Knocking it down because supposedly 85% of the average people think it is ugly is the most idiotic thing I've heard to date.  Why not trust the opinions of trained professionals (architects, and designers in general) in this case.  Why does it seem so ridiculous to simply add onto the existing tower on the south side of the building to make the floor plates larger?  Or let's get even crazier, let's building something that cantilevers over the 1010 Euclid Avenue Building and connects to the Breuer Tower. 

These ideas are much better than the plan of tearing it down and replacing it with some uninspired piece of garbage.

 

Don't look at me, I don't make these decisions. And how is that "idiotic" when it's been the no. 1 argument against it from the beginning from the people who want to knock it down.

 

In terms of "trusting" experts, that view annoys me. That has about as much merit to me as knocking it down because its ugly.

 

I think that 5 years ago, someone should have created a preservation campaign for that building. There just isn't enough support behind it. Litt has written this himself...If they were to try and knock down the Rotunda, the public would get into an uproar.

the fight should be....knocking the building down could damage the rotunda!

 

I say leave the building up.  market it as the most unique building in cleveland...the ugly duck that became a swan..

 

Knocking it down because supposedly 85% of the average people think it is ugly is the most idiotic thing I've heard to date.  Why not trust the opinions of trained professionals (architects, and designers in general) in this case.  Why does it seem so ridiculous to simply add onto the existing tower on the south side of the building to make the floor plates larger?  Or let's get even crazier, let's building something that cantilevers over the 1010 Euclid Avenue Building and connects to the Breuer Tower. 

These ideas are much better than the plan of tearing it down and replacing it with some uninspired piece of garbage.

 

I have an urban design background, and I despise the architecture of this building for reasons I've already noted.  It's not as easy as brilliant architects vs the idiot masses.  Opinions are certainly split at all levels.  And frankly, I have never heard a nice thing said about this building till someone said "but it's a Breuer!"  Then all of a sudden it's significant or beautiful or whatever.

 

Also restoration vs replacement with an uninspiring piece of garbage is a false dichotomy.  Perhaps it could be replaced with a building that pushes the design envelope and interacts well with the surrounding neighborhood.  I think we have more chance for positive intervention with a new building than with trying to make something out of what is there.

Knocking it down because supposedly 85% of the average people think it is ugly is the most idiotic thing I've heard to date.  Why not trust the opinions of trained professionals (architects, and designers in general) in this case.  Why does it seem so ridiculous to simply add onto the existing tower on the south side of the building to make the floor plates larger?  Or let's get even crazier, let's building something that cantilevers over the 1010 Euclid Avenue Building and connects to the Breuer Tower. 

These ideas are much better than the plan of tearing it down and replacing it with some uninspired piece of garbage.

 

I have an urban design background, and I despise the architecture of this building for reasons I've already noted.  It's not as easy as brilliant architects vs the idiot masses.  Opinions are certainly split at all levels.  And frankly, I have never heard a nice thing said about this building till someone said "but it's a Breuer!"  Then all of a sudden it's significant or beautiful or whatever.

 

Also restoration vs replacement with an uninspiring piece of garbage is a false dichotomy.  Perhaps it could be replaced with a building that pushes the design envelope and interacts well with the surrounding neighborhood.  I think we have more chance for positive intervention with a new building than with trying to make something out of what is there.

 

Did everyone just figure out that it is a Breuer Building when a couple years ago or something?

Obviously I don't want to start an architects vs the masses arguement, but from the renderings that we have all seen, I would say that 90% of the people on this board think the KPF (r.i.p. Fox) proposal is a terrible concept that has little to zero interaction with the rotunda.

As for your "despising" the current tower x, you're the first person I've personally heard with the sort of background you have, to say this is a horrible building that must be wiped from the face of the earth.  So what ever that means to you.

Tearing down a building when there are plenty of surface parking lots because you think you are doing a public service for ridding the "masses" of an "ugly" building, really doesn't seem to be consistent with strong urban design principles. 

