June 13, 200718 yr Let's start the process of re-calling dimora,and lawyers want to startthe paperwork.We would need i think 10 percent of the county vote to re-call him. I bet alot of republicans would job on this cause.Any one interested????
June 13, 200718 yr (warning: long post) The following is from the local blog Save our Land regarding last Friday's CPC meeting. I've included the comments that followed because they were interesting: Friday, June 08, 2007 interesting dialogue brewing over Breuer Tower We spent four hours this morning in a meeting of the City/Cleveland Planning Commission (CPC) going over the county's request to demolish the Breuer Tower. It was interesting. All the public non-insider commentary was against granting the demolition permit. We got the start of a great community dialogue, hitherto suppressed except for a few forays by the PD's Steve Litt, Peter Lawson Jones, tons of NEO blogs, and a MeetTheBloggers podcast. The public commentary was delivered by Jennifer Coleman (lots of good insights and citings of what the standards really are), Hunter Morrison (super delivery, wish we had it on tape), Steve McQuillin, Paul Volpe, David Ellison, Daryl Davis, Peter Lawson Jones, Susan Miller, Bob Miller (a former Cleveland Trust employee, there at the beginning, with some fantastic background materials) of the Generation Foundation, Anthony Hiti for the local AIA chapter, Tom Yablonski, Todd deGarmo (who has worked on the Pentagon and describes the Breuer Tower as the "jewel" among all such buildings), Gloria, and myself--and I've missed a few others whom I don't know so well. All in all, it's a great collation of new thought on what the two dark commissioners consider a done deal. It was all done out of the dark and the shadows, in the full light of day. Then, the CPC took a poll of who was for denying the permit, and 4 would deny it and 3 were against denying it. Then, the downtown councilman mentioned that to deny the demolition would show a lack of cooperation with the county commissioners, and he had to make nice with them so he could continue to work with them--yes, it was that meretricious, and silly. So, over Norm Krumholz' objections, they dragged the issue out of the light of day and back into the shadows, to meet again next Friday, when Norm won't be there, to see if they can keep wearing away at the issue until they get the vote where they need it, in favor of granting the permit for demolition. Folks, the downtown councilman Cimperman and county commissioners DiMora and Hagan are trying to give this short shrift and a quick burial, despite what all the rest of the public say and do. They are not serving the public interest. They are ignoring the numbers. They are not working for you. They have other, more special interests in mind, because they certainly ignore the public interest. Hunter Morrison specifically and in great detail delineated the absence of a suitable process at the city level, like what they had with the Society Tower and Gateway. More on this later. I'm beginning to think the three of them--Cimperman, DiMore, and Hagan--are unfit for public office. I'm hoping a transcript or a recording of this session will surface somehow, someplace. Posted by Tim Ferris at 3:18 PM 3 comments: susan said... When Cimperman launched the "they are our brothers" speech about letting the county “have their way” and mentioned the efforts county planning (I believe Coyne asked about county planning's work on the project), I don't know who answered this question, but I was shocked to hear that County Planning had not worked on the plan at all. You guys were on that side of the room. Do you have a recall of who answered that question and does anyone know why the county commissioners would hire and pay planners and not consult with them on the site plan for the county administration building? It is so strange that Joyce Burke Jones who is the county's new sustainability hire was most recently the project manager on this admin building project. She noted that the Breuer is a brownfield since it has asbestos. Does this mean that any building that has asbestos can be targeted for demo so a new "green building" can be proposed? And I stress “proposed”, but I should say suggested because the fact that there would even be a building there was in fact only suggested and no building plans or renderings ever materialized at the meeting. Yep folks we could end up with a parking lot at East Ninth and Euclid because Madison's group offered no ideas, no program, just a lot of naysaying about the existing building and why it need to come down. The only rendering showed a stranded Rotunda building at East Ninth with it’s backside exposed and when questioned about the “program” for this space by planning commission member, Lillian Kuri, they answered that they had no program for the Rotunda (repeatedly referred to as the “Jewel”) which is considered the reason they sited the new administration building there. If they have a green plan we should see it after all they plan to use our money to build it. There was some low toned discussion about the fact that the site “probably wouldn’t turn out to be a parking lot, but no promises seemed to be offered. There was talk about the fact that many times in the past, Cleveland Planning has allowed demolition that has later turned up only as surface parking. The Northeast corner of Public Square is a typical example. Who owns that parking lot? And how about the guy who spoke about faultlines and the “what if we had an earthquake on East Ninth Street” issue? Oh boy! I felt like I was in a cheap science fiction movie. I doubt the other buildings along East Ninth would withstand an earthquake either, but as Daryl Davis pointed out, the faultline we need to be most concerned about runs closer to Perry Nuclear Power plant than East Ninth Street. I was disturbed by the casual engagement the commission used. When someone from the public is speaking unless they are asking a question and seeking a response from the commission, they should not be interrupted no matter what someone wants to say in response. When I mentioned lead in school buildings in relation to asbestos in the Breuer building, Coyne shot back defensively about CMSD's building plans impolitely interrupting me and removing from mind three other points I had planned to make. Oh well, I was not one of the insiders like Crowther who choked while delivering a tangle of we aren't sure about the actual historic value of this building comments. I also must say that I was disturbed by the way Gloria was shut down when seeking clarification after the public testimony was over. The remainder of the meeting was muddled and confusing and Gloria, a citizen taxpayer was told in so many words and gestures that it was improper to say another word in that hallowed chamber. Pshaw! This meeting made a mockery of our government. Most boards would be ashamed of how the Roberts Rules were not followed, how casually and insiderly the whole process proceeded. No wonder there is so much apathy as regards government. This resembled the Alberto Gonzalez hearings where a young lawyer in the Justice Department, when asked by a member of the committee, couldn't distinguish between rules and lines (which she admitted crossing and breaking) and laws. Coyne went from a formal reading of numbered laws or guidelines in the beginning of the meeting to a very informal "what sort of vote should I call for here". When questioned for clarification by the Planning Director Bob Brown as to whether or not the commission was calling for completed building plans of the applicant, I did not note that that question was actually answered by the members. Did you? I am very curious about the whole voting business. I thought a vote to deny the permit was taken and the permit was denied. What followed was very difficult to hear and seemed muddled. I suppose we are not allowed to ask, but I will certainly have City Planning Commission on my calendar for this week to see if clarification will be forthcoming. 