2 hours ago, Florida Guy said:

There is nothing surprising here if you have followed KJP’s blog over the past several years. If one analyzed all of his posts on a graph they go up and down but would be pretty much in line from what he has been reporting all along.

 

It will be interesting to see the actual renderings with the angled roof vs the square box.

 

Superb reporting KJP! Thank you!

 

Since I can't get an actual illustration of the proposed tower, I'm working with sources and with Geowizical on getting the most accurate-looking massing possible.

10 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Since I can't get an actual illustration of the proposed tower, I'm working with sources and with Geowizical on getting the most accurate-looking massing possible.

@KJP do you know if any actual renderings will be submitted to the Planning Commission for the July 20 meeting.  If not, I assume the majority of the discussion will revolve around the site plan.  I am thinking if they getting any major push back from these massings (which I doubt) it gives them time to tweak the actual design for the September public meeting (so I am guessing no renderings now).

Edited July 3, 20213 yr by Htsguy

I don't know if renderings will be submitted for the July 20th meeting but I doubt that they will. I suspect they are going to get some feedback on the conceptual site plan/massing and then submit the schematic plans. But I think they feel very comfortable (I don't know how justifiable it is) about their schematic plans because they've already started drawing them up, including an advanced design of the tower that we'll try to portray next week.

On 7/2/2021 at 10:38 AM, OldEnough said:

I’m all for public access but what’s the idea?  Sohio/BP/Huntington Building has had it for decades and no one uses it. 

"Nobody" using the BP lobby is fine (people do use it, although it is not a train station or banking hall.)

The publicly accessible lobby space of 200 PS is symbolically important to the metaphorical "public square" of our city's oldest and most monumental & prominent garden park.  The 200 Public Square lobby delivers the limited service of elegant park views from above, and places to dine casually in an elegant (if austere) public space.  Liken this limited public space to the public access we demand for developments of our waterfronts on Lake Erie and the Cuyahoga.

 

Sherwin Williams frontage on Public Square will be the widely perceived front door of their business. It is important by expectation and by tradition that SW symbolically present a welcoming presence to the city as we are one of their key partners in success.  The  interaction of the SW tower with our most important civic space will become a hallmark of their corporate reputation for decades to come. 

 

Clients will arrive for meetings expecting an entrance to be available through the main front door. The view of this new complex from Public Square will be the most common and lasting impression that employees, customers, neighbors, and visitors will have of Sherwin Williams. The Park-side front of the building should be impressive and rather not like poorly conceived suburban homes that have prominent garages facing the street.

 

A sealed "jewel box," only opened for the few is the wrong architectural statement for our beautiful Public Square.

 

In the end, providing for a beautiful publicly accessible space on Public Square is a community spirited service that SW and their thousands of downtown employees should not have to be compelled to provide to the neighborhood. They should be volunteering this service to the city to demonstrate that they are a good corporate citizen. Sherwin Williams has the resources and creative capacity to make their Public Square frontage a showplace of community pride. It should not be a self-serving "walled garden" to be interacted with by the public at arms' length.

 

 

Edited July 3, 20213 yr by ExPatClevGuy
General grammar, spelling and language updates

Several people asking about how the Public Square facing building could be made more public.  I had some thoughts on that (specifically a Van Aken style Food Hall on the ground floor facing the Square), as well as other ways to improve the building in general:

 

 

 

 

 

On 7/2/2021 at 4:22 PM, skiwest said:

What happened to Weston?  They had a great plan for the area a few years ago.   Perhaps they can get back into the picture and team up with SHW. 

 

To refresh your memory, this was the plan.

4 minutes ago, skiwest said:

To refresh your memory, this was the plan.

Let's be real.  That "plan" was not much more than a bunch of pretty pictures.

What we saw of the Westin proposal might have been nothing more than "pretty pictures" but that is one problem with Cleveland development. Far too many looked much better in the pictures than the ultimate structure that was built. I don't know why that is the case but it happens more often than l like.

 

As far as SHW goes maybe after they introduce pictures to the public and they get some pushback on the Jacob's lot design maybe they will change their mind. That little 2 story CofE sitting in front of a 600 foot tower will look like a speed bump with a walkway. Here's hoping.

Schematic design is tentatively scheduled for submittal by end of August. I bet these will go public when they get submitted, just like the packet this week. And quotes from Chilton confirm KJP's earlier blogs about the rooftop.

