The picture of BOK in NEO-trans gave me nightmares of the Celebreeze federal building.  The building roughed in at the top of the NEO-trans article reminded of the NuCLEus v2.0 office building.  LOL, are we of the CLE prohibited from having something dynamic and original?

@whipkacka - It's a pretty good match. Maybe they plan to outbid K&D for 55 Public Square and restore it themselves.

There goes the need for a new second tower.  Instant SW Campus - voila!      ...cringe!

Edited January 14, 20214 yr by ExPatClevGuy

Yeah, what a massive disappointment. Why pay a firm like PC to design a bland box that nobody will care to look at?

They’ll be as invisible in this city as they are now.

Edited January 14, 20214 yr by marty15

BOK Park Plaza is so 1960s E. 9th Street.

 

It's okay to be conservative but another to lack design inspiration; especially when you provide tools for designers themselves.

 

A design similar to Northwestern Mutual in Milwaukee, while unique, yet not overdone, would at least provide a counter-balance to 200 PS and if curved away from PS, could provide street-level interaction with a plaza opening onto PS itself.

Edited January 15, 20214 yr by Frmr CLEder

3 hours ago, marty15 said:

Yeah, what a massive disappointment. Why pay a firm like PC to design a bland box that nobody will care to look at?

They’ll be as invisible in this city as they are now.

@marty15's "invisibility" comment seems borne out by this shot of the BOK PARK PLAZA in context of the Devon Center.  It has that same way of disappearing into the sky as our Hilton has.  As for it being a bland box, do we feel better knowing it's an East Coast/New York style bland box?   (designed by a company that can be as audacious as Kingdom Centre in Saudi Arabia).   I haven't felt quite this way since the Browns unveiled the big change to their helmet and uniform a couple years ago.  
 

But, on the optimistic side, if @KJP's first NEOTRANS article on the 27 story version of the HQ caused some "pushback" by some important SW folk, it shows us that the design is still not finalized.  Maybe @KJP can go for two for two when the underwhelming reaction from this article hits the fan.  And I do think that something in the 500 foot range is going to look better on PS than something closer to the 400 range - so, for those like me that were concerned about the lack of verticality, this is a partial win.  Hopefully, we still have a chance to get something with some more interesting dimensions - it doesn't sound that way - but a Northwestern Mutual (Milwaukee) inspired tower would be a significant improvement. 
 

I find it a little ironic that a company that is vital in the world of design would purposely design an uninspiring world head quarters.  Conservative doesn't have to mean lacking in style.  I don't look for a big change in their direction - but we've heard rumors before that weren't necessarily accurate - so, let's see what SW ultimately presents. 

Edited January 15, 20214 yr by CleveFan

Like I said before and was downvoted for some reason....BOOOOO!

Jeez, you all are very negative about a building we don’t even have renders of. It doesn’t sound like this will be exactly identical to BOK, and small details make big differences on a minimalist building. Also, while I’ve never seen the BOK building in person, looking at some renders shows a few details that would be far more apparent in person and really make the building pop. Simplicity does not mean poor design. The twin towers were as simple as could be from a distance and they stood like two silver gods.

 

If they want to build on Public Square, I was really hoping they'd at least try to meet the architectural quality of the other Big 3. Instead we get an underwhelming, minimalist glass box.

Please at least have a nice pedestrian experience with ground floor retail...

Edited January 15, 20214 yr by tykaps
Oh god I'm starting to sound like a NIMBY

This is GOD AWFUL. A dull, lifeless, bleak, drab, monotonous glass box with a flat top. This is the best they could come up with?! THIS is supposed to attract young talent?! What planet are they on?! I am completely disappointed. For the love of god, can you at least put a spire or tapered top on it, Sherwin?!

@KJP.  Thank you for keeping us enlightened. I had a quick question.  Your first photo has the proposed tower not on the Jacob's Lot. Was this on purpose in hopes that site brings something taller?

