^I take it you've done extensive research and have concrete evidence that Cleveland firms aren't up to the job in order to make that kind of generalization? Sorry - you've earned yourself a callout with that one. :-)

 

I think I understand what you're saying - that most of what has been actually built doesn't demonstrate "outside the box" design, but is that because Cleveland firms haven't been given a chance, or because they aren't capable of anything groundbreaking? And as far as Flats East Bank - I don't believe that any of the renderings the public has seen were anything resembling final designs.

^I take it you've done extensive research and have concrete evidence that Cleveland firms aren't up to the job in order to make that kind of generalization? Sorry - you've earned yourself a callout with that one. :-)

 

Call me out anytime. If it wasn't you, it was going to be someone. And you're right, that was a generalization. But in my opinion, by and large, I haven't been impressed with Cleveland design/architecture firms. I think they're too stuck inside their Cleveland box, and they need to start looking at what is happening on a global scale.

 

I think I understand what you're saying - that most of what has been actually built doesn't demonstrate "outside the box" design, but is that because Cleveland firms haven't been given a chance, or because they aren't capable of anything groundbreaking? And as far as Flats East Bank - I don't believe that any of the renderings the public has seen were anything resembling final designs.

 

Given a chance? Cleveland firms are given a chance every time they're called upon to design something. EVERY TIME a firm is called upon it's generally representative of who they are and what their ideas are, if they have any. Same goes with every firm, anywhere. For example, I looked at Yazdani's site after mrnyc posted it on the Cedar Hill thread. You know how many designs I loved? Every one. And how many of them were fresh and innovative? Every one, in my opinion. You know why? Because they aren't necessarily looking to cookie-cutter, already-been-there-done-that designs that other people have done for their inspiration. They're thinking for themselves. What?! How DARE they?!!

 

If a firm chooses not to think outside the box and present something fresh and different, that's up to them. But then their laziness will be representative in their work, and it won't just suddenly go away when a larger project is presented to them. It'll just be laziness in larger form.

Interesting bit on the firms they are looking at to plan the existing port land.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2009/02/dike_for_new_port_home_could_c.html

 

Dike for new port home could cost $300 million, says Army Corps of Engineers

Posted by Tom Breckenridge/Plain Dealer Reporter

February 10, 2009 18:13PM

 

 

The Army Corps of Engineers estimates it will cost $250 million to $300 million to dike 157 acres of the lake north of East 55th Street, to serve as the port's new home.

 

Leaders of the Cleveland port authority think the estimate is too high. The port could bear up to 35 percent of the cost with the federal government paying the rest...

Finalists culled from a pool of 27 firms are Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects of New York City, which designed Baltimore Inner Harbor East; Hellmuth, Obata + Kassalbaum (HOK), of Chicago, which crafted the Dubai marina master plan in the United Arab Emirates; and Sasaki Associates Inc. of Watertown, Mass., which produced the master plan for the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.

 

Holy cow.

I can't believe more people aren't commenting on this... I think it's pretty big news.

I agree. I think this has the potential to create an incredibly stunning neighborhood!

Finalists culled from a pool of 27 firms are Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects of New York City, which designed Baltimore Inner Harbor East; Hellmuth, Obata + Kassalbaum (HOK), of Chicago, which crafted the Dubai marina master plan in the United Arab Emirates; and Sasaki Associates Inc. of Watertown, Mass., which produced the master plan for the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.

 

Holy cow.

 

Ehh.  It's good that thing has a goal and firms are lined up to organize it, but these firms don't really peak much interest in my opinion.

However, it is a port development and not a mixed use type of project so I'll wait and see.

Finalists culled from a pool of 27 firms are Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects of New York City, which designed Baltimore Inner Harbor East; Hellmuth, Obata + Kassalbaum (HOK), of Chicago, which crafted the Dubai marina master plan in the United Arab Emirates; and Sasaki Associates Inc. of Watertown, Mass., which produced the master plan for the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.

 

Holy cow.

 

Ehh. It's good that thing has a goal and firms are lined up to organize it, but these firms don't really peak much interest in my opinion.

