Jump to content
KJP

Cleveland: Sherwin-Williams' Headquarters

Recommended Posts

^are they really?

 

John Doe, "I'm thinking about traveling to NYC for a vacation"

Jane Doe, "why"

John Doe, "Because that skyline is just so sweet, I have to be there, screw everything else to do, I'm even staying in New Jersey to just stare at the skyline."

 

Please Pope, people are always talking about those cities skyline, you can act like they don't, that's OK.

 

People in our world are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a city's skyline has a huge impact on a person visiting a city .. even on the residents of a city. What do you first think of when you think of places like NYC or Chicago? I think of their skyline. I would love to see Cleveland's skyline thriving.

 

I just want to make sure it's done wisely and necessarily and that it's actually a true reflection of a city thriving. Not just because somebody felt like they wanted to do it because it's pretty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between a cities like NYC & Chicago verse Cleveland/Columbus/Cincinnati is that skyscrapers are necessary in the NYC/Chicago because of the population density.  They don't have an abundance of surface lots laying around to build on.. so when you can't build out you gotta build up.  I'm in favor of a larger building, but we don't need to try to build something bigger then Key Tower, build something with two smaller towers that will fill in the skyline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that would be great, and I agree! I think the plans for a 60 story tower or however tall they want to make it is ridiculous and completely unnecessary. Cleveland doesn't need something that's that tall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I just keep repeating myself but a great skyline "does not a great city make".  Houston and Dallas have impressive skylines and are just faux cities in my opinion.  Boston, San Fran and Seattle do have great skylines but that it not what makes them great cities or a place I want to visit.  Among other things it is their street life and energy and good architecture of all types including low rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I don't understand why several shorter but still tall buildings (10 to 20 stories tall) don't factor into the skyline conversation. To me, a dense skyline is preferable to a tall but sparse one. Columbus, for instance, has some relatively tall buildings in its downtown but the lack of density around them defeats any aesthetic achievements, in my opinion.

 

That being said, I think it's crazy to think that skyline aesthetics should be the major factor in which project one chooses to support. First and foremost, we should be asking about whether each project will generate opportunities for businesses to stay in the CBD, attract new businesses into the area, generate new jobs, increase downtown foot traffic and incidental purchases, extend retail opportunities, bring in new residences ... in short, make the neighborhood more livable and indicative of an exciting urban environment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I just keep repeating myself but a great skyline "does not a great city make".  Houston and Dallas have impressive skylines and are just faux cities in my opinion.  Boston, San Fran and Seattle do have great skylines but that it not what makes them great cities or a place I want to visit.  Among other things it is their street life and energy and good architecture of all types including low rise.

 

In response to that, Charleston SC does not have a skyline, and is one of my favorite cities in the US along with Savannah Ga.  That proves planning, zoning, transportation and layout make great cities, not skyscrapers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^are they really?

 

John Doe, "I'm thinking about traveling to NYC for a vacation"

Jane Doe, "why"

John Doe, "Because that skyline is just so sweet, I have to be there, screw everything else to do, I'm even staying in New Jersey to just stare at the skyline."

 

Please Pope, people are always talking about those cities skyline, you can act like they don't, that's OK.

 

People in our world are.

 

100% agree pope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think just the opposite.  I would think people in our world, mostly understand the importance of filling in those lots in the warehouse district with a mix of uses, thus bringing the much needed things to downtown to make it more of a city (workers, residents, retail, street life....) 

 

I think many of us, are excited about the thought of a big building going up, as am I, but can put it into perspective as which type of project that would do the most good, but do think that the Jacobs property should be reserved for something of more major scale, not neccesarily 60/70 stories, but maybe at least 40 and striking (as much as skyscrapers excite me, I dont think it should be taller than BP, as to not throw off the balance and scale of everything else (as well as oversaturate the market)).   

 

I can tell you, being in D.C., how I miss the drive on the shoreway into Cleveland that would always get my adreniline rushing, seeing the tall buildings, and other buildings, that create the great dimensions (the same thing as a kid, on our occasional trips to Cleveland from Ashtabula county, who would spot the Terminal Tower first (that was the signal of the big city to us)).

 

Skylines certainly can make an impression on people that are not in our world, they would just think, wow I didnt realize Cleveland was such a big city, because of the "tall" buildings, especially if a new one is being added (wow, things must be good in Cleveland).  Although it may be a different story if your actually downtown, and the streets are desserted (because everyone went home to the suburbs) ,that would sort of take away from the sense that it is a big city.