1:06 PM Gloria Ferris said... Susan: Lee Trotter was the one that answered the "how involved was the County Planning Commission" question. His answer basically was they weren't. I wanted to ask how the public would know what the city planning questions were and where we would be able to get copies of them. It was a bit disconcerting to see how a meeting that began so organized deteriorated into such a muddle. Also, why were we asked to sign in if we wanted to speak and then no one thought to use that as the order in which we spoke? Everyone seems to think that the vote went the way it should have, but I am still confused. I am sure that Tony Coyne said that four voted for the motion and three opposed. On the way out, I overheard two county employees say that the vote went better than they thought because they thought they would only get two votes. I also recall David Bowen explaining that he could not vote for denying the permit because he needed more information and Norm Krumholz explaining that if they voted to deny a six month process began to consider plans, etc. and then there could be another vote. That was when Joe Cimperman jumped in with his lame "they are our partners" soeech after Tony Coyne had questioned why the City Planning Commission had not been involved prior to asking for a demolition permit. If these are "partners" do we really need them? So I guess it was four for not denying the permit and three for denying the permit. I think that now Tony was saying that three were opposed to demolition and four were for demolition which really wasn't the question before them. It was the denial of the permit which would have been three for denial and four against denial. Where are the meeting notes for this commission? They are public record are they not? And where is the videotape of the proceedings? Mindboggling that a meeting in the light of day can be so murky. 6:11 PM
June 13, 200718 yr Another Ferris post: GOVERNMENT WATCHDOG GROUP GETS $1000 FROM ANONYMOUS DONOR For Immediate Release June 12, 2007 Contact: Ms. Daryl Davis, 216-310-0557 (day) or daryl.davisATsbcglobal.net Yesterday at 4:15 pm $1000 and a letter from an anonymous donor arrived at the D. H.Ellison Co. addressed to Taxpayers Against Waste, one of the organizations concerned with Cuyahoga County's plan for a new administration center. "It was a complete surprise," said David Ellison. "The letter really focuses the issue. Our problem with this project was never about the Breuer building, but with the outrageous waste of money. Up until now our work has been funded by personal and in-kind donations. This donation makes things a little easier." The letter's contents include a numbered list of questions regarding the money and financing of the proposed county administration center. Two questions pertain to R. P. Carbone's involvement and current indictment over racketeering, conspiracy, money laundering, bribery and unlawful interest in a public contract. Two more questions involve R. P. Madison International's role and its inability to present a complete application to the Cleveland city planning commission, making a justifiable case for demolition. The other questions included in the letter relate to the apparent flaws in the overall strategy of economic development conceived in the project. Daryl Davis added, "This whole issue has been diverted into historic preservation, aesthetics and environmentalism. While these things are important, the money, cronyism and political patronage are what are so disgusting. A good economic development plan would conserve our assets and resources, create the maximum number of jobs, and the most spin-off development, all at the least cost to the public. Hagan and Dimora have created a bad plan with mediocre architecture at the highest cost possible; never mind the facts, put aside the values of democratic process, and just keep repeating lies and half truths until people start believing them." Posted by Tim Ferris
June 13, 200718 yr This post will officially make me caught-up from this weekends downtime: From RealNEO: Breuer Building on World Monuments Watch List Submitted by Susan Miller on June 6, 2007 - 4:53pm. The Central Library in Grosse Point Michigan designed by Marcel Breuer made it onto the World's Most Endangered Monuments list for 2008. Here's an except: "Main Street Modern: Buildings of the recent past that lack a consensus on preservation but are considered worth saving by the monuments fund include Paul Rudolph's Riverview High School, built in 1957 in Sarasota, Fla., and Marcel Breuer's Grosse Pointe Public Library, built in 1953 in Grosse Pointe Farms, Mich." from the AP today titled, "Warming threatens cultural gems". Yeah, here in Cleveland it is not warming that threatens our Main Street Moderns; it's lack of foresight. I thought the library had been saved... maybe not... It's caused quite a stir though in the preservation community. Read about it here in the National Trust publication. MAPA is hosting a design charette to SAVE the library. From an article in the Seattle Post: "In 2007 the community's library board plans to demolish the Grosse Pointe Central Library and replace it with a newer, bigger structure" No renovation, no preservation, no restoration just demolition. If the site doesn't work for the library they should sell it or donate it to a historical society. I can't imagine there isn't another property available in Detroit where they can build their dream home. The sanity award of the day goes to local architect and member of the historical commission William Hartman who told the library trustees- "that destroying Breuer's library would be a form of cultural illiteracy -- a plundering of the contribution that modernism has made to Michigan"." Who might get the sanity award in Cleveland if we don't let the county demolish our Breuer Tower? Therein lies the legacy... there is no legacy in destroying a cultural icon. (And, I must add, just after passing a sin tax to fund the arts and culture. Who made Tim and Jimmy the arbiters of taste? Watch out arts community!) More than likely it won't be awarded to our local preservation society. It must go to David Ellison who said tearing down the tower to build a green building is hypocrisy. Right on David! Anyone in elected office listening? The World Monuments Watch has us in the crosshairs. Just salivating waiting for Cleveland to do something right! Check out the list at World Monuments Fund. Here's an excerpt: "The work of these designers was united by certain core principles, including a departure from traditional forms, the integration of arts and design disciplines, and the use of industrial materials and innovative technologies. The primary threats faced by Modern architecture are demolition or inappropriate renovations, and the technical challenges of conserving the experimental materials and innovative building systems used in their construction. The greatest threat, however, is perhaps public apathy-a lack of consensus or confidence-that buildings of the recent past can be important enough to be preserved for the future. It is hoped that this Watch listing will encourage these and other communities (insert Cleveland, Ohio) to consider alternatives to the demolition of these buildings, which are important pieces of American architectural and social history." What will we see happen to our Breuer? His only high-rise? Sanity or stupidity?
