From cleveland.com:

 

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

on November 23, 2013 at 7:38 PM, updated November 24, 2013 at 5:54 AM

 

Peter B. Lewis, the brash, iconoclastic and philanthropically generous chairman of Progressive Corp. died Saturday at his home in Coconut Grove, Fla.

 

Jennifer Frutchy, Lewis's philanthropic adviser, said Lewis died between 3 and 4 p.m., apparently of natural causes. He was 80.

 

During a career that lasted more than half a century, Lewis grew Mayfield-based Progressive Corp. from a tiny 100-person firm to the fourth-largest auto insurance company in the U.S., with $17 billion in premiums and 26,000 employees nationwide.

 

More at: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/11/peter_b_lewis_dies.html#incart_m-rpt-2

I honestly didn't know much about him other than the fact that he graduated from Heights and that his name is on buildings all around the city.  After reading the above obituary, it seems like he was quite the character, but really did do a lot for Cleveland.

Hmm..  perhaps now there would be a lot less resistance to moving the company downtown.  Wasn't the reason the tower on themall was canceled due to him feeling slighted by the city?

^No...if I recall employees at the time were not keen on it among other things.

^No...if I recall employees at the time were not keen on it among other things.

 

Actually, the main reason was that Lewis and former Mayor Mike White didn't get along.  White hated the positioning of the building (it blocked views or something) and the design, plus he didn't have a great relationship with Lewis, so Lewis said "see ya later" and stayed in the burbs.  Imagine the possibilities if the building had been built and included the first class art museum mentioned in the article.  Lewis is known for his extensive modern art collection. 

The city also pushed away Rockefeller right?

I'm not saying that there *weren't* other factors involved (i.e. contentious relationship with the White administration, etc.) - there may well have been, but could those suggesting that provide some actual evidence? When I did some research about the tower, I contacted Jennifer Frutchy (Lewis' philanthropic advisor and spokesperson at the time) and when asked about the tower not being built, she stated "it was a business decision made when Al Lerner was chairman of the board at Progressive". If there's more to it, she didn't mention it and I didn't feel it was my place to press the issue. With that, I feel the same way about those who say the stained-glass dome in the Cleveland Trust rotunda is Tiffany - when I'm provided with more than hearsay and rumors, I'm more than happy to listen.

 

That said, Jennifer was very gracious and put me in touch with some contacts at Frank Gehry's team who were very helpful and provided this description and shot of the model. I'm a little proud to say this wasn't ever published in a large or publicly available format until I put it on clevelandskyscrapers.com. I do have to wonder how things would have played out *had* it been built as envisioned:

 

 

Occupying a site as the northern end of Cleveland's historic Burnham Mall, the corporate headquarters building would have been erected within  the space provided by air rights over the existing railroad tracks, separating the Mall from Lake Erie.  The master plan called for the end of the Burnham  Mall to be flanked by the Progressive Corporation tower and a  high rise hotel, creating a gateway to the city and mirroring the positioning of City Hall and the County building.  The project would have brought together under one roof the majority of Progressive Corporation, an innovative and rapidly expanding insurance company currently housed in a number of buildings throughout the suburbs.  In addition to the one million square feet of office space in the high rise configuration, the project would have included an art museum, a creativity center, a health club and a research center.

 

The visual mass of the office tower was broken down into two contiguous vertical elements clad with metal and stone, respectively.  Executive and mechanical penthouses, and a restaurant were articulated at the top of the building by changes in both form and material.  The art museum, with its scholars' library and auditorium, was to be located to one side of the health club, training center and cafeteria  were to inhabit a structure separated from the tower to preserve views from City Hall to the Lake.

 

The 100-foot walkway from the Mall to the Lakefront was to be designed by Donald Judd.  Richard Serra was to craft a sculpture on the deck of the parking garage, the first installation  of a proposed art park.  Claes Oldenberg's carpenter's C-Clamp sculpture was to appear to hold down a part of the health club and an oversized newspaper perched atop the tower was to create an unusual sky landmark.

