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

 

Things also become parking lots and freeway trenches...that was "change" for the last 5 centuries .  If we were talking about New York City, then yes, less than stellar buildings need to come down to make way for new things(and actually the same fight for a notable modernist architect's building like this would probably happen there too) because there is no room and something's got to go.  We are talking about a challenged business district pockmarked by parking lots and many more less notable buildings than this one.  To be cavalier about tearing down a 29 story tower by a revered modernist architect just isn't right.  I am glad that there is some concern, and backlash.  This is not a decision to be taken lightly.

I don't think there is much "concern" or "backlash" in the community about demolishing the building.  Steve Litt does not want to see it demolished so he searches out people in the field who share his opinion and writes an article emphasizing their views.  That is the advantage of having a regular column in a newspaper.  If these people were really committed to the building's preservation they would have organized months ago when the possibility of its demolition was first suggested by the Commissioners.

From Cleveland.com:

 

 

Public forum set to discuss fate of Breuer tower

 

5:14 p.m. Friday, Sept. 29

 

By Steven Litt

Plain Dealer Architecture Critic

 

The Cleveland Chapter of the American Institute of Architects will hold a free public forum on Thursday, Oct. 26, for a discussion on whether a downtown Cleveland office tower designed by the famous Modernist architect Marcel Breuer ought to be razed or renovated.

 

The forum will take place from 5:30 to 8 p.m. in the Glickman-Miller Hall Atrium at the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University, located at 18th St. and Euclid Avenue.

 

Cuyahoga County bought the Breuer tower and several adjacent buildings last year for $20 million as the location of new county administrative center.

 

County officials have said they want to restore and re-use the much beloved, 1908 Cleveland Trust Building on the corner of East 9th St. and Euclid Ave. But they're leaning toward tearing down and replacing the Breuer tower, along with the other older buildings on the site, with something new

 

On Thursday, the three county commissioners are scheduled to choose an architect to design the new administrative center. Five of the six design teams vying for the job have proposed tearing down and replacing the tower.

 

Anthony Hiti, chairman of the Historic Resources Committee of the Cleveland AIA, said last week that demolishing the tower would be a mistake.

 

"It would be a huge loss for the city and the nation to lose that important piece of architecture, in my estimation,'' he said.

 

The AIA says the Breuer tower is one of the architect's "few realized designs for a high-rise building,'' and that it "established a trend for other high-rises built across the United States.''

 

County officials said the tower is compromised by an abundance of asbestos, and that the floor areas are too small. Proponents of renovation say the asbestos can be sealed safely and that the tower, originally intended by Breuer to be one of a pair, could be expanded on one side to create larger floor areas.

 

The AIA will host the forum in partnership with the Cleveland Restoration Society, the Cleveland Green Building Coalition, EcoCity Cleveland, the Historic Gateway Neighborhood, Kent State University's Urban Design Collaborative, Cleveland State University and others.

 

For information about the forum, call 216 575-1242.

County officials said the tower is compromised by an abundance of asbestos, and that the floor areas are too small. Proponents of renovation say the asbestos can be sealed safely and that the tower, originally intended by Breuer to be one of a pair, could be expanded on one side to create larger floor areas.

 

Ok...I don't think any of us thought of this but how do they do this?  what is the cost??  and what is the benefit?  comparison to tear down and rebuild?

It was originally proposed to be this:

 

Thus, they'd have to demo 1010 Euclid and build the new tower alongside the existing.

^Are you sure that they weren't just gonna put a gigantic mirror next to the original building?

So the new tower would be compliant and the old tower retrofitted to become compiant?

 

I could be down for that...although I'd wonder if they would relocated the building slightly or make it better fit in with the surrounding area.  For some reason I always thought that the 'second" tower would be on the south side of prospect.

 

I'm back at square one with this.  :|

this thread needs retrofitted, i have no idea what's going on.

Commissioners pick architects for admin building

 

By JAY MILLER

 

1:47 pm, October 5, 2006

 

 

 

Cuyahoga County commissioners named local architectural firm Robert P. Madison International and Kohn Pedersen Fox of New York City as its top choice among the six teams of architects bidding to create a new county administration building.

 

The commissioners also authorized a $10 million contract with a joint venture comprising Gilbane Building Co. and R.P. Carbone Co. for construction management services for the $100 million-plus project.

 

The commissioners’ plan is for a 390,000-square-foot administrative center to bring under one roof at East Ninth Street and Euclid Avenue about 2,000 county employees who now are scattered in offices around downtown.

