10 minutes ago, MrR said:

 

it would be like looking up at eaton center / cmsd hq

 

When first built, I was very impressed with Eaton Center. It was tall, glassy, unique and different than the boxes going up along E. 9th; but that was 50 years ago. It remains one of my favorites in the CBD.

I'm in the minority where height was never #1 on my list, even in this primo location.

 

For me #1 remains pedestrian interaction and mixed-use vibrancy (especially with the majority of the structures on Public Square not having ideal pedestrian frontage...cough...cough...2 of the 3 tallest).

 

If the SW CEO truly wants an urban campus to draw talent, this campus needs to blend seamlessly with the rest of the urban fabric...and honestly, needs to shoot for greatly improving it.   Borderline Amazon-esque in my head, which has coffee shops, restaurants, bank branches, etc on the ground floors.

 

What are cities like Seattle and Portland known for?  Not the height of their buildings, but the walkability and vibrancy of their downtowns.   I feel sometimes us as Clevelanders get caught up in wanting to mirror the height we see in Chicago and NYC, when really we should be focused on creating 5x more E.4th streets of mixed-use. 

 

Long story short, IMO interaction with the ground level is the biggest positive impact and issue for this project to do what the CEO is hoping in the long term.  

Edited January 8, 20214 yr by MuRrAy HiLL

1 minute ago, MuRrAy HiLL said:

I'm in the minority where height was never #1 on my list, even in this primo location.

 

For me #1 remains pedestrian interaction and mixed-use vibrancy (especially since the majority of the structures on Public Square not having ideal pedestrian frontage...cough...cough...2 of the 3 tallest).

 

If the SW CEO truly wants an urban campus to draw talent, this campus needs to blend seamlessly with the rest of the urban fabric...and honestly, needs to shoot for greatly improving it.   Border Amazon-esque in my head, which has coffee shops, restaurants, bank branches, etc on the ground floors.

 

What are cities like Seattle and Portland known for?  Not the height of their buildings, but the walkability and vibrancy of their downtowns.   I feel sometimes us as Clevelanders get caught up in wanting to mirror the height we see in Chicago and NYC, when really we should be focus on creating 5x more E.4th streets of mixed-use. 

 

Long story short, IMO interaction with the ground level is the biggest positive impact and issue for this project to do what the CEO is hoping in the long term.  

I couldn't agree more

1 minute ago, Dino said:

I couldn't agree more

ditto

11 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

When first built, I was very impressed with Eaton Center. It was tall, glassy, unique and different than the boxes going up along E. 9th; but that was 50 years ago. It remains one of my favorites in the CBD.

Yes, Eaton looks nice, I just wish it had a lighter exterior.

Ok- so it’s not gonna be a tall building and won’t rival Key. But that’s a nice chunk of the Parking Lot District which will no longer be a parking lot, and I am absolutely ok with that.

 

Also, we don’t know if there may be.a taller building put on the site in a future expansion, as said in @KJP article. Additionally, there’s other buildings that @KJP has stated in the past articles which are in the planning stages which will even further dill in the Parking Lot District, as a direct result of SW staying downtown.

 

Besides Key, TT and 200, the western part of downtown doesn’t have the same density as the buildings along E. 9th. This will help fill in a large gap. Hopefully (and the city pushes for) a design with the pedestrian in mind and is inviting to people to come visit. 

No one asked my opinion but, in keeping with an analogy upthread, and as someone obsessed with maps and aerial perspectives, I'm personally completely satisfied by the impressive girth of this project and not concerned with the length, which is at least average.       

After all is said and done, a tower the height of Stokes or Erieview on PS is nothing to sneeze at. Like it or not @NR, the truth/reality/challenge is, as it has been since the 90s, that Key Tower is and will continue to have such an overwhelming presence on the skyline. When it was being built, with its cranes atop, I was astounded at its height. Similar to the Sohio/BP/200 PS building, height limits should have been imposed.