 

CLIENT: Progressive Insurance Company

AREA: 1,000,000 sq. ft. (approximately)

SCHEDULE: Begin Design: 1987 (not scheduled for completion at present)

COSTS: N/A

PROJECT TEAM: Frank O. Gehry - Design Principal;David Denton - Project Principal; Bruce Biesman-Simons - Project Architect; C. Gregory Walsh - Project Designer; Eileen Yankowski - Project Team; Susan Narduli; Andrew Alper; CJ Bonura

ASSOCIATE ARCHITECT: van Dijk, Johnson & Partners

AWARDS: 1991 LA/AIA Honor Award

How do I contact the hotel people , I am more motivated to suggest the hotel bring in elements of projects that here never built, especially the progressive tower

Personally I don't like the design of the tower, but I bet things would have changed if the project would have progressed further. I would have loved having progressive downtown though.

a very flawed rich guy, he softened up a little over time, yet he could have done so much more in cleveland. instead he cheated on his wife, ridiculously wasted his arts $ on the guggenheim & dia foundation instead of funding cleveland arts & didn't build his office tower downtown. maybe he should have smoked a little more weed.

 

i doubt progressive would move downtown, that would be great, if unlikely. hopefully it stays in the region in the long run.

Nice eulogy there

^lol

No one wants Progressive back in the city more than me. And I loved the Gehry design. But being that the man just passed I would like to say RIP, you were a true pioneer. You lived your life as you wanted, and remained a liberal to the end. Thank you for your contribution to this city.

a very flawed rich guy, he softened up a little over time, yet he could have done so much more in cleveland. instead he cheated on his wife, ridiculously wasted his arts $ on the guggenheim & dia foundation instead of funding cleveland arts & didn't build his office tower downtown. maybe he should have smoked a little more weed.

 

i doubt progressive would move downtown, that would be great, if unlikely. hopefully it stays in the region in the long run.

 

The kindness and warmth in this post. It is too much.

I like Peter B, and I think that he loved Cleveland and only wanted the best for the region and the city. He understood the value and impact of a higher degree of standards, design, art, architecture, urban planning and pushing boundries. Traits that define a lot of people on UrbanOhio.

 

He was the Archetype of the Cleveland Heights (Shaker..etc) old school liberal east side. He and the people like him are why we love the region and why the region is different from the rest of Ohio (and most of the country).

 

Now that he is gone, we must remember that he kept the business (and grew it) in the CLE metro area. I'd be less surpised to see Progressive getting "poached away" now by another city than it being announced that now they are going to finally build in downtown Cleveland since he is gone. As long as he was alive, I don't think the company would have moved away..now not so much. I think the likelihood of a new Downtown Cleveland HQ would be more plausible in the future if he was still around to have a say in in the matter, than if he was not. 

a very flawed rich guy, he softened up a little over time, yet he could have done so much more in cleveland. instead he cheated on his wife, ridiculously wasted his arts $ on the guggenheim & dia foundation instead of funding cleveland arts & didn't build his office tower downtown. maybe he should have smoked a little more weed.

 

i doubt progressive would move downtown, that would be great, if unlikely. hopefully it stays in the region in the long run.

 

Sometimes one has to be ruthless and headstrong to succeed in that industry.  He was actually less so than most.  I didn't like his politics much, except for pot...and from what I've heard, if the right had taken on the libertarian view of legalizing pot, he might have climbed on board.  Hell, he even opposed mandatory car insurance.  The man meant what he said, and backed it.  He bent the knee to basically no one but wasn't dishonest or conniving about it. 

 

Guess who he said this to (and was never asked his advice again)?

 

"I told him that if there'd been, say, 27 women since he got married, he should just state that was the case, say it was 'juvenile behavior,' and put this problem in the past."

 

If you live in the southern or eastern suburbs and don't live in a hermetically sealed basement, you know people that work(ed) for Progressive.  It's hard to overstate the degree to which their employees opposed, and would oppose,  a move downtown.  Indeed, that made a difference to Lewis...and a bigger difference to Lerner.  MBNA never went downtown for the same reason.

 

They say one of the key measures of a man is how he treats his employees.  Lewis (and Lerner) succeed in this regard, people like Ralph Nader, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Michael Moore and I-wish-I-could-think-of-a-rightist-here-as-I-am-sure-there-are-plenty fail it miserably.

 

RIP to a guy that I almost never agreed with but lived his life as he saw fit without crapping on the rest of the world in the process.

