Regarding the glass facade, contrast is a core principle of design.  Not that it's 100% always a good thing but in my opinion in this case it is contrast that is much needed and will work well with its more classic earth-toned neighbors.  Not to mention the burst of light it will provide.  A few more would be even better to create some balance.

16 hours ago, MuRrAy HiLL said:

One other thought—SW HQ will be the 4th tallest in Cleveland, but also puts Cleveland as having 4 of the top 6 tallest in Ohio at that 616 ft.

 

 

 

Cleveland will have 5 of the top 10 tallest in Ohio. The Huntington Center (Columbus) will drop to #11.

11 hours ago, dave2017 said:

Another pass at the reflective glass treatment for the new headquarters

 

To me this really fits so well within the other towers and acts as a nice complement, and a burst of modern glass design vs. the heavier / darker look of the current big three. I would be very happy if this is how it comes out!

19 minutes ago, mrclifton88 said:

To me this really fits so well within the other towers and acts as a nice complement, and a burst of modern glass design vs. the heavier / darker look of the current big three. I would be very happy if this is how it comes out!

 

I agree with this--we need shiny and glass (and no vertical lines)---and with creative use of colored lights for evenings and nights. Shiny glass will complement the other bldgs and will modernize the skyline. If we also stay grounded in that brown/grey brick look---then we will always have that look no many how many skyscrapers we have. We need to depart from that and move to shiny glass (like Hilton and a vertical-lineless-Lumen).

25 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

I agree with this--we need shiny and glass (and no vertical lines)---and with creative use of colored lights for evenings and nights. Shiny glass will complement the other bldgs and will modernize the skyline. If we also stay grounded in that brown/grey brick look---then we will always have that look no many how many skyscrapers we have. We need to depart from that and move to shiny glass (like Hilton and a vertical-lineless-Lumen).

Agreed, we don't have to keep reaching into the post modern bag of architectural details...

I was thinking the building could be fairly conventionally lighted most of the time, with a  brief laser light show of the SWP can pouring paint down the building for five minutes of the hours from 8 to 11PM.  Splashy, yes, but not numbingly repetitive.

 

MONDAY, JULY 26, 2021
Sherwin-Williams' 2nd HQ tower may rise sooner, not later

 

In models and on graphics, it was presented almost as an afterthought. It was a featureless box standing in downtown Cleveland at the northeast corner of West Superior Avenue and West 6th Street. Next door, the 600-footer served as a magician's tool of misdirection, with its primary role as the global headquarters of Sherwin-Williams (SHW).

 

But that blank box, a future HQ tower standing what appears to be about 300 feet tall based on the height of the Rockefeller Building across the street, could not be ignored by a joint meeting of city planning review committees on July 20.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/07/sherwin-williams-2nd-hq-tower-may-rise.html

4 hours ago, punch said:

I am guessing it will have a dramatic effect on this beauty shot

(borrowed from clevelandskyscrapers.com)

Seems like it should appear between Key and 200 PS from that vantage point.

^So, who could move in? Locally, I'm guessing that Lubrizol and OMNOVA are chemical suppliers. Maybe go for some big fish and have Dow, DuPont, BASF, Ashland relocate?! 😉 

Here is a photoshop rendering of the tower from The Cuyahoga.  @MayDay I hope you don't mind I used  your photo as the base.

Edited July 27, 20213 yr by dave2017

So @KJP you are suggesting that the space where the second tower could go will probably  never be a parking lot. That it will go from a staging area to a construction site for the future tower.

1 hour ago, freethink said:

So @KJP you are suggesting that the space where the second tower could go will probably  never be a parking lot. That it will go from a staging area to a construction site for the future tower.

 

It might, yes.

3 hours ago, dave2017 said:

Here is a photoshop rendering of the tower from The Cuyahoga.  @MayDay I hope you don't mind I used  your photo as the base.

