I would love to see Cleveland define itselt with a signature structure at the lip of the mall. 

 

What would you envision, the Dubai sail-shaped hotel, would have been beautiful for the lakefront.

 

or maybe the arch spanning the mall?

 

 

or a tower next to Browns Stadium?

 

 

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE? ANY IDEAS ?

I'd like to see this in the Buildings/Architecture thread since it has nothing to do with an existing project or anything under construction. :-)

Something with the waterfront would be cool.  I don't think Cleveland does enough with their lake front property (not an attack, so calm down Clevelanders).

Well I don't know what mall you're talking about (sorry, not that familiar with Cleveland) but I think both the Terminal Tower and The Key Tower are pretty signature buildings.

Think Washington D.C.'s The Mall -- the long strip of greenery in the center of the city. Cleveland has one too though not as long.

The characteristic of a signature is that it's unique.  That's why it bugged me when there was talk of a "signature" bridge for the Innerbelt and it we got photoshopped cable-stayed bridges from other cities into our skyline.  It's hard to do things that haven't been done but right now I believe the best shot we have at something truly unique is a lake-based wind farm. 

Every other city is jealous.

 

No, but Key Tower is a very nice building.

 

Anyway, Cleveland has to have something unique in order for it to be a signature structure as you cannot simply emulate the Space Needle or an art-deco statue in Brazil.  Perhaps the wind farm on the lake can become a "landmark?"

Key Tower is nice, but it is certainly no landmark that is identifiably Cleveland to most people outside of Ohio or Cleveland for that matter.  Cleveland is not alone in this regard...pretty much every Ohio city (and most cities in the world) has a problem with this signature structure thingee.

 

I think as long as their is a signature structure, for locals/regionals, to point at with pride then all is good.

And plus, who needs a signature structure as there are other ways of solving the "identity crisis" of cities.  Nashville did it with country.

I'd say Cleveland has several signature structures: Key Tower, Terminal Tower and the Rock Hall are the structures most often shown during sporting event "cut-away" shots. Others include the Soldiers & Sailors Monument and the statue on the mall that has the blue-ish colored person whose hand is piercing toward the sky. Then, of course, there's the Free Stamp.....

And plus, who needs a signature structure as there are other ways of solving the "identity crisis" of cities.  Nashville did it with country.

 

That's a very good point.

I'd like Cleveland's signature to be its livable, sustainable, human scale neighborhoods, including/especially/featuring Downtown.

Well, I'd like all my Americans cities to have that signature :).

Key Tower and the Terminal Tower are only regional signature buildings. If you ask someone from San Diego, who's never been to Cleveland to recognize Cleveland's skyline in a pile , they would have a hard time. Sears Tower is know around the World, show me the CN tower or Space Needle and i can identify the city. The Eiffel Tower and St. Louis Arch are recognizable by most people who have never stepped foot in Missouri or Ontario. I specifically pointed out the sail-shaped hotel because it put Dubai on  the map, globally. Signature means significant, unique and having wide-appeal. The Key Tower is beautiful, but to somone in Iowa, it could be a part of the New York or Chicago skyline.  Our only glimpse of signature is the Rock Hall.

And plus, who needs a signature structure as there are other ways of solving the "identity crisis" of cities.  Nashville did it with country.

good point which leads me to think of the Grand Ole Opry...

And plus, who needs a signature structure as there are other ways of solving the "identity crisis" of cities.  Nashville did it with country.

 

Cleveland tried that by arguing for rock (the birthplace of the term, not the movement), but it didn't have as much an impact. Plus, Detroit already has the nickname "Rock City" on lock.

 

 

edit: the only way most people have ever heard of "detroit" and "rock city" put together like that is via the song by the ny band kiss.

 

 

Yeah, Detroit really isn't what I think of when I think "Rock City" though I've heard the term for it before.

^ i mean sure detroit has the rawk, but come on...motown?  dwarfs it. :mrgreen:

 

btw the burj in dubai is getting a lot of press, but believe it or not its not really 100% unique. there are other sail shaped towers on waterfronts. check out one here in my montevideo, uruguay thread:

 

Does a "signature" structure have to be something that shows up in a post-card skyline shot? Does it have to be a phallus thrusting into the sky? Cleveland already has lots of signature structures -- the astonishing array of bridges west and south of downtown comes to mind. But my vote goes to The Arcade. It is considered one of the greatest examples of that type of building in the world -- rivaled only by the Galleria Vittorio Emmanuel (sp?) in Milan (not MY-lan Ohio) and the big department store in Moscow (not Moscow, Ohio, or Idaho), the name of which I forget. The Cleveland Arcade is the only one with balconies on more than two levels, and the only one with the entrances at each end on different levels. It's an absolutely amazing building, a signature structure by any definition.

i think "new signature" for cleveland could be some dutch-styled waterfront housing along the riverfront and maybe the lakefront. scranton peninsula would be perfect for some really striking dutch type housing.