June 14, 200718 yr One more summary from the CPC meeting from Gloria Ferris http://www.gloriaferris.net/2007/06/word-on-the-street-vs-fact/ Word on the Street vs. Fact June 14th, 2007 June 1, I attended the City Planning Commission Committee Hearing where Architect Doug Hoffman of Weber Murphy Fox used the above title for his powerpoint presentation. It was informative and gave a good case for renovation and restoration of the Breuer Tower. A study paid for by the architectural firm itself was used as the fact to refute the “word on the street”. It built a good case for adaptive reuse of the only skyscraper Marcel Breuer designed. Mr. Hoffman showed why his team chose adaptive reuse of the existing building tying it to our heritage with the rotunda and bringing it into the 21st century by wrapping the Breuer Tower partially with glass. Detailed architecural plans were submitted showing how the historic Cleveland Trust Rotunda would be used in the overall scheme of things. It showed how public spaces would draw pedestrians and others into the building. It showed a space for a public garden. It showed floor plans of how the infrastructure would change so that the floor space would be more efficient. It showed how cables and other things needed for newer technologies would be hidden from view and that it would not hinder the aesthetics or the effficiency of the building. And then, and then, he talked about the EMPLOYEES of the county and how their comfort level would be enhanced by temperature controls in the cubicles so that they controlled their own COMFORT level. He talked about how DAYLIGHT reached almost to the core of the building. He talked about privacy for employees but also work spaces where they could come together to collaborate. And I thought to myself now this is innovation-considering the employees-so that productivity and efficiency would be enhanced. I thought to myself why didn’t they choose this plan, but I left with an open mind and a heart filled with hope that next week on June 8th when Robert Madison International Inc. and his team presented their plan for the site, I would see an even better plan since this was the team chosen to tear down the Beuer Tower and build new. Instead, I saw nothing that I could use to compare the two. There were no numbers to stand side by side in comparison. Instead this team refuted the numbers of the week before by saying the savings were too high and the costs were too low, but I didn’t see much of this team’s stand alone costs so that the public and the planning commission could be informed ensuring that a reasoned decision could be made. In fact, I said as much during my testimony. I said I had come seeking answers to specific monetary questions, but I was left with aesthetics and “pie-in-the-sky” promises that the rotunda was the core and central to the complex but when asked how it would be incorporated Mr. Madison replied that that had not been decided yet. I came to see architectural plans of what the new complex would look like; I saw conceptual plans. Disclaimers abounded that these were concepts and were not meant to be considered as the actual plans. Huh? This firm and its partners just won a multi-million contract with the county and these were CONCEPTS. And the employee portion, I heard a lot about transformational workplaces, the need to guard against asbestos exposure, and a spokesman from a company indicted for kickbacks on a Lorain project, but more importantly, a company that has never demolished a building taller than thirteen stories. The one time that we need a national expert not available here in Cleveland, we award the contract to an intown boy and his crew. And this use of transformational in regards to tearing down and building new really rubbed me the wrong way. Tearing down and building new is simply replacement. Transformational means taking what is and changing it into something brighter and better. All of this vague talk concerning a multi-million dollar expenditure of taxypayer’s money was disturbing, but the most disturbing thing to me was the way a meeting that began very organized and methodical turned into such a muddled mess at the end with people left scratching their heads and wondering what had just happened. Well, folks, here is my theory and understand it is just that. In fact, it is nothing more than word on the street, but I think it is worth pondering because of what happened at that meeting. This is my prediction and I am sticking to it. Joe Cimperman has his eyes set on a much bigger piece of the pie than being councilman of Ward 13. And soon, I will tell you what position he is vying for and why. Norm Krumholz moved that the City Planning Commission vote to deny the demolition permit. Voting for this denial would have put a six month review process in place which would have answered many of the thoughtful and valid questions that the commision had. The motion was defeated by a four to three vote. David Bowen said that he could not vote for denying the permit at this point in time because he needed a lot more information such as detailed plans, why the figures this week differed so greatly from last week, why the ceiling height this week was a foot and a half lower than what was told to the commission last week if renovation was used. He shared Lillian Kuri’s concerns about public spaces and public access and the use of the rotunda. And this one was huge, but no one from the county had an answer. How many downtown spaces would be empty when the county moves to the new location? What exactly are the economic advantages of this ”complex”? How did federal and state historic credits fit into this plan? No one knew. And then, and then, Joe opens his mouth and says how long are we going to hold up this project, these are our partners, are you saying we mistrust them, we have parking lots all over town because people came before this commission with no better plans than we have seen today. Huh?What’s up with that? And then, as far as I am concerned the whole meeting went up for grabs. Someone asked when was the county planning