And piggybacking on your comment about the necessity of single-floor departments, I've always heard that the tower was built with excess infrastructure, so is it possible that the floor-to-ceiling heights are already built in a way that could accommodate the new high tech demands of office tenants?

 

Floor-to-ceiling spaces would be far too cramped for modern offices, which need room for new heating, cooling, high-tech wiring and other equipment.

 

That is one of several topics that nobody, including the commissioners, know because they did no feasibility study for the building.  Robert Madison (arch of record for the project) just sits back and watches the commissions come in, does zero research and zero due diligence, just as he has done for the majority of his career.

Personally, I think the article did a good job laying out the reasons why demolition makes more sense then rehabilitation - the floor-to-ceiling issues, the windows, the asbestos, continuous rising costs by delaying this project, the fact that the floor plan just doesn't work for their needs.

 

The county partially picked this site in a move to support the Euclid Corridor Project.  It is just one more item to put on the list in efforts to bring Euclid back to life.  A huge empty space on Cleveland's most prominent downtown corner, would of just been another disappointment in the eyes of many. 

 

Granted the Atrium Building is much more blighted, which we can thank Ohio Savings for that..but for whatever reason that site was not picked.

 

So often time, ideas that float around here on UO are simplified and almost "Sym City" mentality.  Practicality needs to come into play here. 

I just want the rotunda restored, and if it could be the front door to the county, all the better

So often time, ideas that float around here on UO are simplified and almost "Sym City" mentality.  Practicality needs to come into play here. 

 

I'm not sure which way this cuts.  The County's plan of massively overpaying for a site just so it could bulldoze the existing tower didn't strike me as practical.

 

This whole process has been such a disaster.

Personnaly, I think this is one of the biggest eyesore's downtown being that it is a massive 29 story buliding that can be seen from miles away and is also the back-drop in many Jacob's Field photos.  Also, given it's size and value, the prospects of another developer renovating or removing was is very slim.  In all honesty, do you think a developer in the next 5 years would have done anything with this building?  I really don't.  Yes, the atrium is an eyesor, but given it's size and value, it does have the potential to be picked up by other developers for re-use.  Also, with the resurgence of E 4, and it's proximity to that, it also raises it's chances. 

 

This whole process has been such a disaster.

 

Now ain't that the truth!  That pretty much sums up this whole project and that statement is the ONE clear thing about this entire project.

 

I mean if this was such a slam dunk why are the commissioners in fight, more than the norm, on this project.  PLJ is the only commissioner with any sense!

What's more practical, tearing down a 35 year old, 29 story architectural masterpiece of poured concrete floor by floor, spending roughly $40,000,000, to get to a blank site (there are already 100's of those in this city), wasting another roughly $100,000,000 to built a poorly designed structure by an inept architect, just to get as many chain smoking county workers onto less floors with 12'-0" ceilings instead of 10' or 11' ceilings? 

You're the one that living in a "SimCity" mentality to think that this structure will be torn down by the demo button and the materials will disappear into thin air.  The asbestos and single pane windows are a relatively easy fix compared to building an entirely new building.  And are we to assume that did they not know the floor to ceiling height before they bought the structure, and that it was an issue?

Example:

"Oh, I need a car to haul large objects, so I'll buy a Porsche, rip it apart while leaving the tires, and construct a Ford F150 atop them.  It will cost me 40% more to do, but what the hell."

That makes about as much sense.

woo!  smokin hot!  let's hope the planning commission was half this interesting this morning!

In all honesty, do you think a developer in the next 5 years would have done anything with this building?  I really don't. 

 

I actually agree.  Which is why I'm mystified the county would pay over $20M for this site.  But once that baby is torn down, we'll never know if anything good could have come of it.

 

I guess I just don't see the mothballed tower as even in the same league as the Atrium building, the surface lot next to the Atrium building, or the surface lots on Prospect when it comes to eyesores.  And I note that this project was never sold by the county as an extravagent beautification project (the way the EC project admittedly is)...quite the opposite in fact.

True, the primary objective is to consolidate County offices, creating a more efficient headquarters and potentially saving taxpayers money.  With the current proposal, they're killing the last objective right off the bat. 