Edited January 15, 20214 yr by dave2017

Ok look SHW, l like you. You were nice to me that one time l stopped in to pick up a can of eggshell white. And you've been in your old place since, like forever and you don't know what you don't know. I get it. So l'm gonna help you out and save you some cash.

 

If you're bound and determined to build one of those generic boxes here's what you do. First off, you don't need that fancy architectural firm. They'll charge you top dollar to give you what you want and besides, they'll probably be laughing at you behind your back and you don't want that, do ya?

 

Then you call Skidmore Owings. They're in Chicago but it's not a long distance call anymore so that's cool. Now when you get 'em on the phone ask them if they have any of those knockoffs they used to sell us back in the day. They probably still have a few left over in the back room. It shouldn't cost much. Hell they might even give it to you just to free up some storage. 

 

So good luck. I know its hard when you don't know what you're doing but that's what we're here for. Later.

Being a native Clevelander, having graduated from US, returned for a CCF fellowship, but now living in South Florida, I have been very proud of the success of SW.

 

I've used their products on my interiors, followed and snapped photos of their blue delivery trucks to post on this forum, and monitored their financial picture post Valspar, but this is simply a bridge too far.

 

A drab, uninspired box on Public Square will not be appreciated for generations of Clevelanders to come. If you want an uninspiring mid-rise, don't build it on Public Square; it won't attract talent.

Edited January 15, 20214 yr by Frmr CLEder

6 hours ago, dave2017 said:

@KJP.  Thank you for keeping us enlightened. I had a quick question.  Your first photo has the proposed tower not on the Jacob's Lot. Was this on purpose in hopes that site brings something taller?

 

I'm not sure why. I'm trying to find out. 

34 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

I'm not sure why. I'm trying to find out. 

Is it possible some of the information is confused and the BOK building is really the model for the second tower? If so, could the model for the Public Square tower perhaps be the Devon Energy Center which sits right next to BOK in OKC? Just questions, because I don't know how firm your sources were with their information. But it would make sense.

 

While I don't hate the design of BOK like most people apparently do here, it is a little strange given how some of your previous sources had gushed over how beautiful the render was.

 

Specifically thinking of this from your Nov. 6 article:

 

"Stunning, evocative of an East Coast especially New York-style of architecture. Very modern. Building height was about the size of the 200 Public Square but could be taller based on the angle of the rendering. There was a decorative element at the top but could've been for rooftop equipment."

 

I'm just not understanding how these pieces fit together.

I would be delighted if

Sherwin-Williams would "borrow" the original design for either the once proposed AmeriTrust Tower or the Progressive Insurance Tower. It would appear that there was more "forward thinking" thirty plus years ago when it comes to building something grand and iconic.

 

While both of those proposals hail from the late-1980s, they were both unusual and would be far more iconic than anything resembling the BOK PARK TOWER in Oklahoma City.

 

Note to Sherwin-Williams Execs:

 

Please don't build a glass cereal box on our fabulous Public Square. It will not do justice for your celebrated company nor for the ongoing renaissance of our Downtown.

 

Cleveland deserves to have a refreshed and a 21st century appeal, particularly for the talent pool you are seeking.

 

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Edited January 15, 20214 yr by John D. Baumgardner

i think @KJP got hired by SWP to run interference. Its the only thing that makes sense...

25 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

i think @KJP got hired by SWP to run interference. Its the only thing that makes sense...

 

Unfortunately there are other, less profitable explanations and none of them are good....

 

1. The information is accurate and we don't like it

2. The information is inaccurate/out of date

3. The information provided to me was childishly and intentionally misleading

@KJP- This is random, but I was wondering why SHW is never mentioned as a possible TMUD project?  It's clear they don't need it to make the project work, but if it's there, wouldn't they take it?  I assumed they might even seek allocations for phases separately.  Is there something prohibiting them from doing so?

