This is the exact reason I like prewar home and detest (no offense to anyone) a home where the first thing - and most prominent thing on the front of the home - you see is a phucking garage!

Don't forget that "back in the day" a lot of the stone masons were immigrants, such as the people who settled in Little Italy and worked at Lakeview Cemetary.

 

Obviously we can't replicate those people or that situation.  But the idea that we can never replicate their work is... incongruous.  And yes, labor has become more expensive but it's also become less necessary.  I mean, a lot of this stonework could be mass produced now, and it doesn't necessarily have to be stone.  Modern materials last longer anyway.  I don't know if that argument works as well for hardwood.  My point is that we, as a species and a civilization, have not lost the ability to build nice things.  That's preposterous.  We've simply lost the will to make it happen.

Don't forget that "back in the day" a lot of the stone masons were immigrants, such as the people who settled in Little Italy and worked at Lakeview Cemetary.

 

Obviously we can't replicate those people or that situation.  But the idea that we can never replicate their work is... incongruous.  And yes, labor has become more expensive but it's also become less necessary.  I mean, a lot of this stonework could be mass produced now, and it doesn't necessarily have to be stone.  Modern materials last longer anyway.  I don't know if that argument works as well for hardwood.  My point is that we, as a species and a civilization, have not lost the ability to build nice things.  That's preposterous.  We've simply lost the will to make it happen.

 

My parents house is 80 years old and all the original hardwood floors, except the kitchen are still there and fine.

 

Now I will give you that the windows from that time period were not up to today's standards.

^I was thinking the same regarding the windows. I would love to have some new wood windows in my house. My floors are 139 years old and are still pretty good.

 

I always heard that builders did not insulate homes very well back in the day because the energy costs were so low that it didn't make sense to spend more money on insulation.

Don't forget that "back in the day" a lot of the stone masons were immigrants, such as the people who settled in Little Italy and worked at Lakeview Cemetary.

 

Obviously we can't replicate those people or that situation. But the idea that we can never replicate their work is... incongruous. And yes, labor has become more expensive but it's also become less necessary. I mean, a lot of this stonework could be mass produced now, and it doesn't necessarily have to be stone. Modern materials last longer anyway. I don't know if that argument works as well for hardwood. My point is that we, as a species and a civilization, have not lost the ability to build nice things. That's preposterous. We've simply lost the will to make it happen.

 

Hardwoods were lost because of actual depletion of forest stock.  Hardwood trees generally grow more slowly than pine and other cheap softwoods.  Most large commercial producers would prefer to harvest pine, replant it, and then reharvest it in a few years rather than wait 100 for mahogany.  We burned off a lot of a natural resource that is very slow to replace itself in the heady years of our industrial expansion.

^I was thinking the same regarding the windows. I would love to have some new wood windows in my house. My floors are 139 years old and are still pretty good.

 

I always heard that builders did not insulate homes very well back in the day because the energy costs were so low that it didn't make sense to spend more money on insulation.

 

My parents had to use and specific builder that has experience with historic Tudor homes. 

 

I think the city has information or the OC development folks can suggest of give you a list of window replacement specialist.

 

It's expensive but worth it.

Folks, you're killing me. What's the topic again?

Some old pics of 668

Great pics.  It pains me to see that street activity.  Any idea when the bottom picture was taken?

 

Hi all,

 

"Any idea when the bottom picture was taken?"

 

Looking at the street lamps and cars probably late fourties early fifties. Warm nuzzles and bear hugz to all.

 

Jim S.

 

 

 

there is now a window in the one opening that was restored.

 

something doesn't seem quite right about it to me, so hopefully they will make some changes and this isn't the final window chosen for the building.

With all that terracotta (or whatever the new, fill-in material is) the architectural historian/purist might expect ca. 1910-looking windows but this is not.  Material is a type trendy the past 20 years or so, and the glass looks perhaps a bit too wavy.  But the window is in the realm of what is being done today with historic buildings and I find it at least "acceptible" as a compromise.

What is the material being used to recreate the terracotta look?  When is it supposed to be installed?  Is it currently being recreated off-site?  :clap:

I find it interesting that the same conditions are involved on the Euclid-Ninth Tower as 668 Euclid Ave. There is a gem waiting to be rediscovered as well. I wonder if anyone knows of any plans to restore this tower.

^ Welcome to the forum! About a year ago parts of the facade were removed to examine the condition of the original exterior. I don't remember which thread it was, but there are some pics which you can find with the search function. Back to 668 Euclid...

It's certainly been the trend on Euclid Avenue - with the project with the former shoe store building near the May Company Building, and now the three buildings east of East 9th (one the former Cowell and Hubbard).  I can hardly imagine it being done with the large, two-sided facing of the bldg. at Euclid and East 9th.  "668" is being converted into a luxury apartment building, but the other has no such plans, as far as I know.  Will continue as an office building, its original use.