But, I think we know better.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but I and many here miss skylines that say, big city, as I stated.  Although your correct for many reasons, there is nothing defining a center city here etc..., and it gets a bit visually monotonous (all the buildings for blocks and blocks are exactly the same height).  But it is a good example of continuity and activity...  (Great would be debatable, since the people factor into that)       

 

I miss my Terminal Tower!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: NYC and Chicago, people do visit them partly for their skylines, but only because they're the best skylines in North America, and some of the best in the world.  I don't think any other city in the country is poised to make waves in that business, and that's OK.  Can't speak for Chicago, but in NYC, the areas with the tall commercial buildings are generally the least fun, least active, and altogether lamest areas in Manhattan.  Same is true in Boston, and probably many other cities.  If the goal is building a great city for its residents, I don't see much of a benefit to the tall guys to anyone but sky scraper geeks.

 

But I don't agree with idea that New York and other land constrained cities are the only areas that "need" skyscrapers.  Skyscrapers are built where developers think they can get enough rent/subsidy income to turn a profit off of planning/construction costs.  There is no inherent "need" for them anywhere on earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or Portland, Ore. Or Madison, Wisc. Or Annapolis, MD. Ottawa, Ont.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a defence of Jacob's Tower vs Pescht, but just a general observation:  I think people very much notice skylines.  When you watch any TV show, sporting event, etc set definitely into a given city, they always show the skyline.  What's in the background of any local city newscast?  The skyline.  What's usually on that cities webpage?  The skyline.  I think that is because it gives a "face" for most cities.  And in that respect, is quite important.

 

That said, I'd rather see Pesht as the benefit to Downtown as a place to be outweighs the Jacobs Tower's benefit to Downtown as a place to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain to me why a series of 10 - 20 story buildings doesn't factor into the description of a skyline? I understand that tall buildings are certainly visible elements of a skyline, but I would argue that the relatively short Rock Hall receives far more media visibility than does the Key Tower. If these were a series of 2-3 story townhomes, I would understand why they might get lost in our skyline, but 10-20 story buildings filling in some of the skyline gaps seem to me like they would create a denser skyline, and if anything, make our tallest skyscrapers look even taller by providing more scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree that a project like what Stark is proposing will do more for Cleveland than any 1,000 foot skyscraper. I was saying the skyline can give people a perception of the city and perception is very important, especially when the city has the perception Cleveland does Nationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your example of Columbus would come in here.  Columbus' relatively tall buildings are not really even that tall as far as a skyscraper goes (I dont believe any really exceeding 28 stories).  But the lack of other buildings around them, or visual clutter, gives them a much taller appearance and prominence in the skyline.  Look at similar buildings in Cleveland, such as the 5/3 building.  It barely even shows up in the skyline (of course dependant on where you are) as is the case with most buildings on e. 9th, looking from the west.  Of course 10-20 story buildings in the warehouse district would show up well from the west but not from the east.  If those were built in Columbus, they would most certainly show up from every angle.  Not much blocking their view. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Columbus  building heights from World Almanac:

 

Rhodes Tower  41 stories

Levesque-Lincoln Tower 47 stories

William Green Building  33 stories

Huntington Center  33 stories

Vern RiffeTower  37 stories

One Nationwide Plaza  40 stories

Franklin County Courthouse  27 stories

AEP Building  31 stories

Borden Building  34 stories

Three Nationwide Plaza  27 stories

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Columbus  building heights from World Almanac:

 

Rhodes Tower  41 stories

Levesque-Lincoln Tower 47 stories

William Green Building  33 stories

Huntington Center  33 stories

Vern RiffeTower  37 stories

One Nationwide Plaza  40 stories

Franklin County Courthouse  27 stories

AEP Building  31 stories

Borden Building  34 stories

Three Nationwide Plaza  27 stories

 

Those are stories, not heights.. Rhodes Tower is the tallest in Columbus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why take it right to the gutter pope w/ atlanta? you know very well there are cities with decent skylines and infill. try these on for size: denver (lots of stuff going on)? austin (new tower+ pesht-like infill), charlotte (making strides)? columbus (miranova + the pen tower = holla!)? so dont get ahead of ourselves, its only one building! more importantly, we all know that plot of land has been held for this very purpose for many, many years. its meant to be a beast.

 

speaking of either/or - wasnt pesht always supposed to be mixed use, but still mostly residential? a jacobs tower with mostly offices of two companies, hotel space and maybe....perhaps a few floors of chi-chi residences does not nesessarily preclude a massive transformative effort like pesht.

 

fact is stark knows perfectly well that the jacobs public square plot, fcr's scranton peninsula land and wolsteins east bank flats among others are out there, but he chose to speak out before he was ready to act. so everyone is on point now. now if jacobs starts digging dirt for his tower tomorrow i say halleleujah bring it on and let the best man win.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why take it right to the gutter pope w/ atlanta? you know very well there are cities with decent skylines and infill. try these on for size: denver (lots of stuff going on)? austin (new tower+ pesht-like infill), charlotte (making strides)? columbus (miranova + the pen tower = holla!)? so dont get ahead of ourselves, its only one building! more importantly, we all know that plot of land has been held for this very purpose for many, many years. its meant to be a beast.