commission consulted on the project probably thinking if there were results from those meetings they would be very helpful and there would be less time needed. But then, Lee Trotter looked at those sitting beside him, and he had to tell the commission that the COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION had NOT been involved in the decision making. So, there we were, a county project in the making for the last ten years has no architecural plan, did not consult its own planning commission, and said that they would need longer than one week to answer these questions. But the planning commission decides to go ahead with a one week time frame anyway. Here is my theory. Joe Cimperman is going to run for county commissioner. Why else would he turn his back on the reasoned testimony of former City Planner Hunter Morrison who presented a seven point plan used in the past when planning a major project like this one-Key Tower probably being the most prominent one. Why would he turn his back on his own colleagues and push for unsupported claims of “better” ? Why would he sacrifice the reputation of the second oldest planning commission in the nation if he were not only thinking of his own ambitions? Why would he turn his back on the city that he vowed to serve if he was not ready to move on? And let’s face it, he needs the County Democratic Chairman in his corner if he intends to replace Tim Hagan on the commission? And, he needs to set the stage for the Medical Mart and the Convention Center votes which will also come before this august commission. If this demolition permit is approved with as little oversight as it appears there is now, the case will be made for any other county project coming before the CITY Planning Commission to be rubber stamped just as Joe feels this one should be. This Commission needs to stand firm and insist that they receive the information needed to make an informed decision. We need an appointed board to stand up and represent the taxpayers of this city and this county. We need them to make sure that the numbers make sense, and that we know what we will have at the end of the day when the County Complex is reality not “concept”. Listen to the urban planners in your midst-Norm Kruholz and Hunter Morrison and INSIST on the information needed to make a decision worthy of a Planning Commission that understands the word plan. Do not be swayed by the politicians in your midst-Mayor Frank Jackson, Council President Martin Sweeney. If these men were true leaders, they would trust their judgment in appointing you and allow you to do your job. And certainly, do not be swayed by the member in your midst guided by personal ambition. Pleaase, please do something truly transformational and make a reasoned decision, not an expedient political one.
June 15, 200718 yr only in cleveland will they demolish a 383 ft skyscraper only in cleveland i say we knock down key tower and turn that into a surface lot too. its ugly! how many millions just to demolish a building?
June 15, 200718 yr only in cleveland will they demolish a 383 ft skyscraper only in cleveland i say we knock down key tower and turn that into a surface lot too. its ugly! how many millions just to demolish a building? No its not. geez...I know its frustrating, but lets cut the "Only in Cleveland" pitty party. Sh*t happens in other cities as well. cost to demolish is further down in the PLJ email that has been posted.
June 15, 200718 yr As ugly as I believe the Breuer Tower to be, after hearing and reading the case to keep it, I am now 100% in favor of preserving and rehabbing it. This entire soap opera has been shady from the beginning. Dimora and Hagan seem to have their own agenda and are hellbent to push this through, no matter what the public thinks. Just keep electing these same Democratic retreads o sheep of Cuyahoga county! It's not their fault! Ugh, I'm done for the night. Time to watch the Cavs.
June 15, 200718 yr only in cleveland will they demolish a 383 ft skyscraper only in cleveland i say we knock down key tower and turn that into a surface lot too. its ugly! how many millions just to demolish a building? No its not. geez...I know its frustrating, but lets cut the "Only in Cleveland" pitty party. Sh*t happens in other cities as well. cost to demolish is further down in the PLJ email that has been posted. what other city has demolished 383 ft buildings?
June 15, 200718 yr only in cleveland will they demolish a 383 ft skyscraper only in cleveland i say we knock down key tower and turn that into a surface lot too. its ugly! how many millions just to demolish a building? No its not. geez...I know its frustrating, but lets cut the "Only in Cleveland" pitty party. Sh*t happens in other cities as well. cost to demolish is further down in the PLJ email that has been posted. what other city has demolished 383 ft buildings? Plenty of cities have demolished buildings or items thought of as significant, for whatever reason.
June 15, 200718 yr "what other city has demolished 383 ft buildings?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer_Building http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_masonic.htm http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=117342 http://www.detroityes.com/downtown/09hudsons.htm Only in Cleveland would people be in such a bubble... :roll: clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
June 15, 200718 yr LOL....notice all of those buildings were demolished to build ANOTHER TALLER SKYSCRAPER? singer building was in NYC....what stands there right now? one liberty plaza "One Liberty Plaza is a skyscraper in Manhattan, New York, which resides at the location of the former Singer Building (in 1968, the second tallest building to be demolished). One Liberty Plaza is currently owned and operated by Brookfield Properties. The building is 743 feet (226 m) high and 54 floors" 2nd chicago one is only 17 floors and probably got replaced by one of the many taller skyscrapers that have been built there nice examples. too bad cleveland just tears down the whole city for surface lots.
