7 hours ago, skiwest said:

 but can't we shed our inferiority complex and try to be a bit more bold?

 

 

Not sure who the "we" is in this sentence.  I've never felt Cleveland was inferior and never will. 

2 hours ago, enginerd12 said:

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. 

Should've taken the bus! Lol

 

And unrelated to ^, with comparisons to pgh, things are squeezed together (seriously took at their cbd footprint vs ours) and roads are narrower. Our current administration is terrified of traffic jams, reducing lanes and bringing buildings up to the street (see CuyCo Engineering render backlash in OC) so we need to demand density with this and future projects. 

 

Bring these and other buildings up to our 6 lane streets and it'll tie things together a tad more. Take out lanes and activate that new space and we'll be a lot closer to pgh.

36 minutes ago, GISguy said:

Should've taken the bus! Lol

 

And unrelated to ^, with comparisons to pgh, things are squeezed together (seriously took at their cbd footprint vs ours) and roads are narrower. Our current administration is terrified of traffic jams, reducing lanes and bringing buildings up to the street (see CuyCo Engineering render backlash in OC) so we need to demand density with this and future projects. 

 

Bring these and other buildings up to our 6 lane streets and it'll tie things together a tad more. Take out lanes and activate that new space and we'll be a lot closer to pgh.

 

Let's put Cleveland's wide streets into a historical perspective.  The development of Cleveland was much different that Pittsburgh's due to the topography.

 

From forumer 327 back in 2011: 

"The problem derives from the shape of the city and is common to Great Lakes ports.  Most cities are more or less round, with downtown in the middle.  Cleveland isn't, so compared to a round city of equal size, there is less area in which to spread the same amount of traffc flow.  Chicago and Milwaukee have similarly wide streets for the same reason.  But due to topography and water boundaries, it was especially bad here.  Look at the east side and how it constricts as you approach downtown. 

 

Also consider that most of these streets once had trolleys on them, which split them down the middle and made them seem less vast."

 

And @KJP from the same 2011 discussion:

 

"To my knowledge, Cleveland's streets were never widened. I'm pretty sure most were designed that way circa 1800. Look at the oldest known photographs of the city, and even some of the artists' drawings in the early 1800s. The main streets (Superior, Euclid, Ontario, St. Clair, West 3rd, West 6th, West 9th etc) in the city were designed with 100-foot-wide rights of way. Lest you forget, the city's pre-Civil War downtown area was the warehouse district. The areas east of Public Square were heavily residential."

 

If SW builds to the sidewalk, the streets will feel much less wide.  Density is everything. 

@Geowizical or anyone... If you took a line and connected the 3 SW buildings and extended it, would it connect to the top of the Sohio / BP Building?

53 minutes ago, punch said:

@Geowizical or anyone... If you took a line and connected the 3 SW buildings and extended it, would it connect to the top of the Sohio / BP Building?

 

If you mean look at the top of the recent SW render and draw a line to see where it hits on BP/Sohio, then that's just a matter of height - SW (480ft) would come up about 180-200ft or so short of BP (660ft). If I misinterpreted I apologize!

Edited January 9, 20214 yr by Geowizical

Wow, what a joke. I wish it was April 1st right now. Boooo!

@KJP is this coming from inside cpc directors? Because if not I have no doubt in my mind that it still can change for the taller. The closer we get to groundbreaking without schematics, is iffy to me. Because it changed from just the Jacob's lot, to the occupying the Westin twin lots, and keeps changing height from just above 200 P.S., to rivaling Key tower, to now just being a collection of 20+ story buildings on all three eyesores.

Yes alot can change, but there's no doubt in my mind there could possibly be one solution even if groundbreaking is close.

Edited January 9, 20214 yr by tastybunns

Also, we clevelanders demand a spikey stabby thing on the top!

This isn't coming from the CPC. It's coming from SHW's development team. Just because my reporting said that apparently SHW wanted a tall tower doesn't mean that that's what SHW actually wanted. That info about the tall tower didn't come from SHW's development team. It came from from prospective suppliers. My reporting now, relying on better sources, is that medium-sized buildings are what SHW always wanted. Journalism is the pursuit of truth and sometimes our pursuits take us down false paths. 