Also, saying a building is "ugly" is an ignorantly subjective statement that any 3rd grader could put forth.  Try putting your urban design background into articulating your thoughts on the subject.

How come when someone disagrees, you gotta call them names?

I shouldn't have come out with the personal attacks, I'm a little riled up today.  This is a subject I am very concerned about and I may type out of line at times.  I'll stick to the topic matter from here on out.

^ It's OK. I understand your passion.

No offense taken.  But in fairness, I have said more than "it's ugly".  I tend not to write or read long treatises on a web board, but I'll write a more detailed opinion on the building later tonight, after work.

Also restoration vs replacement with an uninspiring piece of garbage is a false dichotomy.  Perhaps it could be replaced with a building that pushes the design envelope and interacts well with the surrounding neighborhood.  I think we have more chance for positive intervention with a new building than with trying to make something out of what is there.

 

I find it rather strange that our county of Cuyahoga, with decreasing financial resources, is even considering spending $35+ Million for a blank canvas.  $35+ Million to  purchase the current building and knock it down.    $35 Million to create a site for a supposed green building that is, at best, of lackluster design.  How much more will it  cost to construct the new building? 

In my mind, this boondoggle is a direct result of Jimmy Dimora's influence on County leadership.  Thank goodness Mr. Lawson-Jones has a backbone.

I find it rather strange that our county of Cuyahoga, with decreasing financial resources, is even considering spending $35+ Million for a blank canvas.  $35+ Million to  purchase the current building and knock it down.    $35 Million to create a site for a supposed green building that is, at best, of lackluster design.  How much more will it  cost to construct the new building? 

 

I feel the same way.  Again....considering the amount of blank canvases/surface parking lots all over downtown -- why are they wasting taxpayer's dollars to destroy office capacity, only to rebuild it.  Taxpayer dollars to remove the asbestos from the building = good thing.  Beyond that, they do not have a convincing argument for wasting my money.

Anyone read the Jimmy Dimora feature on last week's Scene Magazine??

 

It's very telling.  And from what I've heard from other sources, it's right-on the mark.

Knocking it down because supposedly 85% of the average people think it is ugly is the most idiotic thing I've heard to date

 

Speaking as an "average person", I don't claim to be as brilliant as some others think they might be. But folks this is one ugly-ass building. Cleveland has enough of dark and dreary structures that we can look at if we want to. This building is hardly considered one of Breuer's best-it's barley even mentioned when speaking of his work. I'll bet even he hated it. Thank god the second tower wasn't built. With that said I fear if it's torn down the county will run out of money and there we have another parking lot. I would also hate to lose the height that it gives us. I think it can be saved by putting it behind glass and the complete refurb of the AT Rotunda. Remember we are dealing with the county here...  

Knocking it down because supposedly 85% of the average people think it is ugly is the most idiotic thing I've heard to date

 

Speaking as an "average person", I don't claim to be as brilliant as some others think they might be. But folks this is one ugly-ass building. Cleveland has enough of dark and dreary structures that we can look at if we want to. This building is hardly considered one of Breuer's best-it's barley even mentioned when speaking of his work. I'll bet even he hated it. Thank god the second tower wasn't built. With that said I fear if it's torn down the county will run out of money and there we have another parking lot. I would also hate to lose the height that it gives us. I think it can be saved by putting it behind glass and the complete refurb of the AT Rotunda. Remember we are dealing with the county here...  

 

All I can say is wow. 

 

Cleveland has enough dark and dreary structures??  I guess you're the lead on the Urban Ohio Scary Homes Halloween tour!

 

Since you've given us the reasons why it stinks, give us more than a regurgitated answer on what we can do to upgrade the building & adjacent space?

I suppose continued argument over this building is rather academic because its fate is planned out. I don't anticipate seeing hordes of people protesting the commishes on a decision to demolish. But I just spent a little time researching Marcel Breuer, and I am now coming to understand the prism with which his work is viewed. In fact, I already knew about some of his work through art history classes. His best is really quite fascinating.