This is the last bit of discussion I can find on the Schofield building.

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3594.msg333272.html#msg333272

Here is the main schofield discussion for those interested.

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3594.0/msg,245460.html

 

And now that we've made our little trip down memory lane.... this thread officially turns back to 668 Euclid Avenue. :whip:

First window in:

 

Not breathtaking, but I like

That's not what I expected at all.  But it's better than a stick in the eye.

by the way, they are hoisting a ton of drywall in the rear of the building through a second story window.  What I was amazed to see as they had the plywood window popped to pull material in was that... that room had already been drywalled.  I mean if the rear half of the building is drywalled... how far along are they in there?

 

Also, those pictures don't do justice to the size of the windows.  And I like that there are two operating windows on either side of the center one.  It would be infuriating to be in an apartment with zero access to fresh air.

 

Not sure how I feel about the brown yet.

I peeked in from the bus this morning, and the main lobby is a lot more rotten than I had assumed.  The interior looks no better than the facade, maybe worse.  Long way to go.

by the way, they are hoisting a ton of drywall in the rear of the building through a second story window.  What I was amazed to see as they had the plywood window popped to pull material in was that... that room had already been drywalled.  I mean if the rear half of the building is drywalled... how far along are they in there?

 

Also, those pictures don't do justice to the size of the windows.  And I like that there are two operating windows on either side of the center one.  It would be infuriating to be in an apartment with zero access to fresh air.

 

Not sure how I feel about the brown yet.

 

I think once th building is washed the brown won't look so "different".

I peeked in from the bus this morning, and the main lobby is a lot more rotten than I had assumed. The interior looks no better than the facade, maybe worse. Long way to go.

 

They completely gutted that space, so i'm sure it looks very "exposed", and my guess is that while the architects design the wyse advertising space they have been moving full speed ahead on the residential units above.

Also, those pictures don't do justice to the size of the windows. And I like that there are two operating windows on either side of the center one. It would be infuriating to be in an apartment with zero access to fresh air.

 

If the center section doesn't open, I'd want that middle pane out of there!  Too many panes in general.  I had expected hi-rise type windows, solid glass with ventilation underneath.  That, or the whole window or maybe half of it would open all at once.  This looks cobbled together and not so appropriate for the building, like the McMansion front door on Bang & Clatter theater. 

Ever think that maybe they are replicas of the original?

I'm guessing they are.  I've seen several buildings around town with that style... most notably the caxton building.  Which is probably same timeframe.

 

and so ends the mystery... original style windows (as is pretty much required when accepting the tax credits)

by the way, they are hoisting a ton of drywall in the rear of the building through a second story window.  What I was amazed to see as they had the plywood window popped to pull material in was that... that room had already been drywalled.  I mean if the rear half of the building is drywalled... how far along are they in there?

 

Also, those pictures don't do justice to the size of the windows.  And I like that there are two operating windows on either side of the center one.  It would be infuriating to be in an apartment with zero access to fresh air.

 

Not sure how I feel about the brown yet.

 

I go past the Prospect side every day after work. They've been hauling up drywall since before Christmas. I'm not sure why they choose 5:00 to drop off that stuff, but that's besides the point.

After seeing the historic photo, I'm inclined to think these will look nice when they are all in, and the terra cotta cleaned up.  It is just jarring to see the one window plunked in there like that.

I'm very curious as to how the Prospect side will look. We don't have much historical clues to go on with this side.

The window is called a "Chicago Style" window, and is very common on buildings from that era.

 

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/dictionary/index.asp?action=view&term_id=9256&term_type_id=3&term_type_text=things&letter=C

 

Term: Commercial or Chicago Style (architecture)

Definition:

 

a style popular ca. 1895-1930 which refers to the commercial and office form that developed in the late nineteenth century, primarily in response to the new technologies that permitted greater physical height and larger expanses of open floor space. The style is sometimes termed the "Chicago Style" because experimentation with the form flourished in that city after the 1871 fire. Metal skeleton framing, first in cast and wrought iron, later in steel, was foremost among the new technological developments. Typically five or more stories in height, the Commercial Style's character derives from its fenestration. Whereas load-bearing masonry walls admitted relatively few windows, the new structural skeleton permitted maximum light and ventilation. The fenestration pattern is usually regular with large divided rectangular windows. A common window type is the "Chicago window," a three-part window with a large rectangular fixed central light flanked by two narrow, double-hung sashes.

 

 

I took a good look in person yesterday, and from the proper angle it appears that all three sections can open.

I'm very curious as to how the Prospect side will look. We don't have much historical clues to go on with this side.

 

I'm still kicking myself for not asking this question when i had the chance.

Nice to see that this project is coming along.  That part of Euclid is a really great central location. 