13 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Unfortunately there are other, less profitable explanations and none of them are good....

 

1. The information is accurate and we don't like it

2. The information is inaccurate/out of date

3. The information provided to me was childishly and intentionally misleading

3. would be very troubling. 2. could be very troubling or could simply be sources working with incomplete information and getting confused.

 

As to 1.,  I will say again that I think people are being overly critical of a design we haven't actually seen. I think BOK Park Place is nice (and two top "floors" lit up would look great in Cleveland's skyline at night!), but just because the HQ could be modeled on it doesn't mean we can envision how the HQ would actually look in situ.

 

Take these two buildings:

 

 

Both of these buildings are Pickard Chilton, and you could certainly say they are very similar. In all likelihood one was modeled off the other. The details on the buildings create very different presentations, however. To my eye, the second is much nicer looking and more interesting even though at a high level it's the same as the first building. So assuming everything @KJP heard is accurate and BOK is the model, I will still hold off judgment until we see actual renders.

10 minutes ago, Dino said:

@KJP- This is random, but I was wondering why SHW is never mentioned as a possible TMUD project?  It's clear they don't need it to make the project work, but if it's there, wouldn't they take it?  I assumed they might even seek allocations for phases separately.  Is there something prohibiting them from doing so?

 

The project would certainly be eligible. On the other hand they've already got something like $100 million in public incentives anyway so maybe they don't need it.

45 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Unfortunately there are other, less profitable explanations and none of them are good....

 

1. The information is accurate and we don't like it

2. The information is inaccurate/out of date

3. The information provided to me was childishly and intentionally misleading

4. Someone overheard half a conversation and extrapolated it out. Perhaps said cubes were being used as massing placeholders? I'm going to remain optimistic!

 

25 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

So assuming everything @KJP heard is accurate and BOK is the model, I will still hold off judgment until we see actual renders.

People judge things all the time. For instance, lets say your favorite director says he is going to make another movie, and its going to be based on Vertigo. You get excited, because you love your favorite director, and Vertigo is Sight and Sound's best movie of all time. 

 

Then, as it gets closer to production, you hear that its going to be a shot-for-shot remake of Freddy Got Fingered (a la Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake). You, and every other sane person, would judge this to be disappointing. 

 

Here's to hoping Tom Green doesn't work for Pickard Chilton. 🍻

Like @LlamaLawyer, I am perplexed by this quote: "Stunning, evocative of an East Coast especially New York-style of architecture. Very modern. Building height was about the size of the 200 Public Square but could be taller based on the angle of the rendering. There was a decorative element at the top but could've been for rooftop equipment."

 

Especially when you combine that with the fact that in the image from @KJP the 'BOK' style tower is on the wrong lot. Seems odd that this would just be an oversight. 

 

@KJP How confident are you in the source from November that supposedly saw a 'stunning NYC style tower'?

 

One thing we can agree on, this thread will never be boring right up to the end!! 😄

The image was an unofficial rendering like the ones by Geowizical.

 

I'm sure the source in November saw what they thought was a stunning New York-style tower. If they saw a rendering that looked like this building then I don't agree with their opinion. But it was their opinion and that makes it news. My opinion is not news so I didn't share it.

 

I've also heard others describe this latest iteration as elegant or sleek. I don't agree with them but a news article isn't my place to say it. I'm just sharing with you why they are apparently interested in this design.

14 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

 shot-for-shot remake

 

My point is that it's not going to be exactly the same. Even shot-for-shot remakes aren't the same. If they were, the Psycho remake would get all the praise of the original. Someone on the design team said it will be "nearly identical" per @KJP. I don't know who that person is. If it's the lead architect, you could maybe draw a conclusion, but what if it's the lead glass procurement guy. Maybe it's someone at SHW's corporate image department who knows less about architecture than the average person on this forum. That's why I put the two images of the buildings above. They are extremely similar but illustrate how small design details make a big difference in appearance.

