to remain only two blocks away in these towers that SW already owns. 

 

Decentralized activities like graphic design, direct mail, tech support, and other non-critical decision making functions may be fine to remain at Landmark. 

Hanging on the Landmark leaves an opportunity for that elegant set of buildings to go mixed-use. This might work for SW rather than the presumed all-residential concept that has been floating around as an idea. SW might not (but who knows, they might) have a ready customer that massive amount of space right now or in the near future. Fractional conversion of Landmark to residential and other uses over a long term may well be a part of the SWHQ game plan

Edited February 6, 20205 yr by ExPatClevGuy

Litt:

 

Sherwin-Williams’ new HQ should create positive ripples in Public Square, downtown Cleveland

Updated 1:29 PM; Today 1:22 PM

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio — The Sherwin-Williams Co.’s newly announced plan to build a new headquarters in Cleveland is hugely important for many reasons, not the least of which is that it could transform a parking lot wasteland that has blighted downtown for decades.

 

Of the more than 175 buildings that stood in the district in 1921, only 69 were still standing by the mid-1980s, according to an unpublished history written by local historian Drew Rolik.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2020/02/sherwin-williams-new-hq-should-create-positive-ripples-in-public-square-downtown-cleveland.html

43 minutes ago, Larry1962 said:

Can we expect another great article about the WHD?

 

I hope more than one article, just on the spin-off benefits.

 

EDIT: I'm glad Litt brought up the importance of good design when it comes to a new HQ, noting the ugliness and the lack of usefulness of much of the Erieview area at street level.

 

EDIT2: I was just interviewed by Channel 19 at the Superblock. While there, the reporter got a phone call from the news director that there's a press conference at 2:30 pm today at City Hall about SHW.

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 20205 yr by KJP