MikeInCanton

Been awhile since I made a post in this series. Hoping to add to it soon!

At the time, MLS was going through a suburban stadium boom (Chicago, Dallas, Colorado, and Real Salt Lake building in Frisco, TX; Bridgeview, IL; Commerce City, CO; and Sandy, UT). That stadium would have been par for the course. While those stadiums have been largely unsuccessful (Chicago, for example, just paid $60m to move back to Soldier Field), I would say having a team is better than not having one. It would have been relatively easy for Cleveland to get a team if that stadium were built; the league was practically begging for new teams. Now, as someone else mentioned, it would likely take quite a while to get in (short of an FC Cincy sort of fan presence that would be impossible to ignore).

I had a then-and-now photo series awhile back that included the McKinley Grand: I wouldn't hate it if they decided to demolish the current building and replace it with something more "historically appropriate" to downtown. Pessimistically, I suspect if they did tear it down, what replaced it would be cookie-cutter hotel chic.

I'm sure a few here remember this, but for those who don't...Cleveland had a shot at MLS about 15 years ago. IIRC, they wanted to put a stadium + shopping development in the Macedonia area. The early stadium rendering: I believe the project eventually lost to some sort of waste treatment project.

Greystone Court is a great building. Not sure why anyone would want that torn down!

What about the way it looks? That was a not "joke", it was a clear passive aggressive dig.

What looks great about it? And what does my hometown have to do with anything?

This is literally nothing good about this building. From these angles it's clearly a hodgepodge of styles. It's a slightly bricked version the angular messes invading suburbs across the country.

Except it literally is not. Beauty is a universal. As is ugliness. Every school of architecture can produce a beautiful building, but Modernism does it the least and does not match the beauty of others. No one looks at a Modernist building with the same awe as a Gothic Church or a Classical amphitheater unless they're insane. Hearst is boring. Putting polygonal shapes on a building is what happens when we design buildings with math equations. Architecture has been an art as much as science. Modernism seeks to remove the artistic resulting in these sorts of cold, calculated, sterile, secular boxes that occasionally try to be unique by putting on a red hat.

1. Hyperbole is an exaggeration made to prove a point. It is not in it of itself "over the top". 2. Now you're just being dense. 3. So you think all that it takes to blend is slapping brick on something? Says a lot, really. 4. Complete truth. Judging by your willingness to deliberately misrepresent my statements, I'm going to have to say you're sufficiently upset that someone doesn't like this building.

I'm sure it will be there for awhile. The 25 years comment was not meant to present a definitive lifespan. However, it reminds me of Bliss Tower in Canton, and I'm sure will age just as well. Beauty is not subjective, and arguing (pretending) it is has played a great part in landing us where we are aesthetically. The ability to see beauty or be captivated by it may vary but humans more or less find the same things beautiful. Classical and traditional architecture is usually beautiful and often people in communities actively try to save those buildings and repurpose them. The same can rarely be said for Modernist buildings. People don't like them and the only ones who seem to appreciate them are architects. So the stereotype of Modernist architecture being out of touch architecture for architects by architects seems to be generally a truth. Hubbard Park is particle board cheapness. Getting the aesthetics more right is only half the battle.

1. Hyperbole. 2. I didn't say it was brutalism. I said all-glass is 21st century brutalism, as in all the warmth and charm of concrete on concrete. 3. It's lazy because it's just brick with no attempts to blend in with the surrounding buildings' styles. 4. It looks exactly like Soldier Field especially in the context of the neighborhood; it looks like a small space ship has decided to land on top of a brick building. I did not call it brutalism. Go back and read again.

What does the curve bring? Why does it belong in the Short North? The Short North doesn't need visibility. Egoism. Pure egoism.

Yes, it is. And I'm taking it to the grave!

What is over the top about it? My comparison to brutalism? Not singing the praising of Modernism? If it's not apparent by now, I'll just state it flat-out: I think Modernist architecture is the absolute worst. I prefer striving for beauty above "newness" and what's strictly economical. "Newness" and "efficient" have given us the worst architecture in the history of mankind the last 70-odd years. I am giving my honest assessment of the building. I think it is ugly and boring and lazy. I'm sorry if that is upsetting for a few people here.