 

sure, it's not spectacular and it might copy those guys in a sense, but it would be pretty unique to the usa.

 

some examples:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Took the windmill thing to a new level, eh? :)

I think Dutch architecture is an excellent signature for Amsterdam.  Not Cleveland.  If we're importing it, it's not our signature.  I think UrbanSurfin' hit it with the bridges.  I don't know anywhere else that has that array of bridges in sight like that.

maybe, except i do know other places with an array of bridges in sight like that.

 

as for something potentially new like say dutch architecture, smaller scaled housing like that has a lot better chance of being distinctive and noteworthy for the city than anything about to built downtown, that's for sure. if the ratners set the dutch wild on scranton the results would be awesome.

I don't know anywhere else that has that array of bridges in sight like that.

 

Pittsburgh.

^Absolutely and Pittsburgh's bridges are wonderful in their own right. Do they have any lift bridges or swing bridges?

I don't know anywhere else that has that array of bridges in sight like that.

 

Pittsburgh.

 

He said ARRAY of bridges, not NUMBER of bridges.

Anything other than that tacky sail-shaped hotel!

^Absolutely and Pittsburgh's bridges are wonderful in their own right. Do they have any lift bridges or swing bridges?

 

you mean like chicago's?  (hey, better from me than him! :wink:  :laugh: )

 

of course, they don't have the valley and high-level bridges over chicago.

 

ny is probably a closer mix of geography and varied bridge styles than pitts or chicago, except it's so spread out --- you'd have to move the gowanus canal bridges and eastern parkway viaduct to the harlem river valley to get something like the cleve's "mouth of the cuyahoga" views.  :laugh:

 

still, i think the point is valid that other cities have some wild multiple bridge views too in their own way. heck, even lorain has fantastic views of three totally different bridge styles, a high-level, an old train track lift & a bascule that was once the largest in the world, so take that cleveland! :banger:

 

now.....if only the new architecture coming to downtown could be as distinctive.  :|

 

 

 

I think the point is that in Cleveland you can see double-digit bridges in one photo shot, and they are all very unique (and even of varying heights).  That is what you would be hard-pressed to find in any other city.

But really,"double-digit bridges" don't mean jack if they aren't memorialized in some sort of media.  No one in Ohio outside of Cleveland/NEO knows about its bridges nor would they care.  The Brooklyn Bridge, iconic.  Golden Gate Bridge, iconic.  They both have a significant place in American history and thus, they are national icons.  The Roebling in Cincinnati is probably Ohio's most "iconic" bridge due to historical significance (Civil War, prototype, blah blah) but even that isn't nationally iconic (though locally, sure).

 

So I say again, focus on something that isn't necessarily a structure but a unique trait/quality that Cleveland has that stands out.

But really,"double-digit bridges" don't mean jack if they aren't memorialized in some sort of media.  No one in Ohio outside of Cleveland/NEO knows about its bridges nor would they care.  The Brooklyn Bridge, iconic.  Golden Gate Bridge, iconic.  They both have a significant place in American history and thus, they are national icons.  The Roebling in Cincinnati is probably Ohio's most "iconic" bridge due to historical significance (Civil War, prototype, blah blah) but even that isn't nationally iconic (though locally, sure).

 

I was arguing that it is unique to Cleveland (you argued Pittsburgh had as many/as unique bridges), not that they were national icons.

 

So I say again, focus on something that isn't necessarily a structure but a unique trait/quality that Cleveland has that stands out.

 

The Rock Hall, hands down.  That is why you see it in 90% of Cleveland shots when cutting out of a sporting event in Cleveland on national television.

 

You can argue what you want, but I think it is the first thing (positive at least) that comes to many people's mind nowadays when you say Cleveland.

I was arguing that it is unique to Cleveland (you argued Pittsburgh had as many/as unique bridges), not that they were national icons.

 

Pittsburgh probably DOES have as many unique bridges as Cleveland (it has more rivers and many different styles of bridges, from wooden to suspension to a hot-metal truss).  Arguing that "well, we have a bridge that swings!" is just plain silly.  It's like Chicago saying "we have a shiny overrated bean, top that!"

 

The Rock Hall, hands down.  That is why you see it in 90% of Cleveland shots when cutting out of a sporting event in Cleveland on national television.

 

You can argue what you want, but I think it is the first thing (positive at least) that comes to many people's mind nowadays when you say Cleveland.

 

I don't think the Rock Hall is in that many minds anymore after the 90's tourism blitz.  If anything, LeBron is what people think of Cleveland these days.  But AGAIN, if you can take the idea of Rock N' Roll a bit further, you'll perhaps gain an image to the nation.