I'm not saying that there *weren't* other factors involved (i.e. contentious relationship with the White administration, etc.) - there may well have been, but could those suggesting that provide some actual evidence? When I did some research about the tower, I contacted Jennifer Frutchy (Lewis' philanthropic advisor and spokesperson at the time) and when asked about the tower not being built, she stated "it was a business decision made when Al Lerner was chairman of the board at Progressive". If there's more to it, she didn't mention it and I didn't feel it was my place to press the issue.

 

I asked a long time employee once why the headquarters were not built downtown and he said it was because of parking. Progressive wanted to give their employees free parking and the city wanted them to use/pay to park downtown.  But like MayDay said above, it might have been just one of the many factors.

I'm not saying that there *weren't* other factors involved (i.e. contentious relationship with the White administration, etc.) - there may well have been, but could those suggesting that provide some actual evidence? When I did some research about the tower, I contacted Jennifer Frutchy (Lewis' philanthropic advisor and spokesperson at the time) and when asked about the tower not being built, she stated "it was a business decision made when Al Lerner was chairman of the board at Progressive". If there's more to it, she didn't mention it and I didn't feel it was my place to press the issue.

 

I asked a long time employee once why the headquarters were not built downtown and he said it was because of parking. Progressive wanted to give their employees free parking and the city wanted them to use/pay to park downtown.  But like MayDay said above, it might have been just one of the many factors.

 

Parking was one of the two main things, from what I heard the original plan for that tower had a garage on the lower floors and some of the lot owners downtown (the city being a major one) lobbied against permitting that.  Traffic was another.  A third was the 24/7 nature of their operations, combined with the city's desire that they use existing downtown parking. 

 

When a company has had free parking for a long time, it's such an ingrained part of the culture that the long time employees really hate the idea of paying to park or taking transit.

Funny how some people feel the need to talk nice about someone just after they died, even if they don't deserve it. Not saying that Lewis deserved it or not. But it is interesting to see how one person treats the dead differently compared to another person, or how some people talk about a person one way when they're alive and another way after they're dead.

 

I considered Lewis to be a wasted opportunity for Cleveland. He often talked about Cleveland not being up to par, yet he could have lifted it by locating his company in the city and contributing more to causes within the city. People like him are the reason why Cleveland is not up to par. Like it or not, Lewis is a city leader. The city goes where people like him and his resources go. He and his money went to the suburbs and other cities. And that's where Cleveland went. He could have risen above what ails Cleveland and lifted the city up with him.

^Just to play devil's advocate, Peter Lewis was an outside the box thinker.  Outside the box thinking in CLE is often (not always) met with scorn.  For example see the reaction to the PH Square chandalier, or the skylift from the likes of Rustwire.  People are free to not think any idea is a good one, but I was disappointed with the level of anger and mocking.

 

That said,  I think Lewis and his ex-wife Toby definitely had a positive influence on both the "creative community" and in making the connection between arts and the economy.

Funny how some people feel the need to talk nice about someone just after they died, even if they don't deserve it. Not saying that Lewis deserved it or not. But it is interesting to see how one person treats the dead differently compared to another person, or how some people talk about a person one way when they're alive and another way after they're dead.

 

I considered Lewis to be a wasted opportunity for Cleveland. He often talked about Cleveland not being up to par, yet he could have lifted it by locating his company in the city and contributing more to causes within the city. People like him are the reason why Cleveland is not up to par. Like it or not, Lewis is a city leader. The city goes where people like him and his resources go. He and his money went to the suburbs and other cities. And that's where Cleveland went. He could have risen above what ails Cleveland and lifted the city up with him.

 

I never really followed his political views, but I really don’t recall him being any sort of an urbanist activist.  So the implied charges of hypocrisy here don’t really hold water.

 

Lewis actually did spend a lot of money investigating the possibility of moving his operations downtown.  While he didn’t pull the trigger, certainly at least some of the blame for that falls on the city leaders who blocked what sounds like a good faith effort to address the objections of Progressive employees who opposed the move.  I suspect they thought he was bluffing, but anyone who knows anything about his history knows that’s not something he did very often.  Their objections sound a lot like those who were all aghast at the casino skywalk because it let people come downtown while avoiding the sidewalks and street people.  The difference is this time the “all or nothing” urbanists had the clout to hold firm apparently not believing that he’d say “fine, I’ll take the nothing”. 