I don’t mind at all, and nice job on the rendering! 👍

 
MONDAY, JULY 26, 2021
Sherwin-Williams' 2nd HQ tower may rise sooner, not later
 
In models and on graphics, it was presented almost as an afterthought. It was a featureless box standing in downtown Cleveland at the northeast corner of West Superior Avenue and West 6th Street. Next door, the 600-footer served as a magician's tool of misdirection, with its primary role as the global headquarters of Sherwin-Williams (SHW).
 
But that blank box, a future HQ tower standing what appears to be about 300 feet tall based on the height of the Rockefeller Building across the street, could not be ignored by a joint meeting of city planning review committees on July 20.
 
MORE:
https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/07/sherwin-williams-2nd-hq-tower-may-rise.html

The second tower I'd like to have a brick base and blend with the Warehouse District buildings since the proximity would be so close to them.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

5 hours ago, dave2017 said:

Here is a photoshop rendering of the tower from The Cuyahoga.  @MayDay I hope you don't mind I used  your photo as the base.

@dave2017's  renderings, especially the twilight version, are probably the best thus far in highlighting just how nicely the new tower will fit into and complement the skyline.  The difference in the density, variation and feeling of urbanity downtown will be substantial.   To me, the PC designers were quite successful in evolving what could've been a bland bulky glass box into something reasonably elegant, immediately recognizable and having a feeling of upward motion. It's going to be a lot of fun to see how the new skyline looks from every possible angle - both by day and by night -  as this 4th tallest tower in the city rises over the next couple years.  I think the building will make a big statement to residents and visitors to the city about the growth and energy in Cleveland's downtown district.  I'm hoping that the CFE/pavillion on the Jacobs lot winds up with a higher profile and a rooftop restaurant/bar on top, possibly with a roof that opens for summer weather.  That would bring the "public" to public square even more effectively than a paint museum!  Thanks to @dave2017, @KJPand any and all  forum contributors that are giving us insight into this important project. 

 

So who is going to ask? Ok, I will.. do people wish this could've been the 1000 footer or are you happy with multiple structures?

I was hoping for 700+ so it would be a companion to Key Tower and give the skyline some balance  It currently looks a bit awkward with Key Tower dwarfing all the other buildings. This was the best chaince for a tall tower and it is unlikely there will be another opportunity in the foreseeable future.

 

Edited July 27, 20213 yr by skiwest

1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said:

The second tower I'd like to have a brick base and blend with the Warehouse District buildings since the proximity would be so close to them.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
 

Yes! I was thinking the same thing. Would be a great “connector” building between the two districts.

50 minutes ago, cfdwarrior said:

So who is going to ask? Ok, I will.. do people wish this could've been the 1000 footer or are you happy with multiple structures?

 

I'll answer this---and will get downvoted for my answer---but I am very disappointed with a 616' / 36 story bldg when this easily could have been the tallest bldg in the city---and SHW even acknowledged that the bldg could have been significantly taller which is why they didn't build on the Jacobs lot---because the smaller footprint would have made it necessarily so.

6 hours ago, dave2017 said:

Here is a photoshop rendering of the tower from The Cuyahoga.  @MayDay I hope you don't mind I used  your photo as the base.

This is really going to be a game changer in regard to the skyline. I’d love for it to be all-glass with dramatic lighting to reflect SHW color palette- maybe highlight the color of the year/month while also representing team colors during games. The options are unlimited - if done right. 
 

Regardless - this addition to the skyline will be beautiful and most welcomed! 

1 hour ago, cfdwarrior said:

So who is going to ask? Ok, I will.. do people wish this could've been the 1000 footer or are you happy with multiple structures?

I’m happy. Very happy now knowing a second tower is in the horizon - especially with the scale of the second tower. All of this will bring feet on the street and introduce more development - commercial and residential. 

