ABANDONING OUR HISTORIC CHARACTER: PROPOSED RELOCATION OF SOUTH EUCLID-LYNDHURST LIBRARY

 The Cuyahoga County Library Board is making plans to abandon the historic Telling Mansion Library in South Euclid-Lyndhurst and to replace it with a new, more expensive facility further from the center of the communities it serves.  This move would be a great loss for the residents of South Euclid, Lyndhurst, and all Northeast Ohio.

Built in 1928, the Telling Mansion Library is the former home of William Telling, a South Euclid resident, businessman, and financier. The Library is a beautiful structure that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  The Mansion is a part of the legacy of the city of South Euclid, lending unique character to this community, and making it stand out among other Cleveland suburbs. 

Reading Garden. 

The Telling Mansion Library was cited by USA Today as one of “10 Great Places to Find a Nook and Read a Book.”  Author Nancy Pearl described the facility this way:

"The mansion is like a dream of a library with beautiful leaded windows, a reading garden with a fountain, and 26 different rooms.  Among them: a greenhouse, an aviary, and a cozy study.  Although the past is very much alive here, the needs of present-day library users—for new books, Internet access, discussion groups, and homework help—are not neglected."  

MANY REASONS TO SAVE TELLING LIBRARY

According to Branch Manager Steven Haynie, the Telling Mansion must be abandoned because it does not have “a layout conducive to public library service for the 21st century.”  The Library Board also claims that a new building is needed to reduce staffing requirements, provide more computer terminals, and provide larger meeting rooms for the public.  The Board plans to spend $12 million to replace the existing library. 

 

§   Renovation of the Telling Mansion—including energy upgrades and ADA accessibility modifications—is estimated to cost $5.6 million.  It seems that the concerns of the Library Board could be addressed more economically by upgrading the existing facility, and then building an addition to house functions such as meeting rooms and tech centers, and at far less cost than $12 million.

This alone should give pause to all involved in the process.  What is the justification for the unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer dollars, and getting a less interesting building in return?

§   The proposed new library will be located on Green Road.  This location is further from the center of South Euclid and entirely outside the boundaries of Lyndhurst.  The Telling Mansion is now just a ½ mile, or an easy 10 minute walk, from Memorial Junior High School and Brush High School.  The Green Road site is 1-½ miles from the schools, or a half hour walk.  Students would be much less likely to make this trek on foot, thus becoming more dependent on being driven by their parents or on driving themselves.

§   The proposed library location is also less accessible by transit than the current location.  The Telling Mansion is on the RTA’s Number 9 Bus route, with service running multiple times per hour, seven days a week.  In contrast, the Green Road site is served by RTA’s Number 34 Bus, which runs only once per hour, and without evening or weekend coverage.  The new library will be less accessible to those in the community who wish to use transit, and to those without cars, such as the young, the elderly, and the poor.

§   The Library Board wants the new library to meet LEED sustainable building standards.  But the renovation of existing structures is an equally valid green building strategy.  The benefit of renovation is that it conserves the energy and resources already embodied in the existing structure.  This includes the materials in the building, the energy expended to manufacture those materials, and also the energy used to erect the building in the first place. 

A recent rigorous study by the National Trust for Historic Preservation concluded: “It can take between 10 and 80 years for a new, energy-efficient building to overcome, through more efficient operations, the negative energy and climate change impacts caused in the construction process.”¹ 

In a way, extending the life of historic buildings is a low-tech method of carbon sequestration, as the CO₂ used in building these structures was released into the atmosphere long ago.

§   In addition to the ‘greenness’ of the building itself, location also matters when evaluating the overall sustainability of any structure.  Walkscore is an online metric which rates any address based on how easy it is to get around as a pedestrian.  Places are rated on a scale from 0 (Almost all daily errands require a car) to 100 (Walker’s Paradise:  Daily errands can be accomplished on foot.)  The Walkscore for the Telling Mansion is 66, which is rated as “Somewhat Walkable.”  The Walkscore for the proposed library site on Green Road drops to only 45, which is described as “Car Dependent.”  

Moving the library to the periphery of the two communities it serves, and off the well-trafficked RTA bus line, will mean residents will have to drive further to get to the building.  Longer car trips mean more carbon emissions.  LEED certification alone does not guarantee that a building is as sustainable as it can be.  A centralized location and access to multiple transit modes—car, bus, biking, walking—also contribute to a building’s holistic sustainability.  

