January 12, 201213 yr John Marshall 5-4 approved for demolition. Phyllis Cleveland filling in for a member for the meeting "I dont really know a lot about preservation or architecture, but I do like new buildings. I vote demolition" and this cracked me up"If I could, I would put a ferris wheel in the middle of east 55th, but we cant have what we wish, only what is cost efficient" (referring to John Marshall renovation as maybe being best in a no money scenario). So I am pretty convinced the landmarks commission is broken. Between someone like Cleveland being allowed to substitute for a memeber and vote, complete disregard of public opinion, and all the council members on the commission having a tradition of voting in line with the ward councilpersons wishes, a new system needs to be in place. "but I do like new buildings. I vote demolition" On the landmarks (pretty much by definition "old buildings") commision. Just. Damn.
January 12, 201213 yr Phyllis Cleveland filling in for a member for the meeting "I dont really know a lot about preservation or architecture, but I do like new buildings. I vote demolition" I am completely dumbfounded and stunned. The landmarks commission needs to be disbanded...
January 12, 201213 yr That is totally not appropriate. Who was she filling in for? From the Cleveland Charter, Section 161.03 There is hereby created the Cleveland Landmarks Commission. The Commission shall consist of eleven members, seven of whom shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to the confirmation of Council. The remaining members shall be the Commissioner of Architecture, or his designee, the Director of the City Planning Commission, or his designee, who shall act as Secretary of the Landmarks Commission and two members appointed by the Council President to serve during the term of such Council. Members to be appointed by the Mayor shall be chosen from nominations made by the Western Reserve Historical Society, the Cleveland Chapter of the American Institute of Architects and the Early Settlers Association. At least one member shall be an owner of commercial or industrial real property; at least one member shall be a registered architect; at least one member shall be a historian qualified in the field of historic preservation; at least one member shall be a licensed real estate broker; at least one member shall be an attorney; and all members shall have, to the highest extent practicable, a known interest in landmarks preservation. The terms of members appointed by the Mayor next after the expiration of the two-year terms of the members of the Commission existing on the effective date of this section shall be: two (2) members, two-year terms; and five (5) members, four-year terms. Thereafter, the terms of all members appointed by the Mayor shall be four (4) years. The terms of members appointed by the President of the Council shall be four (4) years. Members may be reappointed. Members appointed by the Council President shall be appointed for terms of four (4) years. The members shall select a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman to serve for two (2) year terms. The members shall serve without compensation.
January 12, 201213 yr ..........and all members shall have, to the highest extent practicable, a known interest in landmarks preservation. "I dont really know a lot about preservation or architecture, but I do like new buildings. I vote demolition" WTF
January 13, 201213 yr Ima 2007 graduate of John Marshall and from the time I arrived there as a freshman to the time I left as a senior the place just kept getting worse. We never had heat, the whole building would smell like dead rodents and piss from the classrooms to the halls, you can look up and see through the cielings, and not to mention the floors were disgusting. On the outside very beautiful building that cannot be replaced so it would be sad to see it go :cry:
January 13, 201213 yr Voting record for Marshall demolition... Yea: Bob brown, Phyllis Cleveland, John Torres, brancatelli, bauccas? The city architect. Nay: Lauren balla, Tom coffeey, rattsteader, mason. . Phyllis was filling in for Allan Dreyer.
January 13, 201213 yr I heard Sweeny, the council pres and councilman of the ward choose her, thats just hearsay though. Oh and regarding the John Marshall Grad, I understand the school may have been in bad shape, thats why there was a complete renovation option, regardless of the vote, their would have been improvements. (Well they threatened it might fall through if anything less than new construction was allowed, I dont know how valid those threats were.) I think the biggest problem here is the complete disregard for public opinion, I mean the room was just full of energy, it was like the Columbia again, so many people came out to protest demolition, Satinder Puri brought 1200 signatures to the commission members, and gave a very impassioned speech, and quite honestly, the opposing side just sounded foolish. Their arguments included "What happens when all the kids who go to brand new grade schools have to go to this old high school, how will they deal with that", and "This neighborhood is really only residential, a landmark of John Marshall's size and stature is too much", and my favorite and most nonsensical "what about the children?" Yeah, and what is it about the children? How will preserving this building negatively impact them? Yet I am absolutely positive that after we all left they bullied some small business owner on the size and design of the sign for the business he is putting in a historic structure he renovated. Its all bullshit.
