I don’t think you can compare this tower to Terminal Tower or Key Tower. The styles are so different that it ultimately comes down to personal preference. 
 

The towers that you can compare SHW to are the Lumen, the Hilton, and perhaps the E&Y building. To me, the SHW building is clearly a higher caliber design than those three.

 

Also, if you compare the renders to Chilton’s recent work, I think it’s one of their nicest designs.

4 hours ago, mrnyc said:

 

 

i wish i could say that, but i can't stand it. its all so generic and lazy. that said, i am not mad at all about a glass building, i agree it will be fresh and nice and is a great changeup for around public square. also, of course most of all i am happy to see the parking lots finally go away.

 

unfortunately, it feels like everyone is just settling here, sw, pickard, the city and all of us. so this is what we get, something shiny and new for now and seemingly ok enough, but mediocre and seemingly fortress-like.

 

i really hope that park corner is nice and the cafe is open to the public -- and are there shops below the parking deck? i hope those are nice and prove useful. and of course that the insides are liked by the employees. those kinds of things are a save.

Same here.  The Architect in me was hoping for something more iconic instead of this mirrored wedge crown....

Something like the form in this light bollard would have been badass.

 

Of course I'm excited to get a new tower in downtown and that the windswept parking lots with trashnados (KJP term) are being eliminated.  

6 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I don’t think you can compare this tower to Terminal Tower or Key Tower. The styles are so different that it ultimately comes down to personal preference. 
 

The towers that you can compare SHW to are the Lumen, the Hilton, and perhaps the E&Y building. To me, the SHW building is clearly a higher caliber design than those three.

@LlamaLawyer In a way yes, except Terminal Tower, Key Tower, and 200 Public Sq will be the only buildings of those mentioned that are in direct visual dialog with the new Sherwin Williams tower.

 

Given the height & proximity of all four tallest towers together, the caliber of design, materials, and the execution of details for the new SW tower should be more than "better than its local stylistic peers around town."

 

In some ways the other more recent "glass jewel boxes" around town you mention do beat the new SW design when it comes to the execution of details and refinement of concept.

 

Cleveland's newest tower of the 2020s will ideally be a peerless and singular contemporary match in design quality when compared against the visual statements of the other three tallest towers in town from the 1920s, 1980s, and 1990s. 

 

I would go so far as to say it is almost there. With refinement it could be a lasting iconic legacy and not an also-ran of missed potential. 

 

The design as shown is certainly acceptable and fine.  Still, it simply ends at the top rows of sharply angled glass without the kind of celebration or puctuation that 

makes for a memorable tower.

 

I find it to be joyless.  There's no individual spirit in thr tower's upper reaches where the flat glass curtain walls on all sides approach and meet the sky. There is no texture or depth. It just ends like an afterthought.  The series of windowframes on the top floors are unceremoniously sheered off at an angle, and that's it. To repeat my earlier comment; flat-flat-flat, but not in a good way..

 

Everyone's a critic, I know.

I claim these thoughts only as my own observations, and I accept that other opinions are as valid.  Thanks All.

Edited September 2, 20213 yr by ExPatClevGuy

So are the two pointed ends still of equal height? Before the release this week of more detail l thought they were but now it appears that the northern point is shorter than the southern point. Or did l just read the picture wrong?

44 minutes ago, cadmen said:

So are the two pointed ends still of equal height? Before the release this week of more detail l thought they were but now it appears that the northern point is shorter than the southern point. Or did l just read the picture wrong?

There are a few photos including the side view posted by @ExPatClevGuy which show the peaks are NOT the same height.

 

I personally think the equal heights looked a lot better.

Here’s why I’m overall happy:

 

At one point we thought the tower was only going to be 450ish ft. The tower is over 600ft.

 

At one point we thought the tower was going to be a box. It is way better than a box.

 

At one point we were certain the ground floor was going to be off limits. Looking like that’s not the case. 
 

At one point we were pretty sure the garage was going to be ugly and maybe even uncovered along Frankfort. It overall is an aesthetically pleasing design for a garage. 
 

I get the criticism and things can always get better but I’d prefer to focus in on all the amazing things about the project including the jobs remaining and the death of parking lots.
 