 

However, I still think the Cleveland tower is ugly, and it is worth noting that in every encapsulation of his work that I read, this building is not mentioned. This presents a few questions: Are buildings worth being saved just because of who designed them? Unlike a faulty painting, song or story, you can't minimize its importance and keep it out of sight save for when making academic points about a person's career. A building continues to live on in a city, keeping it's prominence whether it deserves it or not. This is the artistic question, so to speak.

 

For Cleveland, art is probably of minimal importance compared to the financial questions. While the tower's beauty is obviously up for debate, the case can be made that for the cheaper price, we can keep something more signature than what would potentially replace it. I saw on the news today, that East Cleveland isn't plowing a side street because a water main broke, and it's easer to leave it frozen than to fix it, so they are letting residents sit with a nearly impassable road. Is it worth spending twice the cost of refurbishing in light of situations like this?

 

I'm not much for the "new" cities, but watching the NBA All Star festivities going on currently in Las Vegas had me looking around here rather critically. That is not to say I want to move to Las Vegas because I hope to never go there ever have to go there, but damn, does Cleveland always have to characterized by adjectives like "gritty" and "real?" This is a place where people are supposed to want to live, not a Charles Dickens story. In this regard, I find Northeast Ohio rather oppresive, and I think this is why people are emotionless when it comes to this tower. I don't believe there is animosity toward this specific building, but rather, there is animosity to it and a great deal of the visible city's vacancy and dourness. I do value authenticity, but I don't think that authenticity should be synonymous with despair.

 

 

 

However, I still think the Cleveland tower is ugly, and it is worth noting that in every encapsulation of his work that I read, this building is not mentioned.

 

 

That's funny, because I did a google image search on Marcel Bruer, and from the few dozen pages of thumbnails that came up...this buiding was on one of the first ones.

Great post jamiec I like your views, but you should really go to Las Vegas it is a great place! It will make you not want to come back to Cleveland. I went last summer and I can't wait to go back and if I had the money most likely I would move there. When it comes to that ugly tower they should just leave it up and save the money it would cost to demolish it. They should take the money they saved and build a nice new building in the empty spot were the Ameritrust Center building was going to go and that would fill in the empty spot around Public Square. I think that would be nice.

You liked Vegas? I hated that place. It wasn't the newness, but rather how everything looked like it was just built randomly and not veyr well planned. I also didn't like how the homes were all hidden behind 6' high brick or concrete walls. Or how the mountains made it get darker earlier or.... I could go on and on, but this is about Bruer tower.

Let's see... Human beings are 80 percent water, so let's put one million of them in a desert. Great idea. To me, Las Vegas has become typical ostentatious Americana, the victory of style over substance. In the end, it's just a big middle finger to the environment.

 

As for purpose of this thread, I also don't understand how a cash-strapped county can justify paying money to demolish the Ameritrust Center. I have no opinion on its architecture. Perhaps it would be better to build on one of downtown's parking lots -- and certainly the Public Square lot is the most glaring.

^ Exactly.. You should write an article documenting the reckless spending and poor cash management by the county :wink:

I don't cover county government for Sun. That's the beat for another "Ken"  :-)

Let's see... Human beings are 80 percent water, so let's put one million of them in a desert. Great idea. To me, Las Vegas has become typical ostentatious Americana, the victory of style over substance. In the end, it's just a big middle finger to the environment.

 

Don't forget Phoenix, Mesa, Tucson, and Albuquerque!  I honestly don't understand the appeal of these places... *sigh.*

 

As far as the tower goes, has there been any official announcement about demolishing it, or are we just assuming based on opinions of the commissioners? 

As I've written many times in this thread, I fully agree with Guv and others who are more concerned about the sheer waste (financially & physically) of buying and tearing down this complex of buildings than I am with saving a piece of significant/insignificant architecture. 