However, it is a port development and not a mixed use type of project so I'll wait and see.

 

For a project of this scale, what types of firms would you like to see?

I can't believe more people aren't commenting on this... I think it's pretty big news.

 

I guess I don't understand what the big news is. Is it the cost figure? To me, I think $300 million is cheap for a project of this scale and the article sounded like the PD expressing small-town sticker shock at a big-city endeavor. Or do you mean the firms being considered are a big deal? If so, I don't pay attention to the names of architectural firms. They're only as good as their next project and you never know how the next one will turn out. So I don't get too excited over who has designed what and where.

I don't pay attention to the names of architectural firms. They're only as good as their next project and you never know how the next one will turn out. So I don't get too excited over who has designed what and where.

 

I think that's true to an extent. I think that what they've done showcases what they're capable of doing. A firm's body of work speaks to what a firm is capable of. The prospects, based on this, are exciting. I'm glad they're aligning themselves with firms that are more forward-thinking, design-wise. We shall see what they come up with, and it's not a guarantee their plans will be great. But the chances of greatness are higher, in my opinion, with strong firms.

Well, this may well be the most important project in the history of Cleveland... so what does everyone think of the selection?

 

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2009/04/ehrenkrantz_eckstut_kuhn_archi.html

 

Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects to be recommended to design Cleveland's new downtown waterfront

Posted by Steven Litt/Plain Dealer Architecture Critic

April 07, 2009 05:00AM

 

Staff members of the Port of Cleveland today are to recommend to the port's Real Estate Committee that Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects of New York should design a new plan for more than 100 acres of downtown waterfront controlled by the port.

 

The assignment, for which the Ehrenkrantz firm will be paid up to $400,000, calls for completing a 20-year vision for the downtown docks west of Cleveland Browns Stadium and east of the mouth of the Cuyahoga River, an area now occupied by scattered warehouses, gravel piles and a pair of cement silos...

 

"Eckstut said the Cleveland project will likely include an analysis of shipping and boating, so that activities on the affected property can be closely tied to the water."

 

Yes!  If I had a boat, I'd want to be able to pull up to a restaurant or store.  I know you can do that at Shooters, but it'd be great to have more options.

I hope the "we don't want iconic buildings" bit applied to NYC and not here.  We could use a few more iconic buildings.  And our downtown has enough "spaces" already.

Sigh.  Another off the shelf design firm that throws up neo traditional structures that have little reinvention from project to project.  I suppose anything is better than what is there currently.

Creating iconic structures doesn't mean they have to be "monumental" like the mistakes of the RRHOF and CBS.  Who says that iconic couldn't be an exciting composition within the the urban fabric of a densely built neighborhood?  Europeans have been doing it for centuries.

I hate to start off complaining about this but I am somewhat familiar with their work, and while the actual plan of the space may be successful, the architecture will probably be far from contextual or move the city's perception of what contemporary architecture can acheive.

I think he was talking about the hokey "iconic" crap like the rock hall and science center.  I read that more to mean he doesn't want a bunch of silly buildings just to try and "stand out".

I also have a problem with basing everything off of the word "experience." 

An "iconic experience?"

This is the buzz word of retail developers and their architects.

That makes sense.  I'm cool with the buildings down there being nondescript compared to the rock hall.  I just hope they don't overcompensate and give us generic.  They do seem to understand the wind conditions, which one must give them credit for.

I'm going to be really interested to see what they come up with.  I kind of hate inner harbor, but love battery park.  I think at first I am most concerned with the overall layout/grid they come up with and what sort of feel that can create in a neighborhood, and secondly how they actually connect the lakefront to this neighborhood.  This should be a spectacular public space that people just want to hang out at.  Currently the only real ways to interact with the lake in this town is edgewater park/whiskey island, voinovich park (which feels incredibly isolated and detached from the city), or someone's back yard.  I think making use of a true waterfront park could be the best thing that ever happens to this city.  The buildings I'm not as concerned with yet.  They can evolve throughout the process, particuarly if they stick to the public involvement that they claim they'll have.  Though I do agree with W.28th... I shudder at the phrase "iconic experience".  That reminds of Innner Harbor.  And like I said. I hate it.  It doesn't remotely relate to Baltimore.  Where as Battery Park City seems almost perfectly integrated to me.  I guess we'll find out.

