^^Point taken MTS, but I'm not talking about cost here.  I'm disagreeing with the argument that putting 1500 people in one important intersection is going to magically transform the office market downtown.  Instead, it's taking 200 from one building, 500 from another,  250 from another, 150 from (suburb), and so on..... 

 

What happens to the newly vacant office buildings?  And the businesses (restaurants, coffee shops, etc.) that count on the tenants?  Sure, new businesses will start up around the new location, but the old ones may die out as well.

 

I'm just trying to make the point that it's not like these are new employees coming from the suburbs or outside the region.  They mostly come from other parts of downtown.  If you move them from one place to another, the net benefit is probably not going to be as large as is being touted.  It's a shell game.

 

Before asking that, do you know where all the employees are currently located?

Do you know the number of employee to move from X building to the new building?

The "status" of their currently occupied buildings?

 

From what I understand most of the city employees are in class b or c space scatter throughout downtown or on the near eastside, like central services and the employees in suburban locations wont move because of the need of that offices specialized "service" in that community, such as the coroner, animal shelter, airport or services in hospitals & clinics.

a lot of folks on this board want to demolish the breuer simply because they believe it to be ugly.  aside from beauty being in the eye of the beholder, the greater issue here is the embodied energy contained in the building and the enormous amount of money and energy to be wasted for demolishing it to construct something lackluster in it's place.

 

if necessity truly is the mother of invention, then i believe the breuer building presents itself as a fantastic opportunity that engenders architectural risk and ingenuity, in a town that rarely sees it.  however, as many people have already stated, the process of choosing an architect was flawed from the start as it was skewed to favor new construction over renovation or re-skinning. 

 

I believe that the look of the building could be completely altered (if that is the desired outcome) by re-skinning using some sort of  building envelope technology.  http://www.buildingenvelopes.org    Renovations of existing buildings using building envelope technologies would be a relatively in-expensive way to change the look of our downtown streetscape, while saving both money and energy in near and long term.

 

Does anyone have a picture of the planned Weber Murphy Fox reskin for the Breuer?  They had a poster at the protest, but I've not been able to find it elsewhere.

I am all for saving it if the county or anyone else wants to renovate and move in.  I don't care how it looks.  But if it is a choice between 1) knocking it down and building a new structure or 2) the county deciding to go to the burbs instead and the existing building sitting vacant for another 15 years, then I have no problem with taking it down. 

The only major employers left in the CBD are banks, and government offices. Major businesses do not locate in a downtown anymore. It’s more expensive for their employees, and dealing with the city and the many constituencies is a pain because it’s almost impossible to get anything done. Beyond the federal building nothing has been built in the CBD in maybe ten years.

 

Forcing the county into a building it doesn’t want is a non starter. Were stuck with the commissioner’s decision. If the planning commission denies the county the right to demo the building, the county will probably stay where it is until it sells the building, assuming someone would want the thing. My guess is in the end, they will leave for a less controversial, more cost effective solution in the suburbs. Then we can look at an another empty building lining Euclid ave. for another twenty years.

 

 

 

As stated before, HOW and why would the county move to the burbs, when Cleveland is the county seat just because little jimmy is a little pissed?

The only major employers left in the CBD are banks, and government offices. Major businesses do not locate in a downtown anymore. It’s more expensive for their employees, and dealing with the city and the many constituencies is a pain because it’s almost impossible to get anything done. Beyond the federal building nothing has been built in the CBD in maybe ten years.

 

Forcing the county into a building it doesn’t want is a non starter. Were stuck with the commissioner’s decision. If the planning commission denies the county the right to demo the building, the county will probably stay where it is until it sells the building, assuming someone would want the thing. My guess is in the end, they will leave for a less controversial, more cost effective solution in the suburbs. Then we can look at an another empty building lining Euclid ave. for another twenty years.

 

 

Welcome to UO. :wave:

 

You guess?  :roll:  I hope you're guess is wrong!  You do realize that Cleveland's downtown is the eight most concentrated employement center (CBD) in the country and is cuyahoga seat.

