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. but the potential is amazing. I banked there in the past and remember how much I like the lobby and how it flowed from the rotunda. Of course there will be cosmetic changes...but the East Ninth connector was nice. I personally think the damn garage should be torn down and rebuilt as housing....but thats another topic
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. but the potential is amazing. I banked there in the past and remember how much I like the lobby and how it flowed from the rotunda. Of course there will be cosmetic changes...but the East Ninth connector was nice. I personally think the damn garage should be torn down and rebuilt as housing....but thats another topic In case I was not clear, I am siding with you MTS ************** EDIT: not sure what happened with my message there
June 20, 200717 yr I personally think the damn garage should be torn down and rebuilt as housing....but thats another topic Now you're talking! But I believe the garage was one of the hooks for choosing this lousy sight. I know lots of folks find this building hideous (I am not one of them), but really, this building is not even in my top 10 of downtown eyesores, even in its current state. Downtown eyesores would be a fun new thread...
June 20, 200717 yr I had to look at the very beginning of this thread to even remember the short list of sites that was considered. It's funny reading the beginning- people accurately predicted the Ameritrust tower site but most people (naturally) assumed it would be a renovation, not a demo. Anyhow, who owns the large parking lot between Prospect and Huron across from the Q? Given its proximity to the public transit hub of this city and two large publicly owned, underused parking garages, I'm surprised this site wasn't on the short list.
June 20, 200717 yr I personally think the damn garage should be torn down and rebuilt as housing....but thats another topic Now you're talking! But I believe the garage was one of the hooks for choosing this lousy sight. I know lots of folks find this building hideous (I am not one of them), but really, this building is not even in my top 10 of downtown eyesores, even in its current state. Downtown eyesores would be a fun new thread... I agree. The parking garage was built in the mid to late 80s if im not mistaken, so to me it can go.
June 20, 200717 yr Are you sure that garage doesn't date to the same time as the tower? It sure looks like it. And I agree with KS5214. The East 9th St. entrance area is the worst thing about the AT tower, at least from the outside. It feels cavelike. The space is going to need some serious remodelling. The AT's facade of glass and marble leading to the lobby is interesting, but the black marble has a tendency to "suck up" light. To the north and south of the little setback area are blank walls, and in the middle of the setback is yet more black marble- the pillars. And there is little that can be done with the blank walls to north or south. Even covering them with artwork is unlikely to do anything but mitigate the darkness of the space, like painting the underside of a highway overpass. So yes, it can be cleaned up, but I don't yet see how that space can be made inviting without major surgery.
June 20, 200717 yr The abstract solid/void move Breuer pulled on the lobby facade is definetly one of the most interesting articulations in the city, along with the precast units. If they were washed, lit, and had people interacting with it, people may appreciate it more.
June 20, 200717 yr Parking garage was built in 1972 Really? Why do I remember it being built in the 1980s??? I clearly remember the bridge being built and an accident on the south side of prospect. Good God, senior moments are setting in on me!
June 20, 200717 yr The abstract solid/void move Breuer pulled on the lobby facade is definetly one of the most interesting articulations in the city, along with the precast units. If they were washed, lit, and had people interacting with it, people may appreciate it more. Washing and lighting would help, some. But I don't see how people are going to interact with the space. It's a bit of a void. There is nothing to do in that space as of now, no program. What could there be?
June 21, 200717 yr ^^I have been in both the Rotunda and Tower on numerous occasions. Rotunda was nicely renovated by Cleveland Trust and was one of the most beautiful banking rooms in Cleveland. Very light filled and airy. What I remember most about the tower is that it had some of the slowest elevators in downtown Cleveland.
June 21, 200717 yr ^^I have been in both the Rotunda and Tower on numerous occasions. Rotunda was nicely renovated by Cleveland Trust and was one of the most beautiful banking rooms in Cleveland. Very light filled and airy. What I remember most about the tower is that it had some of the slowest elevators in downtown Cleveland. I think most of us older folks banked there or knew/visited folks in the tower. I just wonder how those who haven't been in can make statements without having any knowledge of how the building operated. The past doesn't indicated exactly what the future would be like, but atleast those making comments would have a point of reference.
June 21, 200717 yr Who's made comments about the inside of the building? Mostly we've talked about the exterior, as that is what is visible. The other comments made about the interior have been based on reports about floorspace given over to mechanical and elevator space.
June 21, 200717 yr Who's made comments about the inside of the building? Mostly we've talked about the exterior, as that is what is visible. The other comments made about the interior have been based on reports about floorspace given over to mechanical and elevator space. The ninth street passage has been discussed. which is visable from the street.