 

I'm glad SW is staying in Cleveland, building a new skyscraper, and eating up (some) of the surface lots they purchased, but here's the nit I'm going to pick: the ground floor "Active Use" retail liner on the W. 3rd side of the garage is incredibly shallow.  There were indications of this from prior releases, but by my eyeball exam of the schematic the space is about the width of two parking spaces.  Not two car lengths, car widths.  What retailer or restaurant could possible operate in a space that size?  This seems like malicious compliance with the zoning requirement.  I don't know the specifics of what the code requires, but if there is no depth requirement that was poorly drafted.

yeah, i noticed that too. it looks like SHW didn't budge on a single thing that the committee asked them to reconsider

11 minutes ago, ryanfrazier said:

I'm glad SW is staying in Cleveland, building a new skyscraper, and eating up (some) of the surface lots they purchased, but here's the nit I'm going to pick: the ground floor "Active Use" retail liner on the W. 3rd side of the garage is incredibly shallow.  There were indications of this from prior releases, but by my eyeball exam of the schematic the space is about the width of two parking spaces.  Not two car lengths, car widths.  What retailer or restaurant could possible operate in a space that size?  This seems like malicious compliance with the zoning requirement.  I don't know the specifics of what the code requires, but if there is no depth requirement that was poorly drafted.

 

Yes, there is a depth requirement. It's 15 feet. SHW's offering is at the bare minimum or, at best, slightly over it. You can tell how excited they were to comply with it.

 

From my June 8 article....

 

The code requires a liner building to be constructed along the street frontage of a parking garage. That liner building must be at least equal to the width of the parking structure it screens, minus all permitted vehicular access points. Active uses in the liner building are required along 70 percent of the building's frontage. The depth of the liner building from the sidewalk must be no less than 15 feet, per city code.

 

https://neo-trans.blog/2021/06/08/sherwin-williams-hq-towers-height-edges-upward/

Honestly, shallow retail can be useful for small businesses that might be upgrading from, say, a stand at West Side Market but might not actually need a full size retail space. I know that in general the way we build modern retail spaces is problematic for a lot of small retailers for specifically this reason. There's so much depth that you are renting a ton of square footage for very little frontage.

 

I've worked at previous jobs with some small-scale retailers, such as Brodo Broth here in NYC, which really only need like 150 square feet and like 10 linear feet of retail frontage for their business model to work. Stuff like that can be extremely useful in Downtown areas if implemented well and allows a business to operate in a new building with way less overhead than is typical for renting a newly created retail space.

 

I'm hopeful that this is what happens here and we end up seeing some non-standard ideas thrown into these space. I could even see a scenario where small-scale pop up retail becomes a rotating program within some/all of this space and could become a hit as a result of the novelty of that type of setup.

 

All this to say, I don't think the limited depth will be impossible to work with, but it might take some creativity to properly activate.

19 minutes ago, Whipjacka said:

yeah, i noticed that too. it looks like SHW didn't budge on a single thing that the committee asked them to reconsider

You are totally correct.  As such it will be interesting to see if there is any actual blow back at the Sept 14 schematic review.  My best guess is that there will simply be a lot of polite indignation.

 

My biggest issue is still the size of the pavilion and how is it is just swallowed up by its surroundings  (again I know I am beating a dead horse but if I say it enough maybe I will get into heaven) so if I had to choose just one thing to alter it would be this.  More than one commission member voiced the opinion that it had to be more dramatic. Unfortunately, this probably would be the biggest thing to fix and the most expensive so odds are I am just going to have to live with it.

Edited September 2, 20213 yr by Htsguy

11 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

You are totally correct.  As such it will be interesting to see if there is any actual blow back at the Sept 14 schematic review.  My best guess is that there will simply be a lot of polite indignation.

 

My biggest issue is still the size of the pavilion and how is it is just swallowed up by its surroundings  (again I know I am beating a dead horse but if I say it enough maybe I will get into heaven) so if I had to choose just one thing to alter it would be this.  More than one commission member voiced the opinion that it had to be more dramatic. Unfortunately, this probably would be the biggest thing to fix and the most expensive so odds are I am just going to have to live with it.

