3 is interesting, but very cold. I don't like how it looms over the rotunda.

 

6 is an evil fortress.

1 = agree with previously made comments; cannot tell what the design is suggesting by the image presented

2 = Looks like one of the Progressive Insurance buildings along the I-271 corridor

3 = interesting. Depending on the materials used, it could work.

4 =  :?

5 = The perspective seems off. It's like one of those car ads that show you some weird angle and you cannot tell what it really looks like.

6 = Based only on the renderings presented, this would be the best. It is unique. East 9th will benefit from it. Needs work on the street level of Euclid.

 

The question I have now:

 

WHERE ARE ALL OF THE SUPPOSED WINDMILLS!!

1. this really doesn't tell us anything other than there is indoor space that would take life off of the street

 

2. From what I can see, I don't like it. But, you can't really see that much.

 

3. Interesting, but what would happen to the portion the fronts Euclid next to the bank building?

 

4. I sure hope they don't build the county hq in Buffalo.

 

5. Overall, I like it. The Huron side looks bad.

 

6. Why is half of the buildig transparent? It looks too small for the space. I find this one confusing, but also intriguing.

As much as I am not a fan of the old beehive, I would rather see that thing get rehabbed and keep the height than to see a new building and lose at least 10-15 stories......these renderings suck IMO.....reduce the footprint and add height I say!!!

Raze it or reuse it: County hears yet another option for office tower

Friday, August 25, 2006

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

A tough decision for Cuyahoga County commissioners just got tougher, with an architectural team suggesting the county could save big bucks by reusing an aging downtown office tower instead of razing it.

 

More at http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/115649577172630.xml&coll=2

^^Agreed. If you're going to get rid of an architecturally significant building, at least replace it with an equally significant building. Height is not as much of an issue to me; actually, I think I like #5 the best, as it seems like there was real intent to draw attention to the gem of the Rotunda; while 3 and 6 weren't terrible, they just don't work as well visually for me. I still say, when in doubt, restore and renovate!!!

^^Okay, put in context, I'm suddenly a MUCH bigger fan of #3. Can we still have a green roof and windmills? :-)

Number three is the only one that's not completely fug :\

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

 

And that was the one I liked the most!

"With some 2,000 employees, the new county complex will also serve as an economic engine."

 

I don't really get this...why is it an economic engine to relocate a bunch of county employees within downtown?  Do we expect contractors to stop for a bite to eat at an outdoor cafe on Euclid after filing permit applications?  Sounds more like a recipe for piles of cigarette butts on Euclid and lots of double parking...Would have made a much bigger impact to erase an eyesore (665 Euclid or whatever the exact address is) or a parking lot.  But I suppose that gripe is about a year too late.

3 is the only one worth anything.  Fleischman's proposal is a complete bag of ass.  And why does Pelli want to built another atrium to take away significants fromthe existing rotunda?  Seems conterproductive.

^^ Agreed. I suppose the only rationale might be that it would give a jump start to ECP development spin-offs, as it would create a centralized body of consumers right along the corridor. I just hope they're working on redeveloping the locations around Ontario & Lakeside/St. Clair concurrently; it's not like this area is teeming with activity as is (when I worked over that way, it seemed like most people headed over toward Public Square for meals, etc.). If the county pulls out without something else going almost immediately in, that western border of the Civic District is going to be a ghost town!

I want to know more about what is happening with the Euclid Ave frontage with the 1920's building being demolished.  Other than that 6 and 3 are interesting designs. 

 

Did anyone else notice what is across the street in 5?  Where are they getting that?

Mayday,

 

Your link doesn't include this pic

 

I like this footprint the best, but I can't really see the other footprints well enough to compare them fairly.

 

 

#3 was the only one I thought was sort of attractive, although that graphic in the PD is of such bad quality, you can't tell. Enclosing the existing building in glass sounds like a cool idea, though. I was walking around today, and I looked at it, and I thought it could be attractive if they cleaned it up. It looks to be covered in soot or something. Is that it's original color, that coal black?

 

Unfortunately, it sounds like the commishes have a hard-on for knocking the whole place done. What they'd put up in it's place would be ever worse. That design from the Detroit-based firm is freaking heinous. Put that in Strongsville, not downtown!

i really hope they dont consider knocking it down, it would be cheaper not to!

This has got to be one of the dumbest things this town has engaged in, in a long, long time.  In a town lacking in downtown skyscrapers, we're actually considering demolishing one of the few we have and replacing it with a squat, boxy building (don't give me the so called exciting, sexy curves of the planned shorty replacement).  And who came up w/ this absurd notion -- now Gospel-- that the Ameritrust tower is this God awful thing that must be destroyed?  Please.  If you want to see ugly, just look diagonally across Euclid/E.9th at that faceless white shoebox NCB defaced the corner with.  Ameritrust is a Taj Mahal compared to that junk; and many others -- it is not that bad a building people; and on a level, imho, it's a svelte handsome structure w/ a Brutalistic modern sculptured facade -- not the best, mind you, but not awful either.  And certainly not to the extent you'd tear it down.

