is this the final design? anyways, i think it will look good, i like it.

Convention hotel design has the potential to contribute to Cleveland skyline, but still needs refinement

 

The architects of the new Cleveland Convention Center hotel envision a svelte, glassy tower tall enough to make a sizable impact on the downtown skyline and to grab views of Lake Erie from just about every room.

 

Yet they also want the hotel to fit comfortably amid the nearly century-old neoclassical civic buildings in the city’s historic Group Plan District, conceived by Chicago architect Daniel Burnham in 1903.

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2013/11/convention_hotel_design_has_th.html

The more I look at it the more I like it.  I really like the podium and it's nod to the Burnham plan.  If the eastern placement of the tower is due to Keith's reasoning then I understand but I would like to see just a little something added/removed/etc to that east side to maybe make it appear more as if the tower is coming out of the podium.

 

I think it's less a nod than a middle finger.  "Yeah, we see your coordinated building lines, and the architectural rhythm and sense of space it creates.  We're going to do the same, but on the other side of the building.  Ha-ha, f' your Group Plan!" 

 

That or somebody just accidentally rotated the building 180 in each rendering.  Also possible.

 

Other than that the tower is inoffensive boilerplate modernism.

 

I don't disagree with you but I should've been more clear when I mentioned that I may understand the rationale of the placement of the tower.  Obviously the proposed west side of the development fits 10,000x better on the mall which is why I mentioned the proposed east side needs more elements of the west side to somewhat make up for it.

 

I'd love something more drastic with the tower but I wasn't expecting that.  Hopefully they hear all of these arguments next week as I won't be able to make it to the discussion.

Streaming right now live presentation to council. I'm on my phone driving over 3g keeps buffering. Someone jump on if they can.

http://council.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/Streaming-Video.aspx

The 300 space underground garage costs $60,000 per space and takes up first floor space and takes up Hamilton Avenue. They said they are looking into removing the garage from the plan and making a connection to the Huntington Courthouse Garage and do something different with Hamilton Avenue.

 

Also a lady on the council asked if they they looked into whether or not this building will block lake views from other buildings and that that should be addressed (which I see as ridiculous) and they say that is why they rotated the building.

 

Someone else asked about the skylift and they said theyd be open to the idea if funding was available but they arent funding it or building a port without funding, but the idea could be done on top of the podium.

Additional insight into why it was placed on the east side of the parcel: "To preserve the vista towards the courthouse"

"Boiler plate modernism," X, I couldn't agree with you more.  This isn't surprising considering their portfolio of work.

The relationship they're trying to get with the diagonal line across the facade to mimic the slope of Mall B is such a lame reach among many other issues.

OMG thank you w28th! Architects are ridiculous with weird connections like a weird diagonal line. No one will notice that. How about you match the architecture of the surrounding buildings instead of the slope of a field. Grrrr. Rant over.

 

So-so.

Not sure if it "goes with" the med mart...

Can someone please find examples of a building that would mix well with the Burnham plan, that is 31 stories and houses a hotel. I am getting tired of hearing people bitch, but no one has posted anything that would be a perfect fit. Experts, show us an example!

I think if the tower was on ontario, it would mix well

 

So-so.

Not sure if it "goes with" the med mart...

 

Incredibly glad it doesn't go with the med mart. That was a missed opportunity and I'm pleased the architects are steering clear of the concrete box design.

 

I really like the new design. It's sleek and will be a great addition to the skyline.

I'm not a fan of "toothpick on a table-top" design that is typical of modern convention hotels, and this one is no different. It has no mass or weight in the skyline. I would rather see a stocky design that fills the space more effectively. Too bad they didn't show renders of the L-shaped tower.

 

As for the design itself, we'll all be better off when architects drop the notion that all glass facades are considered modern. It lacks creativity. Litt's article mentioned they are still deciding on stone versus pre-cast concrete for the pedestal features. Turner used concrete for the Med Mart facade and it looks mediocre at best. Use a quality stone.

