AND BINGO! They're not leaving, once again upping my source integrity. Thanks KJP for the deeper material, 40 isnt bad, but knowing SW they may want to have some... Taller ceilings based on their cramped feel in the Landmark. Many more midrise campus buildings to com, and I can't wait to come home on leave and see our roots and resources being used for the greatest possible opportunity.

GO CLE!

I wonder if the interest in a campus-like setting means that it is more likely that they may decide to build on and around their riverfront land.  It would make a pretty nice location for their workers if they had a riverfront promenade right on campus.  They could be right in the heart of the city, but also a bit on their own.

33 minutes ago, Down_with_Ctown said:

I'm trying to picture how the very hypothetical 40-story main HQ building would look like on the PS Jacobs lot. 

 

200 Public Square (nee the BP building) is 45/46 stories and 658' tall.   The Terminal Tower is 52 stories and 771'.  Key Tower is 57 stories and 888'  (947' at tip).

 

Obviously, we don't know how tall each floor will be compared to the other 3 buildings, but based on KJP's article, I'd bet we're not talking a gigantic height.  I suppose the main HQ tower would look fine on PS, as it would only be 5-6 stories shorter than the 200 PS, which is a decent-sized building as far as midwestern skyscrapers go.  It would also "finish off" the framing of PS on all four corners, making for great postcard and publicity picks.

 

Still, I guess I'd be just a *little* disappointed if the fourth and final skyscraper on PS is the shortest one.  The filling in of the Superblock makes up for it, but damn it, I like skylines *and* density.  Can't we have our cake and eat it too? ?

Both Eaton and Goodyear have 15-20 foot stories, which if mimicked,  would put the tallest tower at 600-800 ft.

25 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Both Eaton and Goodyear have 15-20 foot stories, which if mimicked,  would put the tallest tower at 600-800 ft.

Goodyear’s headquarters is only 7-8 stories

Understood, however if SW decides on a taller building, it could approach 600-800 ft in height.

5 hours ago, mrnyc said:

welp it sounds like as expected the campus plan in the warehouse district parking lot oceans is the preferred plan.

 

so that's fantastic.

 

a more traditional urban campus plan is a better choice than a supertall-ish tower for a company like sw that needs both a bigger hq and separate facilities nearby.

 

we should be over the moon as filling in the warehouse lots will make downtown look whole again.

And make the remaining surface lots too valuable to be surface lots. 

6 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Not from what I'm hearing. They're pursuing downtown sites. They're listening to sponsors of non-downtown sites.

 

What do you mean listening to sponsors of non downtown sites? 

1 hour ago, troeros said:

 

What do you mean listening to sponsors of non downtown sites? 

 

I mean that SHW has received proposals for non-downtown sites and it will give them their full consideration, as would any company whose primary objective is to increase shareholder value.

I got back with my buddy in finance here's what was said:

New SW entrance at RMF

 

Interesting...

 

According to Google Maps:

19 Public Square

is the corner of Rockwell and West Roadway.

 

Lol!

2 hours ago, tastybunns said:

I got back with my buddy in finance here's what was said:

 

I hope your friend isn't getting laid off... croiky

He will be after tasty’s post!

I concealed his name, there is no reason to. But he is almost immune to those layoffs because he's in internship or co-op programs. And what not a better company to do this with than SW when they're doing some amazingly big things!

