I don't disagree that people will start to come around to 60s-80s architecture, but you have to admit that there is a big difference between modern architecture and classic architecture. Before the modern architecture movement really took hold, almost all buildings placed a heavy emphasis on artwork and ornamentation being embedded into the building. These buildings were also evoking motifs from architecture from far in the past (Neoclassical from Greek, Gothic Revival from Gothic, etc.). The birth of modern architecture was a huge departure from the architectural methods/designs that have been present through most of human history.

 

For example, I like the PSFS Building in Philly. It's a great of example of early modern architecture, and it has a place in history. However, I would choose a building like the Garfield Building over PSFS any day, because we will probably never see new buildings built in that way again. Everything new that is built seems to be some sort of rehashed modern/post-modern style. I'm just amazed at the prevalence of tearing down these elegant old buildings in favor of glass and metal boxes, especially during the 60s-80s. Thankfully, there seems to be a stronger emphasis on historic preservation nowadays.

 

But hey, I could be wrong. Maybe in the future people will be shocked at how the city once tore down Max Hayes High School - a stunning example of 60s architecture :P And also maybe in the future there will be picketers outside the justice center, protesting its destruction for something that would actually function in a city. Personally, I don't see that happening, but if I'm wrong, you can save this post and make fun of me later :)

 

Anyway, sorry for taking this off topic!

FWIW, classic architecture was once modern architecture.

I don't disagree that people will start to come around to 60s-80s architecture, but you have to admit that there is a big difference between modern architecture and classic architecture. Before the modern architecture movement really took hold, almost all buildings placed a heavy emphasis on artwork and ornamentation being embedded into the building. These buildings were also evoking motifs from architecture from far in the past (Neoclassical from Greek, Gothic Revival from Gothic, etc.). The birth of modern architecture was a huge departure from the architectural methods/designs that have been present through most of human history.

 

For example, I like the PSFS Building in Philly. It's a great of example of early modern architecture, and it has a place in history. However, I would choose a building like the Garfield Building over PSFS any day, because we will probably never see new buildings built in that way again. Everything new that is built seems to be some sort of rehashed modern/post-modern style. I'm just amazed at the prevalence of tearing down these elegant old buildings in favor of glass and metal boxes, especially during the 60s-80s. Thankfully, there seems to be a stronger emphasis on historic preservation nowadays.

 

But hey, I could be wrong. Maybe in the future people will be shocked at how the city once tore down Max Hayes High School - a stunning example of 60s architecture :P And also maybe in the future there will be picketers outside the justice center, protesting its destruction for something that would actually function in a city. Personally, I don't see that happening, but if I'm wrong, you can save this post and make fun of me later :)

 

Anyway, sorry for taking this off topic!

 

It definitely makes sense that this is your viewpoint since it's one that many people share, myself being one of those at times. It's not until I take a step back out of my own subjectiveness and realize that there's nothing different about the cycle now than at any point in the past that my viewpoint changes.

 

Things like this building won't ever be built again, and I think that's a good thing. Excessive ornamentation has no relation to modern society. But it's a gorgeous example of a time when it did and therefore should be saved.

 

The 60s were a time of accelerated technological advances and stark, ornament-free architecture made tons of sense.

 

Modern day technology allows for structures and shapes that were never before possible and our buildings are reflecting that. There might not be a massive aesthetic difference between a glass highrise from the 60s and one from today, but the technological aspects of them are what really differentiate them as being symbols of different time periods.

 

TL;DR People build what makes the most sense for their era. We grow tired of it. We move on. We eventually realize the merits of something we once hated. We celebrate it. So on and so forth.

^ I think we're agreeing more than you think. I like modern buildings (well, the good ones :P), and I also like older buildings built in more classical styles. I don't think we should build new buildings in the classical styles, but I do think we should preserve them for the sake of both aesthetics and history. Therefore, it's pretty horrible that someone made the decision to cover up the beautiful ornamentation of a historical building, just to fit the style of the modern era (an even bigger example of this would be the Schofield Building). Modern buildings are great. Destroying history to make modern buildings? Not so great. Thankfully, this one can be restored.

^Oh, I know we're agreeing. I just felt like being longwinded about the idea of the cyclical nature of architectural preservation haha.

 

It was an excessive way of saying I agree it was dumb to cover this building up but it makes sense based on the historic cycle of architecture.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/01/garfield_building_sells_for_6.html

Interesting:

 

A handful of restaurateurs have inquired about the building, said Rico Pietro of Cushman & Wakefield/Cresco Real Estate, the Independence-based brokerage marketing the retail space. More notably, he added, Cresco is fielding calls from national clothing retailers - chains that wouldn't have looked twice at downtown a few years ago.

^That bit about the retailers is awesome.  Between NucLeus and news like this, maybe we're closer to retail rejuvenation than we've dared hope...

 

But seriously, what is up with:

 

Millennia plans to rechristen the building as Corning Place.

Agreed on name.  They should just keep Garfield - saying "The Garfield" has nice classic, historic feel to it. 

Agreed on name.  They should just keep Garfield - saying "The Garfield" has nice classic, historic feel to it.

