bertram von

Curious about the arch firm Berardi and Partners, I went to their website (http://www.bpiarch.com/index.aspx) and it seems they've done plenty of other work with K&D at Stonebridge - not sure to the arrangement as I was under the impression that Bob Corna was the architect of record. While nothing on the site about 668, it seems they have completed several historic rehab projects. Also of unrelated interest... there was a rendering I hadn't seen yet under "On the Boards" for one of the upcoming Stonebridge phases titled "Stonebridge Tech - Office, Condo, and Retail Center" and illustrating the massive skybridge concept connecting Stonebridge to the Tenk Bldg. On the matter of Dollar Bank bldg, its loss would be a enormous toothless gap on Euclid - on an aerial it looks like the building is twice the width of East 4th (from bldg face to bldg face)... unreal.

I very much agree. I think that what many fail to realize is how much land the County currently owns for their complex. They didn't simply purchase the Tower and Rotunda buildings, they control more than a block along East Ninth Street (bound by red)! With as much site that remains re-buildable (bound by yellow) if the Tower, Rotunda, and garage remains, I have a hard time justifying the monetary costs associated with demolishing the 29-story tower and the environmental costs in complete demo (not to mention forgoing the 'green' opportunities with preservation/reuse). And as PLJ has stated, the inefficiencies between the departments are over-hyped. When the Tower remains, there is plenty of site adjacent to the tower that could be built up around the tower to create large contiguous floor plates for certain departments that would benefit from such layouts. Not to mention communicating stairs and two-story spaces within the Tower to connect floors vertically. My biggest beef with the entire debate over the Tower is that too often (including the PD and AP articles) the discussion focuses too strongly on the merits of the building design or that of its designer (to me, the building is not 'sacred'). Its appearance is only skin deep due to the nature of its curtain wall construction! Discussions of a stylistic movement (that frankly, does not resonate with much of the public), has distracted from the what SHOULD BE the primary contention - should an adaptable, 30-year old, 29-story office tower in Downtown Cleveland be reused for our County government?

The topic of the Tower in this Commissioners' meeting was news to me... check out the agenda on their webpage (http://bocc.cuyahogacounty.us/) and note Item 23c where the Commissioners will vote on the abatement and demolition of the Tower contract going out to bid. From what AIA's release indicates, the Commissioners will hear statements from the public for the Tower's future. The meeting is on Thursday at 11:30 am in the Commissioners' Chambers at the County Admin Building on Ontario and Lakeside.

In response to this Thursday's Commissioners' Meeting in which supposedly, the Commissioners will vote upon whether the Cleveland Trust Tower will be torn down (or not), AIA released the following urgent bulletin to their listserve: "AIA Cleveland Urgent - Advocacy Bulletin" Cuyahoga County Commissioners to Determine Fate of Breuer Tower The Cuyahoga County Commissioners will be discussing the demolition of the Marcel Breuer designed Cleveland Trust (Ameritrust) Tower at it's next meeting at 11:30 AM on Thursday, March 29, 2007 at the Board of Cuyahoga County Commissioners Chambers, 1219 Ontario Street, 4th Floor. All AIA Cleveland Members are invited to attend the meeting and express their views on this matter. Over the course of the last several months, AIA Cleveland's Executive Board and Committee on Historic Resources has urged the Commissioners to reconsider demolishing the Tower and has called for them to conduct a comprehensive feasibility study of adaptively reusing the Breuer Tower for the new County Administration Center. If you cannot attend, please call or e-mail your position on this important matter directly to the Commissioners before Thursday's meeting. Their contact information is as follows: Commissioner Jimmy Dimora Phone (216) 443-7180 [email protected] Commissioner Peter Lawson Jones Phone (216) 443-7182 [email protected] Commissioner Timothy F. Hagan Phone (216) 443-7181 [email protected] AIA Cleveland Statement Cleveland, Ohio, January 30, 2007 - AIA Cleveland, a Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, urges The Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners to preserve and renovate the Cleveland Trust (Ameritrust) Tower. Designed by the pioneering modernist architect Marcel Breuer in 1971, the tower's prominent location, noteworthy design and contribution to downtown Cleveland's skyline, make the building potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. As stewards of the built environment, it is our community's responsibility to ensure that significant examples of modern architecture like the Cleveland Trust Tower endure for future generations. Furthermore, AIA Cleveland encourages the Commissioners to undertake a comprehensive feasibility study of adaptively reusing the Breuer Tower for the new County Administration Center. This study must thoroughly analyze the overall project development costs to the tax payers of Cuyahoga County and definitively justify the decisions made by the Commissioners. In addition, the impact of demolishing the twenty-nine story structure must be carefully considered from an economic, environmental and sustainability perspective. This study, coupled with a creative and transparent design process, will determine if and how the existing building can best meet the County's needs. Most importantly, we urge the County to engage the community during the decision making process so that all voices are heard on this major expenditure of public resources. AIA Cleveland stands ready to provide the Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners with assistance and counsel in this most important matter and we look forward to a constructive community dialogue on this issue.