 

Ironically, in a way the urbanists were right.  If Lewis had had his way they’d be complaining about how insular and disconnected Progressive is from the downtown community.  That is of course what he had in mind.  That’s Progressive’s culture.  Their buildings in the eastern suburbs are that way.  It’s apparently what the employees prefer, they are constantly considered one of the better places to work in the region. 

 

In this case, he stood up for the wishes of his employees, holding firm on an issue that was very important to them, regardless of how trivial and selfish some see it.  It could even be considered laudable that he stuck up for his employees rather than a principle he never really seemed to embrace, and certainly he did the region as a whole a lot of good.  Did he do as much for it as he could have?  No, but who has?  Could he have moved jobs out to North Carolina or Bangalore?  Sure.  But he didn’t, like he could have.

 

Would we even be having this talk about Al Lerner or Fred Lennon?  It seems you all are applying the same standard that some of our more radical conservatives do:  if he didn’t adopt the whole agenda, he’s a failure.  I call it the Elder Price approach with my fellow rightists.  It’s not fair to the guy, especially right after his death.

Forget urbanism for a moment, OK? The hypocrisy is in regards to their philanthropy. When the Rockefeller's and Lewis' say they are philanthropists, then complain about Cleveland and then leave it, how does leaving make it a better place? How is that philanthropy? Sorry, but I am one of those people who people that fighting for one's neighborhood and city is more important than fighting for your country, and one's business can be used to accomplish real, lasting philanthropy that also serves business goals by creating stronger, wealthier consumers and markets. But that's just my M.O.

 

 

I never really followed his political views, but I really don’t recall him being any sort of an urbanist activist.  So the implied charges of hypocrisy here don’t really hold water.

 

Lewis actually did spend a lot of money investigating the possibility of moving his operations downtown.  While he didn’t pull the trigger, certainly at least some of the blame for that falls on the city leaders who blocked what sounds like a good faith effort to address the objections of Progressive employees who opposed the move.  I suspect they thought he was bluffing, but anyone who knows anything about his history knows that’s not something he did very often.  Their objections sound a lot like those who were all aghast at the casino skywalk because it let people come downtown while avoiding the sidewalks and street people.  The difference is this time the “all or nothing” urbanists had the clout to hold firm apparently not believing that he’d say “fine, I’ll take the nothing”. 

 

 

 

I'm not in agreement with your take on this.  I've always understood that his reluctance to move downtown had much more to do with the era of political dysfunction more than anything else. The issue with parking could've been easily resolved.

^see MAYDAY's post above.

Write up from Case Western http://cwru-daily.com/news/philanthropist-visionary-businessman-peter-b-lewis-dies/

^see MAYDAY's post above.

 

Yes I've read it. The statement provided "business decision..." provides no insight and we're still stuck with years of hearsay (ie contentious relationship with White Admin) to go by.

 

My point is that Erocc's attempt to frame the issue as between PBL vs. "urbanists" is off the mark. Calling the politicians dealing with Progressive "urbanists" is too much of a stretch.

I think ERocc uses the term "urbanist" to refer to anyone that does something that could be construed as bad or wrong.

Forget urbanism for a moment, OK? The hypocrisy is in regards to their philanthropy. When the Rockefeller's and Lewis' say they are philanthropists, then complain about Cleveland and then leave it, how does leaving make it a better place? How is that philanthropy? Sorry, but I am one of those people who people that fighting for one's neighborhood and city is more important than fighting for your country, and one's business can be used to accomplish real, lasting philanthropy that also serves business goals by creating stronger, wealthier consumers and markets. But that's just my M.O.

 

I don't really see the hypocrisy here. As far as I know, PBL never said that improving Cleveland was his top goal.  He gave away a fair amount of money here and freely expressed his opinions about the local establishment, but clearly other causes/institutions were higher priorities for him, namely Princeton, and to a lesser extent, the Guggenheim and pot activism. His prerogative.

maybe this has been addressed here (I haven't read every word posted :-)) , but how much did he give the the Cleveland Mus of Art? For years he was on the board of the Guggenheim and gave them tons of money until he got pissed about something and dumped them http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/business/peter-b-lewis-philanthropist-who-led-progressive-auto-insurance-dies-at-80.html?_r=0. He supposedly has a great art collection; will that stay in Cleveland?

^I'm sure he has some great art too, but I think the well-known collection is Progressive's, not his, so should be staying in its offices where it currently resides. 

 

I don't think PBL has much of a relationship with the CMA. Makes sense given his interest in contemporary art and the CMA's historic conservatism.