 

Yeah this building is an example of a property who's real history is more valuable, to the developer, than any marketing scheme.  This is from the PD article last spring:

 

"Built in the late 1800s by two of President James Garfield's sons, the longtime bank building could become 172 apartments above ground-floor restaurants or stores."

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/04/millennia_companies_to_buy_gar.html

 

I would think that the connection to President Garfield would lend a sense of classy legitimacy that can't be purchased or created.  The same was true of the 9 complex.  For the Ameritrust Tower portion, I found it weird that the Breuer name wasn't woven into the branding of the project. Breuer is considered an international heavyweight in the architecture world.  Even for the average Joes who don't know who he is, you can play up the fact that the building was built by a super famous guy.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/01/garfield_building_sells_for_6.html

 

As far as .com comments sections go, this one is actually pretty okay.

show of hands: how many of us found out that this was called the Garfield building only after Millennia bought it in april?

show of hands: how many of us found out that this was called the Garfield building only after Millennia bought it in april?

 

Another show of hands: does the timing of when you're learned something make that realization any more or less significant?

Im just saying, lets not pretend that the name of this building is somehow significant to any of us. 

^ I think history is significant. It's legitimately interesting that this building was built by the sons of a U.S. president and it's ridiculous that a company wants to change the name to some generic made-up name with no significance.

Integrity is a plus. 

 

What obscure reference could they have possibly used to come up with Corning?

Im just saying, lets not pretend that the name of this building is somehow significant to any of us. 

 

And lets not pretend that just because it isn't significant to any of us or few of us that it isn't important.

It isn't important.  It is pure antiquarianism.

^This is probably the wrong crowd to ask how many of us knew the name before Millenium got involved, but point taken.  I don't disagree, even if it annoys me. And in any case, "Corning Place" is a dumb name. So there. :)

It isn't important.  It is pure antiquarianism.

 

At the very least it's a huge value-add to the developer that's going unrealized.  The building is more than just an old building, it was developed by the sons of a U.S. President from Cleveland with the same namesake.  I mean, I guess that can be dismissed as antiquarianism but then the same could be said for any historical backstory.  Should we rip down the Garfield Monument while we're at it?

I suggest someone start using "IMHO" when they presume to speak for others.

Here is a historic image of The Garfield Bldg ground floor's original detail. i assume with them seeking historical tax credits it is looking to restore the details.

Everything we say, do, believe, build and name is based on something that has come before, even if you don't yet realize it. But I figured you would realize it, Whipjacka[/member]. I'm surprised that a guy who majored in history in college has taken such a dismissive reaction to the importance of acknowledging history via a building's name.

For me at least as a Northeast Ohioan, the first thing I thought of when hearing the name Garfield is the suburb of Garfield Heights, second is the old "Garfield 1-2323" commercial, and the 19th century President comes in third...

 

If I was searching apartments and all I saw was the name Garfield Place, I would think it's on Turney Road...

 

I'm not defending the name Corning Place in any way, just thinking out loud.

What/who is Garfield Heights and Garfield-1 2323 named after? And don't tell me it's named for an old telephone exchange! LOL

For me at least as a Northeast Ohioan, the first thing I thought of when hearing the name Garfield is the suburb of Garfield Heights, second is the old "Garfield 1-2323" commercial, and the 19th century President comes in third...

 

If I was searching apartments and all I saw was the name Garfield Place, I would think it's on Turney Road...

 

I'm not defending the name Corning Place in any way, just thinking out loud.

 

What? Garfield the cat doesn't crack your top three?

There's a website called Garfield minus Garfield.  It's a collection of images from the famous strip but they've all had Garfield removed.

I hope you'll agree that it's somewhat apropos to our conversation about Millennia's sorry choice for the new name.

 

http://garfieldminusgarfield.net/page/848

 

 

Here is a historic image of The Garfield Bldg ground floor's original detail. i assume with them seeking historical tax credits it is looking to restore the details.

 

Here is an image from Cresco's marketing material for the building. Courtesy of Michelle Jarboe in the recent Cleveland.com article. Looks very good, but not quite the level of detail from your historic image.

 

^Looks like they propose making the "modernized" part of the base conform with the rest of the base.  Looking back at the historical photo KJP dave68 posted above, I hadn't previously noticed that even the intact part of the building base had been altered at some point, probably much earlier than the Euclid-side "modernization."  Maybe it was part of the same wave of "bankification" that hit the New England Building next door and the City Club building.

 

EDIT: Oops, sorry.

^Looks like they propose making the "modernized" part of the base conform with the rest of the base.  Looking back at the historical photo KJP posted above, I hadn't previously noticed that even the intact part of the building base had been altered at some point, probably much earlier than the Euclid-side "modernization."  Maybe it was part of the same wave of "bankification" that hit the New England Building next door and the City Club building.

 

That is correct. When National City moved into the building around 1921, the base was modernized with the pilaster/ionic capital design.

^Looks like they propose making the "modernized" part of the base conform with the rest of the base.  Looking back at the historical photo KJP posted above, I hadn't previously noticed that even the intact part of the building base had been altered at some point, probably much earlier than the Euclid-side "modernization."  Maybe it was part of the same wave of "bankification" that hit the New England Building next door and the City Club building.

