I was clicking on the link in the amherst quarry thread, which linked me to a blog, which had a project we urban ohioans might have missed.

http://clevelandplanner.blogspot.com/2006/03/4600-euclid-avenue.html

 

Its the building that burnt down near the agora. Its not spectacular, it gives the feeling of bland suburban taste, but is certainly more preferable to a burnt out structure.

good catch! it's not bad at all. looks like a bank or small office building?

 

Where is this in reference to downtown Cleveland?

There is no refrence to downtown Cleveland, its going up right next to the Agora which is near E. 55 ST.

i willl take it, always love new construction or preserving old structures, but since the old one burned down, bring on the new structure.

this will look great with the mix between old and new with the agora

Why couldn't they build out the lot?  They are going to be exposing the side of that building behind, a side that wasn't meant to be exposed.  And for what?  Another little entrance plaza?  This isn't Beachwood!  Not every building needs a little garden at the front door.  Build up to the corners, damnit!

I'm with you X, while I'm always glad to see new construction, we shouldn't have to settle for just having SOMETHING there. I don't understand why the design can't just hug those corners...

 

Sometimes I think contempory architecture is always about trying to making a statement through form - trying to invent some sort of shape or massing that has never been used before, regardless of what the building will be used for (or where it is located, as in this instance). I tend to think that some of the most beautiful urban buildings are those that are articulated rectangles. Not just because they are beautiful by themselves, but because they complete a much larger composition along a street.

 

I am glad that there is new construction in a much needed area, and that the construction hugs Euclid Avenue, but I am NOT happy that there isn't a 'nod' to the existing fabric and NOT an opportunity to created a consistent fabric around it.

Eh-- It's a little bland, but not bad. Think about the tripe we were getting on Euclid 10 years ago (the Applied Industrial spaceship at E. 36th).

 

As for tenants, the old building was to be renovated and occupied by a collection of nonprofits. I assume most of them will now be locating to this new structure.

You people must have excellent skills in vision seeing as I posted a picture tht clearly does not show the building as a whole - yet you are able to judge how it looks. Amazing! I hope I grow up to have the super vision you have. :wink:

 

Anyway, kidding aside, I like the building. Consider the context - Agora on one side, non-discript building on the other and tthe RTA bus garage across the street. It would be very easy to over power the surrounding architecture. I like the way the building is tiered down toward the previously vacated street. It will now be open to the public and makes a great path toward the park between Prospect Avenue and Prospect Road.

 

The develper is also rehabing the building behind 4600 for indoor parking.

The building across the vacated street is currently going through rehab.

And,

There will be a Silver Line stop almost directly in front of the new building.

 

What was not posted were pictures looking to the west and evening pictures showing the lighting plan. They are also very nice.

 

 

 

I was just giving a quick thought, why are they making the one building an indoor parking garage, when there clearly appears to be plenty of parking in the rear?

They probably couldn't get rights to it.

I was just giving a quick thought, why are they making the one building an indoor parking garage, when there clearly appears to be plenty of parking in the rear?

 

If I remember correctly, I think the owners of the Agora own it and have wanted to develop it for a number of years (along with the land to the east).

The feedback on this is almost as positive as a 61 story building going up in Louisville. 

Where is this in reference to downtown Cleveland?

 

This is, obiously, east of downtown, I think technically in the Central neighborhood.  Pretty much 2 miles exactly from Public Square

 

Where is this in reference to downtown Cleveland?

Its roughly 20 blocks east of CSU or 46 blocks east of Public Square. 

The feedback on this is almost as positive as a 61 story building going up in Louisville. 

 

I am more than happy to see this crater be filled with a decent building. 

Well, Agora owners, get on with it! 

 

And how about those other pictures you spoke of Musky?

Actually, I am very impressed with this structure.  It seems to be sticking with the new character of this area and the modern design we have seen over the past decade on this stretch of Euclid. 

 

And how about those other pictures you spoke of Musky?

 

I will see if I can aquire them.

As for now... must study for mid term.

Planning Law.

 

 

Well, Agora owners, get on with it! 