 

The action on architectural and engineering services means county administrators will begin to negotiate a contract with the Madison/Kohn team for its services.

 

If a contract can’t be reached with the top team, the county would negotiate with the next in line.

 

 

As a backup, the commissioners ranked the team of Westlake Reed Leskosky of Cleveland and Pelli Clark Pelli of New Haven, Conn., second. The team of Richard Fleischsman + Partners Architects Inc. and FXFowle of New York was third.

 

Still undecided is whether the county will retain or knock down the Ameritrust Tower, the largest of five buildings on the site. The 90-year-old Cleveland Trust rotunda will remain, and three other buildings will be demolished. Commissioner Tim Hagan favors knocking down the landmark, Marcel Breuer-designed tower, while one of his colleagues, Peter Lawson Jones, favors a rehab effort to save it. Jimmy Dimora, the swing vote, has in the past said he tends to favor demolition, but he avoided expressing an opinion at this morning’s commissioners’ meeting.

 

The commissioners still are investigating whether the short-term savings to be gained by retaining the Ameritrust building would be offset by long-term savings from new construction.

 

The architectural team is not expected to have a completed design ready until late 2008, with construction commencing in 2009. The buildings on the site, including the Ameritrust building, need extensive asbestos cleanup before either demolition or rehabilitation can begin.

 

 

THREE buildings are to be demolished? Exactly which ones?

I know it's waaay to early to judge based on the renderings I've seen, but theirs was my least favorite of the early designs.  I don't know who the commissioners have advising them on these things, but I really hope it's not just the three commishes sitting in a room looking at pictures. 

^ 1010 euclid, and the 4 or 5 story building connecting to the parking deck (this may actually be 2 buildings) at the corner of e9 and prospect.

 

this project just seems slow.  no plans until end of 2008?  construction starting in 2009?  jeez.  the county has already had site control for more than 1 year. 

And they've already spent $28 million and haven't done anything yet.  Tearing down that building, along with the 13 story building on Euclid for the absolute embarresments that have so far been presented is an attrocity (sp).  You're right, who is advising these morons.

The Breuer building may not be the most graceful, but it's proportions deal with the scale of the rotunda perfectly when viewed from Euclid Avenue.  This is a huge mistake, economically and aesthetically, and we will be regretting this for years to come.

Wow, they may have picked the most unimaginative design out of the already unimaginative offerings.  I feel nauseous.  Leave the F**king Breur alone!  Tearing down a tower created by a renowned architect, in order to replace it with suburban office park trash, brilliant :shoot:!

And they've already spent $28 million and haven't done anything yet.  Tearing down that building, along with the 13 story building on Euclid for the absolute embarresments that have so far been presented is an attrocity (sp).  You're right, who is advising these morons.

The Breuer building may not be the most graceful, but it's proportions deal with the scale of the rotunda perfectly when viewed from Euclid Avenue.  This is a huge mistake, economically and aesthetically, and we will be regretting this for years to come.

 

They've spent $28 million!!!!????

 

UHH. No wonder nothing ever gets done around here. I saw Tim Hagan on TV last night calling the clergy who oppose casinos "hypocrits" because they do bingo at churches. Brilliant minds at work.

Ugly

Depressing

Brutal

Dirty

Dismal

Never mentioned as a significant work of the archetect

Non functional workspaces for the current owner

It would have to be gutted to remove all of the asbestos

 

Yeah, let's save it

 

 

It seems like the second round of interviews didn't turn out to be a competition of early design ideas like the commissioners led us to believe (considering each team was awarded a few thousand dollars to develop a concept, build models, render, etc.). From what I understand, the winning team didn't present much more in terms of design concepts than what we have seen published in the PD. I wonder if either, (a) the Commissioners weren't hooked on any design process from any team and had to decide based upon portfolio and team reputation, or (b) there are more political reasons involved than I can't really understand. I hope Mr. Litt can shed a bit of light on why this choice was made.

 

 

Ugly

Depressing

Brutal

Dirty

Dismal

Never mentioned as a significant work of the archetect

Non functional workspaces for the current owner

It would have to be gutted to remove all of the asbestos

 

Yeah, let's save it

 

 

At this point, I don't even care anymore what they do to that building. I just hope they replace it with something that isn't a piece of garbage. At least they ruled out the Detroit-based architects. I didn't like their choices at ALL.

