Burt Hill? I mean, it'd be one thing to go from MVRDV to say, KPF or their ilk, but BURT HILL? *hork*

Burt Hill isn't TERRIBLE, but compared to MVRDV, they sure are. Sheesh. If this is really true, then this is not good at all. I was really excited about this project, and quite honestly, it would've been great for Cleveland to get a great building from a fantastic architecture firm. This is a huge disappointment. Hope something can work out somehow.

FYI.  MVRDV has been thrown off the CIA project.  Burt Hill Architects is now the lead architect.  13 budgets were calculated for the building, and all was well.  The 14th (14?!?) shows a skyrocketed construction cost even though much of the design was scaled back.  A falling out occured between the owner and Winny Maas, and MVRDV is off the project.  Horrible for everyone involved, except Burt Hill.  Not good.

 

I don't know how I didn't see this post earlier.  This is just so, so, so bad.  So bad.

Burt Hill isn't TERRIBLE, but compared to MVRDV, they sure are. Sheesh. If this is really true, then this is not good at all. I was really excited about this project, and quite honestly, it would've been great for Cleveland to get a great building from a fantastic architecture firm. This is a huge disappointment. Hope something can work out somehow.

 

MVRDV was just featured in Dwell Magazine. The article didn't talk about the CIA project, but it showed a previously released rendering of the CIA project and caption.

From Litt:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2008/05/_the_cleveland_institute_of.html

 

Cleveland Institute of Art expansion designed by Winy Maas in jeopardy due to high cost

Posted by Steven Litt/Plain Dealer Architecture Critic

May 15, 2008 17:08PM

 

 

The Cleveland Institute of Art has hit the financial wall in its effort to create an iconic new studio building designed by the leading Dutch architect Winy Maas.

 

After a recent cost estimate that showed the design would cost "well north" of the $55 million budgeted for the project, the art institute decided to scale back, President David Deming said Thursday.

 

The question now is whether Maas, a principal of the cutting-edge Dutch architecture firm MVRDV, will go back to the drawing board with designers from the Cleveland office of Burt, Hill, the local architect of record...

^Of course it would be "very disappointing", but a prudent institution does not put itself in the red and jeopardize it educational mission by building something it cannot afford (pretty basic...I think we can all agree on that).  Hopefully great minds can work this out and the end result will be an outstanding design, but there are more rational goals here.

^All true, but very disappointing nonetheless given the circumstances and interest in top notch design by the client.  Sounds like Ferchill's consultants were crap- this fiasco could really kill some reputations.

This process is weird.  Why were all the budgets from the first consultants right on, 13 times?!?  Then they get one that is way off from a Boston firm, and freak out.  Why not seek a third opinion and see who is right?  It will be an architectural tragety if MVRDV is thrown off this project and are stuck with the sub-pedestrian Burt Hills of the world.

And unfortunately, the MOCA design has been stripped down to barebones because of budget as well.  Wonder if Office da is getting the run around from the developers.

^oh that nasty "budget", the bane of all architects.  :wink:

 

By the way w28th, any idea when they might give us a peek at the MOCA design?  It has been a while.

Yeah, that budgets are a biatch.

As for MOCA, they are still in the fundraising stage, so no public renderings so far.

Update regarding the CIA building.  It sounds like back to the drawing board....but at least Winy Maas is still involved.

 

 

Winy Maas still on board with the Cleveland Institute of Art's expansion in University Circle

Posted by Steven Litt / Plain Dealer Architecture Critic July 08, 2008 11:17AM

Categories: Architecture

 

The original proposal by Winy Maas for an expansion of the Cleveland Institute of Art's McCullough Center has been scrapped because of sky-high cost estimates.

 

 

Winy Maas, the globally famous Dutch architect, has agreed to continue working on a major project for the Cleveland Institute of Art even though the art college scrapped an earlier design by the architect when cost estimates came in too high.

 

More at:

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2008/07/winy_maas_the_globally_famous.html

^That's actually pretty good news considering where they find themselves.  I was really dreading a completely boring pure Burt Hill design.