 

Consider how this stupid project lost direction (if I'm wrong, correct me please).  Wasn't this supposed to be a project to combine County workers in a single location freeing up the Mall area for development (poss a rebuilt cc) and possibly creating a project that jump start life into an area of downtown?  After W. 3 at the Port & WFL rapid transit line (too isolated) and Higbee's (not enough parking) were eliminated, regretfully to me, they ended up giving Dick Jacobs a sweetheart deal to take vacant Ameritrust off his hands -- while, I'm sure, in the process, plowing his money into yet another big-box suburban sprawl venture.

 

And now, suddenly, we're going to actually waste tens of $ millions to literally tear down a viable 28-story skyscraper to build some squat palace for... county workers!  huh!!??  Excuse me, am I missing something here?  Am I in La La land befuddled why so many hip urbanites on this board are actually excited about this horrific boondoggle at taxpayers expense?  The same taxpayers that, less than a decade ago, were ask to fork over $300M to build Fortune 200, mega-billionaire (the late) Al Lerner a playpen to lure our beloved Brownies back -- never mind, its a big, development-blocking sterile concrete bowl that's only used 10-12 times a year; and never mind the same Al Lerner helped facilitate the Browns move to begin w/ (after green-mailing Ameritrust to their knees allow the takeover by Society causing the former to abandon its skyscraper plans leaving the huge hole on Public Sq??? but I digress); and never mind that this is one of the poorest big cities in America with one of the worst homeselling records, in both the city and county.

 

Only Peter Lawson Jones has an ounce of sense here in questioning the 'logic' of the Ameritrust demo plans of co-commissioners Hagan and DiMora (well, you know what a lightweight Jimmy is).  Sorry but this farce deserves the dreaded OIC (Only in Cleveland) tag... Has this town gone stark raving mad!!??

I wouldn't say Cleveland is lacking in skyscrapers, but it is lacking in 500+ foot ones. That said I agree that knocking this building down is stupid. If they dmust tear the building down then they should definately replace the height. Personal I think they should expand the square footage with an expansion kind of like design proposal #3.

has anyone wirtten to the commissioners??  wheres their information?  i think everyone should tell them what they think

Frankly, I find it a little difficult to critique the proposals at this early stage given the limited number of pictures and perspectives.  I also imagine that the proposals right now are at least 50% conceptual and will develop over time.  I look forward to seeing more details and hopefully more renderings.  Maybe Steve Litt will do a column in Sunday's PD and will have more information.

 

Still, at this point I find many of the critiques and opinions interesting.  That said, the posts I have to dismiss out of hand as lacking credibility (even those will some very valid points) are those which reject the designs at this stage (or indeed at any stage in the process) simply because the proposed buildings are not tall enough.  I just don't understand what good architecture or urban design and planning has to do with the height of buildings or a city's skyline.

 

Houston and Dallas have well developed skylines and I doubt anyone on this board would consider them urban paradises.  I have never been to LA but have viewed its downtown skyline may times and it is quite impressive from afar.  However, from everything I have read its central business district is dead after hours.  DC has no high rise buildings at all but most of the city neighborhoods are very lively.  On the other hand, right across the river is Rosslyn which is basically a concrete jungle of poorly designed highrises and intimidating street life.  This does not mean that a great skyline does not equate a lively, livable city (e.g. Toronto, Seattle, Chicago, Boston), it just means tall buildings (especially those which are poorly designed and don't respect their surroundings) do not necessarily equal great urban planning.

 

There are obviously many arguments to be made in favor of and against the demolition of the Ameritrust Biding.  Many have already been offered in this thread.  But to preface an argument with the statement "in a town lacking in downtown skyscape rs we're actually considering demolishing one of the few we have and replacing it with a squat boxing building" shows a bias which makes some legitimate points suspect.  Many posts seem to want a tall biding on the site no matter what.  It appears they would prefer a "bad" tall biding (although I am sure they would prefer a "stunning" tall building) over a very good plan that consists of elevations no higher than 15 stories.  I'm sorry but I just don't equate good architecture with height.  Not that what has been proposed is great or even good architecture (again I want to see more details).  I enjoy an interesting skyline with tall buidings and would look favorable on a well designed "imposing" building on the site.  However, if the architects can come up with a 15 story design that respects the Rotunda, gives some life to both East Ninth and Euclid, is receptive to public transportation (as I am sure many of the public employees working in the building with ride the bus) and is pleasing to the eye, bring it on.

