one of the concepts that i like from the hague, nl:

 

creating building spaces over existing roadways - not just walkways.  over the main highway through downtown, there are 3 or 4 buildings that span across the highway.  i think this concept has potential for bridging the innerbelt trench (along with caps in certain areas) as well as downtown.  i can't find a picture of the building i really like - it is a huge arch starting on one side of the road, ending on the other and connected to significant structures on both sides.  but, it is also at least 10 stories high and has some amazing offices.

 

here is an example: [EDIT: Added images]

 

 

apparently it doesn't like the links.  here is a direct link to one example:

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=haagsepoort-streethague-nestreetrlands

 

here is one example of an arch (on the right), but this isn't the one i'm trying to find.  imagine something like this framing lake erie as you drive in the trench or being high enough that it captures terminal tower as you approach on prospect ave.

This also seems like a good way for ODOT to defray their construction costs--sell the air rights above the highways.

^^That is seriously brilliant, Urbanlife.  Instead of dumping money into site acquisition and demo/asbestos remediation, the county could have spent it towards capping infrastructure along Euclid over the innerbelt.  ODOT is flush enough, they should just hand the air rights over to the county.

The Sheraton in Newton (suburban Boston) is built that way, too ... it cantilevers out over the Mass. Turnpike.  I toured it years ago while looking for conference hotels in the area.  Kind of freaky: The bottommost level right above the highway is the pool.  I just had these visions of being in the pool and having the whole thing falling through to the turnpike below!  ;)

 

Can't find a real good image of it ...

 

I just had these visions of being in the pool and having the whole thing falling through to the turnpike below!  ;)

 

That would be the Big Dig.

Not sure how the Breuer building is anti-urban at street level, the entrance could be one of the most interesting in the city if it were cleaned and utilized.

 

It's set back, dark, and cold, and a good ambush spot for potential attackers.  A cleaning won't change that.  A canopy (the thing that is going to make it "street friendly", from the renderings I've seen) won't change that.  It can't be easily converted to any sort of street level retail.  And IIRC, the main entrance is supposedly going to be the rotunda, so that through activity won't enliven this space.

 

Also, you the opinions of the County Commissioners are now considered valid X? 

 

Maybe not, but they're more valid than any of ours.  Unless of course, you've done some programmatic space requirement analysis for the county you're not telling us about.

 

I say their intelligence can be greatly questioned, as well as those who think this building should come down simply because they think it's ugly.

 

Well the same could be said of those who say it should stay up simply because it's a Breur building.

 

I see at least three reasons to demolish this building:

As far as anyone credible has demonstrated, it doesn't meet the programmatic needs of the intended user

It doesn't interact well with the street, and probably cannot be easily modified to interact well with the street

And yes, it is indeed ugly, imo

Obviously an abandoned building does not interact well with the street.  For a tower of its size, the abstract voids in the lower facade are an incredible feature.  Imagine it lit at night.  Light would pour into the street and invite people to put their hand and head against the window to view the interior.  Secondly, the tower was designed to allow the rotunda building to have prominance in the composition, which is why it is setback 10 or 15 feet from the old structure.  This building does not make itself obviously graceful or aesthetically pleasing, but if you actually pay attention to some of the moves Breuer made, it is quite an itricate and subtle piece of architecture.  If this building was a piece of sh*t I wouldn't care if Jesus designed it, I would say tear it down, I'm not some modern preservationist.

For the county, how are these floor plates not big enough?  What are they doing, rolling steel in there?  If they are worried about putting it on less floors, buy an empty piece of land and save yourself $22 million dollars, or better yet, build it in the f'ing suburbs off of a freeway exit.  This is the city, build vertically here.

"weeeeeell it looks like a building from the Planet of the Apes, or it looks like an abandoned bee hive, oooorr......"

Well Key Tower looks like a vibrator, the Old Arcade is shaped like a flask, and the Terminal Tower looks like someone sitting Indian style from the air, or the jackknife bridge looks like a middle finger.....  Let's tear all those down while we're at it.

Guarantee 20 years from now everyone will think it was a mistake to tear it down and replace it with some piece of garbage, that's just the way it works with architecture opinions.

Hold on Buckeroo!

 

My Planet of the Apes comment are not derogatory.

Way back somewhere in this thread, I was rambling on and on about how much I love the building. I then said something like, "...it reminds me of the PoA" which is a movie series I love and shaped the way I view the world... seriously.

 

I love this building.

I do not want it torn down.

I am (because I expect the worst out of people - this way I am never let down) expecting it to be demo'd.

 

It makes me sick to my stomach that people will make a decision to do something like tear down a one-of-a-kind (that is, nowhere is there a building like this in the world) building purely on looks.

 

Now if we were talking financially - that's a different story. If it is completely more fiscally responsible to tear down and rebuild, give me a hammer and I'll help get it done. But when some of you (who might be just as ugly) want to act on something as subjective as looks...