 

 

I never really followed his political views, but I really don’t recall him being any sort of an urbanist activist.  So the implied charges of hypocrisy here don’t really hold water.

 

Lewis actually did spend a lot of money investigating the possibility of moving his operations downtown.  While he didn’t pull the trigger, certainly at least some of the blame for that falls on the city leaders who blocked what sounds like a good faith effort to address the objections of Progressive employees who opposed the move.  I suspect they thought he was bluffing, but anyone who knows anything about his history knows that’s not something he did very often.  Their objections sound a lot like those who were all aghast at the casino skywalk because it let people come downtown while avoiding the sidewalks and street people.  The difference is this time the “all or nothing” urbanists had the clout to hold firm apparently not believing that he’d say “fine, I’ll take the nothing”. 

 

 

 

I'm not in agreement with your take on this.  I've always understood that his reluctance to move downtown had much more to do with the era of political dysfunction more than anything else. The issue with parking could've been easily resolved.

 

They're related.  I'm not the one who brought up parking, but it ties into other things I've heard.  Specifically, that Lewis's intent, if he decided to move downtown, was to build a self contained unit which included integral parking that would be free for employees.  That's how Progressive's buildings in the suburbs are. 

 

Now, I don't have to explain to anyone that Mike White was very close to a number of the parking lot operators, do I?  They didn't like this idea very much and they exerted influence against it.  The city, of course, had pay lots too.  White went along and played hardball on the issue.  Some of it was concealed with the sort of urbanist rhetoric concerning separation we heard about the skywalks, how sincere that was is left up to the opinion of the reader. 

 

But...it put back into place one of the objections to the move that Progressive employees had that Lewis had found a way around.  They underestimated both the objections to paying to park the employees had (seriously....a lot of us see it as completely unnatural for anything other than special events) and the weight Lewis (and Lerner) assigned this.  Plus, there was Progressive's insular culture, which was why the project was to include " an art museum, a creativity center, a health club and a research center",  plus numerous cafeterias and restaurants likely to only be open to Progressive employees and their guests.  For bleeps sake, the man all but encouraged interoffice relationships...

 

So yeah, he had a contentious relationship with the White Administration, they were both hardheaded leaders who believed in "my way or the highway".  The highway turned out to be 271.

maybe this has been addressed here (I haven't read every word posted :-)) , but how much did he give the the Cleveland Mus of Art? For years he was on the board of the Guggenheim and gave them tons of money until he got pissed about something and dumped them http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/business/peter-b-lewis-philanthropist-who-led-progressive-auto-insurance-dies-at-80.html?_r=0. He supposedly has a great art collection; will that stay in Cleveland?

 

Sounds to me like a hothead.

 

Ask Hunter Morrison sometime about what happened between Peter Lewis and Mayor White. Hunter told me it was a collision of two monumental egos. I wouldn't be surprised if Lewis put in his will that Progressive cannot relocate its headquarters to the City of Cleveland for at least X years after Lewis' death, or before White's death, whichever comes first.

The University of Chicago, an academic powerhouse on par with the Ivies, would almost certainly not be what it is today without a hefty donation from Rockefeller.  It frustrates me to no end that the institution could not have been seeded here.

 

As for Lewis, perhaps it's too soon to be discussing this, but it will be very interesting to see how his estate is allocated what kind of philanthropic decisions he had planned for after his passing.  It would be lovely if some of that money came to Cleveland institutions (and if I can have a pipe dream for a moment, it would be nice if he left something for his high school alma mater ;) ).

 

 

I never really followed his political views, but I really don’t recall him being any sort of an urbanist activist.  So the implied charges of hypocrisy here don’t really hold water.

 

Lewis actually did spend a lot of money investigating the possibility of moving his operations downtown.  While he didn’t pull the trigger, certainly at least some of the blame for that falls on the city leaders who blocked what sounds like a good faith effort to address the objections of Progressive employees who opposed the move.  I suspect they thought he was bluffing, but anyone who knows anything about his history knows that’s not something he did very often.  Their objections sound a lot like those who were all aghast at the casino skywalk because it let people come downtown while avoiding the sidewalks and street people.  The difference is this time the “all or nothing” urbanists had the clout to hold firm apparently not believing that he’d say “fine, I’ll take the nothing”. 