^I agree that the posted designs should be taken more as an indication of basic design principles - urban placement/massing (tower on Euclid or Ninth, entrances?), engagement of the rotunda (giving it some breathing room or building up to it) and anticipated floorplate sizes/efficiencies. Its even difficult to gauge some of these principles as #1, for example only shows a lobby space, and #4 doesn't include a full view to Prospect Ave. Hope Litt can give us a little more to discuss, or better, that the County could post the images and team proposals online, or on location at Ninth and Euclid.

 

My biggest criticism is not in the images of the buildings that have been 'designed' at this very early stage - most of these teams are capable of working with the county to meet their needs and for creating a beautifully designed and appropriately urban building - my biggest concern is that the county, which aims to promote sustainability, has decided to build a complex sprawling across an entire city block and tear down a building which does not NEED to come down.

 

I would have loved to see one of a couple of decisions made (given the County already committed to the E9th and Euclid site): build on the northern half of the site (tear down the tower if it couldn't adapt to the floorplate efficiencies) and commit the southern site for future private development and temporary park/plaza OR shop the tower for spec office, luxury residences (how cool could the tower be for condos), and build county offices somewhere else on the site - somehow connecting to a renovated rotunda space. I understand that the county would love to bring life immediately to an entire stretch of the CBD, but I think that the sq. ft. program requirements don't necessitate an immediate entire build-out of the block. Maybe the remainder of the site could be an investment opportunity.

and for county the talk about "green" building and perhaps obtaining LEED certification, keeping the tower and renovating (as opposed to demolition) would provide a significant boost to that effort and offer some credits.

i like either of the davis or perkins renderings. the two towers!

 

they need to leave the breuer alone and whatever they build needs to interact with the street via retail not wall itself off to it.

"Public should speak up before tower comes down"

 

They have - they don't like it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand Litt's point and I'm well aware of Breuer's importance as a Modernist, etc. I personally think that preserving the tower would be a wise and economically prudent move.

 

But simply said - outside of Modernist-architecture-appreciation and preservation circles, this tower is viewed by most people as ugly. Sure, the Larkin Building in Buffalo wasn't a dainty structure but it also wasn't a dark slab of a tower with concrete honeycomb windows.

http://www.pbs.org/flw/buildings/larkin/larkin.html

 

If Litt is looking for public sentiment beyond what's already been said - I don't think he'll find much. As he mentioned in the article - it took Cleveland Restoration Society and CUDC this long to organize any kind of opposition. That wouldn't be the case if there was more sentiment for the tower.

give me a hammer and I will start the demo

I thought the idea of encasing the existing building in glass is a cool idea.....

 

Of course, someone told me I was the only one around who thought Key Tower is one of the best looking buildings around....

I thought the idea of encasing the existing building in glass is a cool idea.....

 

Of course, someone told me I was the only one around who thought Key Tower is one of the best looking buildings around....

 

who doesn't like Key Tower?  Its no Chrysler Building, but its a handsome structure.

regardless of what people think of the tower, i believe that we too often just tear things down that still have much useful life. 

 

there are plenty of surface lots and smaller abandoned buildings downtown, and if the county wanted to build from scratch, they should have chosen something east of gateway or warehouse parking lots.

 

while the empty building is not desirable, i don't think it does much harm if it sits for another 10 years before someone decides it is worth saving, or office demand picks up, or it is converted to condos or something. 

Having these old buildings and then successfully restoring them is one of the things that makes Cleveland so much more architecturally interesting that the newer souther cities (like Charlotte, Columbia, Jacksonville, Naples, etc).  It also gives our Downtown more character that our surburbs will ever have. 

Personally I think that the Ameritrust Tower is best consigned to photos and memories.  I don't care who designed it, it's ugly and inhumane (opinion, yes).  But I can't believe that nobody cares about 1010 Euclid.  That's a beautiful building(opinion, yes), and I will try to make it to the meeting to speak in its defense.

I personally don't care for the tower either...IMO, it is ugly...I just hate to see it replaced with something with less height!

It seems more and more like the comissioners bought it knee jerk for the rotunda and figure the rest out for later. Jacobs made out like a bandit for selling buildings nobody wants.

give me a hammer and I will start the demo

 

If I see a hammer around there, I'll kick you in the knee :-D

 

Seriously though, the building has been vacant for quite some time. Think of what it what it would look like with a good power washing. Architecture is subjective. Everyone has there own likes and dislikes. This building should not be demolished because of anyones personal taste. If it is found to be completely useless economically, that is one thing. But to tear it down because you get uncomfortable flash-backs from watching all of the Planet of the Apes movies in one sitting is not acceptable.