Most people don't know it, but Cleveland has more moving bridges than any other city in the world. That is a unique aspect to Cleveland, but it is hard to frame it. The swing bridge on its own is not so great, but it is symbolic of the many different types of moving bridges that Cleveland has. It also is the bridge that many partiers and residents take in the Flats--therefore it is pretty symbolic

Funny, I thought this thread was about Cleveland, and not some bridge in Toledo.......

Ah, try Glass City Skyway- much larger impact on landscape and much more visible. Roebling is gorgeous, but it's just not big enough to be iconic in this day and age (1800's? of course).

 

I can safely, 100% say that the Roebling will STILL be more iconic than that Steubenvile-Bridge-On-Steroids in Toledo (remind me when the Glass City Skyway carried over slaves, became an engineering marvel, and lasts over 150 years).  The Glass City Skyway isn't special nor should it even be iconic for Toledo.  That Anthony Wayne thing is much better.

^ carrying over wage slaves ain't good enough?  :laugh:

 

 

I think the point is that in Cleveland you can see double-digit bridges in one photo shot, and they are all very unique (and even of varying heights).  That is what you would be hard-pressed to find in any other city.

 

ok, but lets not play move the goalposts too much here, to be fair if you are say up on the hillside or in a building in these other cities you can get double digit bridge pics too. unless where you stand counts?

 

 

The Rock Hall, hands down.  That is why you see it in 90% of Cleveland shots when cutting out of a sporting event in Cleveland on national television.

 

You can argue what you want, but I think it is the first thing (positive at least) that comes to many people's mind nowadays when you say Cleveland.

 

I don't think the Rock Hall is in that many minds anymore after the 90's tourism blitz.  If anything, LeBron is what people think of Cleveland these days.  But AGAIN, if you can take the idea of Rock N' Roll a bit further, you'll perhaps gain an image to the nation.

 

i wanna say the rock hall as a structure, but looking at it i always think of the louvre in paris and that museum in the hills in japan. it's the same problem that holds back the peter lewis and key buildings from signature status. they're all just similar variations on themes the architects did elsewhere. again, like the bridges, we have to drop back to the terminal tower for signature. time for something new!

 

^Funny you didn't bring up Colday's talk of Cincinnati...or all the talk of Pittsburgh, New York, etc.

 

Because he's an admin, and yes there is a double standard.

 

Also, you were the last post on that subject (until now), it seemed a good point to put a stop on the subject.

Hehe double standard.

 

Fine, let's focus back on Cleveland.  I still say focus on something that makes Cleveland "Cleveland."  Polka?

As Cdawg touched on, Midwestern cities don't get enough visibility for any physical structure to become an iconic symbol for a city (unless something ridiculous happens like Museum Plaza in Louisville...and I don't even know that will do anything for a national image of Louisville).

 

I think that ColDayMan is spot on with creating a signature vibe and/or perception.  Medium to large cities, that don't necessarily get the visibility they deserve, have done this very well all over the nation (see Portland, Nashville, Austin).  This is really what Cleveland, Cincy, and Cbus need to be doing...unless of course they want to build something so hideous it simply demands attention (see Louisville).

Fine, let's focus back on Cleveland.  I still say focus on something that makes Cleveland "Cleveland."  Polka?

 

I can't think of another city where their river caught on fire twice.  :evil:

^

I can't think of another city where their river caught on fire twice.  :evil:

Twice? We've caught this bad boy on fire in 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, 1941, 1948, 1952 and 1969 and maybe more.

(http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-06/cwru-msc061704.php)

 

And my vote for iconic structure in Cleveland has to be the Rock Hall. The majority of the previous century was defined by the Terminal. While classic, the Rock takes a prominent location on the waterfront, experiments with drastically different shapes than most, if not all, other buildings in the city and most importantly, is married to Rock (and by extension, all popular modern music) which has served and probably will continue to serve as a major unifying ethos among the modern world. You can't stop the rock!

SIZE matters in America. That's why I brought up Glass City Skyway for the simple fact it's gigantic, it has the thickest cables on earth, it's a single pylon (not two like every other bridge its size), and is the first use of stainless steel sheathing- there's your engineering marvel Colday.

 

You've got to be kidding me.  So that is why it's more iconic than the Roebling?  I'm done with this convo.

 

Classic examples being Golden Gate, Mackinac, Ambassador, and yes, Glass City.

 

No.  Otherwise, the V-N Bridge would be more iconic than the Brooklyn Bridge.  The Bay Bridge would be more iconic than the Golden Gate.  Or that bridge in Tokyo would be more iconic than Tower Bridge.  Size isn't everything, even in America.

 

I STILL contend that Key Tower is iconic. It is THE tallest skyscraper between New York and Chicago. Not even Detroit, which is over twice the size of Cleveland, has any skyscraper as big as Key Tower. Again, go big or go home.