From the insights and  news we've been hearing on this forum  (and seeing - e.g. renovations at RMFH), a Cleveland home seems to be the clear preference for SW.   But as any profitable corporation would, I'm certain SW will complete its process in considering any compelling offers from competing cities. Would Cleveland get a chance to match any competitors offer?    Given the number of hometown employees, company history, etc. - I think,  yes.  Has a final decision already been made?  I don't know.  In the meantime, it's pretty interesting speculating on what a new Cleveland HQ might actually look like and exactly where it will be.  Over the past few weeks, I've imagined a possible super tall skyline changer, as I'm sure others have.   I've also known that such a tower was far from a "fait accompli".  But assuming SW stays in Cleveland and specifically on Public Square (and the "Superblock")- - I'll go back to dimensions for a moment.  KJP says that Morikis may have moved away from the  2014-2015 HQ version we've seen in the "Amazon" renderings.  "Down with CTown" and "FrmrCLEder" provided some good guesses and comparisons for height based on a "new" 40 story tallest tower.  It would be somewhere between the 526' of the 40 story Erieview Tower to perhaps as high as 800' with consistently expansive stories. That huge range of possibility is very important.  Either way, I'll be thrilled to finally see the missing tower rise on Public Square. In addition to the sheer economic and business impact, the new HQ will be a very powerful symbol for Cleveland.  But given that the new tower will be there for generations - I hope SW's aspirations are more in the 800' range and not content to be the 4th highest building on  Public Square.   I may be too tower-centric for some - certainly, the possibility of an SW campus erasing parking lots is equally significant and great reason for celebration.  And yet, is there a more powerful symbol for a city's growth (or Renaissance) than the rise of a true skyline changing skyscraper?  Most of us grew up inspired by the Terminal Tower (and later, the Key Tower) reaching skyward elegantly and boldly.  Currently, we're seeing how just one new skyscraper in PlayHouse Square can change the dynamic of an entire neighborhood downtown.  It's my hope that SW is committed to continuing its business and community legacy in Cleveland.  But I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that it builds a HQ which shares the world-class architectural aspirations of its hometown and specifically, its great neighbors that look over Public Square.  

On 9/17/2019 at 12:44 PM, Dougal said:

 

The fact these cities have huge international airline hubs is often decisive in location choices; lack of a hub was the stated reason Luxottica and Chiquita left Cincinnati.

 

Luxottica's U.S. office is still in Cincinnati Mason, OH.  Lens Crafters was a true Cincinnati original company but it was bought by another Cincinnati company, U.S. Shoe, in the 1980s.  Luxottica was and still is HQ'd in Milan - they bought U.S. Shoe in order to get Lens Crafters. 

 

The old U.S. Shoe factory is still there next to I-71 but is now 5/3 Bank's big suburban office where they do fraud protection, credit cards, etc. 

 

Chiquita was a totally different situation - they were bought by Cincinnatian Carl Lindner and moved from NYC to Cincinnati around 1987.  That move was made to hide them from the national media, since Chiquita was United Fruit and was still doing all of the wildly illegal stuff that United Fruit had been doing for the past 100 years, despite the name change.  They went bankrupt in 2001 and Carl Lindner lost control of the company in 2002, which is when they started to look to move out of Cincinnati, but didn't pull the trigger until 2011.  The move to Charlotte was brief as the company soon after merged with a European company and abandoned their Charlotte office. 

 

 

2 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Luxottica's U.S. office is still in Cincinnati Mason, OH.

 

I sent you a PM.

If Sherwin took the entire superblock, I'd be ecstatic. When I lived in the Warehouse District, I hated walking through or around those awful lots on the way to the rest of downtown. Those parking lots need to go.

To a certain extent, whether SHW builds a skyscraper or several smaller buildings may be less important than what they do at the ground floor.  Is there any publicly accessible retail or services or is it all closed off just for their employees?  Even if it's not publicly accessible, will it have visible activity or just be relatively blank walls? I'd imagine a lot will be inaccessible, so if they did take the whole super block, it'd be pretty dead at night.  So, in the end I'd probably prefer a middle ground - not a single super tall which tends to limit activity on the street, but not many many low rise buildings with lots of blank walls either.  Ultimately, and this probably guess without saying, the design will be important regardless of the form.