 

“I think that it’s not lost on Sherwin-Williams that the tower top, its presence on the skyline, is certainly an opportunity for the city of Cleveland,” Chilton said. “It’s also an opportunity for Sherwin-Williams from a branding standpoint.

“And so are you going to see a flat top?” the architect continued. “I don’t think so.”

 

This was posted on the last page:

https://www.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2021/07/sherwin-williams-reveals-more-about-plans-to-build-fourth-tallest-building-in-cleveland.html

 

Edited July 3, 20213 yr by Mendo

For the record I’m all for more public space. A Van Aken-like market would be fabulous. Until I’m proven wrong however downtown Cleveland just doesn’t support these spaces. Halle Building food court, Tower City (was pretty good for a while), Galleria … 

 

I worked in the BP Building. While there’s a few folks knocking around the lobby it’s hardly been a thriving retail or dining hub. 
 

We need more jobs downtown and the demand will follow. In the meantime I’m not sure creating more retail/dining space is viable - or something I’d expect a company like SW to stick their neck out for. 

 

 

1 hour ago, OldEnough said:

For the record I’m all for more public space. A Van Aken-like market would be fabulous. Until I’m proven wrong however downtown Cleveland just doesn’t support these spaces. Halle Building food court, Tower City (was pretty good for a while), Galleria … 

 

I worked in the BP Building. While there’s a few folks knocking around the lobby it’s hardly been a thriving retail or dining hub. 
 

We need more jobs downtown and the demand will follow. In the meantime I’m not sure creating more retail/dining space is viable - or something I’d expect a company like SW to stick their neck out for. 

 

 

Exactly. Its a waste of space given all the underutilized public space that already exists. 

 

SW can have a grand lobby, and I am sure they will, without it being open to people who don't belong there for work or meetings. 

 

^ agree with that reality about food courts and retail, but why not at least the flagship paint store, paint museum and an indoor/outdoor cafe all facing the square? keep it simple, but still with public access, or at least make a good look with the perception of welcomeness and access. 

 

i mean, at the very least a corner public cafe is a no brainer, employees in training need to eat and get some air.

 

for example near us, the port authority google bldg just finished a long renovation of their ground floor public spaces and they opened up a huge google store (which looks exactly like an apple store, its nothing innovative). its good for pr if nothing else.

Edited July 4, 20213 yr by mrnyc

I still think allowing Terminal Tower to reflect off the facade of 55 public square, if it means a squat building with a taller tower behind it makes sense. Sitting in PS, that is what you will see (and it's a lovely sight), a panorama of sights. We need to get over it. Building a tall tower in front of 55 removes it from being part of the square...and she works as a pretty girl at the party. Don't make her a wallflower.

 

I think the architects and Sherwin Williams are thinking of these things. And the taller tower placing fills in a needed gap in the skyline from certain angles. More bang for the buck IMO in a CBD that needs to fill a lot of dead parking lots, and doesn't have a lot of people lining up to build on them.

 

It's kinda like putting mirrors on a wall in your house to make it feel bigger and more grand. Probably a bad analogy I will regret.

Edited July 4, 20213 yr by metrocity

Perspective from Litt!

 

Early-stage plan for Sherwin-Williams downtown HQ mixes mostly good ideas with some bad ones

Today 5:32 AM

By Steven Litt, cleveland.com

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio — It was cause for excitement last year when Sherwin-Williams, the global paint and coatings giant based in the Terminal Tower complex, announced it would stay in downtown Cleveland and build a new headquarters west of Public Square.

But any hope that the company’s $300 million project would be a complete boon for downtown would have to be at least somewhat tempered by the early-stage designs released Thursday to City Hall and the media.

 

—

 

Thursday’s unveiling marked the beginning of a review and approval process including meetings with the City Planning Commission scheduled for July 20, September 14, and November 30, when final designs could be approved.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2021/07/early-stage-sherwin-williams-plan-for-downtown-hq-complex-is-a-mix-of-mostly-good-ideas-diminished-by-some-bad-ones.html

Edited July 4, 20213 yr by MuRrAy HiLL

5 hours ago, mrnyc said:

^ agree with that reality about food courts and retail, but why not at least the flagship paint store, paint museum and an indoor/outdoor cafe all facing the square? keep it simple, but still with public access, or at least make a good look with the perception of welcomeness and access. 

 

i mean, at the very least a corner public cafe is a no brainer, employees in training need to eat and get some air.