 

With that said, I'm sure the final renders will look better when the details are worked out.

It is growing on me … a little. I'm still bothered by the tower's position flush with the mall. Anyway, all day I have been trying to think of what building this reminds me of … it finally hit me! The old Trango Tower proposal for Denver more than a decade ago. Certainly they're quite different, but I guess it was the angles and the cutout that evoked it somewhat.

 

Can someone please find examples of a building that would mix well with the Burnham plan, that is 31 stories and houses a hotel. I am getting tired of hearing people bitch, but no one has posted anything that would be a perfect fit. Experts, show us an example!

 

It's not going to be a perfect fit, and there isn't another building out there that would be.  But if you rotated this building 180 degrees it would be on the right path.  The tower portion of the building would be set back from the main building line that people would see while on the Mall.  It would echo the lines of the other buildings around the Mall, which would help to create a cohesive and defined space.  The Tower could rise up behind that, no problem.

 

I think the fundamental problem is the idea that they think they need to keep the tower away from the Justice Center.  I'm not sure what the purpose of that is, really.  Sure it's ugly, but it doesn't go out of view because you locate the tower 100' further away from it.

 

"Boiler plate modernism," X, I couldn't agree with you more.  This isn't surprising considering their portfolio of work.

The relationship they're trying to get with the diagonal line across the facade to mimic the slope of Mall B is such a lame reach among many other issues.

 

They're focusing their "make it appropriate to the site" energy on the things that don't matter, or really even make sense.

They're focusing their "make it appropriate to the site" energy on the things that don't matter, or really even make sense.

 

Is anybody surprised the design is all over the place? There was that public meeting a couple months ago where Cooper probably got all sorts of stupid suggestions. It must be modern, but fit in with the existing buildings. It must be tall, but not look out of place. Etc.

well its pretty lazy, but its ok and kind of what i expected. i thought the same of the flats bldg from the renders too, but that turned out ok, so i'm in the lets wait and see camp. glad to see some height, more than we expected, so thats definately exciting. an initial question mark is the ground level. i hope it isnt so fortress-like as it appears?

They're focusing their "make it appropriate to the site" energy on the things that don't matter, or really even make sense.

 

Is anybody surprised the design is all over the place? There was that public meeting a couple months ago where Cooper probably got all sorts of stupid suggestions. It must be modern, but fit in with the existing buildings. It must be tall, but not look out of place. Etc.

 

The components of the base are like Jackson Pollock architecture.  Just throw a bunch of sh!t at it and see what sticks.  But maybe that's a bit unfair without fully seeing a rendering of all sides.

I was mostly surprised that the hotel was the entire length of the podium along its North and South orientation. It makes it look clunky to me.  I think it would be better to not have it the entire length of the podium.  It should be built up along Lakeside and leave about 50 feet or so of just the podium toward the South near the Medical Mart.

 

Then, the building could be even higher to accommodate all of the rooms. I think it could be 40 or 50 feet higher and still have the less expensive mat foundation.  The PNC building is 411 feet and has a mat foundation and I believe the Stokes federal courthouse has the same foundation and is 430 feet.

 

Otherwise, I agree with Litt that the building needs something at the top to be more graceful.  Maybe the portion with the extra story at the top could have a circular element on top of it with a spire.  Something like the new World Trade Center in New York, but with a much better spire.

is this the final design of the hotel?

^I don't think so.  The PD article said they still have refinements to make based on comments.

Additional insight into why it was placed on the east side of the parcel: "To preserve the vista towards the courthouse"

 

In the spirit of this being a government project, compromise! Put the tower in the middle of the podium! It preserves the vista toward the courthouse yet doesn't put a sheer, 31-story cliff on the mall.

I'm not initially impressed with the design and I think I'm more disappointed about this:

 

"Alas, there will be no rooftop bar and restaurant. Bullock and Neal said that providing the dedicated elevator shaft to serve those public spaces would have gobbled up floor space that could otherwise be used for revenue-generating rooms.