 

I've read through all of this and just had a quick comment.  The developers seem to be taking a lot of hits for tearing down a building for a parking lot.  While in large cities like Chicago, downtown parking for apartments may be discouraged, it's inevitable in a city like Cleveland.  Public transportation in Cleveland pales in comparison to Chicago.  While some aspects of it are good, downtown Cleveland is not the sustainable area that Chicago is.  You can live in downtown Chicago and never have a need to leave the city limits.  The same cannot be said for Cleveland.  Having a car is pretty much a necessity.  As someone who is looking to live downtown, I can tell you that if a building like this did not have good parking, I'd have no desire to live there and I think most potential residents are in this same boat.  Downtown Cleveland has a lot going for it but it also has a lot of problems.  One of those problems is fixed by owning a car.

 

In order to grow to the potential that downtown Cleveland has, it needs to happen through a series of progressions.  Right now, residences without convenient parking are going to fail.  Things need to go one step at a time and the current step is getting people to live downtown, so you must cater to what people who are looking to live downtown want.  It might be a nice fantasy to tons of people living in the city and getting around on public transport but it's not a reality and isn't going to be a reality for some time...baby steps.

Yeah, because if you don't own a car, you certainly can't utilize car-sharing, car renting, public transportation, taxis, bicycles (in good weather) - yeah you absolutely HAVE to own a car :roll: I've met plenty of people who would consider moving to Cleveland but DREAD the fact that they might have to own a car - of course, once they realize that it's not completely necessary (dependent on where they move and where they work), that removes an obstacle for them.

 

Yeah, because if you don't own a car, you certainly can't utilize car-sharing, public transportation, taxis, bicycles (in good weather) - yeah you absolutely HAVE to own a car ::)

 

 

ding...ding...ding!  No more calls, we have winner!

I agree with Scott.  While its obviously possible to be car free in Cleveland, its not what I would call an easy sell.  And if I were putting up millions of dollars for a development, I'd want something that I would have the least difficulty selling.  I also agree that once the downtown population increases, and the amenities follow, then we're more likely to see parking-spot-free buildings.

Nice to see that this project is coming along.  That part of Euclid is a really great central location. 

 

I've read through all of this and just had a quick comment.  The developers seem to be taking a lot of hits for tearing down a building for a parking lot.  While in large cities like Chicago, downtown parking for apartments may be discouraged, it's inevitable in a city like Cleveland.  Public transportation in Cleveland pales in comparison to Chicago.  While some aspects of it are good, downtown Cleveland is not the sustainable area that Chicago is.  You can live in downtown Chicago and never have a need to leave the city limits.  The same cannot be said for Cleveland.  Having a car is pretty much a necessity.  As someone who is looking to live downtown, I can tell you that if a building like this did not have good parking, I'd have no desire to live there and I think most potential residents are in this same boat.  Downtown Cleveland has a lot going for it but it also has a lot of problems.  One of those problems is fixed by owning a car.

 

In order to grow to the potential that downtown Cleveland has, it needs to happen through a series of progressions.  Right now, residences without convenient parking are going to fail.  Things need to go one step at a time and the current step is getting people to live downtown, so you must cater to what people who are looking to live downtown want.  It might be a nice fantasy to tons of people living in the city and getting around on public transport but it's not a reality and isn't going to be a reality for some time...baby steps.

 

My wife and I live downtown, and because I work downtown, we sold her ride, and are now (and have been for a year) functioning car light.  I've actually been amazed at how few times it's been an issue.  As it pertains to this building, the gripe wasn't so much about parking... as someone who has lived downtown for 6 years, I agree cars are still fairly necessary depending on what you like to do, visiting relatives, etc... the gripe was about the fact that there is already a huge parking garage attached to this building... and that furthermore the dollar bank building was torn down under the guise that it was the ONLY way to access a below ground parking area for the building.  Where as myself and many others, are pretty confident it could have been accessed via the prospect side through the aformentioned garage.  Parking is necessary in downtown at this point.  Destroying buildings and calling it a plaza, when it's really just a giant ramp for parking, just to save a few bucks in construction costs versus accessing it via another avenue is most certianly not.

 

Also, let's not forget that this building is directly next to 2 surface lots and a parking garage, and across the street from a parking garage.  That makes 3 parking garages, and 2 surface lots in the immediate vicinity of 668 Euclid.  I don't think parking is an issue.

Let's not get too carried away here with the image of the Chicago Window.  The new window in 668 looks contemporary - materials, glass, color.  A very common looking window such as has been popular for commercial and institutional buildings several decades now.

I'm not reading all the posts but is someone implying it is to be parking in the space next to 668 where the '60s building was removed?  I thought it's to be a mini-park/walkway.