 

Nothing has been built in downtown in 10 years?  :roll:

 

If they spend 30 million dollars to domolish a building the commissioners are doing the citizens of cuyahoga count a disservice.  I suggest you read this entire thread especially PLJs reasons for wanting to renovate the building instead of destroying it.  BTW, the last time I checked, cuyahoga county is a "government" office.

Yeah, new people to the forum board should definetly read the previous pages of this thread.  There is a lot of background information in veteran UO opinions that are being voiced here.  And saying it should be torn down simply because it's ugly in your opinion, isn't going to carry much weight around here.

The only major employers left in the CBD are banks, and government offices.

 

Whaaaa?

either way, this thing will be a very costly project and an inefficient use of our money.  I respect PLJ's thinking and will be happy if he is victorious, but at the same time I don't want this whole thing to fall apart and the building stay empty and dirty for 20 years. 

The only major employers left in the CBD are banks, and government offices.

 

That's not true at all. There are real estate companies, advertising agencies, architects, magazine publishers, talent management companies (IMG), modeling agencies. Just because you only see a bunch of suits at networking events doesn't mean there aren't other types of people downtown.

 

What else? A paint manufacturer; the heaquarters of professional sports teams; major philantropic organizations; the heaquarters of the CMA until their building is done; shipping companies; union headquarters; the RTA main office; the Diocese of Cleveland... This list could go on and on. Frankly, if I had to work in the suburbs, I'd move somewhere else.

The only major employers left in the CBD are banks, and government offices.

 

That's not true at all. There are real estate companies, advertising agencies, architects, magazine publishers, talent management companies (IMG), modeling agencies. Just because you only see a bunch of suits at networking events doesn't mean there aren't other types of people downtown.

 

...and  you can add to that DEVELOPERS!   :wink:

Yeah, new people to the forum board should definetly read the previous pages of this thread.  There is a lot of background information in veteran UO opinions that are being voiced here.  And saying it should be torn down simply because it's ugly in your opinion, isn't going to carry much weight around here.

 

I did not suggest or even read anyone else suggets that it should be torn down simply b/c it is ugly.  Maybe I missed someone else posting that, or it could just be an exaggeration.  I am simply looking for progress and fresh ideas downtown.  That building sitting there empty and collecting dust is not progress.  That being said, renovating the existing tower and filling it w/ county workers would be nice progress in my mind.  I also have no problem with bashing a public official if you disagree with how they handle things.  They weren't elected to be my friend.  they were elected to make smart decisions on my behalf and when they don't then they should hear about it.  Just like I don't have a problem booing Larry Hughes when he goes 3-17.

I'm new to posting, but I've been reading several Cleveland threads that interest me (this one, CSU, etc) and I think everyone really gets stuck on their view and cannot look at the other side.  If you look at your opinion and see the potential reaction it makes things much more clear.  It's really just a cost/benefit situation.  To those who want to save the building, is it really worth saving if it means the county will not consolidate their offices into this building and keep its employees spread out (which anyone with business experience can understand how TRULY inefficient that can be).  Also, perhaps I've missed it, but everyone seems to be very concerned with the cost of a new building in addition to what it would cost to start new, how is this going to be funded?  From my understanding and things learned in political science 101 these types of government projects are typically funded through the sale of bonds and private invests/loans.  These buildings are amortized over decades, not simply by hiking up tax rates and paying the cost off in a few years.

 

I personally don't mind the building, but I am not totally opposed to tearing it down and building something new.  This would be a major project that could help stimulate small business along Euclid Avenue.  This is something I can only hope that will happen near CSU after the Euclid Corridor Project wraps up in that area.

Contrary to what one might believe down in Brunswick, there are many employers in the CBD aside from banks and the government.  As an attorney, I think I can attest to the fact that there are a lot of us down here.  As others pointed out above, a number of other businesses can be found downtown (advertising, publishing, finance, etc.).  Look around.

 

Moreover, major businesses DO locate in downtowns where those governments make it an attractive proposition to do so.  Also, look at what Dan Gilbert is looking to do in Detroit with Quicken.  There's often red-tape and high costs, but it is still done.  I don't see how you can say that it's "more expensive" for their employees.  For what, parking?  Driving to exurbia costs a whole lot more in gasoline than it does to take the RTA or train into downtown.  Plus, with public transportation, there's no parking cost.  Try getting a bus out to a corporate office in Beachwood or the like. 

