rockitect

No, not necessarily, it was not. Understanding the designer's work, at least a little bit, does help to be able to judge whether or not something is good design, but obviously it is by no means the only metric. The program, what the client wants, and what the site is, always come before that. But I strongly think it was a final piece that many people in general public overlook. No designer creates anything in a vacuum separate from everything else they have created. Every design someone creates is part of a larger conversation within the profession, based around whatever that particular person / office is interested in. And it has nothing to do with someone being a star or not. You may not personally care about this conversation, but a lot of people do, and if more people engaged in it, it would make things better for everyone. Having a better understanding about why the people who create the built environment do what they do is not going to hurt anything. Its the idea that design should represent something larger culturally then just program, budget, and site. In the case of the Public Square project, this is the ability for the city of Cleveland to represent exactly what kind of city we are in the 21st century. We have the potential to go from Public Square being considering one of the 10 worst public spaces in the world (according to Project For Public Spaces) to it becoming one of the most dynamic, unique and engaging and something that is unapologetically forward thinking. People around the world are checking this project out today, and many them are saying 'whoa, something good must be going on in Cleveland if they're doing this'. In Cleveland one would not expect City Architecture to design a glass box, nor would one expect Robert Maschke to design an EIFS clad infill building. Because most of us are familiar with their work, as they work locally you have a certain understanding what they are going to produce / create when you see they have been commissioned with a project. You may not like their work, but you know what to expect. As most people in Cleveland had never heard of James Corner and/or Field Operations before yesterday, it makes the proposal appear much more radical / shocking then it actually is within the oeuvre of their work. Knowing what they do and don't, with any designer, helps to at least create an expectation of what may be proposed. The 60k spent on fees for this project will get Cleveland more positive press around the world then any hundreds upon thousands of dollars the GCP or Positively Cleveland could blow trying to pay someone to come up with a catch phrase for the area and in turn advertising it, that would probably get mocked anyway. The best way to paint a picture that Cleveland is a forward looking, contemporary, forward thinking progressive place is to actually do... contemporary, progressive, forward thinking things. Also, from a planning + pragmatic standpoint, Public Square is, I believe, one of the largest transit nodes in country. It also, has always been one through its history. Moving RTA off of Public Square would not only create complete chaos trying to re-organize / re-design public transportation downtown, but it would also actually change the historic character of Public Square. Remember, its all one big system. That doesn't mean its not possible to change some things or that things couldn't be improved, its just recognizing saying RTA should move off Public Square is one thing, actually doing it is another. 6' of 'stuff' can support a heck of a lot of weight. I wouldn't really worry about one. I don't like Field Operations and/or this plan this plan because it was done by someone famous. I like it because I think its good. I don't think its perfect, its far from it. But it has the most potential to be something to be something important on an international level that would be a complete paradigm shift in how we build and use civic space in America. As one of my friends put it yesterday, the other two schemes are rotating the tires, the third scheme is like going out and buying a set of 22" spinners. And I like Field Operations because they are good, not because they are famous (they aren't even that famous, really.) There are a lot of stararchitects I dislike (one of them is designing our art museum), Field Operations are not in the flash first, substance maybe paradigm that has plagued the profession for most of the last ten-fifteen years. You also have no idea how I feel about all of their other work and the countless books, articles, and forums James Corner has wrote and been a part of. Like I said before, it helps to actually look at a designer's other work before you criticize them. You can so before, but you'll probably end up with egg on your face. Saying that someone likes and/or dislikes something just because of who created it is just intellectually lazy. So is doing so. Have some self-respect, I was speaking in general, not to you specifically, X.

As the design is proposed at the moment, no. There would need to be some things resolved in regards to that where the hill meets the ground, particularly at the moments where the streets cut through it, but, its definitely resolvable. Until we started seeing sunken terraces, steps and unnecessary walls, which we're not, there shouldn't be a lot to worry about. One of the big reasons I think the hill is so intriguing is that it creates an amazing viewing platform in which one can sit on and congregate at and watch the city go by around you / beneath you. Being able to have a vista such as that should prevent people from being able hide and create a Perk Park shooting 2.0 type situation.