June 15, 200718 yr "what other city has demolished 383 ft buildings?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer_Building http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_masonic.htm http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=117342 http://www.detroityes.com/downtown/09hudsons.htm Only in Cleveland would people be in such a bubble... :roll: thanks for the back up HBIC, but as you can see...it was all for not.
June 15, 200718 yr And today is the big day. Anybody here going to the Planning Commission Meeting? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Another blast from Gloria Ferris: http://www.gloriaferris.net/2007/06/the-world-is-watching/ The World Is Watching… June 14th, 2007 and so are we. The City Planning Commission decision concerning the Breuer Tower is being watched worldwide by architects, preservationists, historians, and artists. But will the most important segment of society “US” be watching and sitting in those chairs tomorrow when the City Planning Commission decides whether the Breuer Tower lives or dies? As sad as it may be to see that building die through demolition, sadder still will it be if the Cleveland Planning Commission allows itself to slip into obscurity. Something that will be inevitable if they allow a demolition permit to slide through without the seven step process that Hunter Morrison so eloquently and succinctly outlined June 8. When a “partner” doesn’t feel you are worthy of consideration or consultation or for that matter does not think that the guidelines you have put in place are even worth addressing, is that “partner” truly a “partner”? When that same “partner” doesn’t think it important to consult with their own planning commission, where do you stand in the order of what they find important? How insulting to have someone come before you with “concepts” and the latest “buzz words” and expect you to hand what they want to them on a silver platter with no questions! The waste of taxpayers’ money and of our asset “The Euclid Heritage Corridor” is unexplainable to me. What are the goals in this endeavor? Is it to bail out a rich developer-the purchase of the building from The Jacobs conglomerate? Is it to award contracts to friends and contributors? Is it to have a building named after one’s self? Is it to be used as a stepping stone to higher office? Is it to cover the street with slick oil so that the next demolition permit will be oh so much easier to obtain because the credibility and the integrity of the city planning commission will already be compromised from this decision? I don’t know if the reasons behind this request for demolition are this sleazy and self-serving, but when you listen to Commissioner Peter Lawson Jones’ reasoned and thoughtful pondering of his decision, it makes you wonder. I do know that this is a tipping point for our community, and therefore, it is incumbent on as many of as possible to be in Room 514 in City Hall tomorrow at 9 a.m. to watch the execution order come down. I have had phone calls and conversations with people–many who have said that the decision to demolish this building was made long before the first planning commission meeting. Don’t let them do this without witnesses. Be there with me the modern day Madame LaFarge watching and listening and recording. Another call I had said that there is much consternation and nervousness on the amount of publicity and questions that have arisen over this decision. This person said that there is hope if we can just make them see that this decision is critical to the future of our community. At the very least, a decision of this magnitude that involves the city and the county needs to have full disclosure, full investigation, and reasoned deliberation before a vote is taken. Make sure that happens. Be there! Even if by some chance, the CPC does not approve the demo permit, it still does not mean the tower is saved. The County Commissioners would likely appeal the ruling.
June 15, 200718 yr nice examples. too bad cleveland just tears down the whole city for surface lots. well the Hudson's department store is actually only an underground parking garage now. I wont bother you with the boring rumor details.
June 15, 200718 yr Breuer 1 : County Commissioners 0 http://rockitecture.blogspot.com/2007/06/breuer-update.html 15.6.07 Breuer Update... I just caught word through the grapevine that the City of Cleveland Planning Commission has in fact decided to force Cuyahoga County to follow due process and provide significantly more information about their plans for the Marcel Breuer Ameritrust Tower.
June 15, 200718 yr ^Are there any engineering/architectural plans/specs for renovation of the existing tower if that were to be the fate of this project. I didn't think there were. Therefore, I believe there would be quite a delay in construction if they did decide to renovate...not that thats a problem, jsut curious.
June 15, 200718 yr ^I was unaware of that. I am suprised a CM contract got released so early for this project.
June 16, 200717 yr City planners vote against razing tower for county complex by Tom Breckenridge June 15, 2007 The battle over the fate of a landmark tower downtown reached an uneasy standoff Friday, with the city's Planning Commission refusing to approve demolition that would clear the way for a new Cuyahoga County administration complex. City Planning Commission Chairman Tony Coyne ripped county officials for lack of cooperation and failure to seriously consider saving the 29-story Ameritrust tower at East Ninth Street and Euclid Avenue as part of the new complex... For more see: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/06/city_planners_vote_against_raz.html
June 16, 200717 yr "This is beyond anything I've confronted in my political life," Hagan said in an interview Friday afternoon. "An unelected group dictating to commissioners what kind of building should be built in a city where the mayor and City Council president support it. That's exactly what's wrong with the city." Hagan said he may urge the county to move ahead with demolition, without the city Planning Commission's approval. The county has a legal opinion that the city's charter gives the county the power to overrule a Planning Commission decision. Wow this guy is very N-Pow.