 

I could care less if the Bruer Tower goes or stays.  I think it's a shame that our county is looking to spend so much money on this proposition either way. However, the pro-suburb mentality in this area does everyone a disservice.

I too work in the city and in a beautiful restored building. However, from a first hand experience, I can't tell you how hard it is to remake an old building work economically for modern uses. It's not for everybody, and there are many costly unknowns.

 

There are exceptions, but obviously cities wouldn't be contracting if businesses and jobs were moving in. It just a fact. I never said I was for suburbs, but they evolved for a reason, and in this case I would hate to see the county government offices decide to move to the burbs, or to an area outside of  the CBD because they couldn't make it work downtown. I think the county want's to stimulate that section of Euclid ave. It may or may not work, but it's worth a try. Obviously, if I was pro-suburb I wouldn't be reading this board now would I.

I too work in the city and in a beautiful restored building. However, from a first hand experience, I can't tell you how hard it is to remake an old building work economically for modern uses. It's not for everybody, and there are many costly unknowns.

 

There are exceptions, but obviously cities wouldn't be contracting if businesses and jobs were moving in. It just a fact. I never said I was for suburbs, but they evolved for a reason, and in this case I would hate to see the county government offices decide to move to the burbs, or to an area outside of  the CBD because they couldn't make it work downtown. I think the county want's to stimulate that section of Euclid ave. It may or may not work, but it's worth a try. Obviously, if I was pro-suburb I wouldn't be reading this board now would I.

 

So the county should send 30 million to JUST tear it down??

Obviously, if I was pro-suburb I wouldn't be reading this board now would I. 

 

I don't think you are pro-suburb and you seem to care about what is best for Cleveland & Cuyahoga County.

 

It seems though, you are letting threats cloud your opinion. I believe that this is just rhetoric on the part of the commissioners. Let's assume for a moment that they can legally move the offices from the county seat and the county's largest city.

 

The result would be something they would regret, a national story & political suicide.

Yeah, I'm not really worried about the threats at this point either.  Nor does it have much bearing on merits of the main demo or rehab debate.

 

I think the county want's to stimulate that section of Euclid ave. It may or may not work, but it's worth a try.

 

Yeah, maybe we can make Euclid as lively as the blocks immediately surrounding the Justice Center.  The amount of workers this project will bring to this intersection is an incremental increase, not a tidal wave- I'm not sure why this ever considered as a possible stimulus for Euclid.

 

And as ugly as the building is (to some), is it really worse than the vacant lot where the Hippodrome was?  Or the one on Prospect?  Those are the real eye sores IMHO.

Bare with me because this might be crazy -- but what if there was a compromise?! That words never even be used in this debate.

Those words were used in a sense. Demolition and replacement with a signature building would be a HUGE compromise.

either way, this thing will be a very costly project and an inefficient use of our money.  I respect PLJ's thinking and will be happy if he is victorious, but at the same time I don't want this whole thing to fall apart and the building stay empty and dirty for 20 years. 

 

With all of the interest and attention that the tower has been getting, I would not be surprised if the building were picked up by a developer with some type of use for it in mind if the county were to sell (and at this point, I'm hoping they do).  This would make a DAMN sweet condo conversion, (on the corner of 9th and Euclid, condos would sell in no time), or some type of mixed-use. Just gotta clean it out first.

either way, this thing will be a very costly project and an inefficient use of our money.  I respect PLJ's thinking and will be happy if he is victorious, but at the same time I don't want this whole thing to fall apart and the building stay empty and dirty for 20 years. 

 

With all of the interest and attention that the tower has been getting, I would not be surprised if the building were picked up by a developer with some type of use for it in mind if the county were to sell (and at this point, I'm hoping they do).  This would make a DAMN sweet condo conversion, (on the corner of 9th and Euclid, condos would sell in no time), or some type of mixed-use. Just gotta clean it out first.

 

but you would still be at square one.  Would a developer want the asbestos problem?  What amenties could go in the building that connect it to Gateway/East 4th and the proposed Erie redevelopment area (the KJP informed us of).  Could a developer make money on the condos and not price them outside of the current market.