 

And how about those other pictures you spoke of Musky?

I found them under the 4600 Euclid project on this site.  Musky posted it yesterday.

http://clevelandplanner.blogspot.com/2006/03/montreals-mirabel-airport-to-be-turned.html

You people must have excellent skills in vision seeing as I posted a picture tht clearly does not show the building as a whole - yet you are able to judge how it looks. Amazing! I hope I grow up to have the super vision you have. :wink:

 

Anyway, kidding aside, I like the building. Consider the context - Agora on one side, non-discript building on the other and tthe RTA bus garage across the street. It would be very easy to over power the surrounding architecture. I like the way the building is tiered down toward the previously vacated street. It will now be open to the public and makes a great path toward the park between Prospect Avenue and Prospect Road.

 

The develper is also rehabing the building behind 4600 for indoor parking.

The building across the vacated street is currently going through rehab.

And,

There will be a Silver Line stop almost directly in front of the new building.

 

What was not posted were pictures looking to the west and evening pictures showing the lighting plan. They are also very nice.

 

 

 

 

While one view of the new building - it shows me enough to consider what I'm most concerned about in recreating the massing needed to fill in a major urban artery (in this case THE urban artery in our City). Personal design preferences aside (which I determine with the use of my 'super vision', I guess), it still cries of a suburban office building that pushes its flattest side against the sidewalk.

 

It fills a hole, thanks for that.

 

 

I found them under the 4600 Euclid project on this site.  Musky posted it yesterday.

http://clevelandplanner.blogspot.com/2006/03/montreals-mirabel-airport-to-be-turned.html

 

I think MGD was referring to renderings I saw with views from other directions and of the lighting on the building at night.

 

 

 

It fills a hole, thanks for that.

 

 

I suppose you are one of those people who do not like the Breuer Office Tower (soon-to-be County Office) either, no?

No problem, you cannot have good architecture without bad architecture. It's kinda like the Force.

The question isn't the architecture, its the siting.  They brought it up to one sidewalk, but not the other.  Corners are important in creating urban places.  If we don't build up to them, than it tends to create a very suburban look.  This to me only looks semi-urban because it's set back from the cross street.  I'd hope for better along Euclid.

 

It fills a hole, thanks for that.

 

 

I suppose you are one of those people who do not like the Breuer Office Tower (soon-to-be County Office) either, no?

No problem, you cannot have good architecture without bad architecture. It's kinda like the Force.

 

:-D

 

Design aside and urbanism in mind, I tend to get overprotective of Euclid every time a building goes up in Midtown - I'm afraid some second cousin to the Applied Technologies building will move in to the neighborhood and try to recreate exurbia... ten minutes from Public Square.

 

At the very least, I think that 4600 needs to pull its edge to the other sidewalk.

 

 

 

 

 

Eh-- It's a little bland, but not bad. Think about the tripe we were getting on Euclid 10 years ago (the Applied Industrial spaceship at E. 36th).

 

Design aside and urbanism in mind, I tend to get overprotective of Euclid every time a building goes up in Midtown - I'm afraid some second cousin to the Applied Technologies building will move in to the neighborhood and try to recreate exurbia... ten minutes from Public Square.

 

Sounds like I"ll be in the minority, but I really like the Applied Tech building.  I grant that it's set back from the street, but I like the architecture of that building quite a lot. 

It'd be fine if it were built in Westlake or Beachwood.  Do you really think it works well as part of the neighborhood, though?

j73,

 

Why do you like the Applied building?  I have a hard time looking past the following things: it's gated off from the city; it looks like it should be surrounded by trees within some suburban office park; it greatly discourages workers to venture out onto Euclid Ave. 

 

Do these issues not bother the urban designer in you?  What redeeming qualities do you find in this building?

It reminds me of the Jetsons!

