w28th

Will there be any public input for this project?

Public uses (bookstore, cafe, etc) should absolutely be fronting Euclid. Instead there is some empty lobby area that will offer nothing to the visuals on the street. It's simple responses to the urban condition that Gwathmey has never understood. This configuration is very similiar to the Akron Public Library, and that too is a disappointing structure. The street is the most interesting part of the city, and another CSU structure ignores it. Another missed opportunity.

Tuesday night at TC was also extremely crowded. It looked like everyone that took the bus in to work saw the backups and decided to take the Rapid. Could have used a third car...

Which building is it in this photo?

From rumors I've heard, the entries can't be represented by a professional firm. Individuals, teams, and students only. I think it's a great idea to again, level the playing field between established firms and up and coming designers.

Definetly recommend the carrot cake. The cream cheese frosting is the crack you are looking for.

It's definetly the same place and hasn't been remodeled from what I can tell. Been there for a while.

Cake is the newest? It's been there at least a year and a half. Their carrot cake is as good as it gets.

...and yes, the building looks terrible, typical Gwathmey. I can see the headlines 45 years from now, "plans to renovate neo-Modernist Charles Gwathmey's uninspired CSU Student Center considered..."

Schematic design shows the first signs of where a concept is heading. Obviously this is not a final product, but it is very telling of what it will look like. Generally, realites like structural/mech/elec and other considerations aren't dealt with in this phase, there will be pushing and pulling ahead, but barring a massive shift in direction, that is close to what we'll have on the CSU campus.

Gwathmey... always clumsy, and always a disappointment. I'd like to see plans if you have them to see the relationship to Euclid Avenue. Right up to the sidewalk right? Hopefully they can at least get that right.

^Those Huletts will always be a dead givaway.

Streetsboro has to be one of the worst places on earth.

I think the "silo" building in May Day's photos was executed by the Dutch firm MVRDV, the same firm that was in consideration for the CIA addition to the Ford Plant. Good stuff.

Did you simply mean the scale of the structures in those photos? If so, I agree. If not... Please, no more neo classical, fake corniced buildings. We have plenty of those to go around in the suburbs. We need progressive ideas to shape the aesthetics of our city. Europeans wouldn't dare try to replicate those structures on those websites from the above reply. Why are Americans so obsessed with trying to make things look old. We certainly wouldn't want to use a computer or an automobile with 19th century technology in our day to day lives, so why would you want our cities and dwellings to appear old? This city needs to define its point in history now, not fake something from 150 years ago.

w28th Live on West 28th in Cleveland. Also an integral part of my name.

It would be great to get the winning entry built, but the fact that this competition is totally theoretical allows those involved to develop concepts that may typically not be discovered in a brick and mortar realm. Being theoretical levels the playing field between young, up and coming designers (who may have the best ideas, but not the experience to neccessarily get it built) and established architecture firms (who may win simply because they can execute it). The ideas produced in these competitions over the years will start to push the envelope on what this city thinks it can become, and give it an international presence (there is an international sponsor from what I heard) in the scope of architecture and design. So I guess this then connects with what former Wimwar is saying with local developers paying attention to the ideas created from this and take advantage of the research. Totally agree, but let's get the ideas out on the fringes of reality, then hone them into a developable project. Doing it the opposite way is often problematic.

I shouldn't have come out with the personal attacks, I'm a little riled up today. This is a subject I am very concerned about and I may type out of line at times. I'll stick to the topic matter from here on out.

I have an urban design background, and I despise the architecture of this building for reasons I've already noted. It's not as easy as brilliant architects vs the idiot masses. Opinions are certainly split at all levels. And frankly, I have never heard a nice thing said about this building till someone said "but it's a Breuer!" Then all of a sudden it's significant or beautiful or whatever. Also restoration vs replacement with an uninspiring piece of garbage is a false dichotomy. Perhaps it could be replaced with a building that pushes the design envelope and interacts well with the surrounding neighborhood. I think we have more chance for positive intervention with a new building than with trying to make something out of what is there. Did everyone just figure out that it is a Breuer Building when a couple years ago or something? Obviously I don't want to start an architects vs the masses arguement, but from the renderings that we have all seen, I would say that 90% of the people on this board think the KPF (r.i.p. Fox) proposal is a terrible concept that has little to zero interaction with the rotunda. As for your "despising" the current tower x, you're the first person I've personally heard with the sort of background you have, to say this is a horrible building that must be wiped from the face of the earth. So what ever that means to you. Tearing down a building when there are plenty of surface parking lots because you think you are doing a public service for ridding the "masses" of an "ugly" building, really doesn't seem to be consistent with strong urban design principles. Also, saying a building is "ugly" is an ignorantly subjective statement that any 3rd grader could put forth. Try putting your urban design background into articulating your thoughts on the subject.

Knocking it down because supposedly 85% of the average people think it is ugly is the most idiotic thing I've heard to date. Why not trust the opinions of trained professionals (architects, and designers in general) in this case. Why does it seem so ridiculous to simply add onto the existing tower on the south side of the building to make the floor plates larger? Or let's get even crazier, let's building something that cantilevers over the 1010 Euclid Avenue Building and connects to the Breuer Tower. These ideas are much better than the plan of tearing it down and replacing it with some uninspired piece of garbage.

Don't worry Musky, Deech has never been accused of having a relavent comment in this thread

C'mon now, we could build nothing for 50 years and the skyline would still be more interesting than Columbus's'sss.

You're right, Salvation Army will stay.

As for demolition I was talking strictly about the block bounded by E14th, E18th, Prospect, Carnegie. Not sure what the plans are from E9th to E14th.

All the existing buildings on the site would be razed for the new construction, which in this case, I don't have a problem with.