 

Yes a penthouse on the 25 floor would be sweeeeeeeeeeeet!  I'd put down a deposit!

 

....now back to reality!

What amenties could go in the building that connect it to Gateway/East 4th and the proposed Erie redevelopment area (the KJP informed us of).

 

You lost me here please elaborate.

What amenties could go in the building that connect it to Gateway/East 4th and the proposed Erie redevelopment area (the KJP informed us of).

 

You lost me here please elaborate.

 

It doesn't make a difference and would go way off topic.  :wink:

MTS, are you referring to the Erie St. cemetery component of the "Gray's Green" project? I think you threw some people with "Erie redevelopment area".

Hey, at least the idea of turning the building into condos would solve the low ceiling problem.. and I'm sure people wouldn't mind the asbestos? 

The asbestos is coming out no matter what they do with the building.

The AP story is national news today and will only intensify if plans go forward:

 

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/05/15/ohio_office_tower_facing_demolition/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News

 

biz.yahoo.com/ap/070515/oh_office_tower_dispute.html?.v=1

 

www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/05/15/ap3725142.html

 

www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8P53L480.htm

The only major employers left in the CBD are banks, and government offices. Major businesses do not locate in a downtown anymore. It’s more expensive for their employees, and dealing with the city and the many constituencies is a pain because it’s almost impossible to get anything done. Beyond the federal building nothing has been built in the CBD in maybe ten years.

 

Lady, you aren't going to make too many friends here making statements like that :(

^^Well, so much for the arguement that it isn't a "significant building" as some have put it.  It's now a national news story, demolision would certainly be an even bigger embarressment.

^Excuse me, "significant" as far as it's prominece in the public realm. 

It's always been significant architecturally.

"Lady, you aren't going to make too many friends here making statements like that "

 

I don't think it was a malicious statement - an ignorant one, maybe.

"Lady, you aren't going to make too many friends here making statements like that "

 

I don't think it was a malicious statement - an ignorant one, maybe.

 

Oh I don't think so either, but zippo's just reaaaaaaally playing devil's advocate with this subject. Very brave ;)

 

....Damn empty lots all over the city and these morons had to muck up the process with tearing down an interesting building.  So much for the idea of Cleveland's design community not being mobilized to stop such an attrocity huh Steven Litt?

 

 

i just noticed this. damn straight!

 

maybe building new somewhere else nearby would be a real compromise. it's not like there are not places to build w/o knocking stuff down.

 

one of cleveland's key assets are the interesting empty buildings it has held in check in suspended animation like the breuer, knitting mills, etc. -- keep'em available for some kind of future creative reuse.

 

Exactly.  Look what happened to the Warehouse District and E4th; buildings allowed to exist until the right people with the means and motivation come around and utilize what is already existing.  It's only too bad that we've allowed so much to be destroyed for freaking parking lots.  We can't continue to wipe away our vacant buildings, there is life for them in the future.

I'm sorry but I think a duck's ass looks better than this building.  Just my opinion.  I know Breuer is considered a great modernist architect, but so what.  Architects become "great" based on exceptionally designed and aesthestically pleasing buildings, based on the opinions of public and architectural community of course.  But not every building designed by a "great" always turns out to be an exceptional building.  There are exceptions of course.  Breuer I'm sure designed other buildings that propelled him to be considered a master of modernist architecture.  But does that mean every building he did after those should be considered a wonderful building?  I don't think so. 

 

Besides, it's not like we are talking about demolishing a neo-classical tower constructed in the 1930's or something. Although I will agree that being only 30-some years young doesn't justify the demolition of it.  I am torn on the idea of demolishing it or renovating it however.  I would love to see a new signature building in it's place.  But it would be better if the Breuer tower was left for reuse as maybe a residential tower, as was mentioned in a previous post.  I agree that is would serve Cleveland better if a new building was constructed on an existing parking lot.  It is just unfortunate that the property was already purchased by the county.  If only the idea of demolition was announced as a possibility before purchasing the property, they may have been able to better asses the public outcry.  Maybe it was mentioned and people didn't react to it because the county didn't own it yet.

 

I'm rambling, but the point is that yeah, just because it was designed by what is considered by many to be a great modernist architect, does that automatically consider it to be a great building?