 

Interesting about the plans to lease the old CIA campus rather than sell it.  I guess that means it will be office, lab, classroom or apartments.  That land would make a damn fine site for some high design for-sale housing.

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2008/12/cleveland_institute_of_art_sho.html

 

Cleveland Institute of Art should drop banner idea for expansion on grounds of aesthetics, safety

Posted by Steven Litt

December 01, 2008 17:00PM

 

 

It's time to ask whether the Cleveland Institute of Art can be saved from the architectural embarrassment it's about to inflict on itself.

 

The latest plans for a proposed expansion of the art college's McCullough Center on upper Euclid Avenue call for covering most of the exterior on a permanent basis with partially translucent banners depicting artworks by faculty and students....

This year, the four-year independent art college scrapped a lively and visually striking expansion design proposed by the internationally renowned architect Winy Maas, of the Dutch firm MVRDV. The reason? Too expensive.

 

Too bad. I hope they explored every cost savings possible with the original design. I really liked this one.

I'm not a huge fan of either design - the first one has the weird humpback in the middle for an entrance, and this one looks recycled from a suburban office park.  I would have liked them to reinterpret the first design as I liked the modern structural details that are remind me of Cleveland's bridge architecture.  Skip the vinyl banners, please - it's not a world class idea - may as well call that guy who paints dolphins on the sides of buildings. :(

I'm so disappointed they won't be able to go with the original design. I thought it was fantastic, and this new design from Burt, Hill (while not terrible) is a definite step down. :( Bummer.

Neither idea was very striking to me.  The "inchworm" design was silly.  The new idea is bland. The banners are impractical if they aren't translucent enough to allow visual interaction between the building and the pedestrian street outside.  Otherwise, that is the best idea I've seen so far.

 

I don't understand Litt's criticism of the tax credit program.  It doesn't seem to me that tax credit approval was the problem, rather it is the Institutes inability to raise enough money that led to it needing a more practical design.  Then again, I do understand his point, which is to grind an ideological ax- that of architect as grande artist whose genius must not be impeded by lesser mortals. 

 

This same notion leads to the criticism of the new design based on what seems to be a notion of "artistic turf". It's a good example of the core problem with the current direction of the public discourse on architecture.  The building is there to serve the needs of the students, not to be an ego piece for whoever designs it.

Neither idea was very striking to me. The "inchworm" design was silly. The new idea is bland. The banners are impractical if they aren't translucent enough to allow visual interaction between the building and the pedestrian street outside. Otherwise, that is the best idea I've seen so far.

 

I don't understand Litt's criticism of the tax credit program. It doesn't seem to me that tax credit approval was the problem, rather it is the Institutes inability to raise enough money that led to it needing a more practical design. Then again, I do understand his point, which is to grind an ideological ax- that of architect as grande artist whose genius must not be impeded by lesser mortals.

 

This same notion leads to the criticism of the new design based on what seems to be a notion of "artistic turf". It's a good example of the core problem with the current direction of the public discourse on architecture. The building is there to serve the needs of the students, not to be an ego piece for whoever designs it.

 

X, why do we send people into space, why investigate the deep oceans of the world, etc?  You can't argue that these processes are absolutely necessary for the survival of the species  It's done to make life worth living and explore the boundaries of the human mind and creativity.  Ever think that designers are doing it to make the world a more interesting place to live, not to simply "boost their ego?"

Some certainly are, but what I am responding to is Litt advocating for the needs of the architect's ego above the needs of the students and program the building will serve.  That is the wrong direction for any design profession.

a firm like MVRDV does not need to do things like that to other firms. the suggestion is logical and would create a beautiful and interesting facade. the columns in the burt, hill proposal are out of proportion and actually arent structural. and they are not coherent with any other aspect of the new design or even the old structure.

 

and i disagree with litts words on daylight, as first of all its a western facade so its not going to get much direct sunlight, however daylight will show through very well.. and im inclined to believe it will create a more even, bright, beautiful interior light. especially since they say the colors shine through.