 

for example near us, the port authority google bldg just finished a long renovation of their ground floor public spaces and they opened up a huge google store (which looks exactly like an apple store, its nothing innovative). its good for pr if nothing else.

That’s the only critique I agree with. It would make a lot of sense to have a flagship store here

I don't think it needs any sort of food hall or retail arcade/ interior quasi-public space.  In fact, I think it would be better if their was ground floor retail facing outward- towards the square, especially restaurants with outdoor seating.  The point should be to address Public Square with active uses that generate more activity along the margins of our signature public space.

 

8 hours ago, metrocity said:

I still think allowing Terminal Tower to reflect off the facade of 55 public square, if it means a squat building with a taller tower behind it makes sense. Sitting in PS, that is what you will see (and it's a lovely sight), a panorama of sights. We need to get over it. Building a tall tower in front of 55 removes it from being part of the square...and she works as a pretty girl at the party. Don't make her a wallflower.

 

I think the architects and Sherwin Williams are thinking of these things. And the taller tower placing fills in a needed gap in the skyline from certain angles. More bang for the buck IMO in a CBD that needs to fill a lot of dead parking lots, and doesn't have a lot of people lining up to build on them.

 

It's kinda like putting mirrors on a wall in your house to make it feel bigger and more grand. Probably a bad analogy I will regret.

 

I can't see how it makes sense to cut short development on a large portion of Public Square frontage just so one building can reflect off of another and be 55 Public Square can be a "pretty girl at the party".  55 Public Square would in fact still be at least partly visible to and from all of Public Square due to its positioning.

My sticking point continues to be the treatment of West 3rd.  I am very anxious to see how they activate it.  Don't want to see another blank wall bowling alley.  We will already have that on the east side of 3rd with the rear of SHW's two story what ever it is and the 55PS garage.

 

I am also still in a knot over all the surface parking no matter how they sugar coat it at this time.  My feeling is that if the PC approves it they should condition it with a 3 year limit from the completion of construction (at least those portion that are not designated future SHW expansion).  That give them more than 5 years to find developers.  I would hope that would be plenty of time even given the glacier pace at which this grand old company moves.  Even then, given the way the city enforces these surface lot restrictions (I am think specifically of the New York Spag House lot) SHW probably would not have much to worry about with such a condition.  

Without any fancy information, I detect SHW CEO Connor's fingerprints all over the Jacob's block "pavilion" and, given his previously-reported fondness for campus-like concepts, I suspect it will be difficult to change the plan much.  At least a huge eyesore of a parking lot will be gone and the investment in the pavilion (other than land) probably won't be huge.  It's easy to foresee a future CEO saying, "Let's do something more meaningful with that thing. We're a consumer-product company, let's get some consumers in the door."

 

Fearless prediction: The pavilion won't last ten years.

9 hours ago, metrocity said:

I still think allowing Terminal Tower to reflect off the facade of 55 public square, if it means a squat building with a taller tower behind it makes sense. Sitting in PS, that is what you will see (and it's a lovely sight), a panorama of sights. We need to get over it. Building a tall tower in front of 55 removes it from being part of the square...and she works as a pretty girl at the party. Don't make her a wallflower.

 

I think the architects and Sherwin Williams are thinking of these things. And the taller tower placing fills in a needed gap in the skyline from certain angles. More bang for the buck IMO in a CBD that needs to fill a lot of dead parking lots, and doesn't have a lot of people lining up to build on them.

 

It's kinda like putting mirrors on a wall in your house to make it feel bigger and more grand. Probably a bad analogy I will regret.

I like the location of the tower - I think it will fit better in the skyline and I think it will still be impressive from Public Square. But the PS building doesn’t have to be two stories for any of that to be accomplished. Two stories is going to look silly. A six story building the height of the 200 PS atrium or the Metzenbaum Courthouse, or a ten story building closer to the height of 75 PS or the Renaissance Cleveland Hotel would still allow for all the benefits that we have discussed regarding the Tower location. 
 

And, of course, how the site works at pedestrian level is a more important concern anyway. Require tours of Short Vincent for all involved!

 

^ as we talked about before, a few extra stories of a five star hotel partner above it would do the trick. unfortunately, post-pandemic, if thats what this summer is, sorta, the hotel industry remains in turmoil, so i can understand the problem of sw finding a partner for that.

 

also unfortunately, but remember pickard designs very conservative glass boxes, i don’t see that they have any experience with campus ensembles or outside the box creativity and it looks like we are seeing the inevitable troubling signs of that in the massing plans and in regard to public space. who knows though, they could just as well be sandbagging a bit and we could be very pleasantly surprized, so we’ll see.