 

On the latter topic, the following is a very well written article by Steve Rugare of the Kent UDC on the topic.  It presents a number of issues that we've discussed here and brings a few other points to light...

 

It appeared in this month's issue of angle: a journal of arts and culture, and is viewable online at http://anglemagazine.org/articles/To_Be_or_Not_To_Be_2430.asp

 

To Be or Not To Be

 

Steve Rugare

 

Prevailing architectural tastes evolve according to a generational rhythm. Roughly speaking, we tend to revile the buildings of our parents’ prime, just as we “re-discover” the buildings of our grandparents. What this means right now is that we’re loving the ‘50s and early ‘60s—just check out how much has been published in the last two years on ‘50s greats Eero Saarinen and Charles and Ray Eames, or look at the newly designed furniture in high end dealerships. But we don’t “get” the period centered on the early ‘70s. For some, this incomprehension may take the form of outright hostility.

 

These generational tensions are probably necessary and psychologically healthy, and they’re great for us historians, who have a steady supply of new material ripe for revisionist interpretation. But there is collateral damage. The history of American cities is full of “lost” buildings that had few or no defenders when they were demolished just a few decades after their construction. Right now in Cleveland two buildings are poised to suffer a similar fate. Marcel Breuer’s Cleveland Trust Tower (1970) is likely to be removed as part of the project to build a consolidated Cuyahoga County office complex on its site at East 9th and Euclid. Just down the street, Cleveland State University has set January 2008 as the demolition date for Don Hisaka’s Student Center (1974). Before these relatively young buildings are gone, it’s more than an academic exercise to ask why this is happening and what we’ll lose in the process.

 

Of the two architects in question, Marcel Breuer (1902-81) has the much starrier name, and his building has received much more public attention. Though his architectural work was always overshadowed by the fame of the steel furniture he designed in the 1920s as part of the legendary faculty of the Bauhaus, Breuer forged a stellar career in post-war America as a leading modernist designer of high-end houses and large-scale institutional buildings. The latter genre is well represented in Cleveland by his addition to the Cleveland Museum of Art, and you can see the real strength of his work there. There’s no color, and textures can only be described as cold and rough. But the carefully modulated lighting and proportions of the interior lend its users a striking gravity and importance, without resorting to grand scale or overt theatricality. One can detect the same qualities in the public spaces of the downtown tower, even in its current mothballed state.

 

The building’s exterior is another matter. In spite of careful attention to materials, Breuer failed to (or perhaps didn’t care to) avoid a degree of heaviness and monotony. At the forum on the building held at Cleveland State University in October under the sponsorship of AIA Cleveland, Kent State’s Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative, the Green Building Coalition and other organizations, the self-selected crowd was largely in support of saving the building, but few of the comments betrayed real affection for the architecture.

 

What’s worse for the Cleveland Trust Tower’s prospects is that it may not be easy to adapt to a new role. This is the key issue for the County Commissioners and their staff. After all, the reason for investing in the consolidation of county offices is to increase efficiency and improve service to citizens. It’s not clear that a rehab would produce the levels of workplace comfort and functionality that they want. (There are also environmental concerns, though the trade-offs involved are complex.) In other words, though each individual problem with the building could be addressed, there are enough of them that new construction might well be the way to go if a stunning new building were in the offing.

 

Unfortunately, the County took that possibility off the table very early on when they set up an invited competition between six big firms that differ only in how closely they stick to the middle of the road. I suppose the commissioners didn’t want to be accused of putting public money at risk, but they ended up squarely within the time-honored Cleveland tradition of hiring too-safe architects too late in their careers.

 

So the design architects for the new County Administration Center will be Kohn, Pedersen, Fox, a firm known for technically competent and polished architecture that no one remembers or talks much about (at least not since the late ‘80s). Once KPF is a given, the preservation of the Breuer tower starts to look like a priority, and who cares about its flaws. It’s not too late for the Commissioners to ask KPF and the strong team they’ve assembled to figure out how the tower could be preserved within the new complex.