Some certainly are, but what I am responding to is Litt advocating for the needs of the architect's ego above the needs of the students and program the building will serve.  That is the wrong direction for any design profession.

 

While it isn't so much about an architect's ego, every architect should be doing their best to make their mark on the world. If not, then what's the point? Obviously, they need to pay attention to surroundings and fit it in with the neighborhood, etc, but I agree with w28th: what's wrong with wanting to leave something behind, something truly memorable? Why should anyone want to leave behind a legacy of blandness?? Why is a bit of ego such a bad thing? I don't understand this mentality. I truly don't.

 

Also, for CIA, a striking building could help to boost its image nationwide, in my opinion. It could be used in promotional materials, and I think it would actually help attract students to the school because in the building itself is reflected the utmost design standards. Why would students want to study design in a blandly designed building?? That would tell me that maybe that school doesn't really care as much about it, or that it doesn't push design as well as other schools. Obviously, that might not be the case inside, but I'm sure it would have a psychological impact on students making decisions on where they want to study.

One of Litt's worst pieces.  The security concern is marginal at best.  Given all the blank walls and landscaped yards, having a ground floor cafe and lobby right at the sidewalk would be an upgrade over most of University Circle, even if the higher floors have obscured views.

 

This thing is shaping up to be such a disappointment.  A big missed opportunity, banners or no banners.  Was there really no middle ground between Maas's awesome inch worm and Burt Hill's Landerhaven shoe box?

 

X, I think the point about the tax credits is that they constrained the Institute's ability to mess with or distract from the original building, which essentially dictated the annex's envelope.  Given the budget, not sure what else they could have done though.

 

And Burt Hill a "rival" firm to MVRDV?  Whatever, Litt.

Both of these designs are wack.  If anything, the vinyl banner idea works because it covers up the ugliness. You know what looks nice?  The building they're adding onto.  Why must the addition clash so badly with it?  Both designs seem to ignore the existing building.

first of all its a western facade so its not going to get much direct sunlight,

 

It's actually the southwest facade, so the sunlight point isn't so off base.  God help the CIA if the banners and sunlight issue hadn't already been carefully thought out by them.

Looks like it gets a good amount of sunlight from early afternoon on... :?

 

Both of these designs are wack. If anything, the vinyl banner idea works because it covers up the ugliness. You know what looks nice? The building they're adding onto. Why must the addition clash so badly with it? Both designs seem to ignore the existing building.

 

It's the contrast between the two that reveals eachothers' intricacies.

Both of these designs are wack.  If anything, the vinyl banner idea works because it covers up the ugliness. You know what looks nice?  The building they're adding onto.  Why must the addition clash so badly with it?  Both designs seem to ignore the existing building.

 

It's the contrast between the two that reveals eachothers' intricacies.

 

I suppose you're right.  My gut reaction to the designs is still ugh, but looking at the current western face of the building something does need to go there.

Some certainly are, but what I am responding to is Litt advocating for the needs of the architect's ego above the needs of the students and program the building will serve. That is the wrong direction for any design profession.

 

While it isn't so much about an architect's ego, every architect should be doing their best to make their mark on the world. If not, then what's the point? Obviously, they need to pay attention to surroundings and fit it in with the neighborhood, etc, but I agree with w28th: what's wrong with wanting to leave something behind, something truly memorable? Why should anyone want to leave behind a legacy of blandness?? Why is a bit of ego such a bad thing? I don't understand this mentality. I truly don't.

 

Who said bland was OK, and that memorable wasn't?  I said that an architect's role is to design the best building for their client that they can.  That should be evaluated by how it meets the client's needs.  Not by how it allows the architect to make a statement.  I don't care about the architect's statement, or the mark they leave on the world.  The problem with a "little ego" is amply demonstrated here, where the architect's insistence on a design gimmick, and not a particularly good one, has jeopardized the viability of the project.  I hope CIA gets their money back.

Some certainly are, but what I am responding to is Litt advocating for the needs of the architect's ego above the needs of the students and program the building will serve. That is the wrong direction for any design profession.