I don't think that architecture as a whole is subjective, although style in and of itself is.  But even styles have objective ramifications in terms of how the building functions at ground level and the psychological and sociological impacts that they create in their users.  For example, it is my subjective impression that the building is dark and oppressive.  But it's an objective fact that it generates that impression in me, and certainly some number of other people.  If that is a general feeling among the building's users then I would consider that a significant objective shortcoming of the style.  In other words, it has a negative psychological impact upon it's users.  Does that make any sense?

^^ I get what you're saying. At first I thought it was hideous, but I work on the same block, and over the past few months it's grown on me. The building isn't "pretty," but it is very unique and it seems unwise to knock down something that might be architecturally significant to be replaced by some unimpressive building, modern design. And according to the one architect, we could save $20 million just by keeping it and encasing it in glass (which is my favorite option, haha :).

 

Maybe the money cannot be transfered for some stupid reason, but wouldn't it be nice if we could transfer that $20 million for use on something else downtown? I took a long walk around downtown last weekend taking pictures, and I'll be honest, downtown on the whole is oppresive to me.

 

I'm not so militant about it as Litt. I just figure if we can save a big chunk of change, why not focus on some other projects? Fix the place up big time, fill it up and lets go to work elsewhere.

 

When I was in Germany this past Summer I was impressed with how many older buildings had a glass "shell" surrounding them.  Not only did it make them look cool and modern (when they were otherwise bland), but I also wondered what it would feel like to open your window (many of the building were residential) only to find glass one or two feet away from you.  In particular, if you did it in the middle of winter.

 

Now I wish I had taken some pictures of them to share...

 

As you can imagine, I'm all for keeping the current tower and giving it a glass facade.

The lobby facade treatment itself is worth saving the entire building.  The abstract treatment of the punched windows (by Breuer himself) would be mesmorizing when the interior illumination from the lobby bleeds out onto street level.  That is not an opinion that is a fact.

No, although I'm splitting hairs - and I agree that the lobby facade is really cool - that's still your opinion. :-)

I like the building and think it should stay.  At the very least, it adds to the skyline. It may not be the brightest star in the skyline, but it doesn't stand out glaringly as a dog either. To most it is just another non-descript office tower blending in with the others that add symetry to the skyline.  I am tiring of new buildings with taped on ornament anyway.

 

There was a thread about twin buildings in different cities.  I always thought that the SOM designed Cook County Admin building in Chicago was a twin to that AT tower.  It has the same egg crate window feature.  It caught fire a few years ago and six people died in stairwells that were locked  There were no sprinklers in the building.  I have heard the same "tear it down" and "it's a significant building" argument about this building.

^The Breuer buildng has more character than that one.  Before, I could have gone either way with the Breuer building. But now, I really like the idea of encasing it in glass and saving the money.

^ I agree, I like the Breuer one better too. 

I too am starting to lean towards encasing the existing building in glass.  In this city, we just can't sacrifice the height.  Just make it shiny and I'll be fine with it.

I say build a second (twin) tower on top of the Garage!  :evil:

 

gut the current lobby and give it a new modern feel.

This building should not be demolished because of anyones personal taste. If it is found to be completely useless economically, that is one thing. But to tear it down because you get uncomfortable flash-backs from watching all of the Planet of the Apes movies in one sitting is not acceptable.

 

Very good points, Musky.

 

As you all know by now, I want the thing saved...glass casing or not!  I would like to see more of the architects' renderings, though.  I know they're all just conceptual, but they would help me envision several different options more adeptly.

It could definitely use some updating in the lobby:

 

 

Hah! that place is dope in a sci-fi sort of way. You can't trash that!

I am not a big fan of this building. The only thing it has going for it is it's height-which I would hate to lose. If it does stay, I would vote do the re-skin. Remember the position this building is in. Smack dab right center field, it holds center stage in every broadcast from the Jake. Of the proposals, I like the one from Perkins+Wills.

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

Judging from the rendering, I count about 26-28 floors to the top of the peak. If that is correct that means we will keep the height. If that peak is lit up at night it could be very dramatic. If we can keep the height i would love to tear it down. Just because it's old-don't make it pretty. Not every old building is worth rehabbing.

To me it is inspiring when current architects have their chance to reshape a city. Things change.

Do you mean #5, the glassy one that is sort of skinny with that vertical cliff-like apex? I'd have to see a better model of it. We haven't see better graphics or models. I don't think the commishes are going to wait for "the public" on this.

 

I'll be pissed if they pick a design that loses the height.

 

I'd be more stoked about demolishing the building if the replacements were like lightyears better. But I find them uninspiring. That's the best they could get?

^Yes #5. I like the fact it will brighten up that whole corner. But they must keep the height.

Wow, never actually counted, but yeah, there's at least 28 stories there if you really count to the tip.

 

Meanwhile, I was trying to figure out what I like about #6 besides the layout...