Sorry, I ain't buying it. Save 1010 Euclid and the rotunda. Raze Ameritrust tower and the small building next door on East 9th.

I think we may be stuck with it. As much as I detest the building, we are talking about the county-they will play the "save money" card. Maybe one of the design firms can improve the appearance of it somehow, and renovate the rotunda and brighten up that corner. Remember the county has a history of bad building decisions-or do I have to point out the ugliest building on the planet, the Justice Center.

I would take the Justice Center 100 times over before that Ameritrust building. 

Architecture is very subjective ... frankly, one person will look at the tower and say it's a work of genius.  Another will say it's garbage.  I lean towards thinking the building is pretty ugly.  Breuer may have been a good architect (revered as a genius by modernists), but skyscrapers were not his speciality.  So is a flawed work by a good architect worth saving?  And why are buildings by "big name" architects more important than those by local or not-well-known architects?  If the exact same building was designed by some schmuck from Cleveland, would Litt be calling for it to be saved?  NOPE.  He'd urge that it be taken down and replaced with some abstract swoopy thing designed by some big-name architect from Europe.  And I think the jury's still out about Breuer ... some architectural critics think he's a genius, others think he was overrated ... he may have been part of the Bauhaus, but most people think only of Mies or Walter Gropius when they think of the Bauhaus, not Breuer.

 

hmmm...I think I've seen that article before...can't place it, though

I just don't see the need to tear it down. It can be fixed up. The exterior needs to be cleaned, the windows changed so they aren't so dark, and maybe dramatic lighting added the exterior. That would do the trick in my opinion.

I just don't see the need to tear it down. It can be fixed up. The exterior needs to be cleaned, the windows changed so they aren't so dark, and maybe dramatic lighting added the exterior. That would do the trick in my opinion.

 

we can't make the call, I think this is why they've go people going thru the building now.

 

I think you're saying is (from an exterior point of view) the building needs some cosmetic upgrades...aka a FACELIFT!

I just don't see the need to tear it down. It can be fixed up. The exterior needs to be cleaned, the windows changed so they aren't so dark, and maybe dramatic lighting added the exterior. That would do the trick in my opinion.

 

You missed the point. The only reason why they would tear it down is because the floors are very small and are not optimal for their office layout.  But for the floors, they would not even be discussing whether or not to tear it down. 

But for

 

Professor O'Neil?

I just don't see the need to tear it down. It can be fixed up. The exterior needs to be cleaned, the windows changed so they aren't so dark, and maybe dramatic lighting added the exterior. That would do the trick in my opinion.

 

You missed the point. The only reason why they would tear it down is because the floors are very small and are not optimal for their office layout.  But for the floors, they would not even be discussing whether or not to tear it down. 

 

On first read I know what the county means when they say the floors plates are too small...but then I think about it and wonder.  It's not like we're talking about a factory floor requiring contiguous floorspace.  Is it really so bad to have to march up an internal staircase to have to talk to your colleague?  I understand it more for areas the public needs to use so they don't have to get sent from floor to floor (which they will anyway, of course) but I'm guessing most of the workers being consolidated here are doing back-office/admin stuff.  Maybe the county got some sweet deal on giant cubicles that require an acre of internal, windowless space.

 

Hi All,

 

Found this picture in a book titled, "Cleveland's Changing Skyline". Book was published in 1984. Not the best pic, took it with a digital. According to the accompanying paragraph, "the new Cleveland Trust headquarters building shows two towers flanking the rotunda. The eastern tower was to be built at a later date from the west one. Maybe an option for the county, instead of tearing down the building, complete the original project. bear hugz to all.

 

Jim S.

 

 

But for

 

Professor O'Neil?

 

ahh, O'Neil stole that one from the law school profs.

Jim S., thanks for the pic - I have another version on the "Unbuilt Cleveland Skyscrapers" section on my site:

 

well, as much as I ADORE the one we have, I'm glad we don't have two! 