Everything I am reading leads me to seriously thing SHW tower is essentially going to be Northwestern Mutual's Milwaukee headquarters with 4 extra floors and without the curved front:

 

 

 

They, NWM, even built a similar but slightly shorter residential tower near their headquarters.  For SHW, this could be a mixed-use tower (apartments and a hotel).  Both were designed by Pickard Chilton

A 2 story building right on the square will look completely ridiculous in my opinion but I guess it's better than a surface lot. If another developer really wanted that lot in the future, an insignificants of a 2 story building wouldn't be much of a loss to demolish and rebuild there in the future. 

22 minutes ago, Mildtraumatic said:

A 2 story building right on the square will look completely ridiculous in my opinion but I guess it's better than a surface lot. If another developer really wanted that lot in the future, an insignificants of a 2 story building wouldn't be much of a loss to demolish and rebuild there in the future. 

I hate it, but I really doubt SHW would willingly sell that lot for someone else to build on. They wouldn't want someone to "block their view."

46 minutes ago, tykaps said:

I hate it, but I really doubt SHW would willingly sell that lot for someone else to build on. They wouldn't want someone to "block their view."

Unironically this. That's why SHW bought the lot, and that's why it's only 2 stories. 

 

Complaining about it now won't change it. I'm choosing to appreciate the silver lining of PS getting a few more hours of sunlight in spring/fall. 

Has anyone seen or done a massing of the proposed building heights from the ground perspective of Public Square?  While I appreciate the overhead shots I am more inclined to see how it will interact with it's surroundings. 

 

Another question is with regards the parking structure for 900+ spaces.  Is there any reason this couldn't be done below grade? I have always been a fan of The Key Center's parking of 1000 spaces hidden under Mall A. It is odd to have a taller structure for vehicles than the proposed 2 story building on The Jacob's Lot.

 

 

Edited July 5, 20213 yr by dave2017
added question

11 hours ago, dave2017 said:

Has anyone seen or done a massing of the proposed building heights from the ground perspective of Public Square?  While I appreciate the overhead shots I am more inclined to see how it will interact with it's surroundings. 

 

Working on said shots as we speak for @KJP!

 

11 hours ago, dave2017 said:

Another question is with regards the parking structure for 900+ spaces.  Is there any reason this couldn't be done below grade? I have always been a fan of The Key Center's parking of 1000 spaces hidden under Mall A. It is odd to have a taller structure for vehicles than the proposed 2 story building on The Jacob's Lot.

 

Articles from the past week are saying 4 floors above grade, 1 below. Odd? Maybe, although as you'll probably see in the upcoming massings the two structures will most likely end up at about similar heights in the final design IMO. As to whether or not they should build the garage as proposed is not quite my wheelhouse haha

Pavilion height/access arguments aside, this view from the proposal (full PDF at Cleveland Scene site) in my opinion makes a great argument for the placement of the tower. The setback creates more overall balance of the “big 4” than if it was thrust forward on the square.  

11 minutes ago, OldEnough said:

Pavilion height/access arguments aside, this view from the proposal (full PDF at Cleveland Scene site) in my opinion makes a great argument for the placement of the tower. The setback creates more overall balance of the “big 4” than if it was thrust forward on the square.  

Everyone is right IMO that the "Pavilion" is too short and should instead mirror the six story or so buildings in a direct line across from it. It could actually be done so that it would activate the street and have a unique design that would make it a highlight of the square. I would imagine there could very well be some sort of public/retail space at ground level facing the square completely separate from the rest of the building as well as a rooftop space that could be separate as well and have an employee entrance. An activated rooftop/restaurant with outdoor access would be terrific for that location. It is just such a missed opportunity I guess. *

 

 

 

But anyway the tower itself will hopefully look great especially with the slanted top and fill in the skyline very well. Keeping the company in the city is huge, getting the parking crater filled in is a huge win, Congrats Cleveland! 

 

*If the pavilion is that small and short it could probably be redesigned/altered in the future anyway. Who knows?

 

Just my two cents.

Edited July 5, 20213 yr by Toddguy

Not sure how accurate the massing for the tower is but if it is close to accurate then my biggest takeaway is just how massive it is. No pun intended. I was expecting a more slender building. That monster will will surely muscle it's way into the skyline even if it's not super tall. Thank you very much SHW, for the tower at least.