10 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 

My point is that it's not going to be exactly the same. Even shot-for-shot remakes aren't the same. If they were, the Psycho remake would get all the praise of the original. Someone on the design team said it will be "nearly identical" per @KJP. I don't know who that person is. If it's the lead architect, you could maybe draw a conclusion, but what if it's the lead glass procurement guy. Maybe it's someone at SHW's corporate image department who knows less about architecture than the average person on this forum. That's why I put the two images of the buildings above. They are extremely similar but illustrate how small design details make a big difference in appearance.

LOL. My point was not that it would look identical to the BOK turd. I was being hyperbolic. My point is that if your inspiration is BOK (or Freddie Got Fingered), then I judge that to be disappointing. 

38 minutes ago, mrclifton88 said:

 

Especially when you combine that with the fact that in the image from @KJP the 'BOK' style tower is on the wrong lot. Seems odd that this would just be an oversight. 

 

 

And to clarify, it's not an oversight. 😉

@dave2017  Thanks for noticing that!   
I get thrown off by 55 Public Square all the time in my orientation of P.S.  Then, I spouted right off in a blather about the humdrum direction of the design.
What you bring up leaves me feeling somewhat more optimistic about a different approach to what may rise directly on Public Square.

Edited January 15, 20214 yr by ExPatClevGuy

So that rendering is for the second tower?

6 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

And to clarify, it's not an oversight. 😉

I don’t get it. Why would they purposefully put a rendering on the wrong lot?!

Just now, Silent Matt said:

I don’t get it. Why would they purposefully put a rendering on the wrong lot?!

Maybe its not the wrong lot. Maybe they are trying to show the smaller building and left out the one on PS to get a better view.

3 minutes ago, Growth Mindset said:

Maybe its not the wrong lot. Maybe they are trying to show the smaller building and left out the one on PS to get a better view.

I hope you’re right but that building right there is the height that KJP has reported that the main tower will be. About 450 feet.

Just now, Silent Matt said:

I hope you’re right but that building right there is the height that KJP has reported that the main tower will be. About 450 feet.

I'm always an optimist

24 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

And to clarify, it's not an oversight. 😉

I don't hate (or love) a glass box, but man this thread rn:

 

 

Yep, I need to write another article to clarify and to include some new information. Give me a couple of hours.

this would be the worst possible outcome outside of leaving the parking lots. if this is what they want then just build out the western end of the sites and leave the jacobs public square face empty to flip to somebody who will respect it.

 

come on sw, build on top of some parking or go in with a hotel partner or both for the main hq tower. and up pickards lame game. you can do this. 

looking at both the BOK and Devon Energy sites, it seems clear the city is going to have to make sure the parking is done right

2 hours ago, ExPatClevGuy said:

@dave2017  Thanks for noticing that!   
I get thrown off by 55 Public Square all the time in my orientation of P.S.  Then, I spouted right off in a blather about the humdrum direction of the design.
What you bring up leaves me feeling somewhat more optimistic about a different approach to what may rise directly on Public Square.

If you notice, the render includes Public Square, pre makeover. Maybe this was the pre Valspar version.

Though if they’re gonna build something this generic, definitely don’t put it there. Might as well turn the parking lots into a vast park, stretching from PS to West 6th. Bordered by Frankfort and Superior. 

 

Then put their boring structure and accompanying building on the block between Frankfort at St. Clair, framing a mini Central Park. They can build their hotel on the triangle pit where the Renaissance once proposed an expansion. Completely building out the spaces surrounding the park. Would actually make an awesome urban space.

 

Most anything else would be better than what’s rumored. 

Edited January 15, 20214 yr by marty15

^ right -- a little park on the square would be a better placeholder.

 

also, regardless of height, i was really kind of hoping for a great base, like with like an interactive sw store with stuff to do for families and kids --  and also a little lunch restaurant with outdoor seating. wouldn't that kind of thing be a nice and inviting way to face public square?