June 21, 200717 yr I usually just lurk around this board, but I'd like to ask everyone two questions about the whole Breuer tower controversy: 1) Do you think there would be as much controversy if the building replacing the tower was more interesting, better designed, or the vision of another "star" architect? 2) To those of you who think the tower is an eyesore, do you think it's a total loss or would it be possible to do something to salvage the design (and integrate it better with the rotunda)? I'm thinking of the Art Museum expansion, I think they did a fairly decent job integrating the classical original building and the Breuer expansion. For example, maybe the rotunda's columns and setback could be echoed in a new street-level facade on the tower. Some people have already mentioned wrapping the building in translucent glass, perhaps that could be done part way of the building, partially embracing the rotunda. I think an update / addition would be especially fitting, given Breuer's plans to update Grand Central Terminal in NYC. For the curious, here's a picture of that proposal: There's a rendering of the Art Museum Expansion in this thread: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2624.60
June 22, 200717 yr Special Meeting City Planning Commission Friday, June 29, 2007 9:00 AM Cleveland City Council Committee Room City Hall Room 217 At this special meeting of the City Planning Commission, action will be taken on the disposition of existing buildings on a portion of the site on the east side of East 9th Street between Barn Court and Euclid Avenue for a new Cuyahoga County Administrative Complex. Agenda items may include: 1. Cleveland Trust Rotunda: 900 Euclid Avenue 2. Ameritrust Tower: 2017 East 9th Street
June 22, 200717 yr WCPN: Ameritrust Tower Razing Put On Hold Aired June 22, 2007 Cuyahoga County is weighing its options a week after the Cleveland Planning Commission put the brakes on a project to build a new headquarters downtown. But a final decision may come down to how the city charter is interpreted, as ideastream's Eric Wellman explains. The county hopes to raze the Ameritrust Tower and put a new building in its place that would bring all of its employees under one roof. But the plan hit a roadblock a week ago when the city planning commission asked for more information before approving a demolition permit. The commission's chairman Tony Coyne wants to see more detailed plans about how the county hopes to use the property. Tony Coyne: We need to make sure at the end of the day that we're going to have a much better project on the site than what's there presently. But County Commissioner Tim Hagan says it all comes down to an interpretation of the city's charter. He believes - as a public entity that the county may be able to overrule the planning commission's decision. Tim Hagan: I'm not looking for a confrontation with the city bureaucracy. I think we will not move ahead unless the mayor and council president assures us that under the charter we can move ahead without acquiescence of the planning commission. The planning commission disagrees with that interpretation of the charter, saying its approval is required for the demolition to proceed. Hagan says he's received assurances from the mayor that there will be a resolution within a month. Eric Wellman, 90.3. <A HREF="http://www.wcpn.org/mp3/2007/06/0622ameritrust.mp3">Listen</A>
June 22, 200717 yr OK, so it has come down to this, a showdown with the city. Jackson had voiced support for the building's demolition earlier, but has been silent for a while now. Does anybody know what his stance is concerning historic preservation? I think it is time to start some type of larger movement to save the tower, since it is now up to the mayor.
June 22, 200717 yr OK, so it has come down to this, a showdown with the city. Jackson had voiced support for the building's demolition earlier, but has been silent for a while now. Does anybody know what his stance is concerning historic preservation? I think it is time to start some type of larger movement to save the tower, since it is now up to the mayor. HUH?
June 22, 200717 yr Yeah I don't think ol' Frank really has much of a say in this at all, if any. It comes down to the courts interpretation of the city charter.