Overall, a very disappointing plan. I know we're so bruised as a city of jobs leaving and just so grateful that SW is staying that we take almost ANYTHING and rationalize it as great or pretty good or okay. Lets be frank about what they've proposed:

• a two-story bldg on Public Square where each of the other four quadrants have a 45+ bldg on them
• a 36-story bldg that could have easily been a 60-70 story bldg. If SW is holding other land for future uses they could have easily built a 70 story bldg and rented out half of it until they themselves needed it.
• by holding adjacent land for "future use" it almost guarantees no new development related or spun off uses--new housing, new retail, new offices, etc.

Pretty $hitty all around. And I didn't even mention the catwalk across w. 3 that takes people OFF city streets and also creates a visual eyesore.

 

1 hour ago, Pugu said:

Overall, a very disappointing plan. I know we're so bruised as a city of jobs leaving and just so grateful that SW is staying that we take almost ANYTHING and rationalize it as great or pretty good or okay. Lets be frank about what they've proposed:

• a two-story bldg on Public Square where each of the other four quadrants have a 45+ bldg on them
• a 36-story bldg that could have easily been a 60-70 story bldg. If SW is holding other land for future uses they could have easily built a 70 story bldg and rented out half of it until they themselves needed it.
• by holding adjacent land for "future use" it almost guarantees no new development related or spun off uses--new housing, new retail, new offices, etc.

Pretty $hitty all around. And I didn't even mention the catwalk across w. 3 that takes people OFF city streets and also creates a visual eyesore.

 

 

+ The two story building will be the height of a typical 4-story building and will likely have lots of glass. I know you wanted 44 stories. But this parking lot on Public Square has sat empty for 30+ years.

+ Don't get hung up on stories. It's not going to be 36 stories anyway. Count how many feet tall. Unless you're going to stand on Public Square and count the stories, what you're going to notice most of all about this building is how tall it will be -- including the unique decorative rooflines. Yes, plural -- rooflines.

+ That, my friend, is how people in loser cities talk. Loser cities are made up of people with loser mentalities. If you can't dream it and believe it, you can't do it.

+ And.... article coming later today.

Honestly my biggest problem with this whole project is the pedestrian bridge over west 3rd. I know in one article Kelley (I believe) said that bridge should get some pushback. Turn that into a tunnel and SHW will get my stamp of approval which probably will make or break this project ;) 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

+ Don't get hung up on stories. It's not going to be 36 stories anyway. Count how many feet tall. Unless you're going to stand on Public Square and count the stories, what you're going to notice most of all about this building is how tall it will be -- including the unique decorative rooflines. Yes, plural -- rooflines.

Now I’m starting to picture something like Foster + Partners 2 WTC design..

On 7/3/2021 at 7:55 PM, OldEnough said:

For the record I’m all for more public space. A Van Aken-like market would be fabulous. Until I’m proven wrong however downtown Cleveland just doesn’t support these spaces. Halle Building food court, Tower City (was pretty good for a while), Galleria … 

 

I worked in the BP Building. While there’s a few folks knocking around the lobby it’s hardly been a thriving retail or dining hub. 
 

We need more jobs downtown and the demand will follow. In the meantime I’m not sure creating more retail/dining space is viable - or something I’d expect a company like SW to stick their neck out for. 

 

 

This is exactly the problem with adding a food hall or similar to SHW. When you add more capacity to something that already has low demand, you dilute it to a point it all closes up shop. You'll be left with nothing.

That 'campus' concept is all wrong for such a central place in the city. The CEO is going to ruin one of the best development spots in the city with that ridiculous two story concept on Public Square, and that monstrous parking garage is going to deaden all the streets it fronts. I really hope this concept is fundamentally changed and SW proposes a design fitted to the urban space. 

it's not a campus, its an office building with an annex

Thanks again @Geowizical!!!!

 

 

MONDAY, JULY 5, 2021

SHW skyscraper's crown soars, street-level bores

 

While City Planning Commission members review months-old massings of the planned Sherwin-Williams headquarters delivered to them only last week, you're getting the first look at more detailed images of what the new HQ will reportedly look like.

 

SHW's design team is comprised of hundreds of people from among lead architect Pickard Chilton, HQ interior architect Vocon Partners LLC, and base building architect HGA Architects and Engineers, LLC. They are all guided by a group of SHW executives called the Building Our Future Committee (BOF).