If this brutalist style of architecture is so great and so famous, why are cities around the world tearing down these buildings?  I'm in favor of renovating the exterior of the current structure, but the honeycomb look is just downright ugly.  Look at Cleveland State, many of their buildings were constructed during that time period and they're now realizing the lack of campus they have because half of it is on cement pillars like a big university fortress.

 

Just a thought..

certainly does not mean every building should be marveled.  However, this is an interesting building regardless of everyone's subjective opinions on it's aesthetics.

This building now represents something in this city:  old guard politics that have no problem being wasteful in both fiscal and sustainability terms to serve massive egos, up against progressive urbanists, those who are simply concerned with running a government entity in the correct manner, and common sense.

This process has been flawed with back office deals and zero public transparencey from the beginning.

I'm sorry, but I think all of you who think the AmTrust tower is ugly and needs to be torn down are seriously out to lunch... Peter Lawson Jones is my hero on this one.  We really need to back him against the knucklehead commissioners who are so intent on the wrecking ball.  Like the 1950s subway they voted down 2-1, it seems once again our Commissioners are solidly on the wrong side of Cleveland progress... so what else is new?

I think the best compromise would be to keep the current structure and renovate the exterior along with the interior.  This would cut down the cost of tearing it down and starting fresh.  However, it seems like the proverbial line in the sand has been drawn and the 3 commissions aren't going to back down from their positions of either keeping it the way it is or tearing it down.  Regardless of what they do, we should all be happy that the Cleveland Trust building will be renovated, that's the true gem of the site.

Honestly I think most people - myself included - don't consider this building to be very attractive. In certain light it can look dramatic but my opinion is that it's not one that inspires people (as opposed to the Arcade or Terminal Tower).

 

However, I think most people opposed to demolition believe that:

 

1. Public funds should not be used to discard a building that, with a little ingenuity, could be adapted to suit the County's needs.

 

2. Dimora and Hagan make statements about wanting a green building and a signature building - but demolition and discarding existing materials AND burning fuel, expending energy to create and import all-new materials completely contradicts the basic principles of sustainable design.

 

3. As far as "signature building" - the proposal by KPF/Madison is garden-variety schlock. If the proposed design was a suitable replacement of the "highest" design, I would be less opposed to demolition of the Breuer tower. But it isn't - it's a mediocre glass-curtained mid-rise that isn't suitable for the site, and isn't worthy of Ohio's most populous county, much less a key intersection of downtown Cleveland.

 

I don't think the argument that demolish it because it's ugly holds much water when you're talking about using taxpayer funds. When you're public servants, you are obligated to be frugal and work with what you have, and not give concepts of signature buildings and green design lip service - particularly when we're talking about something of this scale.

A compromise for all would be to put a new skin on the building and renovate the interior.  But doesn't the county reject that idea because the interior plan is too small and not condusive to their office needs?

Maybe I'm just dumb.. please tell me if I am about this.. but I remember reading about them having a problem with the height of the ceiling?  Now if this building was an office before, how is this a problem?  Were people in the 70's 2 feet shorter then they are in the 2000's?

I agree MayDay.  The waste of taxpayers money is a big issue.  My only beef before was that had this been designed by some lesser known architect, and it looked the same, there might not be as much of an outcry to tear it down.

 

The issue of sustainable design and wasting money to demolish it would be an issue regardless of who designed it though.

A compromise for all would be to put a new skin on the building and renovate the interior.  But doesn't the county reject that idea because the interior plan is too small and not condusive to their office needs?

 

Well that's just it, "the county" is a legal entity, it doesn't have a single voice to reject anything.  PLJ seems to think the limitations of the current floor plates and ceiling heights are an exaggerated pretext.  With internal staircases and modern (computer based) work flow, I have to agree with him.  Why is it such a problem if departments are spread over multiple floors?

 

Keep in mind - in addition to the tower is the 5-story section that connects to the garage via skywalk, and the 1010 Euclid building. Also - the AT Tower was built with the infrastructure for the unbuilt second phase - so they're not just demo'ing one building, they'd be demo'ing a building that's ready for expansion. I personally think the 5-story section should be demo'd with an expansion to the south of the tower, the 1010 Building restored, possibly for residential use (just like the trio of buildings across the street).