 

lol in the first meeting, i just wanted someone to ask, 'you claim your guiding design principle is context of place, but a two storey building hasn't been built downtown in 100 years, this is this shortest building in a 10 block radius, every building on the square is built to the sidewalk and every building except the church is at least six floors. how does this meet you stated design standards?'

20 minutes ago, jmicha said:

Honestly, shallow retail can be useful for small businesses that might be upgrading from, say, a stand at West Side Market but might not actually need a full size retail space. I know that in general the way we build modern retail spaces is problematic for a lot of small retailers for specifically this reason. There's so much depth that you are renting a ton of square footage for very little frontage.

 

I've worked at previous jobs with some small-scale retailers, such as Brodo Broth here in NYC, which really only need like 150 square feet and like 10 linear feet of retail frontage for their business model to work. Stuff like that can be extremely useful in Downtown areas if implemented well and allows a business to operate in a new building with way less overhead than is typical for renting a newly created retail space.

 

I'm hopeful that this is what happens here and we end up seeing some non-standard ideas thrown into these space. I could even see a scenario where small-scale pop up retail becomes a rotating program within some/all of this space and could become a hit as a result of the novelty of that type of setup.

 

All this to say, I don't think the limited depth will be impossible to work with, but it might take some creativity to properly activate.

 

I do hope this space gets put to good use, and I appreciate your optimistic take on it.  However, you identify a problem of large spaces having too much depth and not enough frontage.  This is the opposite of what SW is proposing.  This space doesn't have enough room for back of house operations like a kitchen or stock room.

From the renderings, I view this new building as potentially being the most attractive tower in downtown.  It will dramatically freshen up the skyline which is sorely needed.  

What I'm excited about is it will freshen up the view when driving towards Downtown on the Detroit-Superior bridge. Also the national media LOVES that view so it will be nice to see that freshened up as well.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

1 hour ago, ryanfrazier said:

 

I do hope this space gets put to good use, and I appreciate your optimistic take on it.  However, you identify a problem of large spaces having too much depth and not enough frontage.  This is the opposite of what SW is proposing.  This space doesn't have enough room for back of house operations like a kitchen or stock room.

That's for sure an issue for a lot of businesses. But could be perfectly fine for something that, for instance, operates out of a window and the entire interior is back of house space. Or a program that requires nothing more than maybe a small janitor's closet and a small storage closet like small-scale object retail might only require. There are definitely limitations here. For instance, it's doubtful anything that requires food to be cooked on site will go here for exactly these reasons. But I could see someone selling jewelry, someone selling food items that are prepared elsewhere and sold through a window, etc. working in this setup.

 

But with that said, if this becomes the standard response to the code, it needs to change. These types of spaces can work in limited amounts, but if the city suddenly has them all over I feel like it'll become an issue of not enough users needing/wanting small spaces.

Someone correct me if mistaken, but I believe the keybank garage (800 superiors) has these very shallow retail spaces as well and I don't think I have ever seen them occupied. Exception being the larger space off the courtyard that Phoenix coffee has been for a long while.

2 minutes ago, viscomi said:

Someone correct me if mistaken, but I believe the keybank garage (800 superiors) has these very shallow retail spaces as well and I don't think I have ever seen them occupied. Exception being the larger space off the courtyard that Phoenix coffee has been for a long while.

I don't think those spaces are that shallow but I believe the Lumen garage retail spaces are.  800 Superior was developed as the Central National Bank Building in the 70s  and I have a memory of those space being fully occupied for years.  I remember a Dodd Camera had a shop there for a very long time and I also recall a brokeage office.

@Htsguy  I think I Shopped at Bunce Bros. Clothiers in the that garage-liner retail space too, until they moved to the then-new Galleria.
(image from an online retailer of vintage clothing)

 

Edited September 2, 20213 yr by ExPatClevGuy

14 minutes ago, ExPatClevGuy said:

@Htsguy  I think I Shopped at Bunce Bros. Clothiers in the that garage-liner retail space too, until they moved to the then-new Galleria.
(image from an online retailer of vintage clothing)

 

c

I only recall Bunce Brothers downtown on Chester across from Chester Commons.  I am trying to recall any move they made to the Galleria but I cannot.  My office was in the Erieview Tower when the Galleria opened and the only men's store I remember was Boss.  What floor was BB on?  I bought my favorite all time overcoat at BB and could never duplicate in later years.  By the way, might want to PM as this is getting off topic.