Edited January 8, 20214 yr by Frmr CLEder

23 minutes ago, MuRrAy HiLL said:

I'm in the minority where height was never #1 on my list, even in this primo location.

 

For me #1 remains pedestrian interaction and mixed-use vibrancy (especially with the majority of the structures on Public Square not having ideal pedestrian frontage...cough...cough...2 of the 3 tallest).

 

If the SW CEO truly wants an urban campus to draw talent, this campus needs to blend seamlessly with the rest of the urban fabric...and honestly, needs to shoot for greatly improving it.   Borderline Amazon-esque in my head, which has coffee shops, restaurants, bank branches, etc on the ground floors.

 

What are cities like Seattle and Portland known for?  Not the height of their buildings, but the walkability and vibrancy of their downtowns.   I feel sometimes us as Clevelanders get caught up in wanting to mirror the height we see in Chicago and NYC, when really we should be focused on creating 5x more E.4th streets of mixed-use. 

 

Long story short, IMO interaction with the ground level is the biggest positive impact and issue for this project to do what the CEO is hoping in the long term.  

It is unfortunate we can like a post only once.  I am giving this a super like

50 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

After all is said and done, a tower the height of Stokes or Erieview on PS is nothing to sneeze at. The challenge is, as it has been since the 90s, that Key Tower is and will continue to have such an overwhelming presence on the skyline. When it was being built, I was astounded at its height. Similar to the Sohio/BP/200 PS building, height limits should have been imposed.

Well, if the AmeriTrust tower had been built, there would have been two tall towers on Public Square now. 

 

Towers of 50+ stories are not such a big deal nowadays.  Toronto, a city which was very similar to Cleveland at one time, has a couple dozen towers of 50+ stories.  Yes, I realize Cleveland is no Toronto, but can't we shed our inferiority complex and try to be a bit more bold?

 

Edited January 8, 20214 yr by skiwest

1 hour ago, cfdwarrior said:

So why all the core sampling/drilling when these buildings won't need caissons?  

 

At least two of the buildings will need caissons because of their height/weight. It's possible that the parking garages may need caissons because of their weight and the soil conditions may demand caissons even for moderately sized structures. 

 

And the reason why I say at least is because I don't know if a hotel is going to be included and if so how tall it will be. I also don't know what SHW may consider for future phases. There could be more big buildings added in the future. 

27 + 20 stories is SOOOOO disappointing --- and especially for a Public Square address. So much for making a grand, physical statement. Even 37 + 10 would be better....but if they need/want only 47 stories, they could still build a 70-story bldg with putting 23 levels of hotel in the bldg---with separate entrances, lobbies, and elevators---to the public it would have two distinct street entrances but to the world it would be one grand bldg.

yeah, eyes on the prize here, the primary goal is to fill in the dam lots, so mission accomplished. 

 

its a huge win no matter what, but as long as this campus interacts well with pedestrians all is well.

 

in fact all will be much more than just well, we will be living the dream if they just do it right and not make it a p&g fortress of solitude.

 

its a shame if the jacobs lot building will not be more prominent, and lets face it likely not too interesting, but we can still hold hope that it will look very nice and put on a good front while closing public square back up properly again. thats so huge too.

 

it makes me miss weed man peter lewis and his wild progressive gehry tower a bit though. now those were the aesthetically freewheelin days !

 

 

20 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

It is unfortunate we can like a post only once.  I am giving this a super like

 

45 minutes ago, MuRrAy HiLL said:

I'm in the minority where height was never #1 on my list, even in this primo location.

 

For me #1 remains pedestrian interaction and mixed-use vibrancy (especially with the majority of the structures on Public Square not having ideal pedestrian frontage...cough...cough...2 of the 3 tallest).

 

If the SW CEO truly wants an urban campus to draw talent, this campus needs to blend seamlessly with the rest of the urban fabric...and honestly, needs to shoot for greatly improving it.   Borderline Amazon-esque in my head, which has coffee shops, restaurants, bank branches, etc on the ground floors.