January 13, 201213 yr "but I do like new buildings. I vote demolition" On the landmarks (pretty much by definition "old buildings") commission. EXACTLY -- the purpose and definition of the landmarks commission is to decide the pros and cons of rehabilitation/preservation. This is an EMBARRASSMENT on so many levels.
January 13, 201213 yr If I felt as if the building was useless to renovate then I wouldn't be sad to see it go, so I do agree that renovation was the right thing to do in this instance since you can't replace the character of this beautiful building. Man, this really hurts :\ attended JMH for 4 years, even played football and to think that the building will no longer be there is upsetting.
January 13, 201213 yr I'm told the vote for demolition was 7-4, not 5-4. Can someone please clarify this for me? "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 13, 201213 yr I'm told the vote for demolition was 7-4, not 5-4. Can someone please clarify this for me? Regardless of what the vote was, the fact that there are people who are voting with no knowledge of preservation/reuse/history means there's no reason to have a landmarks commission and the system is broken. Even if the vote was 9-0 or 11-0 for demolition, but I knew they were doing their job by logically defending their reason for destruction, I would say "OK it must be the proper decision." BUT when the website of the Landmarks Commission states: The Commission conducts a continuing survey of historic properties within the City for the purposes of designation as a Cleveland Landmark and/or listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Commission also informs citizens about the architectural and historical heritage of Cleveland. AND the possible tie-breaking vote that brings out the wrecking balls is heard saying "I do like new buildings. I vote demolition"...there is something disgustingly WRONG.
January 13, 201213 yr The fate of the city's public school buildings is just so depressing. With a few exceptions, the fact that the city has built any new schools at all given its declining population is a pretty sharp indictment of the district's ability to maintain its properties and the state's capital investment program. It's just so messed up.
January 13, 201213 yr The fate of the city's public school buildings is just so depressing. With a few exceptions, the fact that the city has built any new schools at all given its declining population is a pretty sharp indictment of the district's ability to maintain its properties and the state's capital investment program. It's just so messed up. I'm not sure if the Cleveland buildings are part of this program, but I know the state has been kicking in money to replace school buildings. Maple Heights has been replacing *all* of them, with the exception of the stand-alone athletic center, over the past couple of years. Supposedly the state kicked in like 51% of the tab.
January 13, 201213 yr ^I think the state has indeed been bankrolling much of Cleveland's capital program too. And the state has a general rule requiring new build if renovation would cost at least 2/3rds as much. Districts can obtain waivers, but I think it generally reflects a statewide bias against renovation, even when it might make sense. A default 2/3 rule is a piss poor substitute for a full lifecycle analysis.
January 13, 201213 yr ^I think the state has indeed been bankrolling much of Cleveland's capital program too. And the state has a general rule requiring new build if renovation would cost at least 2/3rds as much. Districts can obtain waivers, but I think it generally reflects a statewide bias against renovation, even when it might make sense. A default 2/3 rule is a piss poor substitute for a full lifecycle analysis. Bingo. In the case of Marshall, the cost of renovation was cheaper than New construction; however, the state would pay for a portion of the new construction and not the renovation. As a result, the city of Cleveland would pay less to build a new school than it would to renovate it.
January 14, 201213 yr KJP, aren't there only 10 members? The chair only votes in a tie too, no way 7-4.