Has anyone actually considered the fact that this location has been empty for decades?  Everyone seems to want companies to build the way that they envision.  We would probably never get pass the drawing board.

23 minutes ago, superior said:

Has anyone actually considered the fact that this location has been empty for decades?  Everyone seems to want companies to build the way that they envision.  We would probably never get pass the drawing board.

Yup

On 9/1/2021 at 10:54 PM, Firenze98 said:

Same here.  The Architect in me was hoping for something more iconic instead of this mirrored wedge crown....

Something like the form in this light bollard would have been badass.

 

Of course I'm excited to get a new tower in downtown and that the windswept parking lots with trashnados (KJP term) are being eliminated.  

 

 

you know what tho, there is always a final save for mediocre architecture. high quality materials. especially the glass. the new wtc is the best example of that i can think of. so we can definitely keep hope alive for that. i am sure we will get to see a few initial glass panels off site somewhere before they bring them over to put them up. it’s something fun to look forward to during construction.

Come on September 14th 

A little humor:

 

https://www.cleveland.com/darcy/2021/09/rejected-sherwin-williams-tower-topper-darcy-cartoon.html

On 9/1/2021 at 10:54 PM, Firenze98 said:

Same here.  The Architect in me was hoping for something more iconic instead of this mirrored wedge crown....

Something like the form in this light bollard would have been badass.

 

Of course I'm excited to get a new tower in downtown and that the windswept parking lots with trashnados (KJP term) are being eliminated.  

I think the big issue is we set our expectations too high. This isn’t a typical “oh I’m settling for anything because nothing ever gets built in Cleveland post” either. We have to realize who is building this structure, a conservative company who keeps a low profile. Outside of urban enthusiasts and those in the real estate business most probably didn’t even realize Sherwin  Williams was based in Cleveland let alone downtown until recently. They were based in the landmark tower with no signage to be found, or any other indication that they even owned the structure. 

 

The fact that they shot to be the 4th largest tower in Cleveland and (I believe 5th largest in the state) is saying a lot to me. They EASILY could’ve taken the Eaton Corp route and went out to Highland Hills which in reality matches their low profile perfectly. This design, while not breath taking, is not bland and still has elements that break up the monotony that a glass design could have. This design could have easily went the route of Erieview Tower and had been a glass rectangle but it instead provided the best of both worlds, a modern tower design, but safe enough to where 20 years down the line will age well. Overall to me what we got is what we should have expected based on the type of company we’re dealing with and nothing is wrong with that. 

I agree with much of your post. When l first read about the need for a new headquarters which would include research and development l envisioned a mammoth multiblock development in the public square/warehouse district. Just imagine the instant energy that would have produced. Then we were told research would go to the Flats instead. Ok, not what l wanted to hear but it was still downtown. Finally we read that part of the project was headed to Brecksville. Oof. Well, at least it's still in the county. Could be worse. Can you say "Atlanta." 

 

At least we keep SHW here and we still end up with a pretty nice looking 600 footer. As was mentioned above, other than us urban development needs or Real Estate professionals the vast majority of people could care less. I guess we'll just have to be thankful for a glass half full. It is much better than the alternative. Right?

Right.  We were hoping they would hit a home run, but they hit a double instead.  Still good,but it won't set off any fireworks.

48 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

The fact that they shot to be the 4th largest tower in Cleveland and (I believe 5th largest in the state) is saying a lot to me. 

Good post. FYI, SHW HQ will be 6th tallest in Ohio -Rhodes tower in Columbus is 629’, vs 616’ (?) for this.

All true.  This is a very appropriate, even transformational project for a city of Cleveland's size and stature.  The criticism and dissatisfaction with it is a little unwarranted.  But I kind of love that Cleveland generally has the ego of top ten American city even though it hasn't been for about 40 or 50 years.  It's why other cities think we're crazy and why I'm proud to be a Clevelander.  We got moxie!  We deserve that 1000 footer darn it!

i agree to an extent (Re: skywalk, lack of retail, tower design), but something that shouldn't be pie-in-the-sky urbanism is the center city of any major city should have basic building standards that include multi-story buildings that are not significantly set back from the street. Downtown, a 50,000 square foot building should not be on a 1.2 acre lot

Following up on @Dino’s point, I have this funny image in my head of visitors from New York being like “Ya know Cleveland is a cool town but I just can’t get past that Sherwin Williams tower. Such lazy design that pales in comparison to the other big three buildings. And the small pavilion on Public Square is so out of context to its surroundings. Really puts a damper on an otherwise nice city.” 
 