I would assume at most about 4' worth of 'stuff' at the most to provide the bed for the green and for the structure. That is a very very conservative estimate. It really depends on how deep they want to go with the planting beds for whatever might grow on top of the hill. If you're just talking smaller plants and grasses, then its probably closer to 2' worth of 'stuff'. That would leave anywhere from 16'-18' feet clear underneath to potentially program the space underneath. In Field Ops presentation, they used a precedent project by NL Architects, in... The Netherlands called A8erna, that very nicely programmed the underside of a highway overpass. http://www.nlarchitects.nl/mz3/#/16 Obviously, a much different situation then what we have on Public Square, but an example that it can be done and it can be done creatively. I could see the underside lined with some small retail facing out onto the street... maybe move GCP's visitor center there, have some 'public' bathrooms, a coffee shop or something... and also cut some holes in the 'hill' to allow some light to stream down onto the street below so it doesn't turn into a dank tunnel.

I think there are a few other things everyone has to keep in mind. For those are not fimilar with their work, I think it would do a lot of good to check out Field Operations website (http://www.fieldoperations.net/ and become at least a little familiar with their work. They are not an office that practices 'traditional' urban design, at least from a sense of aesthetics. They practice what is known as 'landscape urbanism' based in the theory that landscape, infrastructure, and urban design (buildings) are not three things that are antithetical to one another. The basic thesis of landscape urbanism is that all of these things are systems that feed off one another to create a whole. They do believe in the creating faux pastoral landscapes or traditional appearing, but poorly functioning for contemporary life urban spaces. This does not mean they are anti-city, anti-people, pro-car, or whatever else one may decide to project. Generally most of their work that they have gotten attention for have been very large post-industrial reclamation projects, such as Fresh Kills Park and The High Line in NYC, and their competition entry from earlier in the decade in Toronto for Downsview Park, which while they did not win, became an incredibly influential project in the development of landscape urbanism moving mainstream in the design world. Field Operations and James Corner in particular have been a bit of, one could say, revolutionaries (along with others in the field) in the thinking of how our cities can look and function in the 21st century, when, in their minds, we've been doing a lot of things wrong in how we plan, build and conceive cities in the 19th and 20th centuries. They do very challenging work, as evidenced by a lot of peoples reactions both on here and other places, like cleveland.com. If you think good urbanism is banners, benches, and bricks, they see it as that and much much much more. If you are reacting angrily to this project, its because they are directly challenging your conception of what a public space is and what it can look it. Again, for anyone that questions whether or not Field Ops knows what they are doing, check out the High Line in NYC. They designed it. I don't know anyone, from critics to the general public that has not gone to it and been completely blow away by it. These guys know what the heck they're doing. (and not to focus solely on them, but so do the people working on the project as the local designers at CUDC. I know for a fact that Terry Schwarz among others their is playing a very large role in the design of this project). Although, what Field Ops is doing with Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island, from a standpoint of scale, is much much more impressive and interesting to me. In the hands of many other designers, I would be quite quite concerned about what the underside of the hill, where they are proposing continuing the streets underneath would end up looking like. If the project was to move forward, I have full faith that not only will they resolve any and all pragmatic issues with the design, but that whatever they come up with will be pretty awesome. There is a lot still be resolved in all of the schemes they have proposed. We have to give them the chance to resolve those things before we take them to the guillotine. They got hired to produce some thought provoking schemes for re-imaging what Public Square could be. Thats what they have done. This project is of high interest to people in the architecture / landscape / urban design fields, as to say Field Operations is white hot right now, would be an understatement. Everyone is wondering just what they are going to do in more traditional setting such as Public Square in Cleveland. (Granted I think we should adjustment our expectations of what Cleveland should be and look like and not be so stuck on returning ourselves to a nostalgic former glory, that never really existed) So, I guess, as a very long winded explanation, certainly criticize the project if you don't like it, but at least try to understand the background of where the designers may be coming from in their theory behind the work and what they are trying to achieve. If people took a few minutes to be a little more intelligent in their critiques of design, a part of which is not just understanding the project at hand and its site and program, but also understanding, or at least being a little familiar with the work of the designer creating it, we'd all be better off. The more the public becomes educated on design, the better it is for designers. Too many lesser architects / designers, design things they know are crap because they don't think anyone will understand anything 'better'. I say this, because I've witnessed architects actually say 'Yea, we can't do that, its too good, no one will get it'. A lot of groundbreaking design isn't necessarily done by architects who are more skilled or smarter then other designers who don't do groundbreaking stuff, they're just the only guys who have the balls to do it, because they know most people in the public are not going to understand it and they are going to have to fight like hell to get their projects built. Unfortunately, too many designers decide its a lot less stress and often times, better for the pocketbook to serve the lowest common dominator. On the other side, this is also why many designers also decide its easy to only work with the super rich and not to do projects that engage and operate in the public realm. Again, its a big reason why the designs of so many things in the public realm is so poor. Less I disgress. That is probably a conversation for another time and place.