 

I figure they'll knock it down. I think the average person thinks it's ugly. Not enough support to keep it.

 

edit: What, is this a trick? How is that Cleveland firm supposed to compete with the New York firm? I'm looking at both of their sites...

Cleveland http://www.rpmadison.com/id33.htm

New York http://www.kpf.com/main.asp

 

The New York firm blows the Cleveland one out of the water.

^ i think they have local firms teamed with the leads.

 

i think they picked the middle of the road choice. we'll see. i think the tower or the jazzy chicago firm rendering were better choices for the skyline. those choices would have tempered any teardowns.

Not being very knowledgeable about Cleveland (other than what I read here), I don't really have anything of substance to add.  But I will say when I visited Cleveland I found something about the Ameritrust Tower very intriguing.  Based on pictures I had seen, I thought it was fugly, but after I saw it in person I still didn't think it was pretty, but there was something about it that I liked.  I just can't figure out what.  Just my worthless outsider's opinion of the tower. :-)

 

Carry on.

Ugly

Depressing

Brutal

Dirty

Dismal

Never mentioned as a significant work of the archetect

Non functional workspaces for the current owner

It would have to be gutted to remove all of the asbestos

 

Yeah, let's save it

 

 

 

No doubt a lot of people would agree with you.  My point would be given the choice between tearing this building down--replacing it with a Kohls on steroids, and leaving it be, I would rather leave it be.  To replace a building that could, at least at some point, be regarded as important or unique or representative, with something blandly unimaginative that would be happy in Lima, Hilliard, Kettering, or along 271, 270, or 275 would be an architectural travesty.  It is a building that, whether liked or not, helps to individualize Cleveland.  It is a frequent lament on this forum that Cleveland has lost too many structures, neighborhoods, businesses that if around now would be appreciated.  How old are some of the industrial buildings that are threatened with tear down to build the I-90 bridge?  Close to 100 years?  Are these factory/warehouses intrinsically pleasing? Who is to say in 30 years the Breur won't be looked at with interest and admiration?  Think of the buildings downtown thats original facades were either replaced or covered because they were no longer considered "in-style" or "aesthetically appealing", and that are now being re-exposed or recreated. 

 

In some peoples opinion the Terminal Tower could be considered to "glamourous", "ostentasious", or "busy" --beaux arts, more like faux arts-- It could be improved by boxing in the top, making it more rectangular, and painting it white.  The point being, if all the buildings looked identical in a city it would be incredibly boring and static.  The layers are what make a downtown interesting.

 

Plus the space owned by the county extends along either side of the tower, allowing for the possibility of an interesting rap-a-round design for the new county building that could theoretically incorporate the old tower.  The "addition" to the Breur could incorporate the design aspects that the county says it needs for its offices.  Also, all the asbestos has to be removed on the building anyway, even if it is going to be imploded or otherwise destroyed.

 

It is disheartening for a city that has lost a lot of landmarks/identity (Millionaire row, heavy industry, the cutout of the innerbelt, the near eastside of downtown--until recently :) ) to continue to remove the "old" and replace it with the "new and better".  There has to be a more innovative way to use this building then to tear it down and replace it with the tripe that is suggested.  I would not be half as mad, if they were at least considering replacing it with a building half as interesting/controversial as the original. 

Ugly

Depressing

Brutal

Dirty

Dismal

Never mentioned as a significant work of the archetect

Non functional workspaces for the current owner

It would have to be gutted to remove all of the asbestos

 

Yeah, let's save it

 

 

 

 

:?

You have just described half of the buildings downtown - tear them all down in that case, and start with city hall. Many would say the outside is ugly with its overuse of Beaux Arts design - its all over the world for pete's sake. And that bland color of stone - very depressing. Those fake columns are absolutely brutal.

Have you seen the side door near the mall? It's so dirty they don't allow you to use it except for an emergency. Talk about dismal, hang out in the sub-basement for a few minutes.

Who is this Milton Dyer guy that was architect anyway?

The only other works he ever did were the

Brooklyn Savings & Loan Assoc. (1904) at W. 25th St. and Archwood Ave.; the TAVERN CLUB (1905) at E. 36th and Prospect Ave.; the First Methodist Church (1905) at Euclid Ave. and E. 30th St.; the PEERLESS MOTOR CAR CO. (1906), now C. Schmidt's & Sons brewery at E. 93rd St. and Quincy Ave.; the CLEVELAND ATHLETIC CLUB (1911); and... the U.S. Coast Guard station (1940) on WHISKEY ISLAND.