Never thought I'd say this, but I'm about ready to make like those CLE Heights "Citizens for Great Design" if this is what gets announced.

12 minutes ago, tykaps said:

Never thought I'd say this, but I'm about ready to make like those CLE Heights "Citizens for Great Design" if this is what gets announced.

 

I'll call up the Shaker group who wanted Van Aken to be all Tudor and see what kind of tips they can give us

 

FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 2021

More surprises in Sherwin-Williams' emerging HQ design

 

At first, a contributed rendering posted here at NEOtrans looked like it contained an oversight. But with more information coming in like drops of paint, a site plan for Sherwin-Williams' (SHW) new headquarters (HQ) is gaining more color.

 

The rendering published in NEOtrans' previous SHW HQ article shows the base HQ building (represented by SHW's inspirational prototype -- the BOK Park Plaza tower from Oklahoma City) plopped down west of Public Square.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/01/more-surprises-in-sherwin-williams.html

Hey, if we keep trashing this piece of garbage design, the big wigs will have to convene for another meeting, I’m hoping. After all, we got them to add a few stories to the building! So I say this to you, big wigs who may be reading, if you think that box building is going to attract millennial talent, you are WAY out of touch!

Edited January 16, 20214 yr by Silent Matt

✅ 600 foot building

✅ Not actually on the square, so people who hate the design can still get an iconic skyscraper on the square in the future. 
✅ Jacobs lot filled by building intended primarily to have good street level interaction, also likely small enough that demolishing for future expansion wouldn’t be a big deal.

 

If this is all true, sign me up.

35 minutes ago, tykaps said:

Never thought I'd say this, but I'm about ready to make like those CLE Heights "Citizens for Great Design" if this is what gets announced.

that means you want a four story tudor building on Public Square

It just seems crazy to me that they would pay all that money for Jacob's lot, and not have a substantial building on it.  

7 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

✅ 600 foot building

✅ Not actually on the square, so people who hate the design can still get an iconic skyscraper on the square in the future. 
✅ Jacobs lot filled by building intended primarily to have good street level interaction, also likely small enough that demolishing for future expansion wouldn’t be a big deal.

 

If this is all true, sign me up.

 

Depends on how they designed the Public Square Museum/Conference Center. If they designed it like the World of Coke in Atlanta, it would be a big disappointment. The side facing the Centennial Olympic Park is largely devoid of windows.

2 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Depends on how they designed the Public Square Museum/Conference Center. If they designed it like the World of Coke in Atlanta, it would be a big disappointment. The side facing the Centennial Olympic Park is largely devoid of windows.

I imagine something like that would never get pass design review....at least I hope so.  By the way...head spinning....keep it up KJP.

14 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

that means you want a four story tudor building on Public Square

Nah I'd prefer a 40 story tudor building 😉

Though I'm not sure if it'll even be 4 stories with SHW current plan for a museum on the Jacobs lot.

5 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Depends on how they designed the Public Square Museum/Conference Center. If they designed it like the World of Coke in Atlanta, it would be a big disappointment. The side facing the Centennial Olympic Park is largely devoid of windows.

I just hope in any event that they . . . look critically at the museum. Corporate museums vary. I could see this being a nice addition to our collection of wonderful local museums on the upside or just kind of dumb on the downside. If we have a world-class museum on public square long term, that kind of makes sense and could be nice. If the museum turns out to be primarily a dumb, pandering attraction for kids to visit in the second half of take-your-kid-to-work day . . . yeah . . . Then I just hope the folks at SHW are honest enough to recognize that fact and sell the land so that maybe 15 years from now we can get a tower that actually does rival Key Tower.

 

10 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

It just seems crazy to me that they would pay all that money for Jacob's lot, and not have a substantial building on it.  

They only paid $9 million, which is less than 2% of their total construction budget. After their drilling, costs may indicate the other lots are cheaper to build on.