I kind of hate inner harbor, but love battery park.

 

I 100% agree with this, with the exception that I may take out "kind of".  I don't know what it is about Battery Park, because I think that there are some things that could have been done a little better architecturally, but overall the layout does a great job of creating a space people just want to go hang out and can go multiple different types of activities on the waterfront (sit around talking, eat, walk, jog, ride a bike, rollerblade, etc.).

Architects are only as good as their next project. I will wait and see what they come up with for Cleveland.

Also, it could be that they are just being used for the general plan for the space with the actual architecture of buildings coming later (from another architect (*like city architecture) or multiple architects).

 

*I added that just for w28th

^^ Agreed.  Though I find it interesting that the same firm created one area I abhor (trying to clarify this for you jamjeff :)), and one that I love being in.  I wonder what the timeline is unitl we get the first peek at their ideas.  I mean, I know we've got 10 or so years before we can even possibly begin construction, but a kid likes to know what's going on.

Sigh.  Another off the shelf design firm that throws up neo traditional structures that have little reinvention from project to project.  I suppose anything is better than what is there currently.

Creating iconic structures doesn't mean they have to be "monumental" like the mistakes of the RRHOF and CBS.  Who says that iconic couldn't be an exciting composition within the the urban fabric of a densely built neighborhood?  Europeans have been doing it for centuries.

I hate to start off complaining about this but I am somewhat familiar with their work, and while the actual plan of the space may be successful, the architecture will probably be far from contextual or move the city's perception of what contemporary architecture can acheive.

 

Lies!  W28th, we know you better than that.  ;) ;)

Since this is a port project rather than a city or county project, can someone provide a map of what land area they're going to be working with? 

 

Am I correct to assume that the project will be limited to port-controlled properties?  With the port not going anywhere for twenty years or so, it would seem that this plan will remain a concept for later changes after the port moves.  If so, I would expect this design process to lead to little actual change in the near term, unless the port owns a lot of property that it isn't currently using. 

 

Although we'd all like to see improvements along a significant part of the lakefront, current realities (port's ongoing operations and the economy) seem to suggest that we won't be seeing any concrete changes for some time to come.

Foraker it is the 100 acres west of Cleveland Browns stadium (there is an excellent photo a couple posts up in a related article it is the parcel that sits between CBS and the FEB site).  The port does control all of that land, and this is a very long term project, but that doesn't diminish it's importance, in making sure that the plan set in place is sound.  And don't forget this isn't something that is affected by administration change overs.  The port owns this land and they want to spur this development.  So having the plan in place is crucial.

As a boater I hoper that they dont make the entire area that abutts to the lake a public park or the like (McCleveland I may be misunderstanding what you were refering to).  I think there are many boaters in the area that would love something that you could take your boat to.  Currently there is Shooters, and nothing else.  having some restaurants and shopping that is easy to access would make the lake that much more fun for the numerous marinas that are in the area. 

 

We, the wife's parents actually own the boat, looked at moving the boat to cleveland from sandusky and the major drawback of cleveland is there is nowhere to take the boat.  I think if there was an urban shopping/entertainment district that people had the abaility to tie up to it would be a huge success.

 

But this is a boater talking so I am a bit biased.

I don't disagree at all.  But with a fairly large amount of lakefront land to play with here... I am really looking for a great lakefront park space... I don't think it should take up the entire lakefront.  I absolutely think they should have pull up boating areas. 

I think that is what seems so daunting, it is a big space of land and we all have this need for it not to be royally screwed up in any way.

One silver lining about FEB being postponed is that modifications can be made to better incorporate this into the port area.

 

If, for instance, the grander vision of the Pesht development happened with the street grid being extended up to the lakefront, then you could have a more cohesive downtown.

 

 

I know, lots of ifs.