Believe it or not, glancing through the cleveland.com comments last night (I don't watch reality TV. I just read those comments. It serves the same sick, guilty pleasure of remembering how sickening humans can be), an actual intelligent point was realized that there was a huge typo in Litt's article. The hill is actually on about 20' high, not 76' as was stated in the article, which makes a huge, huge difference. Litt's typo was because in one of the drawings, apparently the height of the hill was called out as being at an elevation of 76', but the elevation of the road below (I believe in the drawing, Superior) was 56'. Take the difference... and you have 20'. So there is that. Something didn't seem right about it being 76' tall. 20' across the length of the wall, really could be easily achievable. I really like the hill idea, but I admit, in the wrong hands, it could go terribly, terribly wrong. If built, and we have to remember, this is a big if, it does create an immense amount of programmatic potential underneath the hill, which could be quite interesting. And believe it or not, it also creates, as all the streets are going to stay open, covered walkways underneath the hill for moving through the square in the winter months. Which is something that, I think, has been overlooked in the discussion of the design.

http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=94687_0_24_0_C News of the redesign of Public Square has been posted on Archinect, one of the most widely read architecture / urban design news websites in the world. The fact that this has already gotten picked up on archinect, shows to me, just how big of a deal this project is, not just to Cleveland, but also that is of national and international interest for designers.

I'm trying to make up my mind. I think i'd prefer the second scheme if it also proposed shutting down Superior as well. I think it is just as an innovative approach to what a public space in a city like Cleveland could be, but achieved a little simpler then scheme 3. As it stands, scheme 3 is probably the best, in that it allows the streets still run through Public Square, while also unifying the public aspects of the square. I think raising the square into being a hill is pretty awesome... but there is a A LOT that is unresolved with it. But that is ok, right now. We need to be worrying about the big idea behind it, not worrying over overly pragmatic details at this point. I know that design can be accomplished and I have faith Field Ops would be the office to pull it off. It is trying to be an innovative solution that allows the greatest possible access to the square. I think it should be possible to accommodate as many uses as is possible in the square. Scheme 3 is the only proposal that is being additive to Public Square, rather then taking away something that is already there to accommodate something new. And its a solution I have never quite seen before for a situation such as Public Square. Similar projects, like Seattle's Olympic Sculpture Park, or Field Op's High Line project in NYC, or even the Big Dig in Boston have been completed, but none have quite been a true, pre-existing public space, like Public Square is. That excites me quite a bit about this project. People all over the world are going to be talking about and debating these proposals, because that is the level Field Operations works at. James Corner is one of the foremost innovators, designers, and theorists in the landscape urbanism movement. And he is one of the few people from that movement that gets things done on a large scale. That is very good for design in Cleveland. This proposal also sets a precedent in regards to bridging over both the inner belt trench by CSU and bridging over all the infrastructural crap from the Mall to The Lakefront, that yes, you can do this in Cleveland. I'm also praying this doesn't end up getting bastardized like MVRDV CIA project, or just goes completely quiet like FOA's MOCA project. Cleveland has been chewing up and spitting out designers lately. I also hope the general attitude of Clevelander's, which seems to be, "If it doesn't personally benefit me, and if I haven't already experienced something similar 5 other places, then I don't understand it and I think it sucks and somehow someone is screwing me over this" attitude ends up butchering the project. Let's try be a little smarter about this then that, so it doesn't turn into the same pathetic (in my mind) arguments over why there shouldn't be a bike lane on the Inner Belt, why we shouldn't develop the lakefront, why The Flats East Bank is a dumb idea, and why any other project around here shouldn't happen. Just because this is something that hasn't been done before, much less in Cleveland, does not mean that it is not a good project. We have a terrible tendency to be hermetic and myopic when these types of proposals pop up, in how the general public reacts to them.