January 14, 201213 yr Yes. I now know the vote was 5-4. And you all are not going to like this, but Marty Sweeney can name two people to the commission. He had previously named Allan Dreyer (City Council's deputy clerk) to serve on the commission. But he replaced Dreyer with Phyllis Cleveland for last week's vote on Marshall because of Dreyer's "conflict of interest." Anyone know what the conflict was? I'll ask Sweeney, but I was wondering if anyone knows. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 17, 201213 yr I will have an article in Thursday's paper. Between the pro-new construction stipulations that come with state funding, John Marshall High School didn't have a chance. The antics of the Landmarks Commission were just a sideshow to the ultimate goal of grabbing the state funding. Albeit a sadly entertaining sideshow, like watching a train wreck. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 17, 201213 yr I have reached out as an upset, well, furious taxpaying citizen who wants an explanation of why Martin Sweeney selected Phyllis Cleveland to the board for this vote. I have made some calls to the Planning Commission but got the assistant to the assistant of Martin Sweeney's voicemail. It's a start - we deserve an answer and good reasoning. It's not fair and frankly it's wrong. I suggest we all step up, this is where I draw the line on what I sit back and watch happen to our beautiful architecture. This makes me sick. This could have slipped away but Ms. Cleveland opened her mouth and said what she said, which is an insult to those who trust that those decision makers are educated and neutral to the matter at hand.
January 17, 201213 yr All will be explained in this week's Sun Post Herald. Remember, as our old slogan says, the Sun comes out on Thursday! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 18, 201213 yr I have reached out as an upset, well, furious taxpaying citizen who wants an explanation of why Martin Sweeney selected Phyllis Cleveland to the board for this vote. I have made some calls to the Planning Commission but got the assistant to the assistant of Martin Sweeney's voicemail. It's a start - we deserve an answer and good reasoning. It's not fair and frankly it's wrong. I suggest we all step up, this is where I draw the line on what I sit back and watch happen to our beautiful architecture. This makes me sick. This could have slipped away but Ms. Cleveland opened her mouth and said what she said, which is an insult to those who trust that those decision makers are educated and neutral to the matter at hand. The reasoning is simple. He knew his consituents were against demolition, but knew the deck was stacked in its favor. He appointed someone else to vote so he could have it both ways.
January 18, 201213 yr Well, I am excited for Thursday KJP! Always good to know we have a good reporter here! :)
January 21, 201213 yr I don't like to post my own articles, but since no one else did I wasn't sure if anyone knew it was posted yet... Cleveland Landmarks Commission clears way for John Marshall High school demolition Published: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 10:03 AM Updated: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 12:31 PM By Ken Prendergast, Sun News CLEVELAND - John Marshall High School has a date with the wrecking ball. But preservationists haven’t given up the fight and are considering their legal recourse. The city’s Landmarks Commission voted 5-4 in a contentious hearing Jan. 12 to remove landmark status for the 80-year-old facility, thus clearing the way for the Cleveland school district to demolish the building, located at 3952 W. 140th St. In its place will be a new, $21-million school. District officials said a new building will be cheaper than partial renovation ($27 million) or full renovation ($32 million). State funding will pay a significant portion of the cost, but comes with requirements that favor new schools instead renovating old ones. READ MORE AND SEE RENDERING AT: http://www.cleveland.com/sunpostherald/index.ssf/2012/01/cleveland_landmarks_commission.html "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 21, 201213 yr This might be the only time those comments after the article are good. Maybe because its the Sun and the regular posters are too busy whining about Dimora over in some other article. Oh and nice article btw, everything seems perfectly accurate.
January 21, 201213 yr good job KJP! Did anyone feel like "oh wow, people are paying attention, we better shape up" or was it more like, "pfft, landmarks, haha?"