Ok, I though it was derogitory.  My bad.  I think looking like it's from the Planet of the Apes is all the more reason to keep it.  Like you said, it's no where else in the world.

Cleveland: The Planet City:  home to the Daily Planet and Planet of the Apes.

No problem.

There is only one thing in the world that get me riled - be accused of something that is not true.

 

BTW, I completely agree with your statement about lighting it up.

Of course it does not work now. It's vacant, dark and dirty.

The 9th street side entrance is an amazing work of art. I wish I remembered what it looked like when it was occupied.

So "ugly" we need to tear it down?

... I think, not.

^ and replace it with a Rockside Road masterpiece. It would be one dark day in Clevo.

If anything, that piece of shite in the upper right of that photo hould be refaced or torn down.

Just heard a bit of interesting news. The owner of the Euclid and Ninth Tower (the old Scofield Building) across East 9th from the old Cleveland Trust rotunda is seriously considering removing the metal skin added in the 1950s to the 105-year-old Scofield building. I'm told the owner is interested in this because of the county's headquarters redevelopment across the street. I would love to see the old Scofield Building for the first time in my life. I don't have enough info yet for a story and will probably wait anyway until the owner decides to proceed, but I think it's certainly worth mentioning here!

 

I don't have a photo of the Scofield Building (or its present-day version in the skin of the Euclid-Ninth Tower) handy here at the office, but will see about posting one later (unless someone beats me to it!).

That's the guy who owns the building with Loretta's Restaraunt in it! I wrote him a letter about his dirty storefronts, but if he were to take that metal crap off the building, I'd write him a very thankful letter!

i believe by doing this he would be able to qualify for hictoric tax credits if he planned to invest more money into the building....i think they did this to some buildings along euclid for that reason.

The Schofield Building:

 

It's a beaut all right, but I hope that more is left under there than what we have on 668 Euclid, "The Building with No Facade".

I hope this motivates the neighbor city club to make it orginal too. That CVs facade isnt making for a good "important building" look.

"It's a beaut all right, but I hope that more is left under there than what we have on 668 Euclid, "The Building with No Facade"."

 

If it was absolutely necessary, they could make molds of whatever remaining ornamentation there is and replace it with micro-cotta or another resin-based material (which reads like terra cotta but is far more durable).

That would be incredible if it happens. I remember seeing the same photo a few years back, but not the portion where CVS is. Could you imagine walking into a drugstore like that?

 

I've been trying to catch up on my photo posting. Might as well continue the trend here. These were from last Friday (as were almost all of the pictures I've been posting lately). I was walking down Euclid and noticed some demo work going on in the building next to the Rotunda. It was around lunch time and nobody was working. But as soon as one worker saw me outside taking pictures a whole bunch came out to look busy. They were very concerned with my my well being, all of the sudden.

 

 

 

 

And now some shots for posterity's sake.

 

 

 

Were they actually ripping up the lobby of the tower?  If so, I hope that's asbestos removal. *crosses fingers*

Asbestos has to be removed prior to demolition as well as renovation.

It was the building next door.

Asbestos has to be removed prior to demolition as well as renovation.

 

Yes, but I'm obviously hoping for the latter.

 

It was the building next door.

 

So is that a good sign or a bad sign?

at least they are working on something.  the building next door comes down no matter what in any scenario i've heard. 

Ah, ok.  I didn't know if I was supposed to be alarmed or reassured by Musky's photos.  I figured I would have seen something in the news before a major move like beginning demolition on the tower, but I wasn't sure.

Could someone perhaps do a quick recap of what the various scenarios are at the present time? I tried reviewing the thread and quickly got lost.. something about apes seemed to derail things? Also, is the 2011 timeline still valid?

Idiotic County Commissioners plan to waste $20 million extra to tear down one of the most interesting buildings in the city to fulfill their massive egomaniacal characters with a new structure that is poorly designed to say the least.

Idiotic County Commissioners plan to waste $20 million extra to tear down one of the most interesting buildings in the city to fulfill their massive egomaniacal characters with a new structure that is poorly designed to say the least.

 

Your basis for this is?  Is there a final design plan that you have seen?

^he's pretty much got it right. There is not a final design, but the two commissioner majority has spoken. 

So it's pretty much decided to demolish it? That's really horrible in my opinion.. I suppose this is where people that support keeping it are supposed to come together and form a grass roots campaign to get media exposure and attempt to sway the machine. Any takers? I'd be willing to knock on doors to get signatures. I just have no clue on how to organize something like this.

Well, as for media exposure, Steve Litt wrote his article today about saving the tower...

 

http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/steven_litt/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1170496902253970.xml&coll=2

Could someone perhaps do a quick recap of what the various scenarios are at the present time? I tried reviewing the thread and quickly got lost.. something about apes seemed to derail things? Also, is the 2011 timeline still valid?

 

 

Your Welcome

 

 

^ Sometime the truth is just not pretty. For once I agree with the PD.  :x

"But the tower has no such constituency."