 

While it isn't so much about an architect's ego, every architect should be doing their best to make their mark on the world. If not, then what's the point? Obviously, they need to pay attention to surroundings and fit it in with the neighborhood, etc, but I agree with w28th: what's wrong with wanting to leave something behind, something truly memorable? Why should anyone want to leave behind a legacy of blandness?? Why is a bit of ego such a bad thing? I don't understand this mentality. I truly don't.

 

Who said bland was OK, and that memorable wasn't? I said that an architect's role is to design the best building for their client that they can. That should be evaluated by how it meets the client's needs. Not by how it allows the architect to make a statement. I don't care about the architect's statement, or the mark they leave on the world. The problem with a "little ego" is amply demonstrated here, where the architect's insistence on a design gimmick, and not a particularly good one, has jeopardized the viability of the project. I hope CIA gets their money back.

 

You sound like an Ayn Rand villain.  I think you're right though.

Its fun reading you guys go back and forth. I really hate the new design and I loved the old design. I did hear that the old design is very inefficient and that it didn't serve the staff and student's needs.

I did hear that the old design is very inefficient and that it didn't serve the staff and student's needs.

 

Interesting.  Any idea what about it people didn't think would work?  I never saw any plans, but I thought the bend up was a pretty awesome and honest way to provide the rake necessary for lecture halls and auditoriums.  But the unraked end portions looked like open floor areas that would be infinitely flexible for staff and students needs.

X, I couldn't disagree with you more on your thoughts about commissioning architects/designers.  CIA hired MVRDV for the specific reason of designing an iconic structure.  You don't hire the top 1% of designers if you can't afford to build it, the same way you don't hire a firm like Burt Hill if you want an iconic structure that investigates new materials and design paradigms.

I'm still mystified by the estimating process that occurred on this project and ultimately killed it.  A person close to the situation told me that it went through 13 or 14 estimates (a ridiculous number by the way), and it was all good until the last one, probably because of material/labor costs.  I'd be interested to see what those material and labor costs are now in this economic situation. 

I'd be interested to see what those material and labor costs are now in this economic situation.

 

Yeah, I'm interested in this as well and have wanted to ask the question.  Can anyone comment as to how falling commodity prices have affected construction costs?  Is it enough to make a difference in the cost model of a project?  In this project?

X, I couldn't disagree with you more on your thoughts about commissioning architects/designers. CIA hired MVRDV for the specific reason of designing an iconic structure. You don't hire the top 1% of designers if you can't afford to build it, the same way you don't hire a firm like Burt Hill if you want an iconic structure that investigates new materials and design paradigms.

 

I totally agree. At the end of the day, the design itself is subjective, so I'm not going to argue that much about that. But personally, I'd like to see more of this type of design in Cleveland because I personally think it's the type of design Cleveland needs to make it look more attractive to people outside the city. Say what you will, X, but I think it's true.

                                              :speech:

I agree that Cleveland needs to up the ante architecturally, but I hope the future's not in featureless low-lying glass boxes.  That Maas design looks like a parking garage!  I think the best thing Cleveland can do for itself is admit that it was once a beautiful place and take design cues from its own past.

I think the best thing Cleveland can do for itself is admit that it was once a beautiful place and take design cues from its own past.

 

How do you see that happening?

Well we may have to agree to disagree on this, but I don't think our future as a great city is tied into how closely we follow architecture's stylistic fads.

I think the best thing Cleveland can do for itself is admit that it was once a beautiful place and take design cues from its own past.

 

How do you see that happening?

 

People doing it, that's how it happens.  I don't know.  But I know that when we see photo threads of other cities on here, historic neighborhoods generally get infill that fits.  They still know how to do brick and stonework and they're not ashamed of ornamentation for its own sake.  We get corrugated aluminum, plastic siding, and expanses of bald surface for everyone to see.  It's like we're putting up agricultural out-buildings.

^Out of curiosity, what's your reaction to the CIM addition?

You mean me?  I haven't gotten a good look at it.

^Out of curiosity, what's your reaction to the CIM addition?

 

To whom is this question directed?

