A thread for revisiting many of the revered big projects from yesteryear: group plan, Shaker Heights, CUT, Shaker Square, University Circle master planning since WWII...

 

To continue the discussion about the Group Plan and the Malls that was taking over the Med Mart/CC thread:

 

I like the individual buildings fine (kind of boring Beaux Arts stuff, but solid and with excellent gravitas), but I think their arrangement around the Mall is terrible.  The whole is less than the sum of its parts.  The buildings barely relate to one another because they're so far apart.  The spaces are framed by rear facades (in the case of Mall A) or entry-less side facades (Mall C).  The result is predictable: the buildings contribute very little to the use of the space, they are merely pretty stage sets that visually frame it.  These were flaws in the original design, not just the result of how the City has evolved since.  As 327 pointed out in the Med Mart thread, many folks panned the Burnham scheme when it was presented in 1901 for some of these same reasons.

 

A sad Cleveland feeling for me is exiting City Hall.  It's a beautiful building (thanks to local architects), but thanks to Burnham, those front steps dump you out at an unimportant intersection several blocks away from the City's commercial hub.  The vast spaces of the Group Plan are completely oblivious to Cleveland's miserable winter weather, so the walk to City Hall can feel brutal.

 

I don't know how we can make the situation better, but I think we should be open to using the CC to more radically remake Mall B.  I could be perfectly happy if the southern edge of the CC rose more than a full story above ground or more, with cheery, bright entrance pavilions facing St. Claire and Mall A, so long as there are wide, well designed stairs/ramps beckoning pedestrians to what should be the most kick-ass green roof in the Midwest.  I would especially be happy to lift the roof on Mall B as high as they want if it means not having to do so on Mall C- that one is terrifying.

 

 

^Slight correction.  The Burnham plan actually did call for these buildings to open onto the malls.  When they were built for some reason I have never found out, they decided to have the entrances face the street.  this was in direct conflict with what burnham proposed.  Probably the most outspoken critic was frank cuddell, whose proposal finished 2nd to Burnhams.  Obviously he was a little PO'd he didn't get the job... but one of his main points was that the open space and subsequent buildings should have been created on an angle to help fight the NE Ohio wind patterns.  This is exactly what they are talking about now with the lakefront design... this change would have affected our entire street grid.  Cudell actually wrote an entire paper critiquing the malls.  It's in print somewhere because I've read it, but couldn't give you the name of the book.  Maybe I'll try to track it down and post it here...

This is why you hear me go off so much about "outdoorsy" developments... I think everything downtown should be alive and hopping 12 months/year.  Anything set up as an outdoor attraction is not only useless but TO BE AVOIDED during our long windy winters.  I don't want any part of downtown to hibernate, or to give people a chilly feeling from looking at it.  This is also why I like it when we build with warm-colored stone... and why I hate when we propose downtown office buildings that look like ice cubes.  Wrong idea! 

^^Thanks!  Yes, you are totally right- if I look closely at the Burnham plans (page 70 of the authoritative Eric Johannesen Cleveland architecture book) I can see entries from City Hall and the Courthouse facing Mall C, but even then I think the main entries would have faced Lakeside to punctuate the end of the axis.  I may be a little too hard on Burnham though on that count.

 

The Johannesen book also also has some good discussion about the competing Cuddell scheme which I think I would have preferred...