I was speaking more from a straight architectural point-of-view: I think it's a bold, attractive, and hopeful (last term is more of the feeling it engenders) building.  I understand your objections from the urban design side, but I don't agree that it looks like it belongs in a suburb.  Does a building have to look a certain way to be "urban"?  Does it discourage workers from walking out on to Euclid?  Perhaps, although how hard is it to walk across the lawn?  And a patch of green in the city (sorry X know you like 'em built right up to the street) is a welcome sight.  Are there some things they could have done differently in terms of siting it?  Probably (biggest issue I have is that access road to the main entrance, rather than having it face Euclid or Chester).  If it were built that way in the middle of downtown, I'd have more issues, but as it is, it's in a lower-density area where it works better. 

 

 

 

Does a building have to look a certain way to be "urban"?  Does it discourage workers from walking out on to Euclid?  Perhaps, although how hard is it to walk across the lawn? 

 

Are you saying that this is urban architecture?  How do you define "urban architecture"?

Does a building have to look a certain way to be "urban"?  

 

Yes, because if urban means just anything anyone wants it to be, then it means nothing at all.  For a building to be "urban" it should, at the very least, be a part of the larger urban ensemble.  This building seperates itself from that ensemble, not just in style, but in siting, massing, and orientation.  It is built to be a stand alone building.  It is alienated from its surrounding context.  That is the antithesis of urban.

 

^I agree with all of the planning problems with the Applied building, but I will say that I have never driven by that building with anyone else in the car who was seeing it for the first time when they didn't say "what's that building?"  I don't know what that means, I just know that it stands out.  Could be because it's out of place, could be because it is striking.  I think it's probably both.

^Probably because it's butt ugly.

^Thats a little drastic.  if you passed that building in Strongsville, some may marvel at it.  It simply does not fit the location that it's in. I think Ewoops is accurate on his take that it is out of place and striking. 

^or, strikingly out of place.

I think it is both striking and strikingly out of place.  If it were located on 10 acres in Beachwood, I would still notice it's spacey character, and probably say "cool, for an office park".  But because of where it's located, I say "that'd be kind of cool, if it was in an office park".

Does a building have to look a certain way to be "urban"?  

 

Yes, because if urban means just anything anyone wants it to be, then it means nothing at all.  For a building to be "urban" it should, at the very least, be a part of the larger urban ensemble.  This building seperates itself from that ensemble, not just in style, but in siting, massing, and orientation.  It is built to be a stand alone building.  It is alienated from its surrounding context.  That is the antithesis of urban.

 

I'm mainly making an aestethic statement, much like blinker's ("b/c it's butt-ugly") comment: I think it's an attractive building.  No point in arguing aestethics.  I agree with with many of the complaints about the design of the site (although I think we have a tendency to over-blow some of those concerns, e.g. how much the design really discourages the employees from venturing out...whether the place has a cafeteria or not probably plays a much bigger role.)

 

The question I asked above (does something need to look a certain way to be urban?), and X's (and others' responses) intrigues me:  Are you saying that the building needs to be in a certain architectural style?  That is, if a block is largely brick colonials, then any addition should also be a brick colonial?  If so, I pretty much completely disagree.  Yes, it can be nice when the architecture plays off its surroundings, and the scale matters (a 20-story building will look out-of-place) but fundamentally, a good-looking building is a good-looking building no matter where it is and no matter how its style contrasts.  That's one of the things I especially like about urban spaces - they aren't completely planned and one style sits next to another (as opposed to all the suburban house farms). 

 

Matching the scale of the neighborhood and doing somethings to encourage folks to move between the nieghborhood and the bldg are obviously good things and this bldg doesn't do that (although that part of town doesn't seem to offer to much on that front anyway...), but some of the comments here seem to go beyond that to say it's bad bldg or not an "urban" building b/c the author just didn't like the style of the building (e.g. a relatively modern-looking structure).  I'm just saying that the architectural style of the structure shouldn't determine if it's urban or not...

I'm not talking about style.  I am talking about "function" in the broadest sense.  How is the building oriented to its surroundings, what is the mix of uses, how is it accessed, how is it sited, etc.  Architectural style and technology does and should progress.  That is good.  Forgetting how make buildings work together to create larger cohesive wholes isn't.