2 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

The second tower I'd like to have a brick base and blend with the Warehouse District buildings since the proximity would be so close to them.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
 

Yes please. Can we just dust off the plans for the Doubletree at W. 6th and Lakeside? 

10 hours ago, cfdwarrior said:

So who is going to ask? Ok, I will.. do people wish this could've been the 1000 footer or are you happy with multiple structures?

 

I'd rather have two towers especially after knowing phase I will be 616'. Cleveland's skyline already has terrific height, however it lacks density when compared to our peer cities.

 

I'm over here LOL'ing at the folks not happy about a 600 footer. To put things in perspective, I can count on one hand how many US cities currently have demand for 600'+ office towers.

Edited July 27, 20213 yr by Clefan98

44 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

I'd rather have two towers especially after knowing phase I will be 616'. Cleveland's skyline already has terrific height, however it lacks density when compared to our peer cities.

 

I'm over here LOL'ing at the folks not happy about a 600 footer. To put things in perspective, I can count on one hand how many US cities currently have demand 600'+ office towers.

 

Same, I'd rather have a smattering of midrises than one hulking tower. I love walking folks around town and parking lots or not, we don't have the urban density of other, similar cities. I'd prefer an urban canyon over one building I can see from 50 miles away.

27 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

Same, I'd rather have a smattering of midrises than one hulking tower. I love walking folks around town and parking lots or not, we don't have the urban density of other, similar cities. I'd prefer an urban canyon over one building I can see from 50 miles away.

Agree.  Cleveland needs density and height isn't everything.   I'd also add that it is amazing that any new office towers are being build right now.  With so many companies switching to remote or hybrid work, there could a ton of fresh vacancies coming onto the market  My company is getting rid of three buildings in CA, one building on Long Island, and some leased space in Ohio.  I believe we own the three in CA and I am dubious that they'll be able to find a buyer.  

16 hours ago, dave2017 said:

Here is a photoshop rendering of the tower from The Cuyahoga.  @MayDay I hope you don't mind I used  your photo as the base.

Thanks for doing this!

I was wondering if it would block the other buildings, and I am still hoping it looks bigger, like the courthouse does, due to being closer to the river.  But, I am happy this beauty shot only gets better

 

Wow, the contrast is so great between old and new. While l love our big 3 when you actually see a picture with the new SHW tower inserted you realize just how old, beige and tired they look. Like one of those old west sepia pictures. Only they are not that old, they just look it. 

 

Who would have thought an old school conservative company like SHW would be the one to drag our skyline into the 21 century. 

10 hours ago, marty15 said:

Yes please. Can we just dust off the plans for the Doubletree at W. 6th and Lakeside? 

 

Something like this at 300' or so would be a perfect "step down" into the Warehouse District in terms of height as well.  From the S-W massing KJP included in his article, it looks like the second S-W tower will rise a couple stories above the venerable Rockefeller, West 6th's tallest building south of St. Clair.  That's adds some crucial symmetry and density to the skyline. 

 

Speaking of balance, the second S-W tower should also complement the smattering of 20-25 story buildings you see in the 9th/12th financial district on the other side of Public Square.  Really looking forward to seeing our skyline from every angle once this mega-project is completed.

 

Edited July 27, 20213 yr by Down_with_Ctown

1 hour ago, cadmen said:

Wow, the contrast is so great between old and new. While l love our big 3 when you actually see a picture with the new SHW tower inserted you realize just how old, beige and tired they look. Like one of those old west sepia pictures. Only they are not that old, they just look it. 

 

Who would have thought an old school conservative company like SHW would be the one to drag our skyline into the 21 century. 

 

Renderings have a way of looking fresh.

12 hours ago, cfdwarrior said:

So who is going to ask? Ok, I will.. do people wish this could've been the 1000 footer or are you happy with multiple structures?

 

I think the 616 footer balances the skyline more. I like that it leaves Key as the tallest. Having a tower rival key town would give us a miniature version of what we have going on in the skyline now, with all the tallest towers on one side of the skyline and all the shorter towers way on the other.