Nothing wrong with pushing for good aesthetic design, but let’s not pretend it’s actually that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. I think most of us on the forum get that even those who hate the design.

Edited September 3, 20213 yr by LlamaLawyer

New Yorkers would say anything to harp on Cleveland lol. See that recent Twitter post from the city's official account dissing Cleveland which backfired greatly. But I digress... You're totally right @LlamaLawyer- in the grand scheme of things, I believe this development will spur future developments and serve as the new "standard" for building modern glass 4-500+ft towers in downtown CLE and push for even better/world-class design in the future that exceeds/compliments SWHQ.

Edited September 3, 20213 yr by Geowizical

Here we go again.

 

https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/09/04/black-contractors-group-odds-with-sherwin-williams-over-contracts-600-million-cleveland-project/

 

Lord, they've got nothing better to do than be aggrieved. 

2 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Here we go again.

 

https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/09/04/black-contractors-group-odds-with-sherwin-williams-over-contracts-600-million-cleveland-project/

 

The worst part about this--many of the black owned vendors that bid on City of Cleveland contracts don't actually employ minority employees.  They simply subcontract a white owned firm or business, and mark up their cost 10%. 

I’m glad these groups are speaking up. 

Why is it a group out of Atlanta doing this? Sore the HQ didn't go down there? SW isn't even done selecting people, so how are they saying no minority groups are involved?

16 hours ago, PoshSteve said:

Why is it a group out of Atlanta doing this? Sore the HQ didn't go down there? SW isn't even done selecting people, so how are they saying no minority groups are involved?

You don’t know who the SCLC is? It’s not just some “group out of Atlanta”. Lol. The Black contractors group isn’t either. And it is important that SHW makes sure that there’s some black contractors as part of this project. It shouldn’t even be controversial to ask for that 

well, they looked and saw what they saw. sw needs to be more aware on that issue. its not hard, even if its payola window dressing sometimes.

 

 

 

On 9/4/2021 at 1:10 PM, ExPatClevGuy said:

The sheeting wasn't the design problem as I understand, because the slanted roof was an open porous design by Foster + Partners that would drain like other rooftops and not sheet off although it looked clean and fully finished.  Care was taken in the design to keep the roof-line from looking sloppy, so it appeared as a solid form. 

2-WTC design duties were transferred to Studio Big, and for some reason, but now it's back to Foster + Partners again.

 

There should be an unveiling of Foster's redesign in the near term.  

- Owner Larry Silverstein is 90 years old now, so I'm sure he wants the latest reveal to happen soon.,

 

 

it changed to big because the client changed. fox was thinking about going there and needed a boxy building for studios. then they backed out and now its tentatively back to foster. and you are right 'ol larry better get cracking on it. afaik he's got the coin, he just doesn't have the tenants.

2 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

You don’t know who the SCLC is? It’s not just some “group out of Atlanta”. Lol. The Black contractors group isn’t either. And it is important that SHW makes sure that there’s some black contractors as part of this project. It shouldn’t even be controversial to ask for that 

I don't. And maybe the better question then is, why aren't they interviewing local folks instead of someone out of Atlanta.

Edited September 6, 20213 yr by PoshSteve

25 minutes ago, PoshSteve said:

I don't. And maybe the better question then is, why aren't they interviewing local folks instead of someone out of Atlanta.

The SCLC is the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. You know, the civil rights organization founded by someone you may have heard of before, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Maybe now my incredulous response to that ridiculous reaction (that you just doubled down on) makes more sense to you. 

Edited September 6, 20213 yr by inlovewithCLE

Guys... Relax, they're just protesting that the new HQ didn't get moved to Atlanta.