 Main Entry Hall

A MATTER OF CHARACTER

Perhaps the most compelling reason to keep the library in this historic structure is this:  The Telling Mansion is an irreplaceable gem.  A new library building will  not have the quality, the history, and unique identity that the Mansion does.  The Telling Mansion has Character.  The new library most likely will not.

 Two exterior follies that are part of the Telling Mansion.

Parma Library Branch by GPD Group. (Source: Plain Dealer)

Renderings of the proposed replacement South Euclid-Lyndhurst library building are not yet available.  But GPD Group of Akron, the firm that is doing the planning for the Green Road site, also designed the Parma Branch, shown above.  Judging by the previous work of this firm, and by the other new branches built by the Library Board over the last several years, one can get a sense of what the proposed new library might look like.

Warrensville Heights Library Branch. (Source: Plain Dealer)

Does the above rendering depict a bank?  A health club?  A corporate headquarters?  It’s really hard to tell WHAT kind of function goes on inside; the building is so inscrutable in expression.  Is there anything about this structure that tells the passerby that it is a Civic building, a building for the benefit of the public? 

Parma Snow Library Branch. (Source: Plain Dealer)

The Parma Snow Branch resorted to putting the word “Library” on the front of the new structure to clear up any ambiguity about the building’s function.

AUTHENTICITY OF PLACE

There is also the question of Authenticity of Place in the new libraries that the County Library system is building.  Is there anything about these structures that tell you that they are in Northeast Ohio?  The new branches, in form and material, feel generic.  They look as if they could just as well have been built in Portland or Phoenix or Charlotte. 

Telling Mansion Rear Elevation

The Telling Mansion (while, admittedly, is a re-creation of an English manor house) could probably not be found in the cities listed above.  

North Royalton Library Branch. (Source: Plain Dealer)

In addition, the new libraries built by the County Library System all feel like they are interchangeable.  What distinguishes the North Royalton branch from the Warrensville Heights and Parma branches?  These are unique communities with their own special histories.  Why don’t the unique qualities of these places inform the architectural expression of their library buildings?

Our buildings should speak to the history and the culture that is special to each of our communities.  This is not a discussion about architectural “style.”  The new libraries can be modern or traditional in expression.  Designers are free to choose the architectural language that is appropriate to each particular project and community.  But our architecture should also reflect the accumulated knowledge of building traditions and materials that have proven themselves to be durable over time, and well-suited to the climate that is distinct to Northeast Ohio. 

Garfield Heights Library Branch. (Source: Plain Dealer)

A COMFORTABLE PLACE TO BE

Finally, is there anything in the renderings of these new facilities that implies there will be a comfortable place to be found within?  A spot to sit by a leaded-glass window, or under a peacock feather ceiling, and read a book or work on your laptop?

 

A sunny window spot (clockwise from above left), stained glass in the Main Stair Hall, a reading room (the former Breakfast Room) with peacock feather ceiling treatment.   

What are the chances that we are going to be able to speak about the new South Euclid-Lyndhurst Library facility in the same glowing prose that author Nancy Pearl of USA Today showered on the Telling Mansion, as quoted at the beginning of this post? 

COMMUNITY INPUT ESSENTIAL

Before the library construction process proceeds further, the prudent course would be to conduct a clear cost-benefit study comparing renovation to new construction, including construction costs and long-term operating costs.  After a thorough and transparent analysis, this information should be presented to the public.  Then the informed citizens of South Euclid and Lyndhurst should be allowed the chance to vote on the future of their library building. 

A Save the Telling Mansion Facebook group has formed to protest the relocation of the library.  Members of the group have gathered 1,700 signatures on a petition

opposing the relocation.  They have been protesting outside the mansion on a regular basis.  And they have been attending City Council meetings and letting their voices be heard.  Is there a corresponding group in favor of relocation?  Have they started a petition?  Have they been contacting their public officials?  If so, let all voices be heard, and let a decision be made by the members of the community in the full light of day.

The Cuyahoga County Library system is funded by the people.  The Library Board exists to represent the will of the people.  The citizens and library users of these two communities should be allowed to determine their own fate, rather than have it dictated to them by a bureaucratic entity.

NEVER TOO LATE TO DO THE RIGHT THING

The planning process for the new library is well under way.  The land on Green Road has been purchased; preliminary traffic studies and site plans have been prepared.  But architectural contracts can be broken.  Land can be sold.  It is never too late to do the right thing, and it is definitely never too late to save the taxpayers some $6 million.