 

 

 

I'm not in agreement with your take on this.  I've always understood that his reluctance to move downtown had much more to do with the era of political dysfunction more than anything else. The issue with parking could've been easily resolved.

 

They're related.  I'm not the one who brought up parking, but it ties into other things I've heard.  Specifically, that Lewis's intent, if he decided to move downtown, was to build a self contained unit which included integral parking that would be free for employees.  That's how Progressive's buildings in the suburbs are. 

 

Now, I don't have to explain to anyone that Mike White was very close to a number of the parking lot operators, do I?  They didn't like this idea very much and they exerted influence against it.  The city, of course, had pay lots too.  White went along and played hardball on the issue.  Some of it was concealed with the sort of urbanist rhetoric concerning separation we heard about the skywalks, how sincere that was is left up to the opinion of the reader. 

 

But...it put back into place one of the objections to the move that Progressive employees had that Lewis had found a way around.  They underestimated both the objections to paying to park the employees had (seriously....a lot of us see it as completely unnatural for anything other than special events) and the weight Lewis (and Lerner) assigned this.  Plus, there was Progressive's insular culture, which was why the project was to include " an art museum, a creativity center, a health club and a research center",  plus numerous cafeterias and restaurants likely to only be open to Progressive employees and their guests.  For bleeps sake, the man all but encouraged interoffice relationships...

 

So yeah, he had a contentious relationship with the White Administration, they were both hardheaded leaders who believed in "my way or the highway".  The highway turned out to be 271.

 

What you're suggesting relationship issues may be true. It indeed sounds plausible and it's what I've been hearing for years from friends who work at Progressive. My objection is your framing the White Admin and parking lot barons as "urbanists."

RE: Rockefeller

This is from CleveScene a few years back.

 

A Century of Bumbling

Cleveland's civic ineptitude isn't new. It goes all the way back to Rockefeller.

by Michael D. Roberts

 

http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/a-century-of-bumbling/Content?oid=1488713

 

"In the 1880s, Rockefeller, who grew up in Parma and founded his oil business here, was living in New York City, but spending summers at his Forest Hills mansion in East Cleveland. His wife, Cettie, loved the family estate and insisted upon returning each year.

 

Then, in 1913, Cettie became ill and was unable to return to New York. Rockefeller stayed with her beyond February 8, 1914, the date that determined legal residence and the levy of a personal-property tax.

 

Rockefeller had already paid his tax in New York. But Flackner and Agnew, the county tax commissioners, nonetheless sent a tax bill of $1.5 million to his Forest Hills address. (Today's county commissioners would not only give Rockefeller a tax break, but would eagerly arrange Port Authority bonds to help him reclaim as much of the suburb as he needed for a golf course.)

 

Flackner, who lived in East Cleveland, bragged that when this tax was paid, residents would enjoy a 20 percent cut in their taxes. He and Agnew further warned that if the tax were not paid immediately, there would be a 50 percent penalty. It was a political move, designed to appear as if a blow had been struck for the poor against the rich.

 

The only problem was that Rockefeller, refusing to become hostage to this demand, took it to federal court and won."

 

...

 

"In his lifetime, Rockefeller gave away $530 million, which in today's dollars would be more than 20 times that amount. Yet his hometown of Cleveland got little. Scholars estimate that he probably gave about $3 million to area schools, churches, and parks. "New York has always treated me more fairly than Cleveland, much more," he once said.

 

Writes Chernow: "How many New York hospitals, museums and churches would be enriched by Cleveland's blunder!"

 

Following Cettie's burial and the destruction of the Forest Hills mansion by fire, Western Reserve University asked Rockefeller for the land, so that the campus could be moved and expanded. He refused.

 

Ironically, the refusal came years after Rockefeller had approached another civic leader, J.L. Mather, who made his fortune in iron ore, and offered to help the same university, of which Mather was a patron. Rockefeller told Mather that the city needed a first-rate university, one that would be looked upon with the same respect as those in the East.

 

Mather disagreed. Fine Cleveland families sent their children to places like Yale, of course. There was no need to build a great university here. It would be wasted on working people.

 

Rockefeller went on to fund his dream by establishing the University of Chicago."