While in large cities like Chicago, downtown parking for apartments may be discouraged, it's inevitable in a city like Cleveland.  Public transportation in Cleveland pales in comparison to Chicago.  While some aspects of it are good, downtown Cleveland is not the sustainable area that Chicago is.  You can live in downtown Chicago and never have a need to leave the city limits.  The same cannot be said for Cleveland.  Having a car is pretty much a necessity. 

 

I live downtown in Cleveland and only ever need to venture out of the area served by good public transportation (Cleveland and inner ring suburbs) to visit family.  I had a car when I first moved downtown, but after I month I realized I wasn't really using it and decided it wasn't worth paying for parking, so I'm now car free.  The only significant issue that has popped up since making that decision is when I have visitors who sometimes can't comprehend how they will get around without one of us driving.

 

Anyway, regarding the need to construct parking with each apartment/condo building, there are other garages around downtown that you can pay to park in if your building itself doesn't have parking.  We have no shortage of parking here at the moment...

Talk about a false choice... Yes we need parking for downtown residences, but (1) as McC pointed out, that's not what the Dollar Bank demo was really about (it didn't add parking); (2) we have an existing reservoir of downtown parking, so you don't necessarily need to add new spaces for each new residential project; and (3) new residences or not, we should really be doing everything we can to avoid trashing our main street with new surface lot.

I have been car free and parking lot free for almost a year now, and the only time I need a car is to visit family in Lake County.  CityWheels is perfect for those few hour visits.  So don't tell us that a car is absolutely necessary.

Different strokes for different folks people.  For me, unless I am residing in Manhattan, living without my own wheels is not an option.  For others, it suites them just fine.  There is no correct answer and people should not be smug towards eachother regardless of which side of the argument they fall on.

 

On the issue of the "plaza", isn't the purpose of that part of the development to allow access to underground parking.  Considering our climate, I would say that such a feature would be a key selling point.

"There is no correct answer..."

 

There are plenty of incorrect statements - such as "having a car is pretty much a necessity (in Cleveland)". I'm not shoving car-free living at anyone but I will sure as h#ll correct them when they say it can't be done here, and more to the point - point out HOW it can be done if someone wanted to know. Of course, we can't even get sustainability experts to promote transit for their events so sometimes I wonder why I bother... 

Different strokes for different folks people. For me, unless I am residing in Manhattan, living without my own wheels is not an option. For others, it suites them just fine. There is no correct answer and people should not be smug towards eachother regardless of which side of the argument they fall on.

 

On the issue of the "plaza", isn't the purpose of that part of the development to allow access to underground parking. Considering our climate, I would say that such a feature would be a key selling point.

 

but my point is that:

1.  there is already an attached EIGHT STORY parking garage on the prospect side of the building. 

2.  the plaza, includes a ramp to one level of underground parking.  If you are on the prospect side of the building, you will see in the aformentioned garage that there is a ramp that heads DOWN, and says 668 Euclid Avenue Service Entrance.  If you can get to a service entrance I can't see why you couldn't find a way to access that one level of underground spots... therefore keeping all of the "enclosed" parking to one entrance from that garage.

3.  On top of this, due to the alignment of the Euclid Corridor project, you will ONLY be able to be traveling East Bound to access this garage.  So if you lived there, traveling westbound you would have to drive right past your place and all the way around public square just to get inside.

4.  Factor in that in addition to the attached garage, you have 2 surface lots and a seven story parking garage TOUCHING the building, and a seven story parking garage directly across the street...

 

I just REALLY don't see the need to tear down another building, to add about twenty spaces.

Never leave downtown????  How depressing!!!  You skip the entire University Circle area, for example?  I love downtown Cleveland, and I find more to do there than most, and go all over on my lunch hours, but in Cleveland we don't have our main cultural facilties downtown, with a handful of exceptions such as the Playhouse Square theaters and two large museums.  We also have so many fabulous things spread out over the metropolitan area - marvelous suburban neighbhoods, all sorts of things by the Lake, MetroParks, many impressive shopping areas, marvelous villages, etc., etc.

Back on topic, please.

 

 

 

 

Scotts, I was just upset that they tore down the Dollar Bank building and broke up the Euclid Avenue facade wall, for really nothing.  Parking could be accomodated through the Prosect side of the building.  Prospect would be much easier to get in and out of than Euclid anyways.

Scotts, I was just upset that they tore down the Dollar Bank building and broke up the Euclid Avenue facade wall, for really nothing.  Parking could be accomodated through the Prosect side of the building.  Prospect would be much easier to get in and out of than Euclid anyways.

 

I get the resentment over that but overall, this project should end up doing a LOT more good than it is harm and may even lead to new construction in the area.

 

However, from what I've been reading about Stonebridge, it doesn't sound like K&D is very good with their property.  They seem to have noise issues over there and bedbug issues at Reserve Square.