From what I understand, the brick building that Ellison is renovating is an early German structure (early 1800's) designed in a particular German-American style (the name of which escapes me) - it represents a good example of this particular design style practiced by early German immigrants. As weepinwillow mentions, there are windows that will be exposed in the sides of the building after the wooden structures are removed (The wooden structures are in poor shape). When the brick structure was built, only orchards surrounded the building... one of the primary reasons the building is given some 'green' breathing room. It was the original intent of the building to be a stand-alone structure. Ellison desires to return it to this condition. Note that he has done beautiful renovations to a couple structures on Detroit (Snickers storefront building and Cleveland Public Theatre, are two of them). Web: www.dhellison.com The intent is well-informed (and likely will be well executed). I suspect that there may be differing opinions on whether Ellison should return the building to its orchard-like condition or allow it to respect the encroaching urbanity that was a result of the rapid growth of the city in the mid to late 19th century. I am pleased with Ellison's position. Note, D.H. Ellison is a classicist and while the building isn't "classical" in design, it is a beautiful historic structure. Ellison appears to be restoring many of its original features (some of which have been largely lost). It is a jewel. (I was enlightened by this bit of insight by members of his office, this is my best interpretation of the project intent)

from the Cleveland AIA announcement - 1/26/07: Cleveland Design Competition - Project 2007 Call for Entries The Greater Cleveland design community is proud to announce the 1st annual Cleveland Design Competition. Each year, the design competition will focus on under-utilized or high-profile Cleveland sites with solutions in architecture, urban design, and landscape architecture. These competitions will solicit thoughtful design solutions to the challenges of urban decay, provide a nationally-recognized forum for contemporary design expression, and direct the attention of the local and national design community to Cleveland's unique urban challenges and design opportunities as it re-establishes itself as a leader in art, culture, and design. Project 2007 is an open, single-stage ideas competition focusing on Irishtown Bend, a storied hillside along the Cuyahoga River's west bank in Cleveland's Industrial Valley. Despite the site's location between Cleveland's restored historic neighborhoods, the hillside and riverbank remain largely inaccessible and mostly forgotten under a blanket of riparian vegetation and unstable soils. The 2007 Cleveland Design Competition is a result of the efforts and generous support from local professionals and community groups who share a vision in which design can influence positive change in Cleveland. We are pleased to announce the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy as this years' Cleveland Design Competition Awards Sponsor. Please support the continually growing list of competition sponsors & partners by visiting the Cleveland Design Competition webpage. For more information about participating in the competition or learning about sponsorship opportunities, please visit the website at The 2007 Cleveland Design Competition or email Michael Christoff & Bradley Fink @ [email protected]. Call for Entries: January 26th Registration Deadline: April 16th Submission Deadline: May 1st Entry Fee: $30/single, $30/team, $200/studio (up to 15 student submissions) Awards: 1st/$2,000, 2nd/$1,000, 3rd /$500