It doesn't seem that hard not to blow it.  Just build city.  It's really quite simple.  Where we get lost is all this "I can do more than just build city" nonsense.  That part about the iconic experience scares me and I don't know why.  The city and its landscape should take care of your iconic experience... it shouldn't have much to do with what's built on the port site. 

 

I kind of hope that whatever gets done involves very little greenspace.  I may be in the minority on this, but I think we have plenty of lakefront greenspace.  We need buildings, lots of buildings, built close together.  The waterfront should still be accessible, i.e. not a gated community, but I don't think it needs to be lined with grassland to allow for that.

Here is a rendering of Pesht, for the newbies

And that... is why this is all so important.  :)  We get one chance to develop 100 acres on the lake AND riverfront in a major city that will reshape this place for generations.  One.  It is our absolute best chance at reinventing ourselves and bringing mass private investment to downtown and the city.  If we mess this up we'll never have an opportunity like this again.  That's why I'm so glad that it will take the port so long to move, it gives us plenty of time to work and rework this plan until we are convinced we have it right.  That's why I said at this point I am more concerned with the layout and use of space.  There will come a time to unleash criticism if we think these guys are giving us bland uninspiring buildings... I just want to make sure the overall plan is sound first.  And I really think this city desparately needs a kick ass park and a way for the general public to connect with it's lake.  Done correctly this is exactly the type of place young people want to live and businesses want to locate.  Very few cities anywhere in the world have this sort of property to work with.  We also have to understand that this is and should be a maritime city and boating access should be fairly high on the priority list.

Pesht is pretty much what I'd want to see there.  And it might be cool to take boating access one step further and do some kind of canal system, with lots of happy little bridges.

I kind of hope that whatever gets done involves very little greenspace. I may be in the minority on this, but I think we have plenty of lakefront greenspace.

 

Sorry, this confounds me quite a bit that anyone would think this.  We have one decent parkspace in all of downtown (Eastman Reading Garden), I guess two if you count the garden by trinity but that's a little too far away for most downtowners.  The malls are nice but are more of a civic gathering space than a park and are too far removed from residences and the lake.  Voinovich park is the biggest waste of space i've ever been to.  it's essentially a grass island that takes you 15 minutes to walk to from the nearest anything. Every other "greenspace" we have is a complete and totally joke.  Normally it's just a space a building should be that they left grass on.

 

Great public parks surrounded by densley packed residences create dynamic spaces.  This is exactly the reason YOU support a quad in the new CSU residnential area as opposed to the baseball park.  Because you said, they become great gathering spaces that are packed with people... Same rules apply here, particuarly on the waterfront.  Do we need lots of buildings densley packed with residents and business in this area?  Yup.  Do we need them surrounding a public park that is interesting, the whole city can use, dynamic (mainly due to its being surrounded by buildings and people) and draws people down just to spend time there? Absolutely.

 

See New York City for what great parks do to become the amenity most cherished by residents.  They are your escape from the concrete.  A great Park, and the waterfront will draw immense amounts of people to it.

I just wonder why the port chose this firm.  There is not a single thing that they have done in the past that is close to what Cleveland needs in terms of producing a transformative masterplan.  I know some here would be apprehensive to have a Zaha Hadid, MVRDV, or West 8 type of firm oversee this development, but you cannot argue the fact that it would be something that would create an energy and freshness that this city needs.  It would be a pronouncement that we are once again moving towards the ideals of our city, "Progress and Prosperity."

 

Ha ha about the City Arch comment by the way...

I kind of hope that whatever gets done involves very little greenspace.  I may be in the minority on this, but I think we have plenty of lakefront greenspace.

 

Sorry, this confounds me quite a bit that anyone would think this. 

 

I'm confounded as to what confounds you, because I can't find one item in your post that I disagree with.  I think we're on the same page.  I wasn't commenting so much on the quality as on the quantity of greenspace downtown and along the lake.  As for lakefront greenspace there's Wendy Park, Edgewater, and the park at the end of MLK.  If Burke is ever developed I'm sure there will be some there too. 