 

Thanks but Dave68 posted it.

 

EDIT: And I love the restoration of the ground-floor facade!

Why is the detailing at the top of the building in the rendering totally dumbed down? They aren't actually going to remove that, right?

I'm going to guess that rendering was more for the purpose of showing what the new restored ground level will look like and they simplified the rest of the building in order to get a quick rendering out. I can't imagine the historic board would allow the complete removal of all detail above the base.

Here is a historic image of The Garfield Bldg ground floor's original detail. i assume with them seeking historical tax credits it is looking to restore the details.

 

Here is an image from Cresco's marketing material for the building. Courtesy of Michelle Jarboe in the recent Cleveland.com article. Looks very good, but not quite the level of detail from your historic image.

 

 

Wow, seems colder; much less inviting than the original design.

And they're going to get Historic Tax Credits for this?  - Sheesh! Something's wrong

They're restoring to how it was when it was updated in the 1920s. I guess the 1920s is still historic, but they should really have to restore it to its original design.

The backside of the building's base already has this detail.  The Euclid Ave. portion would be restored back

I'd like to see someone photoshop the base detail in the rendering together with the actual detail above the base. (I don't have it or I'd do it :() I like what they have in mind for the base... It just looks off because they rendered it with the top  missing. There's NO way they would remove anything to the top. That's one of the most beautiful and interesting facades in downtown.

MrClifton88

Ask and you shall receive!

 

 

MrClifton88

Ask and you shall receive!

 

Is there a better group of people than those of Urban Ohio!? :):) great work Dave68. I think this looks great, especially when you look at how lifeless it is today.

If there's no capitalization in the headline, it must be FreshwaterCleveland....

 

red-hot rental market ignites conversion of garfield building into downtown apartments

ERIN O'BRIEN | TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2015

 

A deal more than a year in the making has finally come to a close, and as a result, another of Downtown's grand spaces is about to undergo a stunning transformation. The historic Garfield Building, 1965 East 6th Street, is slated to become apartments.

 

The West Coast-based Westcore Properties, which purchased the building for $8 million in 2008, has sold the 11-story, 160,000-square-foot structure to the Millennia Companies for $6 million. Westcore, however, did not lose money.

 

"On the surface, you could say we paid $8 million and sold it for $6 million, so we lost $2 million," summarizes Don Ankeny, president and CEO of Westcore Properties. "But along the way, we probably got 15 percent unlevered return on our capital. We enjoyed six years of very attractive cash flow."

 

MORE:

http://freshwatercleveland.com/devnews/garfieldbldg021015.aspx

Hey, The interior shot shown in the article is the interior of the National City Bank lobby next door.  Isn't it?

The Garfield Building used to be a Burrows Stationery & office supply store, and looks nothing like that image.  Does the article need a correction, or am I the one who is wrong here?

 

"Old National City Bank Building - 1915

It looks built to withstand anything, even a financial earthquake. Cleveland master architects Walker and Weeks designed the old National City Bank Building lobby in majestic neoclassical style, with rows of Corinthian columns framing the deposit windows and a towering staircase of pink Georgia marble. Downstairs, bronze gates finished in gold emphasize the safety in the safe deposit vault beyond them. Looks can deceive; National City acquired the building in 1933 from Guardian Savings & Trust, a casualty of Great Depression bank runs. Now it's a PNC Bank branch. 623 Euclid Ave." - Cleveland Magazine (December 2011)

 

^I was kinda thinking the same thing...but then if I recall correctly if you went in the main door of the NCB Building you then had to take a left to get to the banking room so it might have actually been in the Garfield Building.  But then again I really think it was in the NCB Building, although I am not positive.  It has been a while but strange I don't know for sure as I have been in that banking room at least a hundred times if not more.

I forget if it was confirmed or not, but are pent house suites being built on top of the building?

^I was kinda thinking the same thing...but then if I recall correctly if you went in the main door of the NCB Building you then had to take a left to get to the banking room so it might have actually been in the Garfield Building.  But then again I really think it was in the NCB Building, although I am not positive.  It has been a while but strange I don't know for sure as I have been in that banking room at least a hundred times if not more.

 

There is a 'pass through' from East Sixth where you can enter the Garfield Building on East Sixth to access the main banking hall which is in the former National City section (Guardian/New England). *Credit to ink[/member] for the clarification.

Yikes, what's going on down there?

 

Building partially collapses in downtown Cleveland, police say

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/04/building_partially_collapses_i.html#incart_river

 

Very lucky this didn't happen at lunch time or rush hour... I walk under that all the time

Yikes. Will this affect the project?

Clevecane just took both of these. One from the Terminal Tower, and the other while walking home. I highlighted where it appears the bricks are falling from. And to the question about wind: yes, he says it is extremely gusty down there right now.

 

I think the last we heard construction was supposed to start in June. What horrible timing. I'm glad no one was hurt, and I hope this doesn't hurt the project at all.

Wow, that car is destroyed!  Very fortunate no one was walking past during that time!  Was it very windy down there today?