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/07/shw-skyscrapers-crown-soars-street.html

The horse appears to be dead so I am going to stop beating it.  But one last time....I guess my fears regarding West 3rd are being realized.  I certainly hope the Pickard team had a greater vision and it was the SHW suits that struck it down due to cost because I think even I could have designed the suggested parking garage.

Additional angles! ALSO, including a graphic I've never tried making before that I thought y'all would find particularly appropriate:

 

From the North

 

From PS

 

From W 3rd

 

From SWHQ Balcony

 

Shadow Analysis of SWHQ Tower (July 01 sunlight data)

Love all those renders @Geowizical! I hope the actual roofline is close to your render, because it’s very unique, sleek, and lovely.

Great job GEOWIZICAL

and KJP

57 minutes ago, Geowizical said:

Shadow Analysis of SWHQ Tower (July 01 sunlight data)

The shadow study is great. It shows one of the big advantages of the tower being a block off of Public Square rather than right on it. If it was on the Jacobs lot, the shadow would cover nearly half of PS from mid-afternoon on. It also really works better in the skyline. 
 

The roof also looks great!

I actually think the "big 4" will have a better balance and symmetry  with SW's tower pushed back off the square, now that I've stared more intently at the graphics from @KJPand @Geowizical(Thanks, gentleman - as always.)

 

One gets a feeling of the square now being more expansive and the shadow study shows how it will feel more open and sunny.  From ground level, the eye is drawn to the tower over and beyond the pavilion when looking across the square towards the tower.  I was initially disappointed, like many, with the strategic location of the Center for Excellence - but I'm getting used to it in these newest graphics  because of the tower's commanding presence and the apparent similarity in glass/color of the CFE.   There is a sort of 200 Public Square Atrium like effect that will now be reflected in this project.  Though I would've loved the tower being just a bit less bulky and a bit higher to rival the Terminal Tower (being honest)  the roof line makes a big difference in giving the tower an interesting and unique signature.  The lighting possibilities are really cool. I also like the effect created by the cut-ins on each side of the tower, which give it further interest. 

 

Finally, the different distance perspectives really show how the downtown skyline will have a significantly denser, more fully-realized feeling due to the height and placement of this new tower.  The possibility that they have shovels in the ground before the year ends is exciting.  

 

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 20213 yr by CleveFan

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

The roof also looks great!

Thanks also to all involved bringing these renderings to fruition.  I'm not as excited with the two opposite sloped roof design as some of you expressed.  Maybe I'm just a slow adopter. Give me a clue or two how you see this design in terms of strong architectural merit. 😉

Just now, DO_Summers said:

Thanks also to all involved bringing these renderings to fruition.  I'm not as excited with the two opposite sloped roof design as some of you expressed.  Maybe I'm just a slow adopter. Give me a clue or two how you see this design in terms of strong architectural merit. 😉

 

It also depends on the steepness of the inclines of the two rooflines. I don't know how steep they will be. They could be as shown in the @Geowizicalmassings. Or they could be steeper, like Atria II and III pushed together, but front to back, with one overlapping the other. This is what the design team used....

5 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

It also depends on the steepness of the inclines of the two rooflines. I don't know how steep they will be. They could be as shown in the @Geowizicalmassings. Or they could be steeper, like Atria II and III pushed together, but front to back, with one overlapping the other. This is what the design team used....

 

Thanks @KJP. I also thought a bit additional slope might make a more dramatic building. In the rendering it seems to me they just show enough vertical space to attach their logo.  Personally, I like symmetry and these are definitely symmetric,  but the roof design felt to me more like an afterthought rather than an integral part of the design profile.

 

Fantastic that we can even have thus debate!!!

26 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

It also depends on the steepness of the inclines of the two rooflines. I don't know how steep they will be. They could be as shown in the @Geowizicalmassings. Or they could be steeper, like Atria II and III pushed together, but front to back, with one overlapping the other. This is what the design team used....

I really like the uniqueness of the double sloped roof. Any time I see a skyline, I look for the unique buildings to figure out what city I’m looking at. Conceptually it sounds like the SHW roof will be immediately recognizable to building nerds like me who are from other places. 

Interesting comment posted on Twitter in response to my article.....

 

While retail on Frankfort would be nice, seems like the bigger issue is that they're getting around the requirements on St Clair and W 6th by surrounding 2 sides of the garage with surface parking.

@KJP do you have any sense if shw is being sincere about developing w6 and at clair? 

Edited July 6, 20213 yr by Whipjacka