I think in reality it's not really a problem, they're simply using that as one of the many excuses to tear the entire building down.  If you're an average county resident and hear "the building isn't suited for our needs" you'll read it and think "oh well they better building something that will"

 

Now we all know that these problems can be taken care of during renovations.  Yes, I'm sure the building isn't adequate to meet the internet connection needs.. but that can be fixed.

Any go to the Planning Commission meeting today?

They were supposed to discuss it, in part - leaving lots of time for public input.

"building ready for expansion."

 

Well put Mayday.

Honestly I think most people - myself included - don't consider this building to be very attractive. In certain light it can look dramatic but my opinion is that it's not one that inspires people (as opposed to the Arcade or Terminal Tower).

 

However, I think most people opposed to demolition believe that:

 

1. Public funds should not be used to discard a building that, with a little ingenuity, could be adapted to suit the County's needs.

 

2. Dimora and Hagan make statements about wanting a green building and a signature building - but demolition and discarding existing materials AND burning fuel, expending energy to create and import all-new materials completely contradicts the basic principles of sustainable design.

 

3. As far as "signature building" - the proposal by KPF/Madison is garden-variety schlock. If the proposed design was a suitable replacement of the "highest" design, I would be less opposed to demolition of the Breuer tower. But it isn't - it's a mediocre glass-curtained mid-rise that isn't suitable for the site, and isn't worthy of Ohio's most populous county, much less a key intersection of downtown Cleveland.

 

I don't think the argument that demolish it because it's ugly holds much water when you're talking about using taxpayer funds. When you're public servants, you are obligated to be frugal and work with what you have, and not give concepts of signature buildings and green design lip service - particularly when we're talking about something of this scale.

 

I agree/disagree, on a level with your comments, on the descending level you have them -- agree totally with 1.  Disagree with 3.

 

I don't think the tower is either a 'signature' building, by Bruer or any similarly celbrated architect, but it is not ugly imho.  In fact, I consider it a rather handsome Brutalist style building of the type that clearly marked the 60s and 70s (Reserve Sq, Rhodes Tower, and the tower at the end of Van Aken -- name escapes me -- are all examples of 60s-70s Brutalism)...

 

But you stretch your argument waaay to far saying it's a mediocre building -- it certainly is not.  Moreover, why harp on its signature location.  First off, the focus for that location is, and will always be, the gorgeous Italian Renaissance Cleveland Trust dome sitting directly at the corner.  The Tower rises up behind the dome and, as such, in no way overpowers the corner.

 

Secondly, while focusing your critical eye -- and comments -- on the tower, why not do a 180 and check out the building that sits behind you.  No way you're going to tell me Breuer's Cleveland Trust is uglier than that sugar cube set on end.  What's more, contrary to your specious argument about the Cleve Trust tower, National City does dominate the intersection; there is no handsome 1908-built dome addressing the corner as does the classic Cleveland Trust rotunda.  The only thing that makes National City palatable to me (aside from the fact it currently houses Cleveland's largest corporation and its downtown) is the giant mobile in front, which is interesting, and the fact the landscape architect was wise enough to try and soften this monstrosity with a multilevel plaza with shrubbery.

 

So, no, I think it's a red herring to state Cleve Trust's tower is mediocre or dominating.  It sounds like your stretching for reasons to make the Tower's demolition justifiable although you're not (currently) coming right out and advocating its destruction.  If you view your Chicago photos -- or those of any great skyscraper city -- you'll find several towers many would consider ugly (I've never warmed to the Sears Tower, btw -- Cleveland Trust is better looking, to me); besides the fact, I don't think Cleveland Trust's tower is ugly to begin with.  It gives downtown a variety and, no doubt, aside from the prestige of the architect, which frankly I can care less about, I do like the building because it is a signature structure defining skyscrapers in a particular time and place.

 

And once again, I cannot fathom how at all -- with public money or private (the fact it's public $$ makes it all the more unfathomable) is how one, in Cleveland where we need more 28+ floor skyscrapers and not less, could advocate the Tower's destruction in favor of a squat, space-eating replacement...

 

... I just don't get it.