June 22, 200717 yr My opinion in this case may be a bit biased since I was brainwashed with Mies for 5 years at IIT but I think that it will be a huge mistake to replace this building with any of the crap we've seen so far in the little PD thumbnail photos. Here are my rants/viewpoints: IIT had plans to move from the Bronzeville/Bridgeport to the burbs in the early '90s. The neighborhood was very rough and the buildings served (and looked) as bunkers for all of the students, faculty, and staff. Since I started in the fall of 2002 through spring 2007, major renovations/restorations have taken place and currently are underway for many of Mies' and Mies' friends buildings. Crown Hall, the world's biggest thermal bridge (ie not very energy efficient) had its own extreme makeover and is probably more pristine now than it ever was (in addition to being much more efficient). It's an "eyesore" because it's vacant and a little tarnished. This isn't about money! It's about restoring and preserving an important piece of Cleveland's rich urban fabric. Saving $10 million is not worth replacing this building with John Doe-Generic's design. EGO TRIP TO THE MAX! Clean it, fix it, USE IT! Another thing, 2 of the 3 county commissioners act like they know what's best just because they were elected...OMG I'm sorry but the last thing anyone cares about during their campaigns are their design aesthetics. Their idea of an attractive building is the Hilton Garden Inn on Carnegie. God, look at their hair, tie, and shirt combo and you'll see what they think looks good... I think, as a compromise, the building should be restored and floor plates of the facades with all granite tiles can expand. The extension can be skinned in a very transparent, simple glass curtain wall. Maybe the extension can rise another 15 or so stories about the current building. This allows for the space requirements and "new" factor the county wants but also displays our maturity in appreciating such a unique, one of a kind building and adapting it to our current needs and environmental responsibility. The thing that gets me, is how "we" (as a people) say that this is an ugly, environmentally dangerous, inefficient, etc. building and have the nerve to present the suburb worthy proposals as its replacement. Honestly people! Ugly??? Since when is beauty black/white. Environment??? No, tearing it down and the process of producing the components of the building and constructing the new bldg. will not harm the environment at all. Inefficient??? Uhh, where do most of the employees come from?? The burbs?? Birthplace of inefficiency!!! Like many of you have already stated, elbow grease and people would make this building 1000x times more accepted by the public and commissioners. We didn't learn by demolishing Euclid Ave or the Warehouse District have we?? When will we get it? Hell, if Nimes, France can take a Roman Colosseum and insert an arena with ice rink on the interior, then we sure as hell can take this building and make use of it today with some sort of extension. I'm done. FRIDAY :drunk: :drunk:
June 22, 200717 yr I get most of your comments (and agree) except this one: Saving $10 million is not worth replacing this building with John Doe-Generic's design. Demo is slated to add costs to this project. As far as I know, no one is claiming that a knock-down & rebuild option will be cheaper. The way one colleague of mine explains it, we're starting $40 million in the hole if we demo... the cost of acquisition, the cost of demolition, and lost tax credits... I thought money talked in government circles?
June 23, 200717 yr My bad MyTwoSense, let me clarify... this was what I was referring to... WCPN: Ameritrust Tower Razing Put On Hold Aired June 22, 2007 Tim Hagan: I'm not looking for a confrontation with the city bureaucracy. I think we will not move ahead unless the mayor and council president assures us that under the charter we can move ahead without acquiescence of the planning commission. The planning commission disagrees with that interpretation of the charter, saying its approval is required for the demolition to proceed. Hagan says he's received assurances from the mayor that there will be a resolution within a month. Eric Wellman, 90.3.
June 25, 200717 yr Nice article by Litt... Tower fight threatens commission's status Monday, June 25, 2007 Steven LittPlain Dealer Columnist The bitter debate over whether to renovate or replace a downtown Cleveland office tower designed by the great Modernist architect Marcel Breuer threatens to cause serious collateral damage. At risk: the status of the Cleveland City Planning Commission... For more: http://blog.cleveland.com/top_entertainment/2007/06/peggy_turbett_the_plain.html
June 25, 200717 yr Well-written and to the point. I'm afraid that the vast majority of the PD's readers (and Clevelanders in general) have no idea what the CPC is or why it is important. They also don't care about the tower or the project in general... Litt points out a few of the core reasons why the everyday Clevelander should care about these things, because they do impact our everyday lives... whether it be the design of buildings or the use of land, or the immense expenditure of public dollars. Let's hope there are a few new people paying attention every day.
June 25, 200717 yr I think the bigger issue now is not the actual building, it's how the case is ruled because this could have some serious ramifications on the law.
June 26, 200717 yr while this is on point, I feel like no one will get it until someone beats them over the head with the real financial ramifications of the project. it seems like a no-brainer. make that point to enough people, and the support for saving the tower will be there.
June 26, 200717 yr if it is not functional in its current set up, due to the second tower never being built, how can you say it would be a cost savings to re-hab it. Isn't it comparing apples and oranges?
June 26, 200717 yr if it is not functional in its current set up, due to the second tower never being built, how can you say it would be a cost savings to re-hab it. Isn't it comparing apples and oranges? Well, it wouldn't just be a rehab, but an adaptive re-use, with "adaptive" being the operative word. I remember reading somewhere (in this thread, I think) that the architect proposing the re-use said that the county's space and floor-use requirements could be easily met with a modest addition. Besides, nothing's keeping the county from building the other tower! :wink:
June 26, 200717 yr God, I REALLY hate how the commissioners use the, "they're not elected, they're appointed therefore their opinions shouldn't matter" line everyday when talking about the planning commission!!! Like I said earlier, while the commissioners are elected, no one gives two sh*ts about their architecture/urban design standpoints during the campaigns. FYI, if you go to the Ingenuity website, the Breuer charette has been extended until July 6th. I think it'd be fun to submit something. What's up with Cleveland's "big wigs"? Monkey see monkey do, huh?