 

Instead, on the hotel’s 25th floor, they’ve designed a two-level, multi-purpose space with a north-facing outdoor terrace, both of which could be rented for weddings, receptions or other events."

 

Available to the public, if you rent it out...

 

 

In the spirit of this being a government project, compromise!....

 

this doesnt sound like any government i know

My initial reaction is mixed.  The only wish is the base align with the height specs of the original Burnham Mall plans.  Right now it doesnt appear to align with anything. Other than that it has a good start for refinement

 

The Burnham plan in my opinion was a failure from the start. I don't mind varying from it, as we already have.

Can someone please find examples of a building that would mix well with the Burnham plan, that is 31 stories and houses a hotel. I am getting tired of hearing people bitch, but no one has posted anything that would be a perfect fit. Experts, show us an example!

 

It's not going to be a perfect fit, and there isn't another building out there that would be.

 

They could build David Ellison's proposed casino building from 2005 ;-)

 

http://groupplan.dhellison.com/proposed_casino.php

 

It is growing on me … a little. I'm still bothered by the tower's position flush with the mall. Anyway, all day I have been trying to think of what building this reminds me of … it finally hit me! The old Trango Tower proposal for Denver more than a decade ago. Certainly they're quite different, but I guess it was the angles and the cutout that evoked it somewhat.

 

 

For me, this design instantly reminded me of the new Ft. Worth Omni Hotel

I'm not initially impressed with the design and I think I'm more disappointed about this:

 

"Alas, there will be no rooftop bar and restaurant. Bullock and Neal said that providing the dedicated elevator shaft to serve those public spaces would have gobbled up floor space that could otherwise be used for revenue-generating rooms.

 

Instead, on the hotel’s 25th floor, they’ve designed a two-level, multi-purpose space with a north-facing outdoor terrace, both of which could be rented for weddings, receptions or other events."

 

Available to the public, if you rent it out...

 

 

whaat? a rooftop bar/restaurant wouldnt be revenue-generating? hmm, from the fortress like street level to the lack of a roof or top floor bar it seems like the general public is shut out of this building. that's a huge, huge mistake. on the lake.

 

 

^ I would think public access would be considered one of their priorities, since, you know, we're paying for it.

^ I would think public access would be considered one of their priorities, since, you know, we're paying for it.

 

Their priority is to make money and they will make more money having the space rented out for $$$ wedding receptions, then a bar.

Isn't there a public restaurant planned for the second floor?

Additional insight into why it was placed on the east side of the parcel: "To preserve the vista towards the courthouse"

 

In the spirit of this being a government project, compromise! Put the tower in the middle of the podium! It preserves the vista toward the courthouse yet doesn't put a sheer, 31-story cliff on the mall.

 

The further you get away from the Justice Center, the less it's in the view of guests and the more the lake comes into view.  While a bit longer in the north-south dimension, is a 31-storey cliff really that much worse than a 57 storey one?  Personally I could care less about the Burnham Plan, and the only way to really make the proportions of it work are to put tall buildings along its perimeter.  If the plan were rotated 180 degrees the effect would be much like 200 Public Square in relation to the square.  I think we'd all agree that the old Williamson Building, with its primary mass going straight up from the property line, was a more appropriate approach to that site.

Yea I don't fully get the whole "doesn't keep with the plan" argument. Didn't key tower pretty much blow that out of the water? I'm just glad it's less grey/brown and more glassy... Hopefully they keep the blue color.  Our current skyline is very heavy looking, we need some nice modern glassy buildings to break it up. It's not perfect but it's going in the right direction, I think

Channel 3 Story on hotel with some renderings. http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/2013/11/12/convention/3511367/

Channel 3 Story on hotel with some renderings. http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/2013/11/12/convention/3511367/

He keeps saying 25 Stories, I thought it was taller than that.