 

I agree that downtown itself doesn't have many good parks, but it has several, including the large mall right in the middle.  I know it doesn't work as a park, but it's still there taking up space.  The idea of having a small quad at CSU (note that I specifically don't want that to be open grass) is because that's what college campuses typically have, and because it's on the fringe of downtown.  Contrary to Stark's belief, I don't consider the flats or port area to be fringe at all.  And I never said don't put a park there.  I just don't want them to go overboard with the park and have it dominate what I'd like to see as a dense urban area.  I want something like the Pesht picture, where there's greenspace but no more than is needed.

Any thoughts of turning the land into an airport?  I think that would be a great use.

Any thoughts of turning the land into an airport?  I think that would be a great use.

 

I just wonder why the port chose this firm.  There is not a single thing that they have done in the past that is close to what Cleveland needs in terms of producing a transformative masterplan.  I know some here would be apprehensive to have a Zaha Hadid, MVRDV, or West 8 type of firm oversee this development, but you cannot argue the fact that it would be something that would create an energy and freshness that this city needs.  It would be a pronouncement that we are once again moving towards the ideals of our city, "Progress and Prosperity."

 

Ha ha about the City Arch comment by the way...

I don't disagree... it will be interesting to see if they comment on the selection process at the meeting.

 

I kind of hope that whatever gets done involves very little greenspace.  I may be in the minority on this, but I think we have plenty of lakefront greenspace.

 

Sorry, this confounds me quite a bit that anyone would think this. 

 

I'm confounded as to what confounds you, because I can't find one item in your post that I disagree with.  I think we're on the same page.  I wasn't commenting so much on the quality as on the quantity of greenspace downtown and along the lake.  As for lakefront greenspace there's Wendy Park, Edgewater, and the park at the end of MLK.  If Burke is ever developed I'm sure there will be some there too. 

 

I agree that downtown itself doesn't have many good parks, but it has several, including the large mall right in the middle.  I know it doesn't work as a park, but it's still there taking up space.  The idea of having a small quad at CSU (note that I specifically don't want that to be open grass) is because that's what college campuses typically have, and because it's on the fringe of downtown.  Contrary to Stark's belief, I don't consider the flats or port area to be fringe at all.  And I never said don't put a park there.  I just don't want them to go overboard with the park and have it dominate what I'd like to see as a dense urban area.  I want something like the Pesht picture, where there's greenspace but no more than is needed.

 

Ummm... We're talking about 100 acres of land.  Legitimately I think that is about a quarter of the size of downtown.  I think there is plenty of room for buildings.  And I don't think anyone is talking about building central park or a national forest.  :)  We're just talking about a park.  And if it any point I see someone suggest plainly a swath of lawn and not an actual park I may need to be incarcerated to keep from doing harm to someone.

 

I'll actually be interested to see... 7-8 years from now after we have overanalyzed and critiqued this thing into the ground... how much will it cost, and what the actual plan for building it will be.  i mean you couldn't build the whole thing all at once, or at least not without a lot of commited businesses and a gagillion presales from residents... it will be interesting to see what the "plan" is so to speak.

I know it's way down the road, but would the W.10 stop on the WFL be all that's needed?  Or does anyone foresee any additions, redirections, etc? 

 

 

Any thoughts of turning the land into an airport?  I think that would be a great use.

 

I would be against that.  To echo what Mayor said... this land is the greatest potential driver of business and residents to something that Cleveland lacks- quality lakefront space.  We have Burke, which is an important driver of business to our downtown core, like it or not.  I don't think we need another, but that's my opinion.

Any thoughts of turning the land into an airport?  I think that would be a great use.

 

 

LOL!!

 

 

Any thoughts of turning the land into an airport? I think that would be a great use.

 

I would be against that. To echo what Mayor said... this land is the greatest potential driver of business and residents to something that Cleveland lacks- quality lakefront space. We have Burke, which is an important driver of business to our downtown core, like it or not. I don't think we need another, but that's my opinion.

 

I was just kidding.  I hate Burke and felt the need to let my disdain reveal itself thru sarcasm.  Sorry to get off topic.