 

But if you look back through my articles, this HQ project was always going to occupy the former Jacobs AND Weston lots. The only question was and is, how much will be occupied. 

 

And groundbreaking is not close. I reported several articles ago that SHW is targeting a groundbreaking about one year from now. No plans have been publicly reviewed by CPC let alone approved. Whenever that starts, it could take about 3-4 months of CPC reviews followed by 6-8 months of sub-contractor hiring and materials procurement (that could take longer because of COVID). I think we're getting close to seeing plans, but I thought that a couple months ago. So I guess we'll see what happens. 

If Key, TT and BP were the pinnacle of the skyline, and new towers filled in that stepped down to a nice continuous humped skyline, I think that would make a great Cleveland skyline. The problem now is that the tall towers make everything else look small, with gaps. I don't think this needs to be tall, just tall enough to hit a sweet spot to fill in a few gaps nicely.

Mid-rise and stubby should have been located off of St. Clair, Lakeside, the Flats, the Euclid corridor, UC, OC or in midtown, even if it does mean eradication of the decades-old WH District parking lots; not on PS. 

 

It's simply unimaginable.

Edited January 9, 20214 yr by Frmr CLEder

Put me in the disappointment category if the headquarters on the Jacobs lot doesn’t break 500 ft.

If there was a 900’ category in the spreadsheet Cleveland would be the only City with one. Take that other similarly sized city skylines...

In my opinion I like the scale of the proposed buildings, Superior will be much improved from a street level perspective/scale. I expect a wholesale effort by the City to improve the condition of sidewalks, streets, street landscaping and bus shelters (by RTA) around the whole development, which would of course be great. 
Looking forward to what the view from the Main Avenue Bridge will be, maybe one more view???

Updated it to include more height categories.  Also added Philadelphia and Kansas City (couldn't get a list of at least 300 plus buildings in Philadelphia because I am not a paying member of sky scrapers or any group like that).  To me the striking difference between us and Philadelphia (a top 10 US city in urbanity) is not the number of really tall buildings (although they have us beat) but the fact that they have 47 buildings that are at least 400ft, while we only have 10.  Again, it starts with density and SHW is going to go a long way in helping with that density! 
 

 

Edited January 9, 20214 yr by cle_guy90

I was riding my bike down D-S bridge yesterday and it'll be wild to see the infill from that direction. I get @metrocitysaid though. We probably won't be able to see these buildings from the 480 bridge and Key will continue to loom out there but to me the more embarrassing thing is all of the wasted space we have downtown. Folks driving on 480 are probably going to and fro between suburbs and come into the city for events, if that. As someone who works downtown and spends a decent amount down there, the city density and activity is more important and is something that we could probably have a say over with with review boards.

 

Until we cut down our road widths, this is one of the few remedies to activate and tie together the different downtown areas. I get the disappointment in lack of height but it flies in the face of folks bringing up Pittsburgh and similar cities which have activated space vs height. Walk around down there and I'm sure you don't care about building height, you're more concerned about activated space and street activity.

 

Walking around Key Tower on lunch break it doesn't do much if anything for street presence (even the area around the hotel/restaurant is pretty quiet for the most part).

31 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

Updated it to include more height categories.  Also added Philadelphia and Kansas City (couldn't get a list of at least 300 plus buildings in Philadelphia because I am not a paying member of sky scrapers or any group like that).  To me the striking difference between us and Philadelphia (a top 10 US city in urbanity) is not the number of really tall buildings (although they have us beat) but the fact that they have 47 buildings that are at least 400ft, while we only have 10.  Again, it starts with density and SHW is going to go a long way in helping with that density! 
 

 

Philadelphia is obviously a much much larger city than Cleveland and always has been so comparisons like this are some what suspect.  Moreover, for years and years you could not build taller than city hall (548') so that would have naturally increased the number of 400' feet buildings in the city.

Edited January 9, 20214 yr by Htsguy

6 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

Philadelphia is obviously a much much larger city than Cleveland and always has been so comparisons like this are some what suspect.  Moreover, for years and years you could not build taller than city hall (548') so that would have naturally increased the number of 400' feet buildings in the city.