 

 

 

(It is Clevescene so take if for what its worth. I also heard that he wanted to establish a Baptist School, and at the time Baptist leaders pushed for a Chicago location, rather than Cleveland, which they deamed too far east.)

a very flawed rich guy, he softened up a little over time, yet he could have done so much more in cleveland. instead he cheated on his wife, ridiculously wasted his arts $ on the guggenheim & dia foundation instead of funding cleveland arts & didn't build his office tower downtown. maybe he should have smoked a little more weed.

 

i doubt progressive would move downtown, that would be great, if unlikely. hopefully it stays in the region in the long run.

 

Sometimes one has to be ruthless and headstrong to succeed in that industry.  He was actually less so than most.  I didn't like his politics much, except for pot...and from what I've heard, if the right had taken on the libertarian view of legalizing pot, he might have climbed on board.  Hell, he even opposed mandatory car insurance.  The man meant what he said, and backed it.  He bent the knee to basically no one but wasn't dishonest or conniving about it. 

 

Guess who he said this to (and was never asked his advice again)?

 

"I told him that if there'd been, say, 27 women since he got married, he should just state that was the case, say it was 'juvenile behavior,' and put this problem in the past."

 

If you live in the southern or eastern suburbs and don't live in a hermetically sealed basement, you know people that work(ed) for Progressive.  It's hard to overstate the degree to which their employees opposed, and would oppose,  a move downtown.  Indeed, that made a difference to Lewis...and a bigger difference to Lerner.  MBNA never went downtown for the same reason.

 

They say one of the key measures of a man is how he treats his employees.  Lewis (and Lerner) succeed in this regard, people like Ralph Nader, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Michael Moore and I-wish-I-could-think-of-a-rightist-here-as-I-am-sure-there-are-plenty fail it miserably.

 

RIP to a guy that I almost never agreed with but lived his life as he saw fit without crapping on the rest of the world in the process.

 

alright. you have some valid points there. lets just wait and see what his last will and testament bears out for cleveland and ne ohio. that will be quite enlightening.

 

(It is Clevescene so take if for what its worth. I also heard that he wanted to establish a Baptist School, and at the time Baptist leaders pushed for a Chicago location, rather than Cleveland, which they deamed too far east.)

 

Here's a scholarly article about Rockefeller and the University of Chicago that makes that point: http://www.rockarch.org/publications/resrep/rose2.pdf

 

Why Chicago and not Cleveland, then, as the site for the nation’s Baptist university? That decision was made by Baptist leaders nationwide, not by John D. Rockefeller. Their concern about the needs of Baptist education in the West precluded Cleveland as a location for the school, for it was too far East.

 

To state the obvious, local civic enhancement is not the chief concern for lots of people, rich and otherwise.

^Thanks Strap.  I think the reason that stuck with me was the fact that I didn't know he was Baptist.  (I guess Southern Baptist vs. turn of last century Cleveland Baptist)

 

 

 

To get the thread back on topic......Personally, I am sad that Peter Lewis has passed, and I am grateful for what he has contributed to Cleveland.

Hate this to be in bad form, but do you think Peter Lewis will leave a substantial gift for Case Western or the City of cleveland?

 

 

I never really followed his political views, but I really don’t recall him being any sort of an urbanist activist.  So the implied charges of hypocrisy here don’t really hold water.

 

Lewis actually did spend a lot of money investigating the possibility of moving his operations downtown.  While he didn’t pull the trigger, certainly at least some of the blame for that falls on the city leaders who blocked what sounds like a good faith effort to address the objections of Progressive employees who opposed the move.  I suspect they thought he was bluffing, but anyone who knows anything about his history knows that’s not something he did very often.  Their objections sound a lot like those who were all aghast at the casino skywalk because it let people come downtown while avoiding the sidewalks and street people.  The difference is this time the “all or nothing” urbanists had the clout to hold firm apparently not believing that he’d say “fine, I’ll take the nothing”. 

 

 

 

I'm not in agreement with your take on this.  I've always understood that his reluctance to move downtown had much more to do with the era of political dysfunction more than anything else. The issue with parking could've been easily resolved.

 

They're related.  I'm not the one who brought up parking, but it ties into other things I've heard.  Specifically, that Lewis's intent, if he decided to move downtown, was to build a self contained unit which included integral parking that would be free for employees.  That's how Progressive's buildings in the suburbs are. 