June 29, 200717 yr Could the county use tax credit to fix the building to rent it out and use the equity to build or even rent out a building in Pesht or FEB. Why tear it downthe more buildings the better. I just dont trust Dimora and the gang to rebuild on the torn down site quick enough, I can really see them dragging their feet
June 29, 200717 yr Push ahead on county building Friday, June 29, 2007 The Cleveland City Planning Commission should vote today to allow the 29-story Ameritrust tower at East Ninth Street and Euclid Avenue to come down, as part of redevelopment for Cuyahoga County's new administrative building. County commissioners approved that course of action, on a 2-1 vote, in early spring. The planning commission has been weighing the matter during additional public meetings...
June 29, 200717 yr Who's the jack ass that wrote this? Typical PD article, going against common sense, and with their political ties.
June 29, 200717 yr Why did they pay $22 million for this building, then? The market rate seems closer to $10, although I'm no expert -- just judging by what other buildings are selling for.
June 29, 200717 yr Ugh. That is a horrible, horrible editorial. It's really strange to me that the discussion now seems to presuppose that consolidated county government has to be on this site. 1) Is it necessary to have county government in one complex, and if so what are the benefits of that arrangement? I think there probably are a lot but they're rarely discussed. 2) If the building is so counter to the needs outlined by the County Commissioners, then why is this site still ideal? Given the proximity of surface parking lots and other vacant buildings, what is the "rational" (as described in the editorial above) reason for choosing this parcel over other parcels in high-visibility locations downtown? But here's my biggest question and the least rhetorical one ... when would demolition occur? My understanding is that county commissioners are floating the idea of supporting the administrative center from the residuals of the proposed sales tax increase, after expenses for the Convention Center / Medical Mart are finalized. If this is the case, is there potential for a nightmare scenario: the tower is demolished, the commissioners institute a sales tax increase, a petition successfully lands the hike on a ballot, voters vote down the sales tax increase and the commissioners are left with a vacant lot and no easily identifiable revenue streams for new construction. Is this a possibility? And if so, why are commissioners rushing to demolish if they have not finalized financing of the building proposed for the site?
June 29, 200717 yr ^To answer your first question, the county is doing a service to the city by either renovating or demolishing what is a very visible eyesore at an important intersection in downtown Cleveland. I would have been extremely dissapointed if a location such as behind tower city was chosen leaving this building, which was not eyed by developers for renovation, sitting to rot for at least five more years.
June 29, 200717 yr why are editorials never cited on Cleveland.com? It would be very insightful to know who wrote this... It appears that authors on both sides of the issue are taking liberties, though, which I suppose is the case in many caustic political discussions. "Facts" are not always what they are made out to be... The problem I have with this article is that it still ignores the most poignant arguments for preservation... the waste of public $ on the initial purchase and proposed demolition of an apparently useless structure where there were clearly other available sites nearby and the waste of embodied energy in the building and the hypocrisy of the County Commissioners in wanting to build a "green" building. There are certainly many other issues to be argued, but these (to me) are the most difficult to refute.
June 29, 200717 yr ^Map Boy, I think all official editorials are unattributed even in the print version, no? I think they're the product of the editorial board. ^To answer your first question, the county is doing a service to the city by either renovating or demolishing what is a very visible eyesore at an important intersection in downtown Cleveland. I would have been extremely dissapointed if a location such as behind tower city was chosen leaving this building, which was not eyed by developers for renovation, sitting to rot for at least five more years. I don't understand how this site could be in anyone's top 5 of eyesores downtown given the abundance of surface lots and the old Atrium building. This sentence from the editorial is so silly: "Most county agencies couldn't fit on one floor of the building. That falls short of the project's ultimate goal: consolidating county offices and up to 1,700 employees in one place." I thought a big part of the goal was operational cost savings by not having to lease lots of smaller areas- I really don't understand why it's such a big f'ing deal if department Y is spread over two floors linked by an internal stair... And with all due respect to the PD, when it comes to the technical feasibility of re-use, I am inclined to trust the judgment of the many architects who think the building could be saved (including Davis Brody whose bid proposed just that) rather than a handful of editorial board members.
June 29, 200717 yr 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.
June 29, 200717 yr For not being in use for 15 years, it is in remarkable shape. Visually I'd rather look at an empty Ameritrust than a filled NCB any day of the week.
Create an account or sign in to comment