 

What are cities like Seattle and Portland known for?  Not the height of their buildings, but the walkability and vibrancy of their downtowns.   I feel sometimes us as Clevelanders get caught up in wanting to mirror the height we see in Chicago and NYC, when really we should be focused on creating 5x more E.4th streets of mixed-use. 

 

Long story short, IMO interaction with the ground level is the biggest positive impact and issue for this project to do what the CEO is hoping in the long term.  

I’m not sure an “urban campus” is going to increase “interaction with the ground level”.  If the design specifically targets a mixed use approach, if it incorporates retail businesses on the ground floor of the garage structures and puts a hotel into the complex- than that’s one thing. The premise that “it’s not about height” on PS is surprising to me from a forum of urbanites - it’s just a matter of degree. You could have a Crocker Park off the square and have “a lot of interaction at street level”. It’s just not what happens in a big city.  And let’s be honest - Seattle may be walkable - I’ve been there and it is - but to say it’s not known for tall buildings?  8 over 600 feet including a Key Tower- sized highest and 19 or 20, at the moment, over 500 and more coming. That’s one of the most impressive and iconic skylines on the continent. 

^ well if there is not to be a tall prominent hq building, then that is over, so the next issue is urbanity of the campus.

 

its bigly important.

 

no streets with long walls of walls! 

6 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

yeah, eyes on the prize here, the primary goal is to fill in the dam lots, so mission accomplished. 

 

 

SHW's "primary goal" is likely new, modern offices. 

 

But I disagree with your argument.  When you make an investment, whether $1M or 10M or in this case $600M---you can do more than one thing. At that level you can fill the lots (even if some part is a small park/greenspace) AND create modern offices AND build a 70+ building AND add Downtown employment AND add more street level retail.  Every major project should do more than one single thing. ESPECIALLY when there is public money in the pot.

10 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

SHW's "primary goal" is likely new, modern offices. 

 

But I disagree with your argument.  When you make an investment, whether $1M or 10M or in this case $600M---you can do more than one thing. At that level you can fill the lots (even if some part is a small park/greenspace) AND create modern offices AND build a 70+ building AND add Downtown employment AND add more street level retail.  Every major project should do more than one single thing. ESPECIALLY when there is public money in the pot.

 

 

yeah, i meant from the non sw employee point of view.

 

i did not mean to imply its one or the other or over the other -- yes of course its all those things at once.

 

and it will be, its a campus.

 

its just it seems like now we take our attention off the marquee tower dreams and focus more on that stuff.

 

and yeah with public money in the mix hold them to it -- i don't think you can do that for demanding a tall skyscraper, but you certainly can for street presence and employment and the like.

3 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

 

 

yeah, i meant from the non sw employee point of view.

 

i did not mean to imply its one or the other or over the other -- yes of course its all those things at once.

 

and it will be, its a campus.

 

its just it seems like now we take our attention off the marquee tower dreams and focus more on that stuff.

 

and yeah with public money in the mix hold them to it -- i don't think you can do that for demanding a tall skyscraper, but you certainly can for street presence and employment and the like.

It'll be up to the City's Review Board - right?  Rubber stamp or legitimately do what is best for the City of Cleveland.

^Who is on the Review Board?  We should all send emails to these individuals--and to any decisions makers at SHW---pressing the importance of a grander, taller structure.

depends on if they present it all at once or its to be done piecemeal or in phases

Je presente: The Pinnacle at Symphony Place, Nashville.   Conservative, Pickard, 29 floors, 417 feet.

 

 

^There's green grass behind it. SHW will be in the center of the city----it must be taller. that photo demonstrates that 29 floors wouldn't fit here.

^ That is one ugly building, particularly the daytime shot. 

4 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

^ That is one ugly building, particularly the daytime shot. 

Yes, it is. And it's right next to a neoclassical building.