The offices of D.H. Ellison Architect are moving there from the present location next to CPT on Detroit Ave. I happen to live catty corner from where he is moving in. I believe there was an article about it in the Ohio City Argus neighborhood newspaper awhile back about the move, which is partially how I think I found out (can't remember if I knew before that or not). The corner to be concerned about at that intersection is that the owner of Bodnar has been threatening to sell his property to put in a McDonald's at that location, basically as an F.U. to the neighborhood (the owner has actually said that, on the record) after they so strongly opposed his desire to put a crematorium in his funeral home. If you happen to subscribe to the Ohio City yahoo email group, all the drama over it can be found on there. Hopefully Ellison's presence can help keep a fast food chain out of the area that there is no need for. The garbage on Lorain from the Wendy's down by St. Ig's is bad enough.

These are just renderings pulled from Bialosky's website, no? I saw them a few weeks ago there. They probably just have it up for their own marketing purposes, I would assume. Even though nothing got built, it was still a very large conceptual project for them.

Agree about Hafencity. I also don't understand why they haven't shown Borneo Sporenburg (http://www.west8.nl/projects/all/borneo_sporenburg/)in Amsterdam, which is all built on fill (besides being amazing urbanistically and architecturally) or New Islington in Manchester, England (http://www.newislington.co.uk/). I feel as if the team working on this do not believe that Clevelanders are able to relate to anything they haven't seen with their own eyes, which bothers me a lot. They need to be showing us what the potential is for this type of project with case studies such as the ones people are putting up on here instead of telling us its going to be downtown Chagrin Falls. Which of course, just seems like they're trying to pander to the exurban set. It seems as if we're going to get Crocker Park on the lake. Which would be quite unfortunate.

Ahh... figured it was only a matter of time before someone posted this. Images of this thing have been getting passed around between architects in Cleveland like they're a drug for a couple years with somehow no one leaking anything. I think it has a lot of potential to be quite excellent though. Granted we have no idea what the detailing is going to be like, what the materials are, or how the inside is going to function, making it too soon to pass any kind of final judgement. That being said, it is an icon, which MOCA obviously wants (or they never would have hired FOA). Formally, I do think it mediates the geometry of the corner pretty well. My impression is that the design is a critique on the nature of icon as architecture. FOA have had various projects that are interested in iconography and iconic buildings in contemporary architecture. Farshid Moussavi wrote a book a couple years ago as part of a class she was teaching at Harvard called "The Function of Ornament". Understanding FOA's interests helps to explain why this project is a giant piece of bling. In regards to context, remember all of those white boxes are going to be contemporary buildings by Saitowitz / Natoma and Office DA. Add to the fact that UH's new hospital tower is going up on the other side of Euclid / Mayfield along with all the new construction on other nearby sites, MOCA will probably end up looking surprisingly contextual when its all said and done.

The grad school that already is located in Cleveland (Master of Architecture and Master of Urban Design) is moving along with the CUDC professional offices. There were discussions a couple years ago to move everything to Cleveland (as 1/2 the grad program is still located in Kent) but that is dead as far as I know. There has been quite a bit of turnover, so to speak, the last couple years in the admin of the College of Architecture at Kent as a result of Dean Fong's departure. Thanks... I've been meaning to participate a little more instead of just lurking.

Newbie here (and recent CUDC grad)... Yea, they are. The urban design office at the CUDC only employees about 8 people and a couple grad student interns. The majority of the square footage is devoted to the school. It should be a positive move for CUDC, they are getting murdered by their present lease. @cle2032;That would be amazing. even if it wasn't located downtown, but in the midtown / near west side area, I think the store would well. Grad students at CUDC often have to drive to Kent to get supplies that aren't available at the Utrecht in Coventry. Its also a problem for all architecture studios (and artists) in town... well... all architecture studios that actually build models, that is.

I agree. I work down the street and anytime I'm with someone that doesn't see it everyday their reaction amounts to 'Holy crap that is ugly!' It also seems that the entrance with the storefront glass jogging around the columns is completely unresolved, if you see it in person. Bostwick has done some nice work, I rather like their CSU Law School addition + renovation, but this isn't living up to they type of work they are capable of doing.

First time poster, long time lurker (deciding to change that...) It's supposed to look like that... From Litt's orginal write up about it You notice it more when you're farther away from the building, probably the best view of it is from the E. 120th RTA station platform. That being said, I wouldn't say they have exactly been successful with the idea. I think using precast panels with no, or few repeating sizes defeats the point of using precast.