Just a nit to pick, I think I'd be hesitant to list Cleveland Browns Stadium (architect: HOK Sports), Rock Hall (architect: IM Pei), Gund Arena (architect: Ellerbe Becket) as examples of Madison's design work. Instead, CSU's Science Center may be truly Madison's (I'm not sure), as well as Tri-C's theatre complex in Highland Hills for design/construction precedents. As for the new library/arts center at Tri-C Metro, I'm very excited to see this new construction on their campus. I have hope that this contribution will make the campus a bit less heavy concrete/brick plaza oppressive and more welcoming. I have no issue with its location... in fact, I think its great that this kind of investment will be made in one of the "forgotten" neighborhoods (that see little investment, outside of public housing) and that its I-77 presence will provide a much-needed visual and perceived facelift of CCC.

Great news, hope alternatives are seriously considered - other than flattening Deadman's Curve, I would rather see nothing built from ODOT's current plans in the trench and for the bridges. Maybe a change in state administration will provide an opportunity to consider other options.

A comment that Steven Fong made this evening that made an impression upon me was his statement about coordinating large public improvement projects to attract large private investments (like Stark's Warehouse District Plan). He asserted his feeling that re-structured zoning/planning codes and infrastructure improvements need to happen FIRST before big-time construction (such as those attracted to Toronto's lakefront) rise around Downtown Cleveland. I believe that Cleveland has made solid commitments to rebuilding and reinvesting in core infrastructure (Euclid Corridor, West Shoreway, OneCleveland, Water Dept.), and I would like to see the City (and region) continue with MAJOR investments along other multi-municipality corridors (Detroit-Superior, Lorain-Carnegie, regional rails, waterways) to reverse the direction of the NEO "conveyor belts". As it pertains to Stark's "Pesht"... start building this landbridge, bury the rails, pave streets, launch a wireless cloud, and generate a ton of excitement for this NEW downtown grid. One question posed to Stark was (paraphrasing) "When are we going to SEE something?"... If the City dives into the major improvements needed to bring the city grid to the lake (regardless who eventually develops along the streets), we WILL see progress. Lets see shovels in the ground tomorrow!

"Style Lounge Store of Premium Denim"... great to see a growing collection of clothing shops on West Ninth Street: JV Men's Clothing Loft, Suite Life, Brigade and now Style Lounge :-D

How about this Class 'A' office location - stripped of composite metal and renovated or new construction (heck, they'd only have to move across the street!):

Well said, Steve Litt!

It seems like the second round of interviews didn't turn out to be a competition of early design ideas like the commissioners led us to believe (considering each team was awarded a few thousand dollars to develop a concept, build models, render, etc.). From what I understand, the winning team didn't present much more in terms of design concepts than what we have seen published in the PD. I wonder if either, (a) the Commissioners weren't hooked on any design process from any team and had to decide based upon portfolio and team reputation, or (b) there are more political reasons involved than I can't really understand. I hope Mr. Litt can shed a bit of light on why this choice was made.

I would like to see what Gwathmey-Siegel produces. While I can't deny that some of the firm's initial popularity resulted from the associated reputation of the "New York Five," they also continue to produce a product that clients and users are excited about (do you think that most clients today actually care about who the New York Five are?) - doesn't that justify a successful result more than "progressive" designs that attempt to reinvent the way the public thinks about student centers? G-S is not a small firm. It reflects the talents of many designers instead of branding a building with their identity. I have a lot of confidence that their talents are able to come to a great solution - their reputations among "architecture circles" is not one-sided, and their portfolio displays the great as well as the not-so-great (I agree that Summit Co. Library is enjoyable, while I believe that Oberlin's dining hall is unsuccessful). I would consider CSU's decision to hire G-S as a good one (not that there aren't other great choices) - largely based upon the greater chances that our tax dollars have in creating a beautiful and enduring building. Of course I will be sure to offer my opinion when their design concept hits these pages. I'm glad that those making this decision weren't hynotized by the "stardust" left behind by Gehry at Case or Mayne at Cincinnati - their reputations as stewards of "progress" to these universities will quickly become recognized as either irresponsible financial decisions or join the ranks of CSU's existing Student Center and Breur's tower in the debate of what "ugly" is.