(Encyclopedia of Cleveland History)

This place is so non-functional. Many of the plugs and lights do not work. The elevators are always breaking down. If there were ever a fire in the attic, all of the city's planning history would be forever lost.

Yes you are right punch, tear down everything that falls into these categories.

 

 

Glutmax - well said!

 

 

This whole series of events justs re-emphasizes the 'developer architect' sensibility of most cleveland decision makers - tear it down and build some new EIFS-clad shit.  I think it's amazing that the original RFP for this competition intentionally set out to forbid solo-Cleveland architectural firms from entering - hence the pairing up of local firms with nyc firms (for project experience reasons).  I'm not sure why Cleveland would ever tear down a Marcel Breuer building and replace it with shitty county offices - no wonder Cleveland isn't respected as an architectural town.  We don't know how what palimpsest and stratification mean to a city.  Davis Brody Bond's and WMF's plan was the only one which utilized encompassing the existing structure in a glass skin - adding a layer to it, removing the asbestos, and reusing an existing, and like it or not, historic vacancy.  Palimpsest over tear-it-down-and-rebuild-developing, Cleveland.

Welcome, kjmay. I agree with you. We don't have enough distance (time-wise) from the tower's construction to judge yet whether it's worth saving. Back in the 60s, lots of late-19th and early 20th century buildings were regarded as "ugly" or "undesirable," particularly downtown, and now many of us would kill to have them back. Just as importantly, it's wasteful to tear down perfectly sturdy buildings. Let the Breuer stand.

 

By the way:

 

A PUBLIC FORUM ON THE BREUER TOWER

Thursday, Oct. 26, 2006, 5:30 - 8:30 p.m.

Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University, 1717 Euclid Ave.

Register (free) at: http://www.urban.csuohio.edu/forum or call 216-523-7330

 

"It's a tough building to love, but is it wise to tear down one of only two Cleveland-area structures to be designed by the world-renowned architect Marcel Breuer for a new County Administrative Center? Join design professionals, historians, preservationists, sustainability experts and other concerned citizens in a public discussion to learn more about the Breuer Tower and the pros and cons of replacing it or renovating it. Light refreshments will be provided."

Just to bump this up. I'll be there :)

My initial thoughts on the forum:

 

Most people were in favor of saving the Breuer tower in some form.

Even those who didn't care for the tower thought it would be wasteful to demolish it.

Peter Lawson Jones seemed to have the most even-handed approach for a politician I've ever seen.

 

I'll be posting photos and I believe the Levin College puts the forum on their site in podcast/downloadable format.

What was Jones' approach?

Basically that as an elected official, he knows that the project has be of high quality, yet still come in under budget. Things he said that I didn't know:

 

1. Originally set to be a 500K sq. ft. project, it's now set to be 350K.

2. They're going for LEED certification - no matter what.

 

The latter leads me to believe that the tower stands a chance - it's almost always more LEED-friendly with rehab.

Why the downsizing of the project? 

^I'm not sure at what point they downsized it - my guess would be budget constraints but that wasn't clarified.

 

Photos from the forum:

 

 

 

Kathy Hexter of Levin College Forum makes the introduction (and gave a shout-out to clevelandskyscrapers.com!) :)

 

Cuyahoga County Commissioner Peter Lawson-Jones:

 

Steve Rugare of Kent State's Urban Design Center gave a great presentation of Breuer's career:

 

Breuer's first foray into design:

 

One of Breuer's collaborations with Walter Gropius:

 

Breuer's iconic mass-produced tubular steel chair design:

 

One of Breuer's best known residential projects which was widely imitated:

 

An utterly strange design for a church in Minnesota:

 

Breuer's best-known building and arguably his most successful, the Whitney Museum in NYC:

 

I'm glad to see my site listed, but I took a photo of the rendering when they had an exhibit at the Rotunda building. I had a few people ask if I could send them the original  :?

 

A not-terribly flattering commentary about the tower:

 

The entrance to the tower:

 

The panel responds to the Q&A:

 

Peter Van Dijk, one of the elder statemen of Cleveland architecture gave a lengthy talk about not only the Breuer Tower, but the CSU Student Center designed by Don Hisaka. He referred to the latter as a "beautiful building" - I think he was viewing it as the comrade of a fellow architect, rather than an objective observer.

 

I was there for about the whole of five minutes... I was sick.