^Good thing...

 

 

Any thoughts of turning the land into an airport?  I think that would be a great use.

 

I would be against that.  To echo what Mayor said... this land is the greatest potential driver of business and residents to something that Cleveland lacks- quality lakefront space.  We have Burke, which is an important driver of business to our downtown core, like it or not.  I don't think we need another, but that's my opinion.

 

I was just kidding.   I hate Burke and felt the need to let my disdain reveal itself thru sarcasm.  Sorry to get off topic.

 

It totally amazes me that you had to state that! :laugh:  (MTS THAT totally deserves a "somebody being hit over the head with a hammer thing")

If I recall correctly, of the 100 acres that will be vacated, the City of Cleveland owns (or controls) the 30 or so acres north and immediately to the west of CB Stadium.  Also, at the behest of the Port of Cleveland, a class with Kent State's CUDC recently completed a design study for the full site.  Some of the videos associated with their projects can be found here, and I hope to see more of their work put up on the CUDC website sometime soon.  I was able to sit in on the jury for the project presentations, and some of them were quite imaginative in terms of examining how this site that is in the middle of the city yet quite nearly separate (due to topography, street grid, public perception and access, etc.) could be reused, or even better integrated with port functions.

I know some here would be apprehensive to have a Zaha Hadid, MVRDV, or West 8 type of firm oversee this development, but you cannot argue the fact that it would be something that would create an energy and freshness that this city needs. 

 

I can argue with that.  I don't have any faith that when the hoopla over the bold new futuristic designs would be over that everyone's favorite starchitects wouldn't have left us with something completely unlivable on our Lakefront.  There doesn't exist a beloved public space in the modernist canon yet, and I doubt there ever will. The obsessive need to wow the cognoscenti with something novel instead of something good will do that.  Infatuation with one's own genius, expressed through stark geometries will do that.  Disdain for the public will do that.

 

I'm very glad with the selection.  Hopefully they'll veer closer to what they did at Battery Park City than to Inner Harbor.  I think that the key to success for this neighborhood will lie in the practical matters of urban design- properly connecting the area to Downtown, ensuring quality access opportunities to the Lake and River, getting the mix of land uses right, and moderating the impact of the lake wind through proper windbreaks and street alignment.

I can argue with that. I don't have any faith that when the hoopla over the bold new futuristic designs would be over that everyone's favorite starchitects wouldn't have left us with something completely unlivable on our Lakefront. There doesn't exist a beloved public space in the modernist canon yet, and I doubt there ever will. The obsessive need to wow the cognoscenti with something novel instead of something good will do that. Infatuation with one's own genius, expressed through stark geometries will do that. Disdain for the public will do that.

 

Great points.

Some more info on the business side of things...

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2009/04/port.html

 

Cleveland port panel recommends hiring Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects

Posted by Tom Breckenridge/Plain Dealer Reporter

April 07, 2009 14:04PM

 

CLEVELAND -- Cleveland port leaders are ready to hire a planning firm and a market analyst for the proposed redevelopment of the port's downtown site.

Plans by the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority call for docks and warehouses to move from land west of Cleveland Browns Stadium to a site north of East 55th Street.

 

The proposed move -- projected to start in the early 2020s -- frees the port's lakefront land for an attractive, mixed-use development. Port officials need to make money by developing their 100 acres to help pay for the move to East 55th. Cost estimates approach $500 million...

I think that the key to success for this neighborhood will lie in the practical matters of urban design- properly connecting the area to Downtown, ensuring quality access opportunities to the Lake and River, getting the mix of land uses right, and moderating the impact of the lake wind through proper windbreaks and street alignment.

 

There's no reason that couldn't be accomplished through contemporary urban design.  Just because something has failed in the past doesn't mean we should banish it from the vocabulary of American planning.  Not sure if you realize this, but modernism died several decades ago, unfortunately IM Pei didn't get the memo.  X, you and I agree on the outcome we want for the site, but for the direction to get to that point, I couldn't disagree with you more.