8 minutes ago, Potamus said:

To a certain extent, whether SHW builds a skyscraper or several smaller buildings may be less important than what they do at the ground floor.  Is there any publicly accessible retail or services or is it all closed off just for their employees?  Even if it's not publicly accessible, will it have visible activity or just be relatively blank walls? I'd imagine a lot will be inaccessible, so if they did take the whole super block, it'd be pretty dead at night.  So, in the end I'd probably prefer a middle ground - not a single super tall which tends to limit activity on the street, but not many many low rise buildings with lots of blank walls either.  Ultimately, and this probably guess without saying, the design will be important regardless of the form.

 

This is where the city will need to insist on certain design considerations in return for whatever incentives are given.

2 hours ago, Potamus said:

To a certain extent, whether SHW builds a skyscraper or several smaller buildings may be less important than what they do at the ground floor.  Is there any publicly accessible retail or services or is it all closed off just for their employees?  Even if it's not publicly accessible, will it have visible activity or just be relatively blank walls? I'd imagine a lot will be inaccessible, so if they did take the whole super block, it'd be pretty dead at night.  So, in the end I'd probably prefer a middle ground - not a single super tall which tends to limit activity on the street, but not many many low rise buildings with lots of blank walls either.  Ultimately, and this probably guess without saying, the design will be important regardless of the form.

I just got back from the GIS Conference in Columbus and can't help but think of Nationwide's 'campus' down there, with tunnels and tubes running about and very little street presence. I know that was built when planning concepts were different, but it really is a dead zone to outsiders. To echo @mu2010 I hope the city pushes multi-use and retail in the area (it may be dead down there now w/empty storefronts, but 3k centrally located people will demand retail and good lunch options!).

Unless what they plan to build is a bunker, I cannot see the city being very aggressive design wise.

From a design perspective, if SW choices to build on both the Jacobs lot and the Weston crater, what I don't want to see is one or more pedestrian tunnels over West 3rd.  I know they will want an indoor connection for such a design scheme so I hope-even though it will be much more expensive-that thought is given to a tunnel instead

Edited September 27, 20195 yr by Htsguy

Yeah, the rapid right of way has been there since I was in high-school in the early 70's. I used to drive down Shaker Blvd (sometimes Chagrin) from SOM Center Rd. and it was a wasted resource then; it still is.

Edited September 27, 20195 yr by Frmr CLEder

I hope you get a nice campus there with a nice tall iconic skyscraper surrounded by lower buildings with good street presence and lots of retail. At least one Ohio city should get an iconic new skyscraper-Lord knows we aren't going to get one down here. Good luck! Fill in that parking crater!

 

A win for this in Cleveland is also a win for all of Ohio! As a state we are all in this together. NO to sunbelt relocation!

Some of those Westin superblock renders were really sweet. If SW does build there I hope they generously borrow much of that design. 

http://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2017/10/downtown-clevelands-next-big-building.html

 

Edited September 27, 20195 yr by surfohio

I don't want to be negative here, but I really hope the city leaders realize if SW leaves it's going to be more than the income tax they lose. Just walked down E4th on this beautiful Cleveland Friday and let me say I'd guess at least 20% of the people I saw spending their money at these local businesses are SW employees.  I'd say a higher percentage Mon-Thurs given no games. 

15 minutes ago, surfohio said:

Some of those Westin superblock renders were really sweet. If SW does build there I hope they generously borrow much of that design. 

http://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2017/10/downtown-clevelands-next-big-building.html

 

Would be great for y'all to have something like this, but with the tallest tower on  the square to have a more distinctive top rather than a flat roof. Another tall spire to match the two tallest in the city would make a nice grouping. Two spires are two spires, three spires would make a nice cluster. JMO.

21 minutes ago, surfohio said:

Some of those Westin superblock renders were really sweet. If SW does build there I hope they generously borrow much of that design. 

http://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2017/10/downtown-clevelands-next-big-building.html

 

 

3 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Would be great for y'all to have something like this, but with the tallest tower on  the square to have a more distinctive top rather than a flat roof. Another tall spire to match the two tallest in the city would make a nice grouping. Two spires are two spires, three spires would make a nice cluster. JMO.