I forgot about that requirement so that is fair but I think my point is that you don’t need to worry about tons of huge skyscrapers for it to feel like a major urban city. 

Edited January 9, 20214 yr by cle_guy90

The number of buildings over that height in Philadelphia is actually pretty impressive given that buildings over City Hall didn't get approved by the city until the mid-1980s.  Philly missed out on the various earlier skyscraper booms in the 20th century, and although much larger than Cleveland, it was in many ways a struggling city until somewhat recently.

isn’t parking still the campus wildcard here? if they build on top decent height is back in play.

 

same for if they chose to do mixed use with a hotel partner. a superfriends type team-up like that could change any current preliminary plans in an eye blink.

 

point being, it aint over for height until its over. 

 

of course filling in the lots and appropriate streetlevel urbanity is the greater good regardless.

 

Edited January 9, 20214 yr by mrnyc

I am disappointed we are no longer looking at a 700+ tower, but having multiple ones of this height on this side of PS will really help balance things out with E9th. Forgetting walkability and street level interaction, even if we are just looking at skyline aesthetics, I think that's important. It moves the Cleveland skyline further on the scale away from preposterous OKC and more towards a balanced Chicago.

23 hours ago, PoshSteve said:

I am disappointed we are no longer looking at a 700+ tower, but having multiple ones of this height on this side of PS will really help balance things out with E9th. Forgetting walkability and street level interaction, even if we are just looking at skyline aesthetics, I think that's important. It moves the Cleveland skyline further on the scale away from preposterous OKC and more towards a balanced Chicago.

     After the initial reaction and more reflection - some thoughts.....Not sure we know that we're getting "multiple" buildings "of this height".  A read of the last NEOTrans article gives specifics on 2 office buildings which, in total, comprise the 1,000,000 square feet of the HQ  - one maybe the height of the Stokes Courthouse and one the height of the E & Y Tower. That's based on a fairly generous floor height of 16 feet for each. 

  We're pretty sure there are  2 garage structures, with one being up to 12 stories in height.  A "training center" is referenced - but I didn't see any specifics on its dimensions - I would assume it would not approach the size of the second office tower.  Apparently later, we might get a hotel -time will tell.  From all we've been told there's no way that SW will incorporate the garages under either of the office tower buildings to produce height.  Actually, it's clear they don't want that - they took care to create a design that intentionally deemphasizes the height of a huge headquarters. (That's why I don't think we'll see an ornate crown extending the building upwards.)  One million square feet is a lot - by comparison the Key Tower - (still among the 50 biggest office buildings in the world -Yay Cleveland) has 1.5 million. 

 

    So maybe I have to say that  "density is important" and "I want walkability" since those points are repeated when dismissing the HQ's lack of height as an "either or argument" -the premise being: a tall tower precludes density and walkability. An urban campus creates it.  But why not have both?  SW could've kept a campus approach, designed a ground level that activates AND calibrated the project to retain a sizable second building and produce a more commanding base tower.  Even the reassignment of 5 stories to the base tower would've created a better balance and synergy with the "Big 3".   Imagine an Erieview Tower-height base building there - that's what  just those extra  5 stories would achieve.  That kind of design choice would've allowed for a more noticeable change in the skyline from all perspectives and it would've created a nicer symmetry around Public Square. (remember those renderings as viewed from Progressive Field?). 
 

    Unfortunately Cleveland (60 structures) is much closer to the OKC skyline (48 structures)  than Chicago (738 structures) and the addition of SW  is not singlehandedly moving the meter much towards Chicago.  But, of course, It's a wonderful addition on the western side of the square in the most noticeable and needy parcel downtown and it will greatly increase the energy and feeling of urbanity there - and for that I'm very excited.  But, now, a few days after the "big reveal" of the general proportions of the project - I wish I could kind of swoop in and make at least that one change I described.
 