 

I think there are many suspicions about why they paid what they paid for the current site and who they paid it to.  No one has really accused anyone of blatant cronyism, but it's an undertone that's hard to ignore.  A very good point, indeed (Strap), that if this property was so undesirable to the private market, that it should have sold for far less.  Sounds like CMHA might have helped them work out a purchase price!

Where are these magical developers that would rehab and develop this building in the next 5 years?  Were they just born?  Because they haven't been seen in the 15 years it's been empty.. stop thinking with your heart people and start thinking with your head.

 

I agree it's a waste of money, but don't sit here and act like there was a bidding war for the property.

what are you talking about?  that's precisely what we're saying!  if no developer would buy this property for $20 million, why should the public sector pay that amount for it?!  sheesh, talk about thinking with your head...

I honestly think they picked it because of location, location, location, and a chance to restore the Cleveland Trust rotunda which will be 100years old next year.

 

W28th, even if they save the building, the concrete exterior has to go because it is made with asbestos.  So if that is gone, what still makes it an "architectural masterpiece?"

Let's not give this building the market value it would have say it was on E 14 and St.Clair.  It is a hot corner in Cleveland, even though it dosen't look like it, and it appears in almost every skyline shot taken of Cleveland.  It is visible on TV in every home Indians game and is probably one of the most visible from inside the stadium.  Don't get me wronng, did WE overpay...probably, but WE  partially overpaid due to location and visibility. 

This is from the archives in Crains.  I recalled discussions about this in the mid 90's, so figured I would look it up. 

 

JACOBS GROUP OFFERS AMERITRUST BUILDING FOR COURTHOUSE SITE

 

By STAN BULLARD

 

4:30 am, February 6, 1995

 

Richard E. Jacobs Group, downtown's largest office building owner, has joined the competition for the new U.S. Courthouse in downtown Cleveland.

 

The shopping mall developer presented a proposal to sell the former Ameritrust Building at East Ninth and Euclid Avenue and several surrounding buildings to the federal government for the proposed, $200 million high-rise courthouse.

 

Richard Jacobs, chief executive officer of the firm bearing his name, and Martin Cleary, the company's president, presented the proposal to the General Services Administration last month, according to Richard Latkowski, project manager for the Cleveland court project.

 

Mr. Latkowski said Jacobs Group proposed erecting another 28-story building next to the Ameritrust building. The existing building would be renovated and connected to the new building. The 24-year-old Ameritrust building was designed in anticipation of an adjacent second tower.

 

Mr. Latkowski said Messrs. Jacobs and Cleary 'felt there was a savings in the overall project by incorporating the existing building with a new building.'

 

 

But Mr. Latkowski wouldn't detail those savings or the Jacobs Group's asking price for the property.

 

The federal government intends to build a courthouse to replace the 83-year-old courthouse on Public Square. The new courthouse would end the need for court-related offices to lease space in downtown office buildings, such as the Jacobs-owned Society Tower.

 

The GSA hasn't ruled out the Ameritrust Building, but it's clear Mr. Latkowski found flaws with it.

 

'We didn't totally agree on the savings of using the existing building,' he said. 'Their proposal also didn't include an estimate for reskinning the existing building to match the new building, and it would have a complicated footprint.'

 

Mr. Latkowski said the Jacobs proposal would require the courthouse to be 'shoehorned in' at the Ameritrust site. He specifically noted that the site wouldn't accommodate a public plaza because the new s

 

tructure would need to be built all the way to the sidewalks.

 

Mr. Latkowski said renovating a building also might require a different congressional approval than building one. The federal appropriation of $40 million for site acquisition and design services was designated for construction of a new building, he said.

 

Mr. Cleary wouldn't comment on the proposal. Jacobs Group bought the Ameritrust Building in 1988 as part of a plan to replace Ameritrust Corp.'s headquarters with a 60-story office building on Public Square. Those plans died in 1992 after Ameritrust was bought by Society Corp., now known as KeyCorp.

 

The Jacobs Group's original plans to renovate the old Ameritrust Building for rental office space have been dormant because of the glut of downtown office space. KeyCorp uses part of the building for its trust division, but those employees will move to a new building in Brooklyn later this year.

 

The Jacobs Group proposal is the latest for the highly pursued courthouse project. Three other sites also are in contention.

 

One site is the block between Superior and Frankfort avenues and West Third and Sixth streets. That property largely is owned by First Union Real Estate Investments Inc., a Cleveland-based real estate investment trust.