 

Now, I don't have to explain to anyone that Mike White was very close to a number of the parking lot operators, do I?  They didn't like this idea very much and they exerted influence against it.  The city, of course, had pay lots too.  White went along and played hardball on the issue.  Some of it was concealed with the sort of urbanist rhetoric concerning separation we heard about the skywalks, how sincere that was is left up to the opinion of the reader. 

 

But...it put back into place one of the objections to the move that Progressive employees had that Lewis had found a way around.  They underestimated both the objections to paying to park the employees had (seriously....a lot of us see it as completely unnatural for anything other than special events) and the weight Lewis (and Lerner) assigned this.  Plus, there was Progressive's insular culture, which was why the project was to include " an art museum, a creativity center, a health club and a research center",  plus numerous cafeterias and restaurants likely to only be open to Progressive employees and their guests.  For bleeps sake, the man all but encouraged interoffice relationships...

 

So yeah, he had a contentious relationship with the White Administration, they were both hardheaded leaders who believed in "my way or the highway".  The highway turned out to be 271.

 

What you're suggesting relationship issues may be true. It indeed sounds plausible and it's what I've been hearing for years from friends who work at Progressive. My objection is your framing the White Admin and parking lot barons as "urbanists."

 

They used the rhetoric, because it served their purposes.  Whether they meant it or not is quite debatable.

While unscientific, a sample of my high school and college friends who work for Progressive are all decidedly against moving downtown. 

 

They all grew up on the east side, went to school at places like Kent and Akron, then came back to the same area to start families.  They all love their commute from Mentor, Willoughby, Richmond Heights, etc to the Progressive campuses. 

 

Maybe a large influx of younger employees will change the corporate culture there, but the 30 and 40 somethings I know there are staying put in the I271 digs!

^Thanks Strap.  I think the reason that stuck with me was the fact that I didn't know he was Baptist.  (I guess Southern Baptist vs. turn of last century Cleveland Baptist)

 

 

 

To get the thread back on topic......Personally, I am sad that Peter Lewis has passed, and I am grateful for what he has contributed to Cleveland.

 

And I wonder how long it took for University of Chicago to become completely non-sectarian?

^Interestingly, per the university's web site and wiki, the school never had a sectarian affiliation despite its founding by the American Baptist Education Society.

Funeral was held in University Circle.

While unscientific, a sample of my high school and college friends who work for Progressive are all decidedly against moving downtown. 

 

They all grew up on the east side, went to school at places like Kent and Akron, then came back to the same area to start families.  They all love their commute from Mentor, Willoughby, Richmond Heights, etc to the Progressive campuses. 

 

Maybe a large influx of younger employees will change the corporate culture there, but the 30 and 40 somethings I know there are staying put in the I271 digs!

 

Don't count on it.  A company that size has its own inertia and the culture has deep roots because the trenches are where it developed.  Plus it's a comfortable, if not exciting, deal.  The twentysomethings are more likelt to be converted.

While unscientific, a sample of my high school and college friends who work for Progressive are all decidedly against moving downtown. 

 

They all grew up on the east side, went to school at places like Kent and Akron, then came back to the same area to start families.  They all love their commute from Mentor, Willoughby, Richmond Heights, etc to the Progressive campuses. 

 

Maybe a large influx of younger employees will change the corporate culture there, but the 30 and 40 somethings I know there are staying put in the I271 digs!

Agreed, the majority of the workforce wants to stay put. But I wouldn't be surprised to see them lease a couple of floors of the next big office building that gets built downtown and slap their name on the side of it.

The benefit to moving downtown would not be so much to appease the workforce the company has recruited while out in Mayfield.  It would be to cast a larger net on potential employees..... whether those prospective employees come from the west-side or are the type of young people who would have crossed it off their list of places to apply due to the suburban location.

 

That said, it ain't happening folks.  Progressive and Mayfield Village have tied the knot.  It's staying put.

The benefit to moving downtown would not be so much to appease the workforce the company has recruited while out in Mayfield.  It would be to cast a larger net on potential employees..... whether those prospective employees come from the west-side or are the type of young people who would have crossed it off their list of places to apply due to the suburban location.

 

That said, it ain't happening folks.  Progressive and Mayfield Village have tied the knot.  It's staying put.

 

Unless the company is having problems, I doubt they would intentionally change their culture to this degree.  It's a successful company.  It also regularly ranks among "best places to work", so I doubt many qualified people are ruling them out because they aren't downtown.