 

My grandma told me on the phone last night that she clipped an article for me (so sweet!) about this project.  "I remember when that building was 'new!'"  She used to go down there to meet with a lawyer in the 70s about her parents' wills.  She recalls that it was the fanciest new building in town back then.  It baffles her why they'd be tearing down a building this "new."  She did account for the asbestos, but said that it's probably much more affordable to just remediate and re-use the building!  She's a smart one!

oh my im kinda glad it didnt get built, way to overpower the trust rotunda lol

 

ya know not to get off topic, but i just saw that little model of the Progressive Life Tower on clevelandskyscrapers... holy crap, that could have been built today and been seen as cutting edge..........!!!!

 

 

 

 

Thanks MayDay for a clearer version.  :-D

boo!  BOOOOOOOOOOOO!

If they won't tear it down, I have access to a sledgehammer and I will do it myself.

 

(mostly kidding)

I've been holding off on this thread for a while, but now is the time.

 

I'm not sure I would want to see another one, but I like it. The jury is still out on the second one. But after seeing them together in the previous renderings, I feel it would be a nice compliment.

 

I love the way windows all pay respect to the rotunda... almost like they are bowing down to it.

 

I also love the portal on the southern portion of the top of the building. I don't know the significance of it, or if it is an original idea, but I like the way it breaks up the top of the building.

 

The one part of the building I do have a problem with is the East 9th Street entrance. Not because of the way it looks, but because it is hard to see. I wish they were more visible.

The windows are broken up with Mondrian-type geometric pattern. Very Partridge familyesque (that's a technical term).

 

This is one of my favorite buildings in the city. I have a real problem with tearing down buildings that are not liked because they are out of style. This includes the CSU Student Center.

(off topic rant for a moment: I know the building as a whole is ugly and a little over the top with it's fortress-like image, but that is what the style was back then. They could have bombed the hell out of the cage and the office areas of the student center, but they should have worked the wedge-like entrance into the new structure. Possibly enclosing it and bringing the edge to the street. Any way...)

 

I don't know if this is just me, but when I look at the tower, I think of Planet of the Apes.

Its probably just me.

 

It's good to hear the County hopes to start work this year. I thought I'd have gray hair by the time they broke ground.

Interesting article.  I'm glad to hear they're moving along with both of these, but the Juvenile Justice Center sounds a little more complicated than I realized.  Also, I didn't know they were selling their beautiful building on Franklin...

 

 

I am a little surprised that the Juvi center will cost as much as the county hq.  It will be interesting to watch it go up as I believe it will be located on a huge vacant parcel that is adjacent to the redline.

That's pretty awful to miss a deadline by two minutes! Those folks at Oliver Design must be kicking themselves. I understand the county's position -- if you bend the rules to allow a late submission, even if by a mere two minutes, it opens up a can worms (and a can of lawyers ... same thing?).

Kind of funny the county playing by the rules-I mean when was the last time they were on time with anything. You just know some bike messenger making 6 bucks an hour is losing his job over this. I'll bet Dimora was just nervous he was going to miss his noon feeding.

haha nice lawyers to worms comparison.

 

but honestly, i actually like that building. Maybe the hot pink i had it in earlier doesnt look very good, lol, but some sort of rennovation is the likely choice. This project is very exciting!

It sounds absolutely retentive for them to have to eliminate a proposal because of two minutes, but this is 2006 - anyone in the public sector is (justifiably) put under incredible scrutiny, internal and external, to make sure their t's are crossed and their i's are dotted. If the commissioners decided to "let it slide" just because of a two minute glitch, everyone in the media would be all over it claiming favoritism.

And think about it...do you want to have a $100 million project managed by people who can't make the simplest deadline of all?

^Well, "simplest" is probably an understatement, but yes 2 minutes late is still late and that's a bad precedent to set.  You've got to pretend that the deadline is at least a day before the actual deadline...you never know what's going to happen!  Besides, if they were really working on the thing up until the final moments, you've gotta imagine that it wasn't polished and pretty.