16 minutes ago, Pugu said:

^Who is on the Review Board?  We should all send emails to these individuals--and to any decisions makers at SHW---pressing the importance of a grander, taller structure.

 

City Planning Commission cannot force or even encourage a property owner/developer to build taller than they want. That's crazy. The city's building code has maximum building heights, not minimum building heights. The Planning Commission can tell an owner/developer you're building too tall. It can also tell an owner/developer to activate the ground-floor of its buildings when those buildings are proposed to be built in an Urban Overlay District, as the SHW HQ would be.

I suppose that Nashville building is better from the street.

Thanks everyone for your continued support (and criticism) of my work - I'm glad these renderings on the whole help the greater good even if they aren't 100% based in reality just yet. Echoing all of our sentiments I think, I need these official renderings to get out ASAP so I can get to work on modelling the REAL things, haha.

 

Anyways, here are some extra views and such from the renderings. Hopefully this will be the last go at it before the real thing, but I'm always happy to make more speculative pieces. Many different views here (some from the article), and for those of you worried about how a 480 ft building might look from PS, I would take a look at the last two photos here and then affirm or change your grievances. Of course, take it all with a grain of salt - these are unofficial. 

 

I also attached a comparison chart of all of the Pickard Chilton properties in this height range and how the two SWHQ towers here stack up to them (pun intended). ^^ The Pinnacle Place - as you will see above - is one of said inspirations. Feel free to investigate some of these Pickard Chilton buildings at your leisure - they are fun to look at and provided a decent portion of my inspiration, I just didn't want to put pictures of every building in this already lengthy post, haha.

 

Thanks for putting up with my 100th post, in advance, and Happy New Year!

 

Aerial View - Looking North

Aerial View - Looking East

Aerial View - Looking West

Aerial View - Looking South

Street View - Looking West

Street View - Looking Up from Public Square

Street View - Looking Up from Superior

 

Comparison Chart

 

 

Edited January 8, 20214 yr by Geowizical

We ALL agree that the most important thing is that SHW is staying.  We ALL agree that the second most important thing is that the parking lots are going away. Last but not least, we ALL think it should be public friendly.  Just pointing out that we ALL agree on these points.

 

The parking lot is like having a missing tooth, but having a shorter/stubby building would look like a chipped tooth on public square.  I understand that there are other short buildings on the square already, but having 3 skyscrapers with smaller buildings in-between is less symmetrical than having 4 skyscrapers(one on each side of PS) with small buildings in-between.   Like Pugu said, especially with having public funds involved, it would be nice to get the best of both worlds.  I personally feel that if SHW doesn't put a technical skyscraper on the Jacobs lot they are doing a disservice to Public Square, and Cleveland.

 

It would be very disappointing if the HQ building on the Jacobs lot was not at least a 500ft tower, let alone a 150m(493ft) building to actually "qualify" as a Skyscraper. 

 

That's just my thought, but who am I anyway.  

 

We've gone from hearing it will be tall, then short, then super tall - maybe taller than Key, to short again.... so hopefully KJPs sources are wrong and we'll have a big surprise coming when SHW's reveals it....  and who knows, maybe that's their goal.

Looking at comparable cities in the Midwest, I think it is important to note that we are doing just fine in the really tall buildings category.  What we need more of if we want to have a denser downtown like Detroit or Pittsburgh is just a lot more buildings that are at least 300ft.  So gaining a building that could be close to 500ft and another that is at least 300ft will go a long way in helping density.  

 

Also, there probably is a reason why there are so few really tall building in comparable cities that have large fortune 500 companies, one being cost.

Sorry, @gruver, but i don't think that second shot is helping your case that much. Especially the way it transitions from concrete to glass - it looks like a poor attempt at one of those Miami office buildings. The only part i like is the tapering at the top. 

 

@KJP, why can't the building commission comment that they would like to see a little more height, other than the request being uncouth?

 

Make no mistake, I am NOT making a personal case FOR that building. I am suggesting that this could be what we GET.