June 16, 200717 yr Again, I think if the Commissioners had done their homework before going down this road they would've quickly identified the controversy it would embroil. The fact that this is a huge surprise to these guys speaks volumes about their competence. Nice move on the legal opinion front, very Bush-esque. It's worked so well for him hasn't it?
June 16, 200717 yr Argggg.... I bet a dollar the new county building will be part of Tower City, and the Cleveland Trust rotunda will continue to rot with that big gravestone behind it.
June 16, 200717 yr I understand your aggravation, Punch, but if the county gives up on this site and decides to move to say, Tower City, what happens with this? They spent something like $22 mil to purchase this property. They would have to spend more to build elsewhere. I don't think they would get half of what they paid if they tried to sell it. (which is a huge part of this problem) In my opinion, the bail-out they gave to Jacobs has married them to this site, Breuer tower or not. There's just no way the taxpayers of this county would allow them to just bail on this site and throw more millions away just for what essentially is property acquisition. The county is stuck there, and my $1 says they eventually get their way. After all, Jackson, Sweeney, Cimperman, et al, support the county's position, too. It would be a huge upset if that tower is saved from demo. The public outcry has got to get bigger and more regional/national for that to happen.
June 16, 200717 yr Argggg.... I bet a dollar the new county building will be part of Tower City, and the Cleveland Trust rotunda will continue to rot with that big gravestone behind it. I understand your aggravation, Punch, but if the county gives up on this site and decides to move to say, Tower City, what happens with this? They spent something like $22 mil to purchase this property. They would have to spend more to build elsewhere. I don't think they would get half of what they paid if they tried to sell it. (which is a huge part of this problem) Totally agree and feel your pain Punch. Jonmoxon hits on the head. They spent money without disclosing all the fact. PLJ is the only person to let us know all the facts. In my opinion, the bail-out they gave to Jacobs has married them to this site, Breuer tower or not. There's just no way the taxpayers of this county would allow them to just bail on this site and throw more millions away just for what essentially is property acquisition. The county is stuck there, and my $1 says they eventually get their way. After all, Jackson, Sweeney, Cimperman, et al, support the county's position, too. It would be a huge upset if that tower is saved from demo. The public outcry has got to get bigger and more regional/national for that to happen. I'm not sure, I clearly understand what you are saying? First you say the county is stuck, then you'll say they will get their way. Jackson and Sweeney have "voiced" opinion and that was way back in the beginning, and we have not heard a peep out of them in the last couple of weeks. I wonder if they have now shifted their opinions. I have not read anywhere were ciperman was in favor of this. Why does it have to be bigger/regional and national news for the tower to be saved? The citizens of cleveland and the residents of the county have been led astray by the vary people they elected. Those two idiot commissioners should be thrown out!
June 18, 200717 yr Awesome! I love those brave planners. ;) I just wrote a letter to the commission thanking them for taking this stand for preservation and against waste. Their e-mails, in case anyone wants to join me: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
June 18, 200717 yr More from Gloria Ferris: http://www.gloriaferris.net/2007/06/thank-yew-very-much/ Thank Yew very Much!! I have another post to write about the arrogance of supposed power and who do “they” think they are. But first, I wanted to put out some “thank yous” to some VERY important people who are demanding that the decision about the Breuer Tower takes a reasoned appproach to a very thorny issue. A decision of such magnitude should never be made behind the scenes if we are truly going to be a democratic society. Vague assertions by elected county officials attesting to the fact that architects and engineers are on board with our decision are not enough. We the public need to know who these individuals are. Let them come forth and speak. Have they? No! We have heard of “concepts” and refutations that say others’ figures are incorrect and too high or too low, but we have never seen the actual costs of what the county’s proposal will be. The county architect has never weighed in on this issue. The Cuyahoga County Commission was never consulted. Who made these decisions that Commissioners Dimora and Hagan are pushing so vehemently? Where are these people who stand behind the decision of these two? See how easily it is to be taken off point. This post was about thank yous. And, here they are. The first thank you goes to my fellow bloggers who linked to my post that said we needed to be there to witness the meeting. Obviously, the word spread wider than my small blog. The second thank you goes to the number of regular citizens who took time to attend the City Planning Commission Meeting to hear for themselves Chairman Coyne’s impassioned speech comparing Cleveland to Chicago and how we in Cleveland “don’t get it, we just don’t get it! But he did, as well as three of his colleagues when they voted to deny Joe Cimperman’s long, convoluted motion with more caveats than Carter’s has little liver pills. in all my years, I have never heard such a motion put before a board. What a sham! The motion essentially agreed to demolition IF the County showed a master plan, IF the County showed that public access from Euclid and Ninth would be a priority, IF it was shown that the rotunda would be an integral part of the plan, and I think there were two or three other IFS that I don’t even remember. And then, Larry Lumpkin seconded this sorry excuse for a motion and proceeded to again parrot Cimperman’s ‘these are our partners and we must have faith’ speech’. But then, Lillian Kuri questioned the use of partners when talking about the county. She cited that her June 8th packet from the county was missing pieces, she also waved a sheet of blue paper containing the summary that she said she still had not received by 6 p.m. Thursday the 14th. She didn’t buy the partner speech and she demanded to see real numbers and real statistics so that she and the other members of the City Planning Commission could make a reasoned decision. David Bowen again reiterated his contention that there was not enough information to make a decision. Jean Pinkney just shook her head in disbelief at what she was hearing and witnessing during this meeting. She too voted against the motion on the floor. If Norm Krumholz had been in attendance, he would have been proud of his colleagues. So a big thank you goes out to the second oldest planning commission in the nation–our own Cleveland Planning Commission. They stepped up to the plate, refused to be bullied into making an uninformed decision, and did what they were appointed to do. They truly were the check and balance to a shoddy piece of work presented by the County. And as Chairman Coyne said, his commission is charged with making Cleveland and the County a ”Better Place” and, he just isn’t convinced. And my last but very important thank you goes to those of you who have had the courage to phone me and email me with insight and added information that was freely given in a spirit of civic pride and concern. Thanks to all of you. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pictures from KJP over on this thread: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=13134.msg191479#msg191479