 

Anyway, there are still a number of good firms left.  I hope that the County's new practice of making and meeting deadlines remains true throughout this and their other projects!

here is a Litt take from today's PD.  i don't like how the end of this piece ends up.  wtf?

http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/steven_litt/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1150187556278170.xml&coll=2

 

Short on creativity

Constrained by rules, county foggy about center's design

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 Steven Litt The search for an architect to design a new administrative center for Cuyahoga County in downtown Cleveland should have been a chance to reach for greatness. Instead, the county's hunt for an architect has been disappointing. Hobbled by rules imposed by state law, the county has interviewed a half-dozen architecture teams in a process that has failed to ignite maximum creativity.

hmm are there any renderings available anywhere yet??

The second one has very little interaction with Euclid.

oh my, ok now im for keeping the tower and recladding it

 

both of those are too spread out and only about 16-18 storys tall... boo

oh my, ok now im for keeping the tower and recladding it

 

both of those are too spread out and only about 16-18 storys tall... boo

 

ZZ......Don't boo yet, its a rendering.  I kinda like the wavy building.  As long as its 25 stories or taller i'll be ok.

I'm very happy foregoing height if we get a better building.  I lean towards saving the tower and the nice old building on Euclid next to the rotunda, but I kind of like the Pelli design: very deferential to the rotunda, interesting roofline and green roof potential.

If its in the 25 story range, thats fine by me, but if its gonna be more than 10 floors shorter and spread out then its going to take away from the skyline and not really fit into the whole dense look and feel of that area...

 

if i had to pick between the two, i like the pelli one better

The Pelli one makes it look like North Pointe Tower walked down the street a few blocks.  From E9th it would look fine, but along Euclid, its onle a 3 story building.  Standing on 4th and Euclid, you wouldn't even see it on the corner of 9th and Euclid. 

OR... we can keep and rehab the Breuer Tower. It might look all drab and dreary now. But if it were cleaned up a bit:

 

I'm not excited about these at all.  No one is even considering saving the other historic building on site?

It's not clear...no one ever mentions it in the articles! 

 

I'd have to see all the drawings to make any blanket statements about what's been produced up to now, but I'm not in love with either of the two posted here.  I like that some firms have produced concepts with and without the tower, but as Litt said, there doesn't seem to be much directive from the client, so what's the architect to do?

 

I will say that I am less concerned - in the grand scheme of things - with the building's height than I am with how it functions, fits in with and contributes to the urban form in this, one of Cleveland's most inspiring districts.

any renderings??  these wind turbines sound interesting

No renderings in the print edition. Maybe Litt will come through this weekend.

From the last renderings I've seen none of the proposals are intriguing.  And the whole wind turbine with roof top gardens sounds nice, but wait until reality sets in, those will be the first things to go unfortunately.

 

I am very sad.

 

But I am intrigued as well.

 

The Pelli design seems backward -- shouldn't the building be open toward the south to catch the sun?  Granted, the site may not permit the entire building to be simply reversed.

 

But if the older building on Euclid is taken down, I agree with the other posters who have expressed an interest in seeing something taller fronting Euclid.  If Pelli wants to present a terraced design, put the height on Euclid and find a way to step down going away from Euclid.

^I bet that they want to shy away from towering over the old bank building.

10 to 15 stories?  the skyline is going to have a nice missing piece.  nothing like destroying what we already have.  now, if they were building on a surface parking lot, then maybe i'd be more supportive.  plus they have had control for over 1 year and are now saying another 4 before anybody moves in?

 

i wish the county would at least display these proposals in the windows along e9.  liven things up a bit.

A link to some of the proposals (please don't repost the pics here):

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/photos/gallery.ssf?cgi-bin/view_gallery.cgi/cleve/view_gallery.ata?g_id=4928

ok ill take the number 3 or the 6

3 or 5 for me!

Strange error by the PD. #4 is the United States Courthouse in Buffalo. 

 

Its tough to get a true feel for each rendering.

The Pelli design (1) seems pretty similar to the Library Commons (the main atrium in the center of the building) in the new Minneapolis Public Library (also one of his designs) but I agree it's a bit tough to get a good feel for some of these proposals.  I'd be interested to see the Gensler proposal from a better angle than a birds eye.