 

speaking of either/or - wasnt pesht always supposed to be mixed use, but still mostly residential? a jacobs tower with mostly offices of two companies, hotel space and maybe....perhaps a few floors of chi-chi residences does not nesessarily preclude a massive transformative effort like pesht.

 

fact is stark knows perfectly well that the jacobs public square plot, fcr's scranton peninsula land and wolsteins east bank flats among others are out there, but he chose to speak out before he was ready to act. so everyone is on point now. now if jacobs starts digging dirt for his tower tomorrow i say halleleujah bring it on and let the best man win.

 

 

 

wow..all this talk over one building.

 

Can I refer to the new county building and its lastluster design.Perhaps this would give us hope that the county would change there design and give us a building that has character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bring it on

 

i love all the naysayers here

 

people actin like this cant be built cuz its cleveland. i bet they said the same thing about key tower and it has what % vacancy rate now?? the class A vacancy rate in downtown was higher than it is now when key tower was built. with companies lookin for new/bigger space, residential, and a hotel a 70-story building could easily be filled. it just takes balls from a developer to build it.

 

and despite what some of yall say. a skyline does matter and is a sense of civic pride. its actually not the UO geeks that talk about skylines....ive come across lots of people who say "blah blah blah skyline is the best" etc. nobody on here is going to argue that a skyline is the end all of how great a city is but it matters. the general public would probably be more excited over a 70-story tower than a bunch of densely built 10-20 story towers.

 

this is one building. one location. thats it. so why do people get strung on the concept how a tall building somehow defeats urbanity, street life, and mixed use when one lot isnt going to define all of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imy dream is for cleveland to make better use of the water that surrounds and penetrates it...cleveland currently does a piss poor job...just look at the lakefront property misuse west and east of browns stadium/rock hall. same goes for the crooked river.  wolstein/stonebridge is a start, but i'd like to see some taller buildings on BOTH sides of the river. anyone else agree? :drunk:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CTownsFinest216, I'm very disappointed you've chosen to totally misunderstand us. I would argue that just about everyone who posts here believes in a can-do attitude and believes in this city. Many of these posters were schooled in urban planning, architecture, land use planning and related disciplines. I'm aware that a few of these folks work in those fields.

 

They understand the difference between style and substance, and what different types of land uses have on the economics and vibrancy of an urban setting.

 

In the meantime, allow me to suggest a field experiment. At noon on a sunny weekday, go to the front door of Key Tower and count the number of people who walk out. Then, on the next sunny weekday, go to the corner of East 9th and St. Clair and count the number of people who walk out of the front doors of the IMG Building, or the Bond Court Building, or the One Cleveland Center. Then compare the outpouring of people from any one of those buildings vs. that from Key Tower.

 

Why did I choose the Key Tower vs the other two buildings? What is within a 500-foot walk of Key Tower to pull workers all the way down from their lofty offices to the street? What is within a 500-foot walk of the three shorter towers?

 

In the absence of Pesht but in the presence of a 1,000-foot tower on Jacobs' Public Square property, what is within a 500-foot walk of that potential tower?

 

I did a similar planning exercise back in college, and you start to understand the important of context, setting, mixed use, building design, scale, etc etc etc


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh kjp back with the either/or again? sheesh. what makes anyone think a long planned jacobs tower means thee end of pesht?

 

it doesnt. maybe it would be scaled back for awhile re office space, but it neednt be scrapped entirely. unlike the jake tower pesht has a strong residential feature. hell look at the renderings again, or better yet any new residential mixed use in any city these days or yes (gasp) lifestyle mall -- it will look like that. maybe less a taller structure fro awhile if the jake tower goes up.

 

what we really need to realize it that its likely all three major developments may not happen, may not happen at the same time or may not even happen any time soon.

 

i bet two of them will tho, so we'll see who gets it on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what makes anyone think a long planned jacobs tower means thee end of pesht? it doesnt. maybe it would be scaled back for awhile re office space, but it neednt be scrapped entirely. 

 

“It’s all or nothing” “It will open by 2011 or not at all” “It all hinges on the reshuffling of downtown headquarters” - Bob Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a new member of urbanohio, but have been following maydays postings on here as well as his skyscraper page Cleveland project Rundown for some time.  Thank you mayday for all the updates.  Its nice to share what I find with friends that have moved away from Cleveland to get them excited about coming back.  I will be moving into the Avenue District townhomes in November.  As a soon to be resident of downtown I would like to add my opinion on what I would like to see happen downtown.