 

The fact that a second tower rivaling the heights of the towers along East 9th densities and spreads the skyline west and will make it look better at the end of the day.

you know it could be worse... at least we don't have Darth Vader tower...

 

1 minute ago, tastybunns said:

you know it could be worse... at least we don't have Darth Vader tower...

 

Hey now, USX tower is pretty friggin' cool! But speaking of seeing a building for 50-70 miles, this is pgh's equivalent. All the mid-rises (and narrower streets) really activate their downtown, hoping for some similar mid-rise urban canyon feels (5-7 lane roads don't really help with that though).

So who is going to ask? Ok, I will.. do people wish this could've been the 1000 footer or are you happy with multiple structures?

This is the same debate as Nucleus. A dense skyline is better than a tall one.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

14 hours ago, cfdwarrior said:

So who is going to ask? Ok, I will.. do people wish this could've been the 1000 footer or are you happy with multiple structures?

So one of my biggest criticisms of the Cleveland skyline has always been that it's lopsided. Something that results in it looking like it only has three major buildings because the scale of the Public Square towers is so large compared to the eastern part of the skyline.

 

Disregarding the 2 story pavilion on the Jacobs Lot for a moment, I have come around to be a full on supporter of the tower being on the Warehouse District lot. The height is actually perfect to help balance the skyline stepping back downward towards the river. If it was 1,000 feet, that wouldn't happen and the effect I described above would be heightened.

 

The secondardy tower being 300-350 feet in height is also perfect in my mind. It continues this step down into the Warehouse District and, along with hopeful future mid rise development in the remainder of the open spaces on the west side of Downtown and just across the river, will result in a nice density at ground level as well as a more balanced skyline from afar. The best of both worlds in my mind.

 

Regarding the tower being clad in glass, typically I'd be all "yawn" about that, but given the relative lack of highrise construction in Cleveland in the last decade compared to peer cities, I actually think a large amount of (hopefully nicely detailed) glass will help modernize the skyline quite a bit. I think Cleveland has actually been fairly lucky with its stock of mid and highrise new construction recently in that there's a nice mix of styles, so we can handle a big glassy structure to compliment the postmodernist sea of towers we already have from the 70s-90s.

4 hours ago, cadmen said:

you realize just how old, beige and tired they look. Like one of those old west sepia pictures. Only they are not that old, they just look it. 

 

Who would have thought an old school conservative company like SHW would be the one to drag our skyline into the 21 century. 

Well, the the Terminal Tower is old and I would never say it’s tired looking, especially after the stunning outside renovation a few years ago. 
 

As far as Key Tower, I think it’s an incredibly handsome building.
 

The other one, I like the design, but I could do with a lighter shade of brown, but not a big deal. 

 

I have absolutely no problem with Cleveland’s buildings. 

15 hours ago, cfdwarrior said:

So who is going to ask? Ok, I will.. do people wish this could've been the 1000 footer or are you happy with multiple structures?

 

6 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

 

I'd rather have two towers especially after knowing phase I will be 616'. Cleveland's skyline already has terrific height, however it lacks density when compared to our peer cities. I'm over here LOL'ing at the folks not happy about a 600 footer. To put things in perspective, I can count on one hand how many US cities currently have demand for 600'+ office towers.

 

5 hours ago, GISguy said:

Same, I'd rather have a smattering of midrises than one hulking tower. I love walking folks around town and parking lots or not, we don't have the urban density of other, similar cities. I'd prefer an urban canyon over one building I can see from 50 miles away.

 

4 hours ago, OH_Really said:

Agree.  Cleveland needs density and height isn't everything.   

 

Ummm...do you guys know what density is?