June 18, 200717 yr Yep. That's why I took those. Figured they could be used by someone for whatever purpose they want. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 18, 200717 yr Nah. Not for those photos anyway. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 19, 200717 yr From the New York Times... CLEVELAND, June 17 — Marcel Breuer, one of the fathers of modern architecture, built only one skyscraper, the 29-story Cleveland Trust Tower, which today stands abandoned on a forlorn block downtown. David Maxwell for The New York Times Marcel Breuer’s 1971 Cleveland Trust Tower was abandoned in the late 1980s. A development plan proposes an office building on the site. But a plan to demolish the tower, and replace it with a midrise government office building, has caused an outcry among architectural preservationists, who call the building an overlooked landmark. “It’s like saying it would be O.K. to lose some of the paintings that Picasso did that weren’t his best work,” said Louis R. Pounders, a Memphis architect and member of the design committee for the American Institute of Architects. “Anything that’s done by someone of Breuer’s stature has merit on its own.” Some people, though, just call Breuer’s building ugly. “That thing looks like a collector’s case for Matchbox cars,” said Julie Baker, a commercial banker, as she sat on a patio opposite the tower. “If I could get a wrecking ball, I’d tear it down myself.” Few people know that Breuer designed the Cleveland Trust Tower, which was built in 1971, a year after he offered his plan to build a large skyscraper directly atop Grand Central Terminal in Midtown Manhattan. That proposal galvanized the historic-preservation movement in New York, which, helped by the support of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and others, scored a major victory by defeating the project. Except for their vastly different scales, Breuer’s designs for the Cleveland and Grand Central towers were quite similar. Their facades, honeycombs of rough concrete that make no effort to conceal their girth, were undiluted expressions of modern design principles. With deeply inset windows, both buildings were examples of the dark, sculptured aesthetic of Breuer’s later work, which found its most popular expression in his design of the Whitney Museum. The fact that preservationists here are defending the Cleveland tower provides a paradoxical footnote to the most humiliating defeat for Breuer, who died in 1981. “It is quite amazing how things have come full circle,” said Anthony Hiti, a Cleveland architect fighting to save the tower. “This building represents his vision for Grand Central on a smaller scale, which gives it more historical significance.” The National Building Museum in Washington is planning a major exhibition on Breuer’s architecture and design, to open in November. The curator, Susan Piedmont-Palladino, wrote a letter recently to the Board of Commissioners in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, comparing the possible destruction of the tower to the razing in the 1950s of Victorian masterpieces and several major buildings by Frank Lloyd Wright. “These are irreparable tears in the fabric of our built patrimony,” Ms. Piedmont-Palladino wrote, “and surely everyone involved came to regret those decisions.” Designed as an imposing symbol of the strength of its namesake, the Cleveland Trust Tower instead became a monument to the company’s failure. The original plan called for a wing that would wrap around the bank’s glass-domed rotunda building at the corner of East Ninth Street and Euclid Avenue, the historic heart of Cleveland’s financial district. The company never grew to the point that it needed the space so the wing was never built. Cleveland Trust changed its name to Ameritrust, and in the late 1980s merged with what is now KeyBank. The old bank forfeited its name and its corporate headquarters, and the Breuer tower has been empty ever since. In September 2005, Cuyahoga County bought the tower and five adjacent buildings for $21.7 million. Two of the county’s three commissioners voted in March to demolish the skyscraper. County leaders and preservationists agree on the tower’s shortcomings. By modern standards, its layout and ceiling heights are cramped. Its mechanical systems, designed for a building twice its size, are outdated and overly large. Its porthole windows provide terrible insulation. Some government officials have grown tired of pointing all this out. “We represent the philistine position, those people who are too stupid to realize the architectural significance of this building,” David Lambert, assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor, said dryly at a recent meeting of the Cleveland Planning Commission. The commissioners who voted to demolish the tower, Jimmy Dimora and Timothy F. Hagan, did not return calls seeking comment. Replacing the tower with an office building would cost $223 million, said Barbara Shergalis, the project’s director. The design is not complete, but officials envision a highly efficient 15-story building with a large footprint that would allow the public easy access to all departments. “I’m incredibly excited about this because it’s an opportunity to invigorate what was once the most vital core of downtown Cleveland,” Ms. Shergalis said. The planning commission will discuss the issue again on June 29. The county commissioner who voted against tearing down the Cleveland Trust Tower, Peter Lawson Jones, said that retrofitting it would cost $185 million to $200 million, a significant saving for taxpayers over the cost of a new structure. Mr. Jones also said that he had become a fan of the old tower’s design. “To my eye, the rotunda is more attractive,” he said, “but the two of them can make a very interesting contrast.”