 

I would very much like to see Jacobs build his 60-70 story building.  Such a building would bring a sign of prosperity to our city.  So many good things are going on in Cleveland but many people don't know or realize what is happening.  (Medical Mart, New Convention Center, East and West side of the Flats, Avenue District, New Lake Front Project, Euclid Corridor, etc) Such a building would be a sign of Cleveland on a comeback.  I feel that such a structure would also create a domino effect for other projects and economic investment.  It could spark attraction from outside businesses, or more tourism to the city.  I also would like to see Stark get enough Leases to start his genius plan for the Warehouse district, which in my opinion is far over due for the area.  The Warehouse district is packed every weekend and needs to take advantage of the strong presence from Clevelands are visitors.  Both of these projects will give the atmosphere of a liveable downtown, as well as add to our skyline.  It seams there are plenty of leases options available in 5 years for both projects to start.  With both of these projects I feel it would give the needed boost for the Courthouse Plaza and the Euclid Tower to find funding and begin construction.  This would add two more buildings that are 20 plus stories and give us a visable skyline.  Also all of these buildings would be a great view from my roof top patio!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't undderstand why Stark is so hungup on the office mix in the Warehouse district, didn't Crocker Park go up without any significant department stores or large office tenant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Hi ciccolmt and welcome to the UO.

 

As you can gleam from previous posts in this thread and in the Pesht thread, most people would LOVE to see ALL the projects completed (even thought the proposed Jacobs Tower is still really a mystery).  The debate centers around the reality that downtown Cleveland can only support so much new office space, so what form of new development is preferrable given the economic issues.  While I would love to see a Tower on PS I personally would prefer to see the parking lots in the Warehouse District disappear.

 

That said, and not to be a wet blanket, I think you are relying too much on the magically powers of a tall building relative to Cleveland's "comeback".  By the way, I personally don't think we need to comeback from any where (over the past 30 years that term has worn thin, both positive and negative).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum, you're welcome, and congrats on the new digs! :-)

 

"It seems there are plenty of leases options available in 5 years for both projects to start."

 

I guess that's the big question - is there enough demand among enough different companies that both Stark's proposal and a Jacobs tower could be feasible? There are so many variables right now - the biggest being the economy and lending environment, and it's not in prime shape right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the issue: residential is not likely to be as large of a component as originally envisioned in Stark's project. Residential may be delayed as part of the Flats East Bank project. And I would highly doubt that it will be a component of Jacobs' skyscraper. The reason is that the office market is moving; residential is not. Office leases will drive these projects, at least for the foreseeable future until the mortgage crisis eases nationally and the residential market picks up locally. So if office demand is driving these projects, and two or three of the six companies downtown whose leases are due to expire by 2011 end up in Jacobs' tower, what will be the fate of Stark's and Wolstein's developments? What will happen if one of the large office tenants ends up at North Pointe? What will happen if the county commissioners offers to sell Ameritrust to one of them? And, since the departure of these companies will leave holes in existing office towers, some of those may get at least one of the smaller firms that's considering their relocation options.

 

Facts are facts. This is what's happening downtown in the residential and office markets. With what's happening in the residential market, it's probably not a great time for Stark or Wolstein to be trying to advance their projects absent the office component. Those two developers are counting on getting pieces of the office pie to help bridge the void in the residential market until that part picks back up again.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on the other hand....the real estate market is estimated to begin to rebound in 2009.  If these projects start now, granted they would have to be mainly rental, and complete in 2009/2010 - it could be the perfect time to have new units on the market.  The issue with building condos right now is due to pre-sale requirements from lenders.  If the projects can be rental heavy with the ability convert to condos in the future - i think starting a large project now still could make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you're not trying to predict the economy's future. I wouldn't bet a nickel on the economy's future two months from now, let alone two years.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly, there lies the inherent risk with any construction project - especially residential.  I am not personally predicting the future - I'm just reiterating the common  belief amongst investment real estate bankers and industry experts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said at the start of this thread, I really hope that Jacobs considers two "Erieview" size towers instead of one big bang.

 

OK, here is a request for all you computer know-it-alls - Could you take a couple skyline pictures of Cleveland (maybe one from each direction - N, S, E, W) and insert the Ameritrust monstrosity Musky posted at the beggining of this thread to scale.  Maybe that will answer some of the aesthetic concerns posted earlier.  I did a quick sketch (pencil and paper) and it seems like it doesn't fit and sort of makes our skyline look worse believe it or not.  Also, and this is the killer for me, it dwarfs the TT into obscrurity.

 

Then do the same thing with maybe a twin tower concept in its place with each tower rising 400 or so feet.  It would be appreciated if anyone has the ability and time.  I certainly don't have either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...