I guess to X, but open to anyone.  It's easy to dismiss things as "faddish", but unless it's a Gehry or Leibskind building, I'm not really sure what it means.  I certainly wouldn't consider the Maas design faddish.  It's actually pretty conservative.  I was just throwing another contemporary educational structure at UC out there as a point of comparison.

Well, lauding designs because they are "iconic" or "groundbreaking" works by the hot starchitects of the day seems like following stylistic fads to me.  Thinking that a more or less plain box is going to be a great architectural addition to our city, primarily because it has a "hump" seems like following a stylistic fad to me.  What actual value did it add?  Would it make for a better building that better suits the needs of it's occupants?  And was it worth the costs that would be associated with the design?  Who cares, it's something new!  Actually I think that most people were more impressed with the name than with the architectural gimmick itself.  If it's MVRDV, then it must be the architectural future.

Well, lauding designs because they are "iconic" or "groundbreaking" works by the hot starchitects of the day seems like following stylistic fads to me. Thinking that a more or less plain box is going to be a great architectural addition to our city, primarily because it has a "hump" seems like following a stylistic fad to me. What actual value did it add? Would it make for a better building that better suits the needs of it's occupants? And was it worth the costs that would be associated with the design? Who cares, it's something new! Actually I think that most people were more impressed with the name than with the architectural gimmick itself. If it's MVRDV, then it must be the architectural future.

 

For the record, I hadn't heard of MVRDV before this.

 

What kind of a design are you looking for in this project, X? What type of a building would you like to see?

 

You have some good points. My hope is that CIA didn't choose MVRDV because they wanted their name behind their building alone. My hope is that they looked at previous work from them, were impressed by it, and wanted them to bring their mark to Cleveland architecture.

 

I think that this is more of an issue of "that building looks too weird for my tastes" and that this is more of a debate between modern architecture v. classical/older architecture. Feel free to correct me if you think I'm talking out of my ass. I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes here at all. I appreciate modern architecture .. I think it has a huge contribution to add, mostly for the "newness" factor. I'm sorry, some people might disagree with me, but I get really sick of seeing the same old thing recycled and regurgitated. I like seeing "new". For me, it's exciting because of the discussion it brings up .. and maybe even controversy. But these are the things that happen when art and architecture are involved. People like their particular things. Not everyone will be pleased. But I'm excited about stuff like this because it appeals to my sensibilities, and I feel like that's something that's rare for me to see in Cleveland's newer architecture.

I'm not talking about style at all.  I'm talking about what we see as the foundation of "good architecture".  I think the foundation is in creating buildings that function well for their users.  I define both "function" and "users" broadly.  Circulation is a "function" of a building, as is it's ability to create shelter, both real and perceived.  "Comfort" is a function as well- both physical and psychological.  "User's" includes the occupants of the building, it's visitors, and others for whom the building is an actual part of their daily lives (neighbors for example). 

 

Whether the building is "modern" or "classical" is style, but it can certainly effect the function, positively or negatively.  For example, I can't imagine that the area under the hump of the Maas design would be a very psychologically comfortable space.  It would likely be cave-like, dark, and cold in chilly weather.

 

Good architecture can be whatever style, but it must "function" well for it's "users".  That is the task before an architect.  If you consistently achieve that, then you are (in my reckoning) a good architect.  If you're just interested in making pretty or intriguing shapes, you should be a sculptor.  We have a lot of sculptors masquerading as architects these days.

I'm not talking about style at all.  I'm talking about what we see as the foundation of "good architecture".  I think the foundation is in creating buildings that function well for their users.  I define both "function" and "users" broadly.  Circulation is a "function" of a building, as is it's ability to create shelter, both real and perceived.  "Comfort" is a function as well- both physical and psychological.  "User's" includes the occupants of the building, it's visitors, and others for whom the building is an actual part of their daily lives (neighbors for example). 

 

Whether the building is "modern" or "classical" is style, but it can certainly effect the function, positively or negatively.  For example, I can't imagine that the area under the hump of the Maas design would be a very psychologically comfortable space.  It would likely be cave-like, dark, and cold in chilly weather.