 

Also under consideration is the block containing the Cuyahoga County Administration Building, 1219 Ontario St.; and a three-acre piece of property near the southwest corner of Huron Road and Superior Avenue that overlooks the Cuyahoga River. The Huron Road site is controlled by Forest City Enterprises Inc., the Cleveland developer that built the nearby Tower City Center.

 

GSA hopes to select a site by month's end and expects to start construction by 1997, but it must get money from Congress to pay for construction.

 

A proposal to locate the courthouse near the Gateway sports complex has been 'essentially dropped' because GSA believes the nature of the area isn't suitable for a courthouse and the project would inhibit the development of entertainment and residential-related projects there, Mr. Latkowski said.

 

'It's not the serene area we want for the court,' he said.

 

Where are these magical developers that would rehab and develop this building in the next 5 years?  Were they just born?  Because they haven't been seen in the 15 years it's been empty.. stop thinking with your heart people and start thinking with your head.

 

ignoring the fact that you are completely bass ackwards on who is thinking what, here is some heady thought.  the county overpaid for the site and is now going to overpay for the destruction and will likely overpay to build new.  even without thinking about what the breuer building looks like, how is that reasonable?! 

 

give me empty potential over wasted opportunity any day.

 

W28th, even if they save the building, the concrete exterior has to go because it is made with asbestos.  So if that is gone, what still makes it an "architectural masterpiece?"

 

I believe it is the window inserts that are the asbestos part.  the honeycomb looking stuff.  the concrete is made out of well, concrete.  rocks.  etc.   

^ I really think the cost to renovate would exceed the cost to demolish and rebuild.  I have never seen a rehab come in at awarded bid price, and this is on 1 to 6 story buildings.  They always run into un-forseen problems (HOB for example).  Take for example a $100,000,000 project.  You are budgeting for spending approximately $125,000 per day during construction.  Now, lets say the plumbers and electrician find something that wasn't suppossed to be there.  An RFI is submitted, plans are redesigned, plumbers and electricians try to look busy for a week until revisions comeback and the drywallers are sitting at home.  Over $600,000 RFI and that's just one.  This is the truth and it happens all the time. Does it happen on new construction, sure.  But the percentage of new construction coming in at cost and on-time exceeds renovation by far.

they (planning commission) voted to tear it down this morning.

they (planning commission) voted to tear it down this morning.

:? :-( :weird:

WKYC

 

CLEVELAND -- By a 5-2 vote, the city planning commission has given the green light to a plan to demolish the Ameritrust tower at the corner of East 9th and Prospect.

The county wants to build a new headquarters complex on the site.

 

Architects, preservationists and tax watchdogs had all argued against demolition.

 

Some argued the building was an important piece of architectural history. It was designed by famed architect Marcel Breuer.

 

But in the end, the county managed to convince the planning commission that the present building could not be adequately renovated to meet needs.

 

Demolition is expected to take place in the spring with a new building opening by 2011.

 

The building will house 1,700 county workers.

 

It's hoped that the building will help revitalize Euclid Avenue.

Unf%$#ing believable!  Be prepared for a piece of sh%t replacement or an empty lot all togerher.  I don't even know what else to say.  F%&k Hagan, Dimora, Cimperman, the gutless City Planning Commission, and all the other people who are too moronic to  give a damn about the aesthetics of this once great city.  Obviously we will never learn.  This is the first time I've ever been embarrassed to be a Clevelander.

A little dramatic aren't we?  If the fact that something will now be done with a 20-year vacant structure makes you embarrassed to be a Clevelander, then I'm sorry for that....  because this city has a lot worse things going for it then this. 

 

I'm glad that some decision has finally been made and things can move forward. 

Who voted against it? Kuri and Krumholz?

A little dramatic aren't we?  If the fact that something will now be done with a 20-year vacant structure makes you embarrassed to be a Clevelander, then I'm sorry for that....  because this city has a lot worse things going for it then this. 

 

I'm glad that some decision has finally been made and things can move forward. 

 

What's worse than tearing down your city building by building?  It's been going on for 60 years and it still continues.  Obviously you're part of the group that doesn't appreciate or understand the urban condition or even simple economics for that matter.  Allowing politicians to mold a city is obviously a dangerous proposition.