    A final question - does this less vertical HQ come with a lower price tag than even a modestly higher tower would've cost?  Perhaps, at the end of the day, that's the bottom line.  So, my major disappointment is that we're not going to get that Terminal Tower or 200 Public Square skyline impact - don't care what the naysayers say - that would've been uniquely satisfying and appropriate.  But, sure,  I  celebrate the presence of SW - and their decisión to stay committed to Cleveland.  I'm super excited to see actual renderings and before we know it, the excitement as this project begins to rise. 

 

Edited January 10, 20214 yr by CleveFan
Paragraph breaks!

I'm just wondering IF it's just MISINFORMATION comlng from SHW so that when the actual renderings come out that everyone is really surprised and happy with the unique NEW HQ design and perhaps it's additional height too??

 

Maybe just wishful thinking on my part. 

 

Because KJP does have a VERY GOOD TRACK RECORD with his great reporting!!

5 hours ago, Larry1962 said:

I'm just wondering IF it's just MISINFORMATION comlng from SHW so that when the actual renderings come out that everyone is really surprised and happy with the unique NEW HQ design and perhaps it's additional height too??

 

Maybe just wishful thinking on my part. 

 

Because KJP does have a VERY GOOD TRACK RECORD with his great reporting!!

 

That would be a remarkable coincidence considering that I highly doubt any of my three sources know each other. They also got their information many months apart. The first two are old sources which I've used on Sherwin Williams articles going back more than 2 years. The third one is a new source but has proven to be right so far.

 

There's always a possibility that they and I could be wrong. And I would be pleasantly surprised.

8 hours ago, CleveFan said:

After the initial reaction and more reflection - some thoughts.....Not sure we know that we're getting "multiple" buildings "of this height".  A read of the last NEOTrans article gives specifics on 2 office buildings which, in total, comprise the 1,000,000 square feet of the HQ  - one maybe the height of the Stokes Courthouse and one the height of the E & Y Tower. That's based on a fairly generous floor height of 16 feet for each.  We're pretty sure there are  2 garage structures, with one being up to 12 stories in height.  A "training center" is referenced - but I didn't see any specifics on its dimensions - I would assume it would not approach the size of the second office tower.  Apparently later, we might get a hotel -time will tell.  From all we've been told there's no way that SW will incorporate the garages under either of the office tower buildings to produce height.  Actually, it's clear they don't want that - they took care to create a design that intentionally deemphasizes the height of a huge headquarters. (That's why I don't think we'll see an ornate crown extending the building upwards.)  One million square feet is a lot - by comparison the Key Tower - (still among the 50 biggest office buildings in the world -Yay Cleveland) has 1.5 million.   So maybe I have to say that  "density is important" and "I want walkability" since those points are repeated when dismissing the HQ's lack of height as an "either or argument" -the premise being: a tall tower precludes density and walkability. An urban campus creates it.  But why not have both?  SW could've kept a campus approach, designed a ground level that activates AND calibrated the project to retain a sizable second building and produce a more commanding base tower.  Even the reassignment of 5 stories to the base tower would've created a better balance and synergy with the "Big 3".   Imagine an Erieview Tower-height base building there - that's what  just those extra  5 stories would achieve.  That kind of design choice would've allowed for a more noticeable change in the skyline from all perspectives and it would've created a nicer symmetry around Public Square. (remember those renderings as viewed from Progressive Field?).  Unfortunately Cleveland (60 structures) is much closer to the OKC skyline (48 structures)  than Chicago (738 structures) and the addition of SW  is not singlehandedly moving the meter much towards Chicago.  But, of course, It's a wonderful addition on the western side of the square in the most noticeable and needy parcel downtown and it will greatly increase the energy and feeling of urbanity there - and for that I'm very excited.  But, now, a few days after the "big reveal" of the general proportions of the project - I wish I could kind of swoop in and make at least that one change I described. A final question - does this less vertical HQ come with a lower price tag than even a modestly higher tower would've cost?  Perhaps, at the end of the day, that's the bottom line.  So, my one disappointment is that we're not going to get that Terminal Tower or 200 Public Square skyline impact - don't care what the naysayers say - that would've been uniquely satisfying.  But, sure,  I'm celebrating the presence of SW - their decision to stay committed to Cleveland - I'm super excited to see actual renderings and before we know it, the excitement as this project begins to rise. 