All in all I am ok with the tower being up against the mall. And I think that is mostly driven by the proximity of the Justice Ctr. I think they feared guests being able to stare at JimmyDimora in cellblock #13 which would be about 75 ft away. And even though it goes against what I perceive as tradition of the mall layout I do like the way it hugs that corner. I'm waiting for more detail of the east facade it's hard to judge from the current renders. This building is definitely going to shake things up a bit, which is great.

Also from what I saw of the presentation yesterday it was indicated that the podium will most likely have a green roof and that is in the budget. He made it sounds like it will be an event space. And as far as the 2 level space toward the top of the building. It doesn't say it won't be open to the public, it only says it can be rented out. I'm sure there will opportunities for the general public to visit it.

Lastly why is everyone in the media reporting this to be a 25 story building. Unless the renderings are misleading I count 38 floors or levels. Count the floors it's obvious. Hotel/resedential floors are about 3.1meters. The floors in the podium will be taller. In comparison a newly constructed 38 floor hotel in HoChiMin is 135meters about 443 feet.

As the PD reported it is 30 stories. 3 stories + 27 above. That is what I count in the rendering.

SO will this be taller than the Justic Center?

Idk unless the curtain wall is misleading I got 39 stories, not floors.

The podium is four stories - and since they include ballroom and meeting room space, those stories will have higher ceilings than the hotel room floors.

^ PD did report 4 on second look it does look like 4.

Idk unless the curtain wall is misleading I got 39 stories, not floors.

 

I think that there is rooftop mechanical that has curtain wall surrounding it. 

Stories and floors aside, have the architects indicated how many feet tall the building will be? The Medical Mutual Bldg is 450 feet tall (with 31 stories) and the 5/3 Bldg is 446 feet tall (with 28 floors).

 

After Key, BP, the Terminal Tower, and Erieview---this hotel could be the 5th or 6th tallest building in the city. Not too shabby.

 

From the initial review--I think its okay--nothing spectacular yet not horrible either. However, they could have easily put 600 rooms on ten floors---I think its great that they went with height.

^I was under the impression that it would rise to approx 370ft, which would place it 11th.... right between "the M on 9th" and the AT&T bldg.  Don't focus so much on the number of floors for comparison because hotel ceiling heights are shorter than their office bldg counterparts.  I suppose a final decision on height (and design) will depend on some very important decisions such as whether they will use a slab base and/or what to do about the proposed parking garage.

Stories and floors aside, have the architects indicated how many feet tall the building will be? The Medical Mutual Bldg is 450 feet tall (with 31 stories) and the 5/3 Bldg is 446 feet tall (with 28 floors).

 

Medical Mutual as in Chisel?

Stories and floors aside, have the architects indicated how many feet tall the building will be? The Medical Mutual Bldg is 450 feet tall (with 31 stories) and the 5/3 Bldg is 446 feet tall (with 28 floors).

 

Medical Mutual as in Chisel?

 

Да (translated from Russian: "yes")

The more I look at the renderings, the more I'm reminded of the former Westgate resorts tower in Las Vegas:

 

 

I'm really hoping the facade is anything but a shimmering flat glass wall like the above or the JW Marriott in Indianapolis. I'm also wondering about that angled section... depending on how the sun hits, could that have a 'death ray' effect like other buildings have had issues with?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/sep/06/walkie-talkie-architect-predicted-reflection-sun-rays

 

I'm also wondering about that angled section... depending on how the sun hits, could that have a 'death ray' effect like other buildings have had issues with?

Angled sections don't cause "death rays", shiny concave sections cause them.

The more I look at the renderings, the more I'm reminded of the former Westgate resorts tower in Las Vegas:

 

 

I'm really hoping the facade is anything but a shimmering flat glass wall like the above or the JW Marriott in Indianapolis. I'm also wondering about that angled section... depending on how the sun hits, could that have a 'death ray' effect like other buildings have had issues with?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/sep/06/walkie-talkie-architect-predicted-reflection-sun-rays

 

That does look really close, and it is also a Hilton.  The height of the Vegas tower is greater, but aesthetically, looks very similar.