Sorry, but politicians have molded cities as long as there have been politicians and cities -- for the better and for the worse.

 

Mayor Jackson's office just faxed a statement to my office regarding the planning commission's decision. Interesting about Jackson's comment on "the 25,000 people we are working to attract to the downtown neighborhood"....hmmmm

 

June 29, 2007 — “The Planning Commission made the right decision. The Euclid Avenue and 9th Street area of the corridor is an important part of the future of downtown. With approximately 1500 additional people in that area, along with the 25,000 people we are working to attract to the Downtown neighborhood, this decision becomes key to the revitalization of the City of Cleveland and the region,” said Mayor Frank Jackson.

 

....from http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/pdf/press/20070629252.pdf

The new building better not be hideous, that's all I've got to say.

That's another problem, nobody even tell you what it's going to look like because they have done no work on it.  Presentation to the city planning commission; they had nothing.  And the rendering they haev shown so far, it looks like it was creasted by an 8 year old.  Those are the people you are trusting to design a building at this prominent corner.

At least we still have the Cleveland Trust building!! Yaya!!

Eh, Wasteful, that's all this is.  I just wanna know why with the acres and acres and acres of open property in Cleveland and Cleveland proper this is what we get.  I understand location, I do, I understand that they think it will help the Euclid corridor, I get it, Jacobs called in a favor, I know, but getting it doesn't mean it is right.  Maybe they could use the money to help pay for their CONVENTION CENTER/MEDICAL MART, instead of going right to the people to pay more money they just don't have, let them give up something for what they want.  There is just so much other stuff that needs to be done around here and better uses for the money.  I just don't understand it.

 

Sorry to rant, but just makes you mad when you combine this with the sales tax increase, the schools being 150 million over budget on a billion dollar renovation, CMHA million dollar overbuying of a lot of grass that WE payed to clean.  It is just Wasting money like there will always be more.

 

 

 

EDITED TO MAKE SENSE

Jar...this is the county, not the city.  EVERYONE in cuyahoga county should be outraged!

so when do they start finalizing designs so we can criticize those again?

Jar...this is the county, not the city.  EVERYONE in cuyahoga county should be outraged!

 

I understand that, Those were just my local examples of backwards priorities around this city/region, I'll edit it to clear it up. 

 

Everyone should be outraged, but they won't be, it will be just viewed (by the burbs) as another way Cleveland wasted "their" money.

it will be just viewed (by the burbs) as another way Cleveland wasted "their" money.

 

Sad, but probably true.

Tim Hagan

Jimmy Dimora

Albert Porter

"It's hoped that the building will help revitalize Euclid Avenue." [from the news summary]

 

Not holding my breath.

What a shame.

In the end, the Planning Commission alone couldn't save this building and prevent the waste of its destruction. They did more than anyone else to try, but there was never a movement broad or organized enough to prove a true obstacle. There was barely a whisper about the tower's demolition until Litt wrote about it last year, and I feel the public at large had just started hearing the nuances of the debate in the last couple weeks (beyond "it's Breuer, so let's save it"). The responsible thing to do would have been to table any final decision until a meaningful public debate could be had.

 

Lesson learned: Anti-demolitionists must organize early -- much earlier than they did in this case. Maybe there's still enough time to get in the way of ODOT's demolition plans around the Innerbelt trench.

I just question what the city planning commission heard today that they didn't hear 2 weeks ago that changed their minds.  You're right, the anti-demolitionists didn't organize early enough, but at the same time Hagan, and then Dimora had already shut down the thoughts of preservation for whatever whacked out logic they deemed valid.

Mark my words, this will be something we will regret in the next decade or two. 

Oh yeah, and Frank Jackson, pissing architectural heritage away does not make people want to live in the city.  Just shut your mouth and have no input on topics crucial to the city until they are already decided like you have for the last 2 years.  The list of people I won't vote for in the next election is rising quickly.

wow...

 

what the hell happened that it went from a vote not to tear the buildin down to suddenly a final vote to tear it down? i didnt even hear it until now and ive been keepin tabs

 

this is just corrupt politicians. how much they cut the check for frank? obviously nothin could be done to save this building because the county politicians already made sure they were gonna get their way.