 

This brings us to Don Hisaka’s CSU Student Center, where a disturbingly similar tale is unfolding. Don Hisaka was a Cleveland architect, much admired by his colleagues and competitors, and the Student Center is arguably his finest and most deeply assured work. Unlike the Breuer Tower, which is a footnote in the scholarly literature on the architect, Hisaka’s building was the subject of very positive national press, and it was innovative. The goal of the project was to create a year-round social center for a commuter campus. In keeping with CSU’s founding master plan, it would address the megastructural parking structure and plaza at the core of the campus, not the surrounding streets. Given those requirements, Hisaka’s solution—a large steel and glass cube protected from solar loads and the surrounding streets by deep concrete “walls” of offices to the south and west—was simplicity and elegance itself.

 

There are problems with the Student Center. The façade on Euclid Avenue is forbidding, even cold. The heating and cooling costs are high. The uniform palette of ‘70s beiges and tans has aged far less well than Breuer’s greys. Other problems were created by CSU’s “Innerlink” pedestrian bridge system, which draws activity away from the buildings ground floor. Nevertheless, Hisaka’s conception is so essentially strong that it ought to be pretty easy to think about a remodeling and addition. This is precisely what architect Pieter Van Dijk argued very passionately when he spoke from the floor at the Breuer forum.

 

Instead CSU is intent on demolition. A flashy new Student Center is a great recruitment tool, and it would be a flagship component of CSU’s campus master plan, which understandably attempts to reverse the anti-urban principles of the ‘60s campus plan. (Full disclosure, the plan was developed by my colleagues at Kent State’s CUDC.) Those institutional priorities might seem superficial, but they’re exactly what campus planners have to contend with, given an increasingly tight and discerning market for higher education.

 

But if that’s the goal, CSU’s choice of architect is even more unfortunate than the County’s. Gwathemy Siegel Associations is an extremely well-connected firm known for cool and, I would say, rather faceless neo-modernist buildings. They do competent work, but I’ve always suspected that they’ve coasted for thirty years on the critical acclaim that they received at a very peculiar moment in the early ‘70s, when Charles Gwathmey was exhibited along with better known names like Peter Eisenman and Richard Meier as part of the "New York 5.” It’s hard to imagine them giving CSU a building that will receive the attention Hisaka’s did. Don’t take my word for it. You can drive to the campuses in Youngstown, Akron and Oberlin to see just how dull their work can be.

 

All of this throws into sharp relief a comment that Kent State Professor Elwin Robison made at the Breuer forum. Pointing out that office building design is largely determined by functional and economic parameters, Robison suggested that a very few of them genuinely require a second or third look. Most are content to please at first glance. (He was too polite to say so, but I’m pretty sure he was referring to the Key Tower, designed by Cesar Pelli, runner-up to KPF in the County’s process.) Breuer’s and Hisaka’s buildings are both definitely worth a second and third look, and we shouldn’t sacrifice them when mediocrity is all we’re going to get in return. After all, it’s only a few years until we’ll like them again, and be ready to demolish the early work of the architects chosen for their replacements.

 

First Published in Issue 30, January/February 2007

When I said they should build it on the empty spot were the Ameritrust Center building was going to be built, I didn’t mean tear down the Breuer Tower. There is that parking lot on Public Square where they were going to build a brand new building for Ameritrust, which was going to be taller then the Key tower. Then there were buyouts and they built the Key Tower instead. If I knew how to put pictures up on this thing then I would post one of that building to show you what I’m talking about. What I’m trying to say is they should leave the Breuer Tower up to save money. Then build a new building on that spot on Public Square. I think that would be a great spot. Maybe make the Breuer Tower into apartments or a hotel?

When I said they should build it on the empty spot were the Ameritrust Center building was going to be built, I didnt mean tear down the Breuer Tower. There is that parking lot on Public Square where they were going to build a brand new building for Ameritrust, which was going to be taller then the Key tower. Then there were buyouts and they built the Key Tower instead. If I knew how to put pictures up on this thing then I would post one of that building to show you what Im talking about. What Im trying to say is they should leave the Breuer Tower up to save money. Then build a new building on that spot on Public Square. I think that would be a great spot. Maybe make the Breuer Tower into apartments or a hotel?

 

If I'm not mistaken when the merger or AmeriTrust and Society took place, the Society project was already underway.

 

Yes something should be on Public Square, but i don't think the county building is right for that spot.  That should be a fabulous signature building, not a government building.

 

Also, I think we've all see or know what the proposed AmeriTrust Tower & hotel looks like, so you don't have to post.

^ http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=133499

Also, I think we've all see or know what the proposed AmeriTrust Tower & hotel looks like, so you don't have to post.

 

Remember, Deech. We're all urban geeks here. So the background and visuals (geez, I'm starting to sound like a CIA spook) are pretty familiar to us. For those unfamiliar, MayDay's got some good stuff on his www.clevelandskyscrapers.com or a google search will turn up more info. I was in my second go-around at college when all this went down. I was real excited when the buildings on Public Square were being demolished for the tower, and then the merger happened. A lot Clevelanders were pretty bummed out. It was also the time that Progressive Insurance decided against putting up their signature skyscraper, the new Landmark office tower fizzled and Nieman Marcus decided not to build. Up until that point, from the 1960s to 1990, we had a pretty good run of building 'scrapers downtown.

Found this old article and thought it was somewhat relevant to this thread.  On a side note, I watched "The OH in Ohio" and during the scene when she is taping in Jacobs Field, the AT tower is the main building in the background.  I was thinking that if it wasn't for that building, there wouldn't have been much there.

 

http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=756

 

Disposable Architecture

 

Ignoring its Modernist lineage, Ikea seeks to dismantle a classic Marcel Breuer building.

 

By Christopher Hawthorne

Posted February 1, 2003

 

 

 

that building looks like the HQ for a Lesbian bootcamp.  :mrgreen:

^ Maybe that is where they taped this Wendy O'Williams classic?

 

 

Looks better than a parking lot.  As well as KPF's proposal for the county.

" Maybe that is where they taped this Wendy O'Williams classic?"

 

I fully admit that I'm warped - I loved that movie! "Control - COMPLETE CONTROL!!!" :lol:

^  I thought I smelled fish.  EDNA, EDNA! :whip:

 

I admit, I love it too.

" Maybe that is where they taped this Wendy O'Williams classic?"

 

I fully admit that I'm warped - I loved that movie! "Control - COMPLETE CONTROL!!!" :lol:

 

^  I thought I smelled fish.  EDNA, EDNA! :whip:

 

I admit, I love it too.

 

Oh lawd....i haven't laughed so hard!  I can't decide which movie is worse, this or "female trouble"!  LOL

Okay, getting back on topic, I've added a few pics to the Cleveland Trust Tower section on my site, as well as links to a few pertinent blogs: http://www.clevelandskyscrapers.com/cleveland/clevelandtrusttower.html

Great pictures MayDay.

 

Does the "cut out" along the cornice serve a functional purpose?

Link to Article

 

County talks tough to contractors

Official: We'll be monitoring you

Friday, March 02, 2007

Joan Mazzolini

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Cuyahoga County discovered that the payrolls for a contractor and subcontractor removing asbestos from a building slated to become part of a new county complex were identical.

 

Adrian Maldonado, director of the county's Office of Procurement and Diversity, said the problem was spotted during the first few weeks by county employees monitoring the project. Maldonado said he would recommend terminating the contracts if the problem continues...

some good ol' fashioned shenanigans!

The last line in the article sure was uncalled for!

I thought so too.. What's up with that?

sounds like, Adrian Maldonado, has a bit of "tim hardaway-itis"

 

damn, I'm writing quite a few letters today.....

" Maybe that is where they taped this Wendy O'Williams classic?"

 

I fully admit that I'm warped - I loved that movie! "Control - COMPLETE CONTROL!!!" :lol:

 

LMAO...That exactly what I thought!!!  LOL

An article in the March issue of Metropolis:

http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=2550

 

Farewell, Marcel

A Brutalist tower in Cleveland by Marcel Breuer looks destined to be razed.

 

By Kelli B. Kavanaugh

Posted March 14, 2007

Poor Marcel Breuer. Recent adaptive reuses of his work, such as Ikea’s partial demolition of the Armstrong Building, in New Haven, Connecticut, have significantly altered his original visions. In January, Grosse Pointe, Michigan, announced plans to tear down its Central Library. Even his masterpiece, the Whitney Museum, narrowly escaped the fate of controversial additions—all abandoned—by Michael Graves, Rem Koolhaas, and Renzo Piano. And now his 1971 Cleveland Ameritrust Tower is in danger of being demolished.

 

Two years ago the Cuyahoga County government purchased a chunk of properties on the block where the building sits, with plans to consolidate several of its now scattered administrative offices into one complex. Six architecture firms submitted site concepts, and they all agreed on one point: to preserve the adjacent 1908 Rotunda Building. Only one, Davis Brody Bond, proposed to reuse the Breuer tower.

 

Part of the problem is that while Breuer is hailed as a master, the public has not always had such a warm relationship with his work. The 28-story Brutalist skyscraper is not universally admired in Cleveland—and many of its defenders are ambivalent too. Steve Rugare, interim director of the Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative, which organized a forum advocating its preservation, has an office just a stone’s throw away from the tower. “It’s not an immediate public favorite,” he says. “It’s not a building that people love or identify with, even among designers.”

 

Energy efficiency is another concern: Cuyahoga County wants a building that is LEED Silver certified, and commissioner Timothy Hagan says the tower “doesn’t meet the requirements of a new building as far as green architecture goes.” But Peter Jones, the only one of the commissioners still open to saving the structure, doesn’t buy that. He argues that preservation is inherently more sustainable than demolition and that retrofits could enhance its efficiency.

 

Last October the county commissioners selected a design team—Cleveland-based Robert P. Madison International and Kohn Pedersen Fox—that sided with the majority regarding demolition. Although he studied under Breuer’s Bauhaus cohort Walter Gropius at Harvard, Madison says their proposal is driven by functionality and cost—not preservation. “As architects, of course, we are sentimentalists,” he says. “But it is our job to be responsive to clients, to be as objective as possible.”

 

A study to determine the relative cost of demolition versus preservation was commissioned in January—Davis Brody Bond estimates that renovating the building would cost $20 million less—but with even its allies less than in love with its looks, it appears that the tower’s days may be numbered. “If I had to lay money,” Rugare says, “I certainly wouldn’t bet on its survival.”

The sad thing is, the tower is not that old.  When you watch such a large tower go up in your lifetime, and come down in your lifetime, thats a bad sign.  Either of getting old, or poor design...I can't decide. 

I wholeheartedly agree - 35 years is not that old, in fact it's very very very young - and it's quite relevant and vibrant!*

 

*Speaking as a 34 year old ;-)

Yeah, that tower is a TILF!

 

 

 

OK, that might be inappropriate but I couldn't resist ;)

Beth Kalapos, AIA Cleveland President, made an official statement in of all things The Cleveland Free Times, saying that the AIA supports keeping the Breuer Tower and is willing to work with the County Commissioners to keep the tower.  Day late and a dollar short.

i am telling ya, this building would look really striking and great if they striped it clean and glassed it in. it could even be stunning.

 

sadly, boring kohn pedersen fox is not capable of that kind of creative readaption. and locally no one really cares enough.

Here's an email I will be sending to County Commissioner Tim Hagan, with the other 2 commissioners CC'ed.  Can anyone think of anything else that should be included?

 

 

Mr. Hagan,

I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in your long standing view of demolition as the only option for the new Cuyahoga County offices.  Before this stance I was a backer of many of your policies.  That has since changed.  I find it hard to believe that you can legitimize spending roughly $20,000,000 to purchase the former Ameritrust complex, and then the roughly $20,000,000 to demolish an aesthetically intriguing structure by a world renowned architect.  That's $40,000,000 to get to a blank site.  That is an unacceptable use of 1.3 million peoples' tax money.  How do you legitimize this?

 

You then speak of the building being unable to adapt to sustainable energy practices and of the problem of asbestos removal.  Sir, there is nothing more unsustainable than demolishing a structurally sound building of this size and then sending it to the nearest dump site.  Also, have there been any studies to see if it is in fact inadaptable to sustainable technology?  Secondly, the problem with the asbestos is not going to disappear because it is slated for demolition.  It must be removed and abated before demolition, so either way this task will have to be performed.

 

Then there is the matter of demolishing one of the more interesting structures in the city.  Granted, I will represent only my personal opinion, but the Cleveland Chapter of the AIA, Steven Litt, and the overwhelming majority of the city's design professionals are against demolition.  Yes the structure is constructed in the rarely admired Brutalist manner, and years of disuse have certainly not helped its appearance, but the way in which this structure integrates into the surrounding context (the tower pulled off East 9th Street in relation to the Rotunda, small precast concrete shells serving as window casements break down the buildings mass to a manageable human scale, and the incredible abstract entry treatment that would absolutely explode with light if brought back to use) is an incredible work of urban design.  If you would have attended the Breuer forum at Cleveland State with your fellow commissioner Peter Lawson Jones a few months back you would have seen this opinion from the attendees.  Also, the demolition of the building could be a bit more acceptable had the proposals for the complex been conducted in an open design competition.  Instead the status quo has been achieved and an incredibly uninspired scheme by Kohn Peterson and Fox (with Madison International) is what will replace a one of the greatest pieces of architecture in this great city.

 

I point out all of these issues because I know you are aware of all of this, and it is inconceivable as to how you can ignore all that contradict your misguided stance.  You have turned a deaf ear to any ideas other than your own on this topic, and I find it very concerning.  Your constituents have an opinion, you should be listening to it, or I presume you will not be County Commissioner after the next election.

 

I would appreciate it greatly if you replied to this as it is an issue of great importance to our city and county.

 

I thank you for your time.

 

I think it's a great letter. I don't think anything is lacking, I only put forward these suggestions as sort of brain storm type thoughts --

 

Only thing I could suggest is perhaps including some previous examples of over-zealous demolitions which have since proven to be embarrassing and monumental losses (e.g. FLW's Larkin Building in Buffalo).

 

Maybe some additional CC's is the only other thing?

 

Oh and sending it via certified mail might be worth the extra couple bucks -- it could get some closer scrutiny if they know you're paying attention to when they receive it.

 

 

I would add to the cc, all of our elected officials* no matter the level and examples of good adaptive reuse of a building, similar in size and scale to our project.

 

* for those who use this letter as a template I suggest copying your specific local councilperson, state reps, federal reps, the mayor, county commisioners.

 

As suggested

 

We should prepare a list of people to send letter like this too.

 

i suggest something like

 

 

MEDIA

NAME     TITLE     COMPANY   EMAIL ADRESS  MAILING ADDRESS

 

elected officials

NAME     TITLE     COMPANY   EMAIL ADRESS  MAILING ADDRESS

 

Community Development Corps

NAME     TITLE     COMPANY   EMAIL ADRESS  MAILING ADDRESS

 

Police Department

 

Fire Department

 

Sanitation

 

Port Authority

 

etc..etc..etc..

 

this way we always an organic list of people to quickly refer to when a mass mailing needs to go out.