10 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

 

@KJP, why can't the building commission comment that they would like to see a little more height, other than the request being uncouth?

 

They can but it's pointless. It's unenforceable.

8 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

Looking at comparable cities in the Midwest, I think it is important to note that we are doing just fine in the really tall buildings category.  What we need more of if we want to have a denser downtown like Detroit or Pittsburgh is just a lot more buildings that are at least 300ft.  So gaining a building that could be close to 500ft and another that is at least 300ft will go a long way in helping density.  

 

Also, there probably is a reason why there are so few really tall building in comparable cities that have large fortune 500 companies, one being cost.

Wow, it is a little surprising that Pittsburgh has us beat in every category.  😧

8 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

Looking at comparable cities in the Midwest, I think it is important to note that we are doing just fine in the really tall buildings category.  What we need more of if we want to have a denser downtown like Detroit or Pittsburgh is just a lot more buildings that are at least 300ft.  So gaining a building that could be close to 500ft and another that is at least 300ft will go a long way in helping density.  

 

Also, there probably is a reason why there are so few really tall building in comparable cities that have large fortune 500 companies, one being cost.

 

This is a great chart.  Regarding Pittsburgh, in addition to having more large buildings, the fact that the downtown area is more compressed and doesn't have giant open parking lots and entire blocks taken up by faceless parking garages also contributes to the urban environment.

 

25 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

Also, there probably is a reason why there are so few really tall building in comparable cities that have large fortune 500 companies, one being cost.

An interesting comparison. It also explains why (I hate to say it) Pittsburgh has such impressive images of its downtown.

 

As a side note, Philadelphia's CBD was unimpressive until Comcast and others started the build up over the past two decades.

Edited January 8, 20214 yr by Frmr CLEder

Based on what we really know (at this point) the Nashville building is the closest exemplar for the SW main HQ Tower. The number of stories, the architect and one might argue the preferred more conservative style and profile that SW clearly embraces. Based on a comparison of floor heights from @Geowizical’s chart, even if SW passes some of its peers in the PC portfolio, with 15’ floor heights, The main HQ tower barely exceeds 400 feet. That’s pretty hard to believe given the expectations I think many of us had.  As for the Cleveland - Pittsburgh comparison - the biggest take away - imagine adding 6 more Erieview Tower- size (or slightly higher) buildings to downtown. OMG Really think that SW was the last likely chance to add one for another generation - but apparently it’s not to be. 

Edited January 8, 20214 yr by CleveFan

^ There may an opportunity at Nucleus, on the Bedrock property, the Old Spaghetti House property or NE CBD along Chester. I simply can't imagine much additional opportunity unless its on Prospect or Huron.

1 hour ago, Pugu said:

^Who is on the Review Board?  We should all send emails to these individuals--and to any decisions makers at SHW---pressing the importance of a grander, taller structure.

🙄

I think some are missing the point.  I've walked around Detroit and Pittsburgh on several occasions.  What makes them feel more impressive as a downtown is not their supertalls or even 500+ ft buildings.  It is how many more buildings that they have in the 300-500ft range and that they don't have the amount of parking craters that we have (more so Pittsburgh).  Why does Euclid Ave feel like such a great stretch?  It's definitely not because there are tons of really tall buildings to look up at.  It's because there is a lack of parking lots coupled by a few buildings in the 250-400 range.

 

If this project really does interact well with the street level, then I will take this over just one tall skyscraper.  The amount of parking craters taken up and having two buildings in the 300-500 range makes it preferable.  I don't think we can underestimate if this project is done well how much more dense and urban downtown will feel starting at Public Square then going down to the Warehouse District.

Edited January 8, 20214 yr by cle_guy90

16 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

An interesting comparison. It also explains why (I hate to say it) Pittsburgh has such impressive images of its downtown.

 

As a side note, Philadelphia's CBD was unimpressive until Comcast and others started the build up over the past two decades.