Well, I give Applied Industrial credit for staying in the city.  Look at Parker, they were based in Cleveland, wanted a cushier HQ and took off for Lander Road in Beachwood or there abouts.

 

AI, formerly Bearings Inc, wanted the cushy HQ, but stayed in Cleveland.  Does the archtechture clash with the area?  Oh yeah, but I am still happy they are where they are.

I'm not talking about style.  I am talking about "function" in the broadest sense.  How is the building oriented to its surroundings, what is the mix of uses, how is it accessed, how is it sited, etc.  Architectural style and technology does and should progress.  That is good.  Forgetting how make buildings work together to create larger cohesive wholes isn't.

 

I'm (perhaps obviously) not in the design/architecture/planning field. It's one thing to hear about some of the things you don't like about the current place, but what would a good example look like?  I.e., if Applied Tech came to you however many years ago and said, "We have this plot of land here next to the Masonic Auditorium and want to build a HQ.  What should we do?" what would you have had them do?  I'd love to hear something more specific than "work cohesively with the neighborhood" - I mean what might that look like in practice?  (hopefully this doesn't come across as antagonistic - I really am curious.  Thx)

This was in the current issue of Crain's

 

Law firm, developer pair to build Midtown office bldg

By STAN BULLARD

6:00 am, March 20, 2006

 

The downtown Cleveland law firm of Cowden, Humphrey, Nagorney & Lovett and Heartland Developers Inc. of Shaker Heights are about to give their commitment to Cleveland in physical and fiscal form with a new building in the city’s Midtown neighborhood.

 

A joint venture owned by Cowden Humphrey and Heartland plans to start constructing the 50,000-square-foot office building this spring. The 25-person law firm plans to move from Terminal Tower and 19-person Heartland plans to relocate from Shaker Heights by fall to the new, three-story building at 4600 Euclid Ave.

 

The decision by the two firms not only to construct the building but also to occupy a floor each in it is a significant development for MidTown, said Jim Haviland, executive director of the nonprofit local development corporation that works to spur investment and redevelopment in the area between downtown Cleveland and University Circle.

 

Read More...

"I'd love to hear something more specific than "work cohesively with the neighborhood" - I mean what might that look like in practice?"

 

This isn't the best example, but I've found these buildings in Columbus attractive (for what they are) and they bring their facades up to the street. No, they don't push the envelope, style-wise but given the proximity of the Masonic Auditorium, I don't think that's needed here. Something like this meeting the street, with structured parking hidden in mid-block of the structure would be nice. Instead, we have a super-futuristic building which by itself looks great but it's surrounded by swaths of asphalt that's completely fenced off.

 

I think those pictures look great, and I could totally see them on Euclid and midtown. I kind of struggled in my thoughts about how Euclid should look in regards to architecture. Something about embracing really contemporary architecture seems attractive, as well reviving Western Reserve style architecture, but I think this red brick Italianate revival would fit very nicely. In addition to the Masonic Auditorium, there are a number of red brick Italiante mansions still intact on Prospect. These homes on Prospect probably never matched the granduer of the ones on Euclid, but they still look very nice, and I'd like to see more revival of that architecture in Midtown. Italianate architecture in Cleveland is pretty rare, and the lack of it distinguishes it from the rest of Ohio, but it would be very nice to add more Italiante infill here to create a unique identity for Midtown as well as the overrall diversity of architecture in Cleveland. 

 

I noticed that work is proceeding on the vacant building next to the Agora on Euclid (about 4 stories just past 40th going east...behind the vacant lot fronting Euclid where a building burned down about 2 years ago).  In addition to gutting the building (all the windows are out) they seem to be adding at least one additonal story. 

 

 

 

 

 

I noticed this too. Good to see some work finally moving ahead on this project.

Is this the building with the hole in the ground infront of it on the Euclid side. 

:weird:

^Thanks for the information.  So to anwer my original question, this recent construction has nothing to do with the proposed 4600 Building which fronts Euclid (on the vacant lot (to be built by Heartland for the law firm).  I wonder if the 4600 new construction project is still a go?

:weird: