the parking garage is a little mundane, yes, but i think the first pic (cancer center or emergency bldg.) looks really neat. maybe not right to the sidewalk.. but when someone from out of town drives down euclid, someone who doesnt know much about architecture, i guarantee it is cool looking enough to catch their eye. its definitely the best looking building at UH.. that much i give them credit for.

My main beef is that they are dead at the sidewalk. I hope people aren't expecting the sidewalks to become busier with pedestrians as a result of these two structures. The fact that the renderings show few if any pedestrians says a lot to me about the architect's/client's view of the importance of creating an energetic, people-oriented street scene. And, as most of here know, buildings designed to interact with a sidewalk makes the area more lively, and moreso, having lots of people on the sidewalk makes an area feel safer (and probably is safer). Instead, we have dead sidewalks and, regardless of the economic contribution that these buildings provide to the community, they could increasingly make University Circle appear to visitors as a cold, inorganic place. That doesn't help the long-term economic prospects of UC, IMHO.

All we need is a picture of Martin Landau and that area could be moon base alpha ala SPACE:  1999

Thanks Pope for the scan.

 

Wow, UH doesn't really give a sh!t about design, does it.  That first picture looks like the Holiday Inn Lakeside after a stroke.  Ugh.

Wow, that brought back some memories!

Yippee, a midget version of NYC's Solow Building along with yet another useless treelawn "buffer"!!! :roll:

Yippee, a midget version of NYC's Solow Building along with yet another useless treelawn "buffer"!!! :roll:

 

I don't think its similar like the Solow or the Grace Buildings (the Grace building is the sister building to the solow and is located on 42 street across from bryant park)

I know both buildings - the comparison is that each has a gimmicky "sloping" facade but at least they reach the sidewalk, unlike the stunted proposal for UH:

 

hey guys, calm down ... first off, the design isn't cast in concrete yet, it's just eye-candy.  That picture for the cancer hospital is only a second or third iteration ... and it's still being revised, though not because of Litt.  For one thing, the footprint is increasing, which will dictate some changes.  As for the look, I think UH is looking for form following function.  In Litt's eyes, function is irrelevant; all buildings should be ultra-modern cutting-edge facilities designed by young architects from Europe.  And if they've never designed a hospital, so much the better.  However, UH is bucking his trend, by picking architects that do hospitals.  And they're more concerned with what goes on INSIDE the hospital (i.e., treating cancer) than what it looks like from the sidewalk.  But because of the footprint change (the building site has gotten bigger recently), the building look will likely change. 

 

Litt's criticisms are always the same; always wants design competitions, prefers cutting-edge architects (hates local or regional architects), wants the building exterior to be supreme over what goes on inside, yadda yadda yadda.  Look, the UH buildings ultimately may not be cutting edge, but what goes in INSIDE is going to be crucial ... and all these buildings are a $1billion investment, which is also pretty important.

 

Just wait until designs are finalized.  You'll probably still hate 'em ... until you're diagnosed with cancer.  Then, the most cutting edge Frank Gehry building won't save you ... the docs inside will ... and hopefully they'll have a building that's conducive to healing, not Steve Litt's opinion.

 

So what buildings has he designed?

hey guys, calm down ... first off, the design isn't cast in concrete yet, it's just eye-candy.

 

the design is nowhere near eye-candy.

 

That picture for the cancer hospital is only a second or third iteration ... and it's still being revised, though not because of Litt. For one thing, the footprint is increasing, which will dictate some changes. As for the look, I think UH is looking for form following function. In Litt's eyes, function is irrelevant; all buildings should be ultra-modern cutting-edge facilities designed by young architects from Europe. And if they've never designed a hospital, so much the better.

Litt has a point there.

 

 

However, UH is bucking his trend, by picking architects that do hospitals.

what?? bucking a trend??!? The trend has always been to select an architectural firm that does hospitals. UH is not bucking any trend. They are sadly following the worn-down path that has produced so many bland hospital buildings.

 

And they're more concerned with what goes on INSIDE the hospital (i.e., treating cancer) than what it looks like from the sidewalk.

 

Very true. People do need to realize that a hospital does have a mission outside of improving the urban fabric.

 

Litt's criticisms are always the same; always wants design competitions, prefers cutting-edge architects (hates local or regional architects), wants the building exterior to be supreme over what goes on inside, yadda yadda yadda. Look, the UH buildings ultimately may not be cutting edge, but what goes in INSIDE is going to be crucial ... and all these buildings are a $1billion investment, which is also pretty important.

 

Just wait until designs are finalized. You'll probably still hate 'em ... until you're diagnosed with cancer. Then, the most cutting edge Frank Gehry building won't save you ... the docs inside will ... and hopefully they'll have a building that's conducive to healing, not Steve Litt's opinion.

 

So what buildings has he designed?

 

Here's the thing that is so important to UH: If they are part of an exciting urban place, they will be better able to recruit national and international talent. The talent level of UH is what will keep it competitive. The talent level will maintain and increase the level of grants that the hospital seeks. The cancer hospital occupies a very important space on Euclid. If the design is a dud, it will hurt all of University Circle. If we have a bland and boring Euclid Ave, scientist and doctor recruits will have a less favorable impression of the area. If they don't like the area, then they won't move here. Level of care will go down because the talent won't be coming to Cleveland. Therefore, the outside design greatly affects the level of care that goes on inside the hospital.

I don't even know how to respond to redbeards comments...

^^Great thought at the end there 3231.  You spun the issue on its head quite well.

I don't really think doctors care what a building looks like, I think they are more worried about a hospitals reputation.

I don't really think doctors care what a building looks like, I think they are more worried about a hospitals reputation.

 

Whether they care what the building looks like or not, the building does have an effect on the immediate area. If it hurts the area, then then the area becomes less vibrant. C'mon, do I really have to spell it out all over again?

C'mon, do I really have to spell it out all over again?

 

Yes......

 

(you asked)

I don't really think doctors care what a building looks like, I think they are more worried about a hospitals reputation.

 

Whether they care what the building looks like or not, the building does have an effect on the immediate area. If it hurts the area, then then the area becomes less vibrant. C'mon, do I really have to spell it out all over again?

 

I wasn't responding to your critique of the building, I was responding to your comment about UH not being able to land the best doctors/scientists because of the way the building looks. I really don't think either of these buildings will be detrimental to the area, but I do agree that they are not as good as they could be.

Woolly,

 

You're thinking too short term.

Hey, take my comments however you wish.  I've actually worked at firms that had building projects, only to have them rocked by Litt, who in some cases, DEMANDED changes ... and he wasn't the client, he was only a critic who has a very particular view of architecture (i.e., what he likes is valid, and what he doesn't like shouldn't be built) and a built-in bias against Cleveland architects (and how do you expect local architects to improve and attract talent if the local architecture critic urges all major building projects to avoid Cleveland firms ...

 

And while architecture can transform a place ... it can also NOT transform a place.  Don't oversell the value of architecture.  Look at Litt's love of  his life, the Weatherhead building at Case.  Interesting building designed by a world-class architect that Litt lionizes.  Has it really made University Circle more vibrant?  Perhaps it contributes to it, but the synergy of all those institutions and their programs makes the Circle a pretty vibrant place.  Yes, the new glasshouse at the Botanical Garden and the new Art Museum addition will add to that ... but the Circle was already pretty vibrant before that.  And while the Weatherhead has been perceived as world-class ... has it ultimately helped the Weatherhead School?  They seem in more turmoil than ever before, and their rankings have slipped.  Shouldn't a building like that attract the best and brightest? ... okay, I'm being facetious, and purposely so.  Architecture is important ... but not as important as someone like Litt would tell you.  If we tore down all of downtown and rebuilt it all with ultramodern stark buildings designed by young gun European architects (which I'm sure he dreams about), would it necessarily boost the local economy?  Would there be less homeless?  Would there be more jobs?  Would it solve the issue of the Cleveland Public Schools?  Would it end racism?  Well, no ... and yes, I'm still being facetious.  A new building does improve the aesthetic value of a city, but it can be a new building like the classical design of the new Lakewood Library, which is NOT ultra modern, nor designed by an up and coming European architect, but by the dean of Modern Classicism.  Of course, Litt didn't like that. 

 

Look, I guess my biggest criticism of the guy is that his own worldview is limited; he likes what he likes, and anything that does not fit that narrow criteria is bad, a waste of money, and shouldn't be done.  Perhaps that fills his role as critic, but I'd like to see a critic who is more an educator of what architecture is, can be, can do, and recognize that there is a wide variety out there, all with a degree of merit.  I'm not fond of the ultra-modern stuff, but it has its place, and in some places has done some revigoration of a neighborhood or an urban space, but there's also something to be said about a classically-designed building, an adaptive reuse of an older architectural style, or a building like a hospital, where the form really should follow the function, rather than the other way around. 

 

Have you seen what's currently on the site of the new cancer hospital?  Have you also seen how the Ireland Cancer Center is spread out over a number of different buildings, and is massively overcrowded?  Probably not.  I've been in there.  I've seen people waiting in line for their chemo, I've seen them sitting in the hallways getting their chemo because there's not enough private rooms.  And while there is no "physical" Ireland Cancer Center (because it's spread out in several different buildings), they haven't had a trouble attracting top talent, because they are and hopefully will remain one of the top cancer centers in the nation.

 

Perhaps the building should face Euclid Avenue (though all the patients are going to come from the parking garage, so a Euclid Avenue entrance would be virtually unused), but Litt's pronouncements pretty much dismiss the building ... when the work performed inside means the difference between life and death.  And the fact that he's making the pronouncements when the design really hasn't been finalized (and frankly, he would have hated earlier iterations of the building even more, because they were rather traditional looking) is jumping the gun.  Wait awhile; the site for the building has been increased a great deal, so the building is being redesigned.  I know he'd like to have more influence on the building's redesign, but let the hospital folks drive that.  Given the surrounding architecture in this area, whatever is the final design is ultimately going to be pretty radically different from the other buildings around here, many of which are rather conservative and traditional (and in many cases, very bland!), and I think will really be very aesthetically appealing, and most importantly, will bring all the cancer specialists, treatment centers, labs, and even healing gardens under one roof (and in fact, that was what that "bump out" at the bottom of the building is for, a healing garden ... and here's where I would argue very much that this function is particularly important, and should drive the form a bit).  I don't think it's going to scare away any doctors or researchers either ... they come to UH or the Clinic (hello, bland buildings!) because of the work that is performed within ... not the architecture.

 

But I do also realize that this forum is focused on plans, architecture, usage, and a variety of other issues.  So I apologize if I've offended anyone.  It's just that I'm particularly close to the issue, and I think that having an actual dedicated cancer center in one physical location is a great boon ... and that the architecture is really secondary to that.  And I also guarantee if Mr. Litt were to ever be diagnosed with cancer, I don't think he'd turn down treatment there because he doesn't like the building.

 

Besides, you should see some of the other top centers in America ... Sloan-Kettering in New York?  Looks like a shopping mall.  Mayo Clinic?  Looks like an old Statehouse building surrounded by 1970s office towers.  Dana-Farber in Boston?  Try to pick it out of a crowd of bland office buildings ... so generally, hospital buildings are ugly.  But that doesn't ever seem to affect quality of care, reputation of doctors, or the need for them.  Compared to the other top cancer centers in the nation, the new Ireland is going to look pretty darn good.  And it will be an aesthetic asset to the neighborhood, and have a positive impact on peoples' lives.

 

Redbeard,

 

Are you responding to UO or someone else?  If you are responding to OU, then I get the feeling that you didn't read any of our posts.  No one ever mentioned that we need to ignorantly follow the words of Lord Litt. I think that comments such as "And I also guarantee if Mr. Litt were to ever be diagnosed with cancer, I don't think he'd turn down treatment there because he doesn't like the building." only serve to reduce your credibility.

 

I'm extremely glad to hear this "Wait awhile; the site for the building has been increased a great deal, so the building is being redesigned."  That is fantastic news. By the way, no one needed Litt to tell him or her that the design was absolutely horrible.

 

 

I agree with you, to a degree, Redbeard.  But I think you've somewhat misunderstood the critisism we've made on this board.  No one doesn't want to see this things built.  Certainly, this facility will be a feather in the cap of our city's medical sector and an economic development boom.  We all realize this.  As you note, we are a discussion board about urban issues.  The logical extension of that is that our focus is going to be on how buildings create urban spaces. 

 

I would agree that the form should follow the function of the interior space, but I don't see how that necessarily contradicts with the function of any urban building of creating a better urban space.  Is there a practical reason why the building can't be built up to and address Euclid with an entrance?  Or why some quasi retail function, say the gift shop and cafeteria, couldn't front Euclid, thus providing a bit more interaction with the street, and the surrounding neighborhood?  If so, then yes, the building should follow its prime mission of being the best facility for treating cancer.  If not, then it seems that you excusing an architectural oversight with appeals to emotion and fear.

X, that was wonderfully stated.

well, we're all armchair critics here, and we all have our opinion.  If anything, I do recognize the issue of the building creating an urban space ... but it's also a slippery slope, because while a hospital is a public building, it's also utilized a bit differently.  And I don't believe the floor plan is essentially set on this particular building, so there very well may be a "quasi-retail function" set on the Euclid side.  There likely will be an entrance of sorts on Euclid, but it will not be a "grand public entrance."  Why?  Because few if any patients will approach it that way.  Like it or not, the parking for this building will be in the existing garage on Cornell, and an adjacent one planned for it.  And people will likely come to the garage, park there, and either walk across the street, or cross over in a pedestrian bridge, and enter the hospital.  So out of necessity, that becomes one of the main entrances.  And while the building appears to front on University Hospitals Drive, that may be in flux, because the site is currently occupied by the Cleveland Hearing and Speech Center, which was going to remain with the new cancer hospital built next to it.  Apparently that's now changed, and that building will be vacated and demolished as they build their own building elsewhere.  That may impact what happens to the cancer hospital and how it looks (Or it may not ... I've been involved with some architects that lock into a design early and only make the most minor of modifications, even when there are major site changes) or how the public can access it.  I have seen plans that show a lot of greenspace around the new hospital, and gardens.  Will there be spaces to make it more public, more urban?  There may be, but there might not be.  Hospital administrators often don't think of that, and the hospital planners are yes, focused more on what goes inside.  This happens at the Clinic as well, because some of their buildings also suffer from this (as well as other hospitals ... jeez, look at Metro) ... where they're not always good examples of urban planning, and instead tend to be inwardly-focused fortresses, hardly putting a welcoming face out to the community.

 

Yes, UH has an opportunity to really do something special architecturally.  Are they doing it?  It's a matter of opinion, but the consensus here is no.  Though I don't think they're concerned.  Maybe it's a matter of working to educate the powers-that-be at an institution like UH that they should consider these things before they really start putting ink to paper on the designs.  This forum is a great debating society, but you have to admit, we're here because we want to be here and want to have these discussions.  How do we involve those who don't care, or begin to educate them to see the benefits of good urban design?  That's one thing I think Litt really fails in ... he makes proncouncements, rather than really trying to educate the public in what design can be and can do ... though also admitting what it can't do or can't be (because it can't always be the panacea that he'd like it to be).  Frankly, that's one of the reasons I'm even on this forum, to learn, and hear others' ideas and opinions.  I'm not an architect or urban designer, at best I'm a historian of Cleveland (actually got paid to be a historian, too ... though it's not exactly a lucrative job) and interested in preserving Cleveland's past, but also trying to see the city move into the future.  And sorry if you don't like my opinion ... but then again, you don't have to.  I'm just putting in two cents.

 

Redbeard, whether people agree with you or not, I for one appreciate the time you take to offer us your thoughts and keep the discussion going (as well as your ability to offer your opinions and disagree with others without needlessly attacking them).

From Crain's:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070806/FREE/70803031/1007

 

UH to break ground on cancer hospital

  RELATED LINKS

University Hospitals of Cleveland

 

By SHANNON MORTLAND

 

4:30 am, August 6, 2007

 

University Hospitals tomorrow, Aug. 7, is slated to break ground on a slightly updated version of its new cancer hospital and Center for Emergency Medicine on its main campus in University Circle.

 

The $212 million, 360,000-square-foot cancer hospital will have 120 beds, with the option to expand to 150 beds. The $42 million emergency department will have 63 beds, up from the existing 41. Though the square footage of both the cancer hospital and the emergency department has increased, the number of beds has been reduced.

 

The hospital system originally announced in early 2006 the cancer hospital would contain 200 beds and the emergency department 70 beds.

 

Any update on renderings? Or was that last one we saw final.....?

Yeah strange we havent seen anything more as far as renderings, since someone mentioned it would likely change quite a bit. 

From Crain's:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070806/FREE/70803031/1007

 

UH to break ground on cancer hospital

  RELATED LINKS

University Hospitals of Cleveland

 

By SHANNON MORTLAND

 

4:30 am, August 6, 2007

 

University Hospitals tomorrow, Aug. 7, is slated to break ground on a slightly updated version of its new cancer hospital and Center for Emergency Medicine on its main campus in University Circle.

 

The $212 million, 360,000-square-foot cancer hospital will have 120 beds, with the option to expand to 150 beds. The $42 million emergency department will have 63 beds, up from the existing 41. Though the square footage of both the cancer hospital and the emergency department has increased, the number of beds has been reduced.

 

The hospital system originally announced in early 2006 the cancer hospital would contain 200 beds and the emergency department 70 beds.

 

Any update on renderings? Or was that last one we saw final.....?

 

There is a new rendering available in today's pd.

It is on page W29.

It is in the supplemental Cleveland+ section, so I cannot link to it, plus I have no scanner at home.

Thanks for pointing that out.  While still far from perfect, the new rendering is definitely an improvement on the old.  The Euclid elevation is now mostly windows, though I can't tell if those are windows are an entrance at the ground level.  The massing of the building is a little more broken up, though less vertical, and they have added the neo-modernist "screens outside the building envelope" trick.

Here is the rendering from the Sunday PD's, Cleveland+ Supplemental section on UH Cancer Hospital.

Sorry for the bodies in the picture - I am not that motivated to photoshop them out of the image.

 

this design looks kinda 60s retro...

now that would be a cool hotel!

I like it much more then the previous rendering.

In fact, I like it a lot.

I'm not in love with it, but it's definitely an improvement.

I like it too, but I'm unable to shake the image of the open back of a hospital gown.

wow, I actually don't like that at all and don't see much of an improvement from the other pic we've seen.  I'm also not sure that this is anywhere near final.  Stay tuned.

I guess I'm a sucker for 60's architecture.

Something about that Jetsons look that appeals to me.

Wow .. I seriously love it. :)

wow, I actually don't like that at all and don't see much of an improvement from the other pic we've seen.  I'm also not sure that this is anywhere near final.  Stay tuned.

Isn't this building going into the fenced in area in front of UH.  If so, I think the renderings would be final at this point.  I saw Ozanne is the contractor, therefore bid docs and atleast 80%'s had to have been submitted for bidding. 

The emergency center and parking structure are going where the old nurse's dorms now stand (behind the fencing).  The Cancer Center is planned for the corner of Cornell & Euclid, just east of the Hearing & Speech Center. 

I though they just broke ground for the cancer center though.

I like it too, but I'm unable to shake the image of the open back of a hospital gown.

 

ewww.... I thought they were half drawn curtains.

My apologizes on the quality--taken hurriedly and with a cell phone

 

The demolition has begun...

 

 

RIP

Are the above pictures demo for the VA hospital expansion?

nope, they are for the UH expansion.

^^Nah, that there is the old UH nurses dorm [doh! beaten to the punch!].  I think there is talk upthread of UH's intentions for the property- a hotel was tossed around as one possibility.

 

I know there were lots of sound reasons to knock these things down, but I'm sad all the same- they are really beautiful buildings.  Shame they couldn't be reused.

Thanks, I was not sure what I was looking at either.

nope, they are for the UH expansion.

Are they bulding that slender curvey looking building there (10ish stories) that we saw renderings for a while back?

The slender curvy thing will go at the corner of Cornell and Euclid. This demolition makes room (i believe) for an emergency room expansion and a parking garage.

This demolition makes room (i believe) for an emergency room expansion and a parking garage.

 

Is there any reason we shouldn't be worried about how this will look from Euclid?

map boy can probably answer this one.  I know that two years ago UH had talked about one day putting a hotel in front of the parking garage (fronting on Euclid). The hotel would face the street. Now this hotel was just an idea by UH at the time and I don't think that anything has been done to advance it.  I believe that there will be a decent sized lawn in front of the garage where UH will eventually build something, if not a hotel.    In other words, its not going to look pretty for a while.