 

They're forced into that by their geography 'the golden triangle'. You can't expand much further out from the CBD. Imagine if Cleveland were compressed into a similarly sized space. 

 

Also the fact that their streets aren't 47 lanes wide helps, unlike our SLC-esque wide streets. 

 

But since this is about SHW, I get it, people in here love height, but I don't think SHW is going to do a crap job on the square even with a shorter building. Like everyone else, I'm concerned with street presence and additional (and visible) professionals walking around the area on lunch and outside of work hours (hotel). I get that people want a 1000' tower on PS, but whatever, this isn't anything to shrug at either. Everyone's acting like it's the end of the world and really, no, it isn't.

I LOVE the massing! It's actually better than I had hoped for if it turns out like this. My concern with having a large building on  Public Square was that sure we would have filled in the lot right on the square with a huge skyscraper but we would've ended up with squat 6-7 story buildings on the rest of the lots. Sherwin is growing but not growing that fast to fill up al those lots with large buildings of 500+ ft buildings in the near future. This looks very urban. Like Pittsburgh style urban. I LOVE IT as long as the ground floors turn out well.

How tall was the biggest building in the Weston Superblock proposal?

 

4 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

How tall was the biggest building in the Weston Superblock proposal?

 

 

37 stories 

I’m just excited to see a render. This article gives me a lot of optimism that the ground level interaction will be high quality. 27 stories is really not that disappointing. We’re talking about a 400 ft tower at minimum. With average sized floors and a crown, you could be at 500 easily. That’s a tall building. It’s not like they’re building a 7 story campus. I’m looking forward to increased regional prosperity, to filling in every parking lot in the CBD, and to revitalizing the entire Euclid corridor from downtown to UC. If that happens and we never get another 500’+ building, I will be one happy camper and will say thank you SHW for your contributions.

13 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

37 stories 

I say we split the difference and go with that then. i always liked those renderings, and they had sort of a campus feel.

If those parking garages end up close to that tall I feel bad for whoever has to park on the top. Talk about driving in circles. 

I really hope that they can activate Frankfort and it's not just used as an alley for entering and exiting the parking garages.

5 hours ago, cle_guy90 said:

 

 

This really is I think one of the most important perspectives - Cleveland has a lot of ground to cover with respect to densifying its urban core. Just look at the difference between it and Pittsburgh in the 300-500' category >> 35 buildings vs. 46 buildings. When you walk around downtown Pittsburgh compared to Cleveland, you can absolutely feel the difference on the street level. Pittsburgh, in my opinion, is a more pleasant urban experience (from a density perspective - not saying its a better city!). I'm not going to lose any sleep over this failing to crest the 500' mark. I'm just ecstatic that they're plugging a hole that serves a very visual, sad, and daily reminder that Cleveland has seen harder times. It will be nice to officially turn that page, dial our self-loathing down a notch, and look to the future. 

 

Edited January 8, 20214 yr by ASP1984

12 minutes ago, ASP1984 said:

 

This really is I think one of the most important perspectives - Cleveland has a lot of ground to cover with respect to densifying its urban core. Just look at the difference between it and Pittsburgh in the 300-500' category >> 35 buildings vs. 46 buildings. When you walk around downtown Pittsburgh compared to Cleveland, you can absolutely feel the difference on the street level. Pittsburgh, in my opinion, is a more pleasant urban experience (from a density perspective - not saying its a better city!). I'm not going to lose any sleep over this failing to crest the 500' mark. I'm just ecstatic that they're plugging a hole that serves a very visual, sad, and daily reminder that Cleveland has seen harder times. It will be nice to officially turn that page, dial our self-loathing down a notch, and look to the future. 

 

 

I believe those numbers are cumulative, so the 300'-500' category comparison would be 20 for Pittsburgh vs. 17 for Cleveland.

6 hours ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

^ That is one ugly building, particularly the daytime shot. 

CLE doesn’t need anything remotely close to that Nashville monstrosity.