 

The tallest building in the Westin superblock (shown in the rendering) is NOT on Public Square. There is another empty lot in between (to the left of the tallest glass tower in the illustration), referred to as the Jacobs lot. The Jacobs lot is bordered by west roadway (Public Sq), Superior, West 3rd, and Rockwell. The Westin superblock proposal would have still allowed for a more impressive tower directly on the Square.

^ yeah, the flat, empty roofs on all four of those taller structure renders is very unimaginative and wasteful. its like they got to that and ran out of gas - ha. however, the rest is awesome. something like that would be great. just fix the rooftops. those are money. 

The only reason they would build a tunnel is to connect the rapids to their campus, because a large part of their force is brought by Rapids.

44 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

 

The tallest building in the Westin superblock (shown in the rendering) is NOT on Public Square. There is another empty lot in between (to the left of the tallest glass tower in the illustration), referred to as the Jacobs lot. The Jacobs lot is bordered by west roadway (Public Sq), Superior, West 3rd, and Rockwell. The Westin superblock proposal would have still allowed for a more impressive tower directly on the Square.

Yes, ideally the development would include the Jacob lot and all or a portion of the Weston Superblock.

Edited September 27, 20195 yr by Frmr CLEder

4 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

 

The tallest building in the Westin superblock (shown in the rendering) is NOT on Public Square. There is another empty lot in between (to the left of the tallest glass tower in the illustration), referred to as the Jacobs lot. The Jacobs lot is bordered by west roadway (Public Sq), Superior, West 3rd, and Rockwell. The Westin superblock proposal would have still allowed for a more impressive tower directly on the Square.

Yeah I overlooked that at first. The tallest building should probably be on the Jacobs lot unless they can do something really creative with the Jacobs lot to help activate it and the square while also closing that piece of Frankfort street so that lot would not be encircled completely by roadway. I don't know what that activation would be to be honest. Other than that, i agree-put the tallest iconic building on the Jacobs lot(and no flat roof).

^why would you want to close Frankfort?  There should NOT be more street closures anywhere---this is getting completely crazy. Cleveland already has crazy long blocks--removing more streets makes things even worse.

Edited September 28, 20195 yr by Pugu

4 hours ago, Pugu said:

^why would you want to close Frankfort?  There should NOT be more street closures anywhere---this is getting completely crazy. Cleveland already has crazy long blocks--removing more streets makes things even worse.

Making it pedestrian only wouldn't hurt in that regard. And if the development has some park space and retail it'd be a perfect location for it. But that is still a bit IF

I don't mean to be a downer but I simply see no justification for SW to include retail in their development, unless it is a new branded SW/Valspar retail concept and perhaps a cafeteria, gym or day care, but those would be for employees.

Edited September 28, 20195 yr by Frmr CLEder

1 hour ago, Frmr CLEder said:

I don't mean to be a downer but I simply see no justification for SW to include retail in their development, unless it is a new branded SW/Valspar retail concept and perhaps a cafeteria, gym or day care, but those would be for employees.

There should be street level retail where ever it's built.  Period!  Or it become another white elephants serving on one purpose.  A mixed use development keeps the building and street/streetscape active a multiple times of the day.

Good luck with that!

14 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Good luck with that!

As an example, lets say this project is built on the West 6/9 lots.  Building retail on Superior and West 9 adds value.  The building/buildings do not become physical and mental barriers to the Warehouse district and EBF, but having needed/every day and select retail will provide connectivity to Public Square/Tower City through to Gateway, E. 4th and the convention center areas.

 

If it's strictly built as an OFFICE building it becomes a barrier and a dead zone.  Just like the cleveland clinic has done in the Fairfax/Hough neighborhoods or larger scale examples downtown Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Charlotte, Dallas, Tampa, etc. with skyscrapers that LOOK nice in a picture but do not function well in an 24 hour urban space.