 

Good architecture can be whatever style, but it must "function" well for it's "users".  That is the task before an architect.  If you consistently achieve that, then you are (in my reckoning) a good architect.  If you're just interested in making pretty or intriguing shapes, you should be a sculptor.  We have a lot of sculptors masquerading as architects these days.

 

 

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I'm not talking about style at all. I'm talking about what we see as the foundation of "good architecture". I think the foundation is in creating buildings that function well for their users. I define both "function" and "users" broadly. Circulation is a "function" of a building, as is it's ability to create shelter, both real and perceived. "Comfort" is a function as well- both physical and psychological. "User's" includes the occupants of the building, it's visitors, and others for whom the building is an actual part of their daily lives (neighbors for example).

 

Whether the building is "modern" or "classical" is style, but it can certainly effect the function, positively or negatively. For example, I can't imagine that the area under the hump of the Maas design would be a very psychologically comfortable space. It would likely be cave-like, dark, and cold in chilly weather.

 

Good architecture can be whatever style, but it must "function" well for it's "users". That is the task before an architect. If you consistently achieve that, then you are (in my reckoning) a good architect. If you're just interested in making pretty or intriguing shapes, you should be a sculptor. We have a lot of sculptors masquerading as architects these days.

 

Hmm. I would argue that architecture should do both, combine art, new forms, and functionality. If any of these are out of whack with each other, it renders it useless.

 

So, to an extent, I would agree with you .. and I fully respect your opinions. But for me, I think, I get more excited by architecture that pushes the form aspect and gives me something new and interesting to look at, without throwing away the functionality of it. Because if it swings too practical and functional, it gets rid of the artistic side of architecture, which I personally think is just as valid. But the most brilliant architecture strikes the perfect balance between both.

 

I still don't think people should be afraid of new forms, though, just for the sake of them being unfamiliar. I feel like a lot of times people look at modern architecture and immediately close themselves off because it looks too weird. And that frustrates me big time because I appreciate the "weirdness", I guess.

jpop, I think I undertand your support of modern architecture.  At least I hope I do.  I'm admittedly on the other side of the issue.  But am I crazy for thinking that Maas design looks like a parking structure built on a poorly graded lot?  To me the comparison is objective and obvious, beyond questions of taste.  Am I hallucinating?

 

Modern architecture has not been kind to Cleveland.  People are still talking about the Rock Hall's design, and none of that talk is good for the city.  None of it-- absolute embarassing failure.  And they got a name among names to do it.  The most frequent comment I hear about the Case business building (Gehry?) is that it's dangerous to approach in the winter because ice falls off it so randomly.  They have to put up barricades!  Another outrageous failure.  CSU is ashamed of its campus, all except the few pre-modern structures it has, which it has begun to lovingly renovate.  I think there's something to be said for quality over novelty.   

jpop, I think I undertand your support of modern architecture. At least I hope I do. I'm admittedly on the other side of the issue. But am I crazy for thinking that Maas design looks like a parking structure built on a poorly graded lot? To me the comparison is objective and obvious, beyond questions of taste. Am I hallucinating?

 

You're not. I actually felt the same way when I first saw it, too. I wasn't sure what I thought when I first saw it, either! But the design grew on me, and I thought about it filled with students milling about and lit up at night, and I actually thought it could be a really cool structure.

 

Modern architecture has not been kind to Cleveland. People are still talking about the Rock Hall's design, and none of that talk is good for the city. None of it-- absolute embarassing failure. And they got a name among names to do it. The most frequent comment I hear about the Case business building (Gehry?) is that it's dangerous to approach in the winter because ice falls off it so randomly. They have to put up barricades! Another outrageous failure. CSU is ashamed of its campus, all except the few pre-modern structures it has, which it has begun to lovingly renovate. I think there's something to be said for quality over novelty.

 

I definitely agree. 100%. I'm just saying I'd like to see a good combination of both. :)

 

Am I the only one who likes the Rock Hall? LOL! I however, hate the Weatherhead building. I think it's definitely one of Gehry's weaker works, unfortunately.