 

*cough* Philadelphia *cough* And the Key Tower is iconic for CLEVELAND but not nationally.  Museum Plaza's design is what sells it, not it's height as the SECOND tallest building in the Ohio Valley *cough* Pittsburgh *cough*

 

Again, it's about significance, not size.  Otherwise, the Aon Tower would be more "iconic" than the John Hancock Tower.

Brooklyn is small compared to the V-N Bridge.  Golden Gate is small compared to the Bay Bridge.  The London Bridge is small compared to THE ROEBLING BRIDGE.  It's about proportion.  But NO ONE is going to say that a freakin' Tampa Bay knock-off in Toledo is going to be more iconic than one of Roebling's finest designs.  Maybe I should root for the Aon Tower in Los Angeles as being more iconic than the RenCen.  Afterall, it's taller, has had an engineering history (fires in the 80's), and featured on countless car commercials.  So screw that RenCen, you're small!

 

Get over the skyway bridge thing, please.  It's embarrassing, even for Toledo.

which is of course related to size. It Golden Gate were the size of Roebling, no one would care. Size = visibility. If the St. Louis arch were 200 feet tall, no one would care. You're completely overlooking the obvious.

 

So I should overlook as small of a thing such as the Mona Lisa as the bitch can't match the pure size of THE WHALE MURAL OF CLEVELAND?  Christ, it isn't that hard to understand significance is much more than SIZE.  And if the St. Louis Arch were 200 feet, it'd STILL be famous as it is a SYMBOL for AMERICAN WESTWARD EXPANSION. 

Without a f-ing doubt! Are you serious?! No one outside the Midwest really knows Detroit's skyline (and it's one of the largest cities in the country). LA is in thousands of movies and TV shows, so of course it's more iconic than Ren Cen.

 

You've gone mad.  The Aon Tower...wow.

 

Different country, different culture, different mentality.

 

Doesn't mean jack.  If it's iconic, it's iconic. 

Christ, it isn't that hard to understand significance is much more than SIZE.  And if the St. Louis Arch were 200 feet, it'd STILL be famous as it is a SYMBOL for AMERICAN WESTWARD EXPANSION.

 

Now way. You must have been laughing while you typed that...

 

No, but I was surely laughing at the Gateway Skyway whatever thing in Toledo being "more iconic" than one of Roebling's signature bridges.  I damn near spilled my bucket o' biscuits from Popeye's on that one!

of course it's more than size, but size has to be there first. Ditto with Museum Plaza. You don't want people squinting to see it.

 

Yeah, next time I'm in Paris, I'll squint my eyes at the Venus de Milo.

^They still have to be big. Brooklyn is no small bridge, nor is Golden Gate, nor is Glass City. Roebling is small. Get over it.

 

Again, it's about significance, not size

 

which is of course related to size. It Golden Gate were the size of Roebling, no one would care. Size = visibility. If the St. Louis arch were 200 feet tall, no one would care. You're completely overlooking the obvious.

 

^IMO, size is more a function of utility. Significance measures impact, which can cover the tangible to the ethereal, the shape of the object AND how that object shapes the perception of those who use it or are surrounded by it.

^They still have to be big. Brooklyn is no small bridge, nor is Golden Gate, nor is Glass City. Roebling is small. Get over it.

 

Again, it's about significance, not size

 

which is of course related to size. It Golden Gate were the size of Roebling, no one would care. Size = visibility. If the St. Louis arch were 200 feet tall, no one would care. You're completely overlooking the obvious.

 

^IMO, size is more a function of utility. Significance measures impact, which can cover the tangible to the ethereal, the shape of the object AND how that object shapes the perception of those who use it or are surrounded by it.

 

So why are you even using Gateway Veterinarian Bridge in Toledo for example?

 

I guess I'll bring up another obvious Ohio example- the world's largest Doric Column at PIB. Now do you think if it were 100 feet tall, people would honestly give a damn it represents our victory in the war of 1812? This is AMERICA, we have the collective memory of a five-year-old on academic enhancing drugs.

 

Perry Memorial is iconic because it looks good AND is BIG.

 

People don't care about it to this day.  Do you think people know "oh, that tall column thing in Ohio!  It's awesome!"  Maybe if you go to Cedar Point one day and you feel like checking out the area, it's known.  Again, it's significance, it's media, it's image. 

No, but I was surely laughing at the Gateway Skyway whatever thing in Toledo being "more iconic" than one of Roebling's signature bridges.  I damn near spilled my bucket o' biscuits from Popeye's on that one!

 

Most people love the Skyway. You're one of the few haters. Most people outside of Cincinnati have no clue what the Roebling Bridge is, and probably ditto for Glass City Skyway.

 

The point is to compare a knock-off Steubenville/Pomeroy bridge to a famous engineering marvel at the time by John Roebling is laughable and downright delusional.  I'm done with this pointless conversation.