 

That's a slap in the face to those of us who attended the CSU Forum event specifically for the tower. Maybe if Litt would crawl out from behind his desk once in a while, he'd stop making such ignorant statements about his readers.

 

I hate how he always paints "the masses" who don't like this building as if they are all philistines. The only argument he ever makes is that the building is important from the perspective of this one architect's career. However, he admits its not even among his best work, and from a functional perspective, he also admits that the building hasn't aged well in our climate.

 

Personally, I'd rather see it renovated and the $20 million saved spent on something more important, like city police.

 

To stray slightly, that city building in Boston is HEINOUS. I know that will get people upset, but it doesn't interact with that section of the city at all. It's like an oppressive, obstinate bolder. Maybe I just am not a fan of the brutalist style.

^good comments, Blink.

Could someone perhaps do a quick recap of what the various scenarios are at the present time? I tried reviewing the thread and quickly got lost.. something about apes seemed to derail things? Also, is the 2011 timeline still valid?

 

You see, because all of Cleveland is so densely built-up, with nary a surface parking lot or vacant weed-covered parcel in sight, the commissioners were forced to demolish significant existing buildings.  And because our county is so flush with extra $, it was OK to spend the extra $20MM.

^ Right.. You'd think if there was an angle here "for the masses", so to speak even though I hate that phrase, it would be the $20M. Regardless if you think the building is nice (which I personally do) or not, that's just messed up.

 

I can see the 19 Action News guys chasing commissioners around waving a microphone calling out "Even though Cleveland has been rated the poorest city of its size, you thought it would be okay to blow $20 Million dollars on unnecessary construction? Are you a terrorist?!!"

 

 

I can see the 19 Action News guys chasing commissioners around waving a microphone calling out "Even though Cleveland has been rated the poorest city of its size, you thought it would be okay to blow $20 Million dollars on unnecessary construction? Are you a terrorist?!!"

 

then they watch them in library, doing.....research

I can see the 19 Action News guys chasing commissioners around waving a microphone calling out "Even though Cleveland has been rated the poorest city of its size, you thought it would be okay to blow $20 Million dollars on unnecessary construction? Are you a terrorist?!!"

 

then they watch them in library, doing.....research

 

well, 3 broke the library story courtesy of carl monday, but since he is recently departed from 3 after all of the publicity on comedy central etc., i believe he is now working for woio.

Back on topic, there's going to be an article about the Breuer Tower in the March issue of Metropolis. They had asked me about using some of my images, but they chose to go with archival pics instead. I'm not sure if it's going to be a feature or just a blurb but it'll get a lot of attention after being published in Metropolis.

To bad that guy didn't know how to make nice looking building, then we wouldn't be having these debates!

To bad that guy didn't know how to make nice looking building, then we wouldn't be having these debates!

 

That's like me saying "To bad this guy didn't know how to make ugly buildings, then we wouldn't be having this conversation."

 

Ridiculous! Make a real argument!

Don't worry Musky, Deech has never been accused of having a relavent comment in this thread

I don't know how many arguments you can make...

 

In favor to keep:

Created by an important architect

An example of an important style of architecture

Not many buildings like this are left

What goes up probably in replacement won't be as tall, and the potential design is questionable

 

Not in favor:

To 85% of "average people" in this area, it's ugly

The county says the structure of the building inside doesn't go with what they're try to do

It's not considered to be among this architect's best work

 

In general, I am in favor of two ideas, one of which I created. The first idea is encasing it glass. S.Litt at the PD hates this, but too bad. I don't like his columnist mug shot. (This is irrelevant but needed to be said).

 

The second idea is to keep the tower but knock down the thing on the back of it that has the skywalk to the parking deck. Instead, creat a building that is modern and progressive that engages the street in an exciting way.

 

But this thing is getting knocked down, so what's the use.

S.Litt at the PD hates this, but too bad. I don't like his columnist mug shot. (This is irrelevant but needed to be said).

 

Thank you for making my Sunday morning.  I've always thought the same thing, oddly enough.  Hah!

Knocking it down because supposedly 85% of the average people think it is ugly is the most idiotic thing I've heard to date.  Why not trust the opinions of trained professionals (architects, and designers in general) in this case.  Why does it seem so ridiculous to simply add onto the existing tower on the south side of the building to make the floor plates larger?  Or let's get even crazier, let's building something that cantilevers over the 1010 Euclid Avenue Building and connects to the Breuer Tower. 

These ideas are much better than the plan of tearing it down and replacing it with some uninspired piece of garbage.

Why couldn't this just be converted into residential.  I know its too late now, but man on the upper floors you can look down upon the Jake, you can people watch on the busiest street in downtown, and you could live in a substantial and significant building.  I'm pissed that the county basically feels they're doing everybody a favor by buying and bulldozing this building to put up a piddling lackluster structure, that could have just as easily been built on 1 of a 100 surface lots in the surrounding area.