“The proposed high-rise is nothing new in its design or use of materials. The building is clearly a developer-driven project that proposes open floor plates with leasable space and does not strive for innovation. The design is based on the Miesian skyscrapers that was further articulated with the Mies/Johnson Seagram’s Building – pancake floor slabs with a glass curtain wall. It’s a blunt, three-dimensional extrusion that lacks any particular characteristics that would discern it from other buildings (55 Public Square, Diamond Building, Penton Media Building).
And, just as so many other high rises in Cleveland, the proposed Jacobs-Hines tower lacks any relationship to its site and context. It is blatantly impersonal in a part of town – Public Square – which requires buildings to be personal (ie. Terminal Tower, BP Tower, KeyBank). The site of the proposed project requires a better response than ‘pancake architecture’…” (go to article)
Architecture and the Urban Landscape- Advocates of a bike lane on the new Inner Belt Bridge should find their own engineer to draw up a proposal
- Cleveland City Planning Commission praises Miguel Rosales bridge design for North Coast Harbor
- Douglas Farr to lecture at Case Western Reserve University in series sponsored by the Baker-Nord Center for Humanities
- Blog on the City
- Cleveland Design Competition Weblog
- Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative
- Cuyahoga County Planning Commission Weblog
- Critic Under The Influence
- Design Belt
- GreenCityBlueLake
- POST-
- Renovating The Rust Belt
- Rockitecture
- TOI Studio Blog
- T R A C E KSU CAED
-
- 1/3 MOVIE NIGHT
CLEDESIGNCITY ON TWITTER
CLEVELANDDESIGNCITY.COM RSS
May 31, 2008 at 10:36 am
Imagine that Jacobs were to redeem himself and develop something worthy of that parcel. (I know it’s a stretch…) What would it look like?
I’ll offer a suggestion – no tax abatements. I think he’s had his chances and blown all of them, plus (Cleveland+?) I’m not sure how to get blood from a stone – read more money from the poor people of Cleveland. And let’s keep Carbone on hold until his court case in Lorain is over, too.
Maybe it would be a Nouvel design that is more the way many of us think of this particular developer: http://www.eikongraphia.com/?p=294 Maybe the sausage is a Cleveland icon… I don’t know – I’m a transplant. Consider that with Stark developing nearby we could need to design something that goes nicely with a Cheescake Factory, a Home Depot, a Crate and Barrel…
What is a Cleveland context? What IS appropriate for this space? Have we grown accustomed to the vast block of surface parking and wish to retain it?
Should we say he needs to make it a competition for only designers (not yet licensed, but en route to said) i.e. let’s get some new thinking in here?
One thing to which I object with all these splashy developer/designer renderings touted in the pages of the wishbook/PD is the lack of planning context. I agree that a jumble makes an interesting sidewalk stroll. I like old and new side by side, but what “should” go there?
Can we all agree that another hideous thing like the Great Lakes Science Center or the equally hideous US Bank Building at 14th and Euclid, if proposed, should be run out of town on a rail? Oh god! You see – it could be worse…
I’ll be interested to see if your design for the parcel is postmodern baroque (or have we moved right on into the rococo?). Should this parcel contain an “iconic” building? What is a Cleveland icon? Should it rise to join the BP Tower and Key Bank with the cherry on top so that the unfortunate Terminal Tower (now almost complete in its karmic circle of doom) is dwarfed? Or should it be low rise to provide an entré for afternoon sun on the square?
So if “the site deserves a better response”, what is your better response? I’m not defending it, just curious. Let’s see some schema being improvised for the site. I’ll check back for updates.