 

am i on urbanohio.com? you got some people here bashin w28th and callin his posts "a little dramatic" cuz he doesnt want cleveland tearin itself down like it has for decades. dramatic is spendin millions of dollars to demolish a buildin just because its not attractive to some. the shit dont make sense. there are 2387054592039 parking lots in downtown cleveland that you can build on, instead you choose to destroy a skyscraper. i want any building old (even only 30 somethin yrs old) to be standing because soon we wont have anything here to remind us of the past

 

lets not even get into the environmental factors of demolishing this building

 

cleveland already has an unimpressive skyline for a metro of 3 million. yea, its unimpressive. theres key tower, terminal tower, bp and thats about it. thats the only real height and that side of the skyline is empty apart from them.

 

 

not that those are very impressive anyway.....now picture those without the cleveland trust tower

 

 

look at all those parking lots...yet frankie and his goons wanna DEMOLISH a skyscraper?

 

 

everyone should be mad at this. there's no excuse for continually tearing down cleveland and its not gonna stop. this is a city that simply doesnt get it. tearin down this buildin would be unheard of if it sat in new york or chicago.

 

 

fuck frank jackson

CTownsFinest216  - excuse me, but why is this a Frank Jackson problem???

 

This is a COUNTY COMMISSIONERS issue.

 

Honestly, if Frank had said, "no" and publicly come out and lobbied in favor of saving the tower, what might be the outcome?

I find it humorous that the article cites as a reason for demolition the fact that the building is not structurally sound enough to stand up to earthquakes. Apparently, it hasn't had a problem in its 36 years of existence and should be okay into the foreseeable future unless somebody is expecting a rash of earthquakes soon.

If cleveland was facing a huge construction boom with old buildings being torn down left and right - maybe i would understand everyone's frsutration...but they are NOT....as i said before..this is not some great historical building.  It was finished in 1971...only had 10 years of use and has been vacant since then.  It has caused that corner to be wasted.

 

I look forward to seeing it come down so something more useful can go in its place.  It's frustrating that so many of you would rather have it sit dark and vacant - just to have another tower in the skyline...since when does the amount of towers say anything about the viability of a city or region....it makes no sense.

CTownsFinest216  - excuse me, but why is this a Frank Jackson problem???

 

This is a COUNTY COMMISSIONERS issue.

 

Honestly, if Frank had said, "no" and publicly come out and lobbied in favor of saving the tower, what might be the outcome?

 

did he say no?

 

and ive already said it was the county officials (comminsioners)

 

If cleveland was facing a huge construction boom with old buildings being torn down left and right - maybe i would understand everyone's frsutration...but they are NOT....as i said before..this is not some great historical building.  It was finished in 1971...only had 10 years of use and has been vacant since then.  It has caused that corner to be wasted.

 

you make no sense. if cleveland was facing a huge construction boom with old buildings being torn down left and right you would understand everyone's frustration? LOL hello.....if that were happening i wouldnt care that much because things would be getting built!!! since there is no construction boom and we cant even get 1 highrise built at the moment its even worse that cleveland demolishes a skyscraper and wont build another one on that spot. do you hear what youre saying?

 

I look forward to seeing it come down so something more useful can go in its place.  It's frustrating that so many of you would rather have it sit dark and vacant - just to have another tower in the skyline...since when does the amount of towers say anything about the viability of a city or region....it makes no sense.

 

you sound imbecilic right here......

 

 

 

If cleveland was facing a huge construction boom with old buildings being torn down left and right - maybe i would understand everyone's frsutration...but they are NOT....as i said before..this is not some great historical building.  It was finished in 1971...only had 10 years of use and has been vacant since then.  It has caused that corner to be wasted.

 

I look forward to seeing it come down so something more useful can go in its place.  It's frustrating that so many of you would rather have it sit dark and vacant - just to have another tower in the skyline...since when does the amount of towers say anything about the viability of a city or region....it makes no sense.

 

It makes no sense, just like the accuracy of this post!

CT ownsFinest216  - excuse me, but why is this a Frank Jackson problem???

 

This is a COUNTY COMMISSIONERS issue.

 

Honestly, if Frank had said, "no" and publicly come out and lobbied in favor of saving the tower, what might be the outcome?

 

did he say no?

 

and ive already said it was the county officials (commissioners)

 

then why did you end you post with "fuck frank jackson" instead of the commissioners?

 

By what and how you wrote your post, it appears you place all the blame at Franks doorstep!