Two cheers for the impersonal, corporate design of Sherwin-Williams’ downtown Cleveland skyscraper - commentary

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2021/09/two-cheers-for-the-impersonal-corporate-design-of-sherwin-williams-downtown-cleveland-skyscraper-commentary.html

Yep, Litt hit the nail on the head.

litt’s fair, but too mild takedown is emblematic of more just settling for mediocre. i mean for example he could have really let the city and sw have it regarding public access and the streetface around the site, but he mostly laid off that kind of stuff. oh well.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2021/09/two-cheers-for-the-impersonal-corporate-design-of-sherwin-williams-downtown-cleveland-skyscraper-commentary.html

I think Litt struck a good balance in his description and critiques of the SW Tower's aesthetic.  His characterization of the project needing "more passion" did not seem off-tone.

 

We're all pleased as punch that SW stayed in town and committed to building a new world HQ in town, no doubt.

Still, after following the range of possibilities and evolution of the HQ's design - and the reaction on the Forum to its big reveal  - there did seem to be "some degree of disappointment" in the design - at least, at this point in the process.  It's as one poster said previously, "As if SW had the chance to hit a home run, but missed...."   But we're still in the process.  And Litt does a good job in describing the  challenge in the critical details still to come.  The quality of the facade and the look of the glass membrane will be critical in how effective the tower is in complementing the skyline and the "big 3"  around Public Square in particular.     I do expect the final result will end up being very positive for the city's look, self-image and overall energy. This tower will substantially change the skyline , given the very limited number of 600 foot buildings downtown and its strategic location.  It will create a real chance for significant spin-off development with the new dynamic it will create in the heart of downtown. 

 

I was surprised to see the comment that PC is "just beginning to consider the possibilities for SW's signage and lighting" (and interior colors) of the building to ensure its distinctiveness on the night skyline.  One would think those considerations would've been well underway already.  

 

I wouldn't go as far as Litt in calling 200 Public Square "clunky."  True, It looks like a tower that went out of its way to not be taller - its bulk is almost intimidating when viewed from the east and west - but it's  lean and way cool from the north and south - with pretty distinctive features as it reaches its roofline.   In a way, the SW HQ is more a kindred spirit with 200 Public Square than it is to either the Terminal Tower or Key Tower.  Its designers have worked hard to disguise its own bulk and its potential to become the 2nd or 3rd highest tower in the city.  

 

But, probably like others on the Forum, (I would guess) I'm still more curious than judgmental about what the final results of this huge project will be.  Hopefully, the selection of a high quality glass will make the end result very satisfying - and  ultimately, we may be commenting that the SW HQ looks better than the renderings or what we imagined.  At least, that's what I'm hoping.  

12 hours ago, mrnyc said:

litt’s fair, but too mild takedown is emblematic of more just settling for mediocre. i mean for example he could have really let the city and sw have it regarding public access and the streetface around the site, but he mostly laid off that kind of stuff. oh well.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2021/09/two-cheers-for-the-impersonal-corporate-design-of-sherwin-williams-downtown-cleveland-skyscraper-commentary.html

 

The degree to which he did complain about public access and skywalks was pretty roundly scoffed at on the fora I saw.   For good reason.

This is a place of business, not a piece of public art.

The city seems to have learned it's lesson from Progressive.  They are posturing, as politicians will, but not enough to risk their save of a critical piece of their central business district.

Meeting at 2 pm today tomorrow. 

I get, we should be happy that SW stayed and like has been mentioned, this is a place of business and they are free to do what they feel fit.  That being said, I am still disappointed that they didn't do a better job of making the HQ iconic.  It is nice, but that is about it...nice.  I wonder how many other companies in, let's say NYC, take the time to buy prime real estate to build one average building, then surround it with low rise parking and a training center.  They build the training center on the prime real estate, then build the tower on the secondary lot and surround it with a parking garage...all in the name of "respect" to the other buildings around it.  You could probably build 6 to 8 SW HQ's on the land available.  Instead, they build a campus with a tower thrown in.  I AM glad they stayed, I AM glad there will be a new high rise downtown...but man, what a blown opportunity.  Imagine if the Weston plan would have came about and the SW HQ would have been put on the Jacob's lot.  Just my opinion.

When I first got on this forum I remember litt complaining about the UH sideman center...   Too much glass, And not looking like the surrounding buildings...   I think he has a beige house with no windows...