9 minutes ago, MyTwoSense said:

with skyscrapers that LOOK nice in a picture but do not function well in an 24 hour urban space.

 

That's exactly why I'm something of a skyline skeptic.

6 minutes ago, MyTwoSense said:

As an example, lets say this project is built on the West 6/9 lots.  Building retail on Superior and West 9 adds value.  The building/buildings do not become physical and mental barriers to the Warehouse district and EBF, but having needed/every day and select retail will provide connectivity to Public Square/Tower City through to Gateway, E. 4th and the convention center areas.

 

If it's strictly built as an OFFICE building it becomes a barrier and a dead zone.  Just like the cleveland clinic has done in the Fairfax/Hough neighborhoods or larger scale examples downtown Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Charlotte, Dallas, Tampa, etc. with skyscrapers that LOOK nice in a picture but do not function well in an 24 hour urban space.

MTS I think you are pretty much preaching to the choir here.

 

Unfortunately, SW has never shown an interest to engage in such development and the city probably has zero leverage to press for it (nor the leadership to create such a vision).  They will just be happy they are staying downtown and won't want to rock the boat.

2 hours ago, Htsguy said:

MTS I think you are pretty much preaching to the choir here.

 

Unfortunately, SW has never shown an interest to engage in such development and the city probably has zero leverage to press for it (nor the leadership to create such a vision).  They will just be happy they are staying downtown and won't want to rock the boat.

Agreed and I appreciate the value however, I don't know of many urban corporate HQs that include retail as part of their developments (form follows function). That's not their purpose.  A retail or mixed-use requirement placed on an "urban campus" may force them to look at suburban options.

 

One urban, mixed-use HQ however, that's not a campus, but that does immediately come to mind is Time Warner Center on Columbus Circle in Manhattan.

Edited September 28, 20195 yr by Frmr CLEder

8 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

MTS I think you are pretty much preaching to the choir here.

 

Unfortunately, SW has never shown an interest to engage in such development and the city probably has zero leverage to press for it (nor the leadership to create such a vision).  They will just be happy they are staying downtown and won't want to rock the boat.

SW has never had the need,  Correct?  What large scale corporate HQ project has SW been involved with? 

 

I'm just using the Warehouse District lots as an example.  What happens at street level will be determined by location.  

Edited September 28, 20195 yr by MyTwoSense

The most important thing is keeping SW here. Period

11 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

The most important thing is keeping SW here. Period

7 hours ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Agreed and I appreciate the value however, I don't know of many urban corporate HQs that include retail as part of their developments (form follows function). That's not their purpose.  A retail or mixed-use requirement placed on an "urban campus" may force them to look at suburban options.

 

One urban, mixed-use HQ however, that's not a campus, but that does immediately come to mind is Time Warner Center on Columbus Circle in Manhattan.

 

I think it’s becoming more common. Comcast Center has the massive retail floors. Salesforce has the transit station and park. RenCen has it’s gigantic interior empire. I believe the new Instagram offices will also offer condos. And Dollar Tree is building it’s own downtown around it. I’d hope a forward-looking S-W would see the benefit of incorporated shared uses into their HQ. 

A building can have a big skyline presence AND a good street level presence...its not that damn hard to figure out. Retail might mean a 7-11 and a cleaners. Better than a blank wall

I disagree. One of the problems with new construction in a lot of cities is they have these massive retail spaces that sit empty for years. Mixed use buildings are nice on paper, but we have enough empty storefronts as it is. Who needs one that's the size of a block. 

^There's an easy solution:  stop building giant retail spaces. have a bunch of small ones.  Its a lot harder to find a tenant who needs 100,000 sq feet. --and that's less vibrant than 20 little shops/restaurants that are easier to rent and provides more interesting street lift to an area.

 

But why build that when we already have an endless supply of existing, smaller, vacant retail spaces in the downtown malls, the arcades, and on the streets? Why do there have to be even more with a new skyscraper? It's just another burden for the property manager and tenants.