 

 

Paragraphs breaks are our friend.

50 minutes ago, X said:

 

Paragraphs breaks are our friend.

My apology -post edited.  

Edited January 10, 20214 yr by CleveFan

I'll build off my comment earlier about driving in circles, I think the best chance for added height is going to be incorporating a few floors of parking into the tower structure. While it'll be possible for a 12 story garage to be in play, it's typically a design no-no to go that high. Surface area saves $$ and opens up more avenues for traffic flow in and out. 

Quote

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

 

They had a height limit until around 1987, which is why there was a burst of towers in the late 80s and with Comcast, even more height.

 

Pittsburgh's downtown is small in land area and mostly isn't wide in terms of streets. Cleveland has more broad streets similar to other great lake cities vs Pittsburgh's more northeastern streets.

 

http://neo-trans.blogspot.com/ now in constant refresh mode....

 

Everyone on UO pullin up to the SHW thread...

 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 2021

Sneak peak at what the Sherwin-Williams HQ might look like

 

After last week's NEOtrans articles about the height of Sherwin-Williams' (SHW) base headquarters (HQ) building on Public Square, a rather important meeting was held on Tuesday of this week. The subject? The height of the proposed SHW base HQ building, according to a source on the HQ development team.

 

NEOtrans reported that the SHW base HQ building on Public Square would top out at 27 stories and about 410- to 440-feet tall. That apparently triggered some feedback, if not outright pushback to the HQ development team by some influential SHW persons not on the development team. 

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/01/sneak-peak-at-what-sherwin-williams-hq.html

I am whelmed.

Meh. 😑 Is there a less interesting word than boring?   I waited, but it was just going to be this old thing all along...

 

"Guess I'll have to get used to it" - Eeyore

(Winnie the Pooh, by A.A. Milne)

 

 

Edited January 14, 20214 yr by ExPatClevGuy
clarification

If they go boring with the glass box towers, can we please get creative with color on the parking decks maybe utilizing SW popular paint colors? This is from OKC as well...

Que sound of Pac-Man dying

Eh, 7/10

 

Gonna feel like this, standing on Frankfort between that and 55 PS

This is not at all an exciting design....

 

But, on the upside, a 500-ish foot building that looks like that is certainly going to look big, look different than the other buildings in the area, and add something new and large to the skyline.   I continue to worry that the street-level of this building and others may feel dead though.  The similar building in OKC doesn't interact with the street that much.

The building looks better in this photo IMO even if it does disappear like the Hilton and Lumen.

If they are reusing an old design and adding a few stories, Pickard has a lovely 32 story glass option in Milwaukee... the site deserves more.

 

 

I don't mind the glass that much as it is something Cleveland is lacking in the skyline. However, I would like it to have a little more character than just a box.

Hey I found a detailed presentation from the architect on how they thought up the design

Cant wait for the second building to be its shorter identical brother

I'm certainly hoping this is wrong!  The most boring design possible!

Ugh

2 hours ago, Taller_is_better said:

This is from OKC as well...

You can tell as evidenced by all the Trucks in the render...

It looks a lot like 55 public square

Love the glassy facade. That's it. Something similar to the Milwaukee building is MUCH better than the Okc box. 

I do like that we may have had an influence. @KJP outing them at 27 stories, and then a flurry of complaints about it and they respond by adding a few more floors. Who can we bully next...

I'm really confused by how this is all turning out.

 

SHW never wanted an iconic skyscraper, yet they picked the most high profile location in the City.

 

SHW never seemed interested in a super tall building, yet they bought some of the most expensive real estate available (high land cost usually necessitates height).

 

There was talk about a design that would attract new, young talent, yet the architecture seems stuck in the 50's and 60's (it's going to look like Phase 2 of the 55 Building)

 

It's not my place to judge the goals or objectives of the project, but the decisions so far don't seem in sync with their intentions.  It seems to me like this project is pulling in two different directions.  It's like they can't decide if they want a high profile, urban HQ, or a low-key, suburban campus.   Or worse, they are trying to find a middle ground- those don't usually end up as great projects.