 

If SHW built one 80-story bldg on W. 3 St. and then ANOTHER company built a tall building, say 50-60 stories, on the property on which SHW is "holding" for a second less-than-35-story buidling on W. 6, THAT is density. The square footage of land is fixed. So the only way you get high density is by having as many stories as possible---not having two short buildings--one which will remain a parking lot until some unknown date. [edit: I'm speaking generally here--I'm not saying 616' is short.] You act like this is the last company in the world who will ever build anything in Cleveland, so you want to fill in any open space and are calling that "density" when it actually it is just building a 35-story building.

Edited July 27, 20213 yr by Pugu

6 minutes ago, Pugu said:

Ummm...do you guys know what density is?

 

You're off the rails and can't be taken seriously if you think 616' is a "short" building.

Edited July 27, 20213 yr by Clefan98

4 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

You're off the rails and can't be taken seriously if you think 616' is a "short" building.

 

I didn't say, nor think, that 616' is a short bldg. I'm saying if a city has two short bldgs (say 5 stories) instead of two 1-story bldgs, yes that is MORE density. But its certainly not DENSE. The comments here suggest that ANY amount of development gives us "density" and density is a constant regardless of bldg height (or use). It's not true--the higher the bldg, the more the density.

Edited July 27, 20213 yr by Pugu

1 minute ago, Pugu said:

 

I didn't say, nor think, that 616' is a short bldg. I'm saying if a city has two short bldgs (say 5 stories) instead of two 1-story bldgs, yes that is MORE density. But its certainly not DENSE. The comments here suggest that ANY amount of development gives us "density" and density is a constant regardless of bldg height (or use). It's not true--the higher the bldg, the more the density.

 

Except we aren't dealing with 1 story vs 5 stories, weird analogy. Literally a 600' tower and something potentially the size of the Rockefeller- killing two lots and spurring additional development. You can't seriously think that one 1000' tower would add more to a city than multiple 4-500 footers. See my comments above, Cleveland lacks in street presence throughout downtown, more midrises would help with that. It's not like we don't have a ton of available land throughout the CBD if this theoretical 1000' comes along in the future (which...how long have the lots been vacant for?). 

1 minute ago, GISguy said:

Except we aren't dealing with 1 story vs 5 stories, weird analogy. Literally a 600' tower and something potentially the size of the Rockefeller- killing two lots and spurring additional development. You can't seriously think that one 1000' tower would add more to a city than multiple 4-500 footers. See my comments above, Cleveland lacks in street presence throughout downtown, more midrises would help with that. It's not like we don't have a ton of available land throughout the CBD if this theoretical 1000' comes along in the future (which...how long have the lots been vacant for?). 

 

I have discovered the disconnect. You see this as the last build ever in the city---so better to take one 600' and one 300' building than one 900' building to add activity and life to the streets. I AGREE WITH THIS---if the premise was correct---that this is the last building or two ever to be built in Cleveland.

 

But I don't have such a dismal outlook on the city. So what I'm saying is its better to have a 900' AND another 900' and yet another 900'..... taking up the fixed amount of land.  That is how we'll achieve the density that is so longed for here, not by just building something on a parking lot. 

13 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

I have discovered the disconnect. You see this as the last build ever in the city---so better to take one 600' and one 300' building than one 900' building to add activity and life to the streets. I AGREE WITH THIS---if the premise was correct---that this is the last building or two ever to be built in Cleveland.

 

But I don't have such a dismal outlook on the city. So what I'm saying is its better to have a 900' AND another 900' and yet another 900'..... taking up the fixed amount of land.  That is how we'll achieve the density that is so longed for here, not by just building something on a parking lot. 

 

Nah. First sentence really is aiming to get this thread shut down. Good job.

 

Nobody in here is acting like this is the last build ever, an active and dense streetscape would be pretty damn nice though.