This is some pretty bleak news.  The WKYC story had a really somber tone to it.  I got the sense that the commission really didn't want to cast that vote.

 

I agree with everyone else.  We have enough parking lots upon which we can build.  Couldn't the commissioners have pursued Jacob's property at the NW corner of Public Square?  It'd be closer to the courts and would be about the same distance from city hall.  Plus, that location would bolster shopping and services in the Warehouse District, Tower City, etc.

 

Here's another reason for the people across the country who "get it" to look down on this region.  I think that some of the types of bright people we hope to attract will take note of this when they consider moving here.

 

And Hagan and Dimora's tax increase - how are the county headquarters and juvenile center considered economic development?

MyTwoSense- i said fuck frank jackson too as well as the county commisioners. i dont place all the blame on him but he is as much to blame as anyone else. jackson is our mayor and the only comments hes made about he seemed to be pretty adamant about this being the right decision and there was no other feasable alternative. what has he done so far during his tenure as mayor? hes pretty much a ghost and only speaks up when things are already set in stone.

 

anways, check this out on cleveland.com with people's reactions to the decision

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/plaindealer/2007/06/commission_approves_ameritrust.html#comments

 

very depressing lookin at these views...

 

i especially like these ones

 

good ridance. Empty building + build in 1960's = not historical

 

yea thats a perfect justification. i think that guy posts on here too

 

 

I agree. That building is ugly. Pittsburgh is building new shiny ones. We also need new shiny ones.

 

LOL......except pittsburgh isnt tearing down skyscrapers "WE NEED SHINY NEW TOWERS!" hahahaha

 

 

Do any of you people even realize what the options were other than tearing the building down? Do you know what the replacement structure will be? The NEW building will be only 15 floors as oppossed the current 29 floor building. Can't wait to have a downtown full of midrise to lowrise suburban style buildings. Yes Pittsburgh does have shiny new buildings...but the are also large buildings, unlike the crappy buildings we have here (other than the "Big three".....way to go Cleveland...AGAIN.

 

exactly

 

Well, as someone who didn't grow up here but does live here *now* (stinky economy and all), I think any progress is good progress.

 

oh if only it were that simple. calling this progress in the first place is the problem.

 

Just another way for Dimora, Hagen and the other schills to get more money in their pockets and have nice new places to sit their fat padded butts!

 

yup

 

 

 

Here's another reason for the people across the country who "get it" to look down on this region.  I think that some of the types of bright people we hope to attract will take note of this when they consider moving here.

 

and the bright people we already have here will take note of it when they consider staying in or moving out of cleveland

Oh, I need a car to haul large objects, so I'll buy a Porsche, rip it apart while leaving the tires, and construct a Ford F150 atop them.  It will cost me 40% more to do, but what the hell.

 

Best quote to sum up what's going on here.  IMO, In the end, this was just a back door deal to bail out Jacob's, nothing more.

 

I hope in the end, this some how works out...

Here's my three cents...for whatever its worth.

 

I've always hated this building. 

 

I don't care who designed it, it makes buildings in East Berlin look good...and that's the reality of it.  On one of Cleveland's many grey-colored days, this thing was definitely depressing.  Plus, the height of it was nothing to write home about. 

 

Also, do we really know what is going to be put in its place?  I don't remember seeing a final plan, just some pretty cool looking proposals...if someone could point me to that news I would appreciate it.

 

With all of this being said, I agree that there are WAY too many parking lots in my beloved hometown...why not build on one of those?

 

BTW...wouldn't the rotunda make a cool Apple store?  I can see the folks of the Cleve lining up now on the steps for the new iPhone!  Somebody call Steve Jobs and offer him rent for $25/month if he would put a flagship store there.   

there is so much wrong with what you have just posted I don't know where to begin. 

 

scroll back to the beginning pages of this thread.  there are designs for the proposed building.  none of which are very nice.  the design is not final, but it is likely not getting any taller, or more interesting.

 

the rest of your post is the kind of illogical crap that is clouding this debate.  seems like everyone has an opinion that starts with, "I don't know anything about architecture or the issue at hand, but I think it's ugly so..." 

 

yea, iphone is the answer(bangs head on desk).  ffs.

Wow!  Maybe they call it "Brutalism" because of its adherents, not its architectural style.