But I did hear Jones say that the project would likely not begin until 2011-12.

I was there for about the whole of five minutes... I was sick.

But I did hear Jones say that the project would likely not begin until 2011-12.

 

OH, good. Plenty of time for me to get old.

I was there for about the whole of five minutes... I was sick.

But I did hear Jones say that the project would likely not begin until 2011-12.

 

OH, good. Plenty of time for me to get old.

 

Thats 5 years from now?! Will Robinson....that does not compute! 

I've added a special section for the Cleveland Trust Tower to my site:

 

http://www.clevelandskyscrapers.com/cleveland/clevelandtrusttower.html

Edited: Questions answered in the above article.

Some activity started in 1010 Euclid ave,next to the rotunda. A construction (or demolition) office was set up on the first floor.

Ugh.  I really hope this project doesn't become another Justice Center.

I wish they'd just get moving. Who cares about this dumb tower anymore. If it's fate has been decided, let's rock 'n' roll! Get the TNT out, then the cranes!

^If they moved a construction office in on the first floor of the building, I doubt they are demoing...unless the contractor likes determining their own fate.  I think what it is however is the company doing the asbestos survey of the building setting up in there.

Well, whatever it is, let's move! I have no attachment to this building or to the idea of restoring it. Makes no diff to me. Let's just make it nice and get more workers downtown.

i think this is the abestos removal team's office.  both buildings need to have the asbestos removed before anything can happen.

Well, whatever it is, let's move! I have no attachment to this building or to the idea of restoring it. Makes no diff to me. Let's just make it nice and get more workers downtown.

 

Well I guess if you have no attachment to it lets just tear it down.  You sound like Tim Hagan.

^^ That's not what I said. I wrote that I had no attachment to knocking the building down or restoring it. I just want them to make a decision of what they are going to do and get moving. I value actual human beings and new businesses on Euclid far more than what structures are there. Keep the tower or replace it. I just want to see an active downtown.

 

I understand the architectural significance of this building, as I've read all the articles from the PD's Litt and done my own research. I know why people want to keep it. At the same time, I can understand why "regular" people don't like it. On the surface, it's an ugly building. Maybe I'm an architectural simpleton, but when I go to New York, I have to see the Chrysler Building because it's so beautiful, I find it moving. It's more than just a building where people work. It's a symbol. When I look at that tower in Cleveland, I think "Yech, that thing is hideous." It looks like an administrative headquarters on the Planet of the Apes.

 

With that said, I already said in this thread that I am in favor of keeping the building because it will cost far less to rehab it, and I believe millions could be better spent in other parts of downtown or the city-at-large. I'm also afraid they'll replace it with something even worse. I personally think covering it in glass is an intriguing idea.

 

 

 

The building lets out a mighty illumination when the sun hits it in the late afternoon. I saw it in full glare from I-90 near W. 65th and thought it was very beautiful from the distance - from that angle it's also stands out in the skyline. Too bad they want to tear down what little we have..

clean it and light it at night and it will be fine. 

 

this same thing goes for almost every building downtown:  please clean your building every couple of years and put some accent lighting somewhere on the building.

 

 

Ugh, passing by 9th and Euclid last week reminded me what a moronic site choice this was.  What a waste.

Ugh, passing by 9th and Euclid last week reminded me what a moronic site choice this was.  What a waste.

 

Explain.  Is it a moronic choice or just not where you would build?  In a perfect Cleveland what would you do, given all the priorities and functions the building must serve?

^Nothing new, I'm just venting after seeing again what is going to be needlessly demoed for this project.    With all the vacant land downtown or in midtown on the future BRT, I really don't get why we need to tear down two existing structures, one architecturally significant (love it or hate it) and the other a nice pre-war commercial block.  I would have picked a midtown site right on Euclid or chosen one of the vacant lots downtown.  I'm sure the downtown parking garage owners are happy though.

^Nothing new, I'm just venting after seeing again what is going to be needlessly demoed for this project.    With all the vacant land downtown or in midtown on the future BRT, I really don't get why we need to tear down two existing structures, one architecturally significant (love it or hate it) and the other a nice pre-war commercial block.  I would have picked a midtown site right on Euclid or chosen one of the vacant lots downtown.  I'm sure the downtown parking garage owners are happy though.

 

Did I miss a post or announcement??  When was it decided that the building would be torn down?

Call me a pessimist.  In any case, is not a near certainty that the building on Euclid is going to come down?