February 2, 201213 yr Gee, I think this means the city wants Fenn Tower demolished. At best, landmark designations have proven to be meaningless in Cleveland... City Planning Commission Agenda for February 3, 2012 Ordinance No. 72-12(Ward 8/Councilman J. Johnson): Designating Fenn Tower (also known as the National Town and Country Club) as a Cleveland Landmark. http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2012/02032012/index.php "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 2, 201213 yr City Planning Commission Agenda for February 3, 2012 EUCLID CORRIDOR DESIGN REVIEW EC2012-002: Bio Enterprise parking garage proposed Demolition Project Location: 11000 Cedar Avenue Project Representative: Robert Donaldson, Bostwick Design Partnership NO PICTURE EAST DESIGN REVIEW (Not presented to DRAC): Demolition of ----- Building Project Location: 13925-27 Kinsman Avenue Project Representative: Damian Borkowski, City of Cleveland NO PICTURE EAST2012-XXX: Demolition of 2-Story Commercial Building Project Location: 17410-20 Harvard Avenue Project Representative: Damian Borkowski, City of Cleveland NORTHEAST DESIGN REVIEW NE2012-003: Demolition of 1-Story Commercial Building Project Location: 10522 Superior Avenue Project Representative: Ron O’Leary, City of Cleveland NE2012-004: Demolition of Former Industrial Building Project Location: 6517-6519 St. Clair Avenue Project Representative: Ron O’Leary, City of Cleveland NE2012-008: Demolition of 2-Story Commercial Building Project Location: 6321 St. Clair Avenue Project Representative: Ron O’Leary, City of Cleveland NO PICTURE http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2012/02032012/index.php "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 15, 201213 yr "Yeah. It was this building: http://g.co/maps/gfdxu" "the Alhambra Apartments on Wade Park Ave in Hough are being demoed" 2 more casualties in Clevleand's unstoppable march towards... I have been told that only the section currently demolished is coming down at this time.
February 16, 201213 yr *ALARM BELLS* :-( Cleveland's Stanley Block Building faces demolition after owner fails to make it safe http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/02/clevelands_stanley_block_build.html
February 16, 201213 yr This really comes as no surprise. However it irks me that The Columbia Bldg was razed to save The Stanley Block Building and now we are told this has to go as well. The Columbia Bldg should have been saved and The Casino Welcome Center structure reworked within the footprint of The Stanley Block removed. The Columbia Bldg could have been a boutique hotel or housing. Shame on The City,the owners/and the developers.
February 16, 201213 yr Just so nobody gets too disapointed, the Stanley was not saved over the Columbia, no matter what Rock Ohio Caesar wants you to believe (they did pit the one against the other as a preservation issue "we thought the stanley was more significant, so we incorporated that"). In reality, they did not and still do not own the stanley block, and can't tear it down. They did own the Columbia, and had the power to overcome (or manipulate) city hall. There were two options, Columbia, or Columbia and Stanley. The only scenario where the columbia could have been saved was had landmarks stopped it, the Columbia was never sacrificed for the stanley.
February 16, 201213 yr True. But I do believe if The Maloofs had sold their share in The Stanley Block Building to Dan Gilbert the argument can be made that The Columbia could have been saved and the parking structure designed around The Columbia. The argument was made from the developers there was no way to save The Columbia with the footprint of The Stanley Block as a hurdle.
February 16, 201213 yr Like all landlord holdouts who think they can get a big payday from an eager developer, this is only about money, and the building will be destroyed as soon as the two sides come to an accommodation. The City is just putting the screws to them so they come to some agreement before the building is condemned (and the City clearly favors demolition). I guess the Maloofs could decide not to cave, let the building be demolished, and still not sell the land - but at that point, it would be pure spite. I do not believe for one second the Maloofs truly intend to restore the building. That's just posturing. It's as good as gone.
February 16, 201213 yr True. But I do believe if The Maloofs had sold their share in The Stanley Block Building to Dan Gilbert the argument can be made that The Columbia could have been saved and the parking structure designed around The Columbia. The argument was made from the developers there was no way to save The Columbia with the footprint of The Stanley Block as a hurdle. The argument can be made, but since the Maloofs did not sell, it's a moot point.