June 19, 200717 yr ^the article was written by a freelance Clevelander who lives on the near west side.
June 19, 200717 yr “We represent the philistine position, those people who are too stupid to realize the architectural significance of this building,” David Lambert, assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor, said dryly at a recent meeting of the Cleveland Planning Commission. This is an unfortunate attitude that is common among the majority of the population of this country, design simply does not matter. And he's right, they probably are "too stupid."
June 19, 200717 yr A good article. Balanced which is rare in news articles now a days and provides the necessary facts accurately with delving into opinion which is also rare today. Somebody (like a NY Times reader) learning about the issues for the first time would find the article very informative for such a quick read.
June 19, 200717 yr "what other city has demolished 383 ft buildings?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer_Building http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_masonic.htm http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=117342 http://www.detroityes.com/downtown/09hudsons.htm Only in Cleveland would people be in such a bubble... :roll: so it would be the tallest one after the singer? wow.
June 19, 200717 yr Few people know that Breuer designed the Cleveland Trust Tower, which was built in 1971, a year after he offered his plan to build a large skyscraper directly atop Grand Central Terminal in Midtown Manhattan. That proposal galvanized the historic-preservation movement in New York, which, helped by the support of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and others, scored a major victory by defeating the project. So Bruer himself could care less about historic preservation?
June 19, 200717 yr I'm sorry if this has already been brought up elsewhere, but at what point can we the residents and voters of Cuyahoga County take this issue to a referendum vote? At first, this might appear to be a lame duck issue, but as soon as it becomes a marketing battle, where dollar amounts and the like for each alternative become emblazoned on the public psyche, it could produce a very meaningful result.
June 19, 200717 yr This is not meant to be inflammatory, so please don't jump all over me, but what is so significant/historic about this particular building? I am just not sure what the issue is. Do people not want it torn down simply because they think it is wasteful to tear a building down to build a new one?
June 19, 200717 yr I'm not jumping here, but if you read the last few pages, you'll get at a good bit of the breadth of issues.
June 19, 200717 yr We represent the philistine position, those people who are too stupid to realize the architectural significance of this building, David Lambert, assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor, said dryly at a recent meeting of the Cleveland Planning Commission. This is an unfortunate attitude that is common among the majority of the population of this country, design simply does not matter. And he's right, they probably are "too stupid." Yes, anyone who doesn't share your taste for 70's modernism is obviously stupid and doesn't care about design. Don't they realize Breuer was a genius and everything he did is worth saving? Seriously, there may be good reasons to save the Breuer tower, but alot of us that do care about design don't think that design is a factor in this building's favor. Cost savings, perhaps. Loss of embodied energy, perhaps. Lack of a compelling vision for what replaces it, perhaps. Lack of a transparent decision making policy, most definitely. That's where all the other problems with this project stem from.
June 19, 200717 yr ^ I agree. Design is an issue (for both sides), but there are plenty of other factors in favor of saving it.
June 20, 200717 yr X, you summed up my position perfectly. The design of this building is nothing worth saving. I also don't subscribe to the belief that "This building is historic/irreplaceable just because 'insert celebrity architect here' designed it". All the other issues you brought up make this building worth saving, not who designed it. I would also add that, in a city where the skyscrapers aren't exactly rising on every block, we shouldn't be racing to tear down our taller office buildings to replace them with 15-story glass midrises. MTS, what I meant is that the county is stuck at that site. They are not moving to Tower City, the burbs, or anywhere else like they've vaguely threatened. They will, however, probably get their way when it comes to demoing the Breuer tower and building a new building. And Joe Cimperman's name is mentioned several times in G Ferris' blog about proposing a motion to demo and calling the commisioners "our partners" and all that crap. Articles like the one in the NY Times only help the preservation cause because it raises awareness of this issue beyond our area and makes it that much more difficult for Hagan & Dimora to defend their position and with-hold information. The more publicity on this, the better.
June 20, 200717 yr Whatever happens, if this building is used by the county as their HQ.. they MUST change this side entrance, obviously they'd use the beautiful Cleveland Trust building portion of the property as the main entrance.. but this just has to go..
June 20, 200717 yr what has to go?? sprinkle some employees in that picture and some other building activity and that looks like any scene in any typical large american city...
June 20, 200717 yr The fact that it's dark, dull, and unwelcoming? This isn't like a computer, you can't just "plug and play" after you clean up the place.. things will need to be changed and modernized.
June 20, 200717 yr The fact that it's dark, dull, and unwelcoming? This isn't like a computer, you can't just "plug and play" after you clean up the place.. things will need to be changed and modernized. KS5214....are you for real? I mean aren't you pulling the trigger a bit early? Unless you've seen some plans that non of us have had the privledge. That buildings lobby is amazing.
June 20, 200717 yr The fact that it's dark, dull, and unwelcoming? This isn't like a computer, you can't just "plug and play" after you clean up the place.. things will need to be changed and modernized. KS5214....are you for real? I mean aren't you pulling the trigger a bit early? Unless you've seen some plans that non of us have had the privledge. That buildings lobby is amazing. Seriously. I bet your front porch wouldn't look so inviting if you did nothing with it since the 80's.
June 20, 200717 yr It sort of has a retro, vintage look to it. It reminds me of the movie "Down with Love." Yeah, I watched it!
Create an account or sign in to comment