Edited July 27, 20213 yr by GISguy

The biggest disconnects I’m seeing are the fundamental lack of knowledge of how construction and financing works with multi-million dollar projects, and understanding that publicly traded companies are under no obligation to blow the budget to burrow tunnels or add a super tall to our skyline 🤷🏻‍♂️

This height debate is simple. Like I said Density > Height and if you don’t get why let’s look at an example that is in our own backyard. Cincinnati has arguably (and honestly it’s not up for debate) the best skyline in Ohio overall. Cincinnati’s tallest building is the Great American Tower at 660 feet (only 44 feet taller than SHW’s planned building). Cincinnati also only has TWO buildings in the top 10 tallest in Ohio. Are there other factors that help the look of the skyline such as their narrower street grid? Yes. Their buildings though are cohesive in height and aren’t super tall’s by any means and that’s the biggest factor IMO. Bringing it back to topic, I would definitely take 5 SHW buildings over 2 Key Towers any day. 

Cincinnati has all molars.   Cleveland has a few molars and 3 jagged incisors.   A fourth would put us closer to a full mouth.  

13 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

This height debate is simple. Like I said Density > Height and if you don’t get why let’s look at an example that is in our own backyard. Cincinnati has arguably (and honestly it’s not up for debate) the best skyline in Ohio overall. Cincinnati’s tallest building is the Great American Tower at 660 feet (only 44 feet taller than SHW’s planned building). Cincinnati also only has TWO buildings in the top 10 tallest in Ohio. Are there other factors that help the look of the skyline such as their narrower street grid? Yes. Their buildings though are cohesive in height and aren’t super tall’s by any means and that’s the biggest factor IMO. Bringing it back to topic, I would definitely take 5 SHW buildings over 2 Key Towers any day. 

 

I agree that from the angle CLE's image was taken, the Cinci skyline looks more balanced. CLE's looks like it has some empty spots between and around the tallest three. But it looks better not because of DENSITY---but because it seems all the bldgs are around the same height (and maybe narrower streets)--and the place/angle/distance from which the picture was shot. If CLE had a bunch more buildings and all were at the height between the BP Bldg and Key Tower, then CLE's skyline would look similar--a cohesive and gapless skyline. But for those photos then, its a question then of "height consistency" or "building height and number of buildings", not density of activity to affect street life!

2 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

Cincinnati has all molars.   Cleveland has a few molars and 3 jagged incisors.   A fourth would put us closer to a full mouth.  

 

and just wait til the wisdom come up!

Also note, the Cleveland pics posted above were all before the Lumen, Beacon and Hilton came along.

Edited July 28, 20213 yr by Clefan98

1 hour ago, Clefan98 said:

Also note, the Cleveland pics posted above were all before the Lumen, Beacon and Hilton came along.

That further proves my point though. Those buildings aren’t super talls and their shorter height does the job of filling in the skyline instead of trying to set records. 

1 hour ago, Pugu said:

 

I agree that from the angle CLE's image was taken, the Cinci skyline looks more balanced. CLE's looks like it has some empty spots between and around the tallest three. But it looks better not because of DENSITY---but because it seems all the bldgs are around the same height (and maybe narrower streets)--and the place/angle/distance from which the picture was shot. If CLE had a bunch more buildings and all were at the height between the BP Bldg and Key Tower, then CLE's skyline would look similar--a cohesive and gapless skyline. But for those photos then, its a question then of "height consistency" or "building height and number of buildings", not density of activity to affect street life!

So you agree with my points long story short. Due to the consistency in heights it looks good from most if not all angles while ours looks good from only certain angles even with the new additions. (One is listed below which I believe is from CSU and the other being from the Innerbelt bridge). Unless you are a global city like a NYC or Chicago you are more likely to have mid/high rises built vs tons of Key Towers and that is okay. Our skyline is improving though due to the current additions but it’s not because they are trying to be the star of the show (A super tall) it’s because they are acting as the supporting cast (mid/high rises). SHW building a building that serves as the supporting cast is exactly what our skyline needs. 

Edited July 28, 20213 yr by MyPhoneDead