March 11, 201213 yr Several residential demolitions on Thursday's (March 8 ) Landmarks Commission agenda....... http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2012/03082012/index.php 4. Magnolia-Wade Park Historic District: Case 11-082 11600-02 Ashbury Avenue Demolition Ward 9 - Conwell 5. Magnolia-Wade Park Historic District: Case 11-083 11120 Ashbury Avenue Demolition Ward 9 - Conwell 8. Miles Park Historic District 9006 Miles Park Avenue Demolition Ward 2 - Reed "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 21, 201213 yr Cross-referenced from the Horseshoe Casino thread....... City of Cleveland's lawsuit against Stanley Block owners set for trial April 5 in housing court Published: Tuesday, March 20, 2012, 7:45 PM Updated: Tuesday, March 20, 2012, 8:01 PM By Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer CLEVELAND, Ohio - There was no resolution Tuesday on the future of the Stanley Block building. The Cleveland Housing Court has set a trial for April 5 on the city of Cleveland's lawsuit to force Macron Investment Co. to clean up or raze the historic building. The court also has scheduled a March 30 settlement conference -- giving the city and the condemned building's owners another chance to reach a resolution before a trial. READ MORE AT: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/03/city_of_clevelands_lawsuit_aga.html "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 28, 201213 yr Owner of Stanley Block building ordered to fix it or tear it down by Cleveland Housing Court judge Published: Friday, April 27, 2012, 8:38 PM Updated: Friday, April 27, 2012, 10:38 PM By Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The company that owns the Stanley Block building in downtown Cleveland must address safety problems next week and either demolish or diligently repair the property, according to a decision issued Friday by the Cleveland Housing Court. In a 10-page ruling, Judge Raymond Pianka ordered Macron Investment Co., which owns the dilapidated, historic building, to quickly address potential safety issues. If the company decides to demolish the structure, which sits in the middle of a welcome center and garage for Cleveland's new casino, Macron must apply for a demolition permit by May 13th and start work soon after. But the company still can restore the building. And Macron's current building permit, for repair work at the property, doesn't expire until March 2013. READ MORE AT: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/04/owners_of_stanley_block_buildi.html "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 28, 201213 yr Owner of Stanley Block building ordered to fix it or tear it down by Cleveland Housing Court judge Published: Friday, April 27, 2012, 8:38 PM Updated: Friday, April 27, 2012, 10:38 PM By Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The company that owns the Stanley Block building in downtown Cleveland must address safety problems next week and either demolish or diligently repair the property, according to a decision issued Friday by the Cleveland Housing Court. In a 10-page ruling, Judge Raymond Pianka ordered Macron Investment Co., which owns the dilapidated, historic building, to quickly address potential safety issues. If the company decides to demolish the structure, which sits in the middle of a welcome center and garage for Cleveland's new casino, Macron must apply for a demolition permit by May 13th and start work soon after. But the company still can restore the building. And Macron's current building permit, for repair work at the property, doesn't expire until March 2013. READ MORE AT: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/04/owners_of_stanley_block_buildi.html Seems the Judge solved the who's-obligated/not-obligated-to-pay, but also put Stanley on borrowed time... at least that's my read. Maloof wants to rehab, but has no money (or sway over the squabling/litigating shareholders). Gilbert holds half the stock in Macron and wants to swing the wrecking ball ASAP. And meanwhile the building continues to fall apart. RIP Stanley Building, for absent a miracle, your days are numbered.... damn shame that greed, selfishness and a lack of cooperation are conspiring to doom a most noteworthy, usable and historic building.
May 15, 201213 yr Sad to see Huron Hospital coming down. It was a very nice looking building from the outside imo.
May 16, 201213 yr ^It's not an exact match, but that view bears a resemblance to the postmodern James Cancer Center at theOSU. clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
May 24, 201213 yr Wow, Huron came down fast. East Cleveland is coming down fast. It's a sad waste that we have destroy a community in order to save it. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 24, 201213 yr Oh, here's a nice comparison of the intersection of Broadway at Orange avenues, both being widened in 1927.... Compared to today: And this is how we got there in the 1950s..... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
Create an account or sign in to comment