DÉJÀ VU

This writing is reminiscent of my previous posts on the demolition of the School of the Arts and John Marshall High School. 

We seem to want to continuously destroy our past, tear down our historic buildings, and to trade irreplaceable craftsmanship for . . . mediocre, supposedly efficient, dubiously ‘green’ new buildings.  We are abandoning our unique heritage and the varied character of our communities in exchange for expedience and efficiency.  And we are doing so at an alarming rate.

  Irreplaceable Craftsmanship.

TAKE A STAND

Branch Manager Haynie states that the Library System “cannot justify continuing to operate in a building that costs more but delivers less.”  But this begs the question:  Upon what criteria is the Library Board measuring costs, and the resulting value delivered? 

The beautiful and historic Telling Mansion Library brings intangible but real benefits to the quality of life in South Euclid and Lyndhurst.

We must take a stand for our history, our heritage, and our community.

NOTES

¹ Kaid Benfield, “The green dividend from reusing older buildings.” National Resource Defense Council Sustainable Communities blog, 24 January 2012.

THE QUESTIONABLE PLANNING REVIEW PROCESS IN CLEVELAND

The following little item was published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer Business Briefs on Christmas Day:

UPTOWN REVIEW DELAYED: 

“A review of plans for a new building at the Uptown project in University Circle has been delayed until Jan. 4.  The Cleveland City Planning Commission did not see the plans Friday after City Councilman Kevin Conwell said he was not told about the project and needs time to discuss it with neighbors.”

An article about the project was published on the front page of the Plain Dealer Business section on December 19:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/12/uptown_project_in_university_c.html

So a high profile story on the development was published in the newspaper on December 19, but the local councilman “was not told about the project,” before it was to go under review by the Planning Commission on December 21? 

It would seem that it would be beneficial to the community at large if the local council representative had the opportunity to review and have some input into a project of this magnitude, significance, and impact PRIOR to it coming before the Planning Commission for final approval.

How backwards the approach to development is in this city!

ANOTHER TREASURE ABOUT TO FALL: JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL

The landmark John Marshall High School is about to succumb to the wrecking ball.  At the beginning of October, I sent a plea to each of the Cleveland School Board members, to the School CEO Eric Gordon, and to Mayor Frank Jackson, asking them to to reconsider their decision to demolish John Marshall.  All of these public servants have the power to stand up and say, “Let’s not do this.”  But they have not spoken up.   They are choosing to remain silent.

It is almost too late now.  Within a few weeks, this beautiful structure will be gone. Some of the stonework is currently being removed, to be saved “for future reuse.”  I would still welcome some sort of stay of execution for this wonderful landmark.  But damage has now been done.  It is definitely the eleventh hour for John Marshall.

What they are about to do is a tragedy and a travesty.  

And there is nothing I can really do to stop  it.  A ‘Save John Marshall’ Facebook group, led by the indefatigable Satinder Puri, has lobbied the city administration and the school board for months to try to save the building, but their voices were not heard.  As mine has not been heard.  Maybe our voices have been heard, but not really listened to.  This pretty clear from the reply letter I received from School CEO Gordon (posted below), where he reiterates the same tired talking points about why the building must come down. 

Existing spandrel panel soon to be lost under a pile of rubble.

There are questions about the whole decision-making process.  Questions about the propriety of the Landmark de-listing hearing by the City Landmarks Commission.  Questions about the calculations used to compare the costs of replacing the building versus renovating the existing structure.  Questions about the accuracy of the square footage numbers used in those calculations.  And questions about whether the cost of asbestos abatement and building demolition were figured into the pricetag for the new building.  These questions have gone unanswered.  

CEO Gordon did offer me an image of the new building to be constructed in John Marshall’s place.  The reader can judge for oneself whether he or she thinks the new building will have the character and level of craftsmanship of the old, and whether the new John Marshall will ever stand a chance of being listed as a City Landmark.

Rendering of Proposed New John Marshall High School (Image courtesy CMSD)

Here is my letter to CEO Gordon:

4 October 2012

Eric S. Gordon, CEO

Cleveland Metropolitan School District Board of Education
1380 East Sixth Street, Room 152
Cleveland, Ohio 44114 

Dear Mr. Gordon,

I am writing to you to tell you that it is not too late.  Yes, the construction trailer is on site, the fences have gone up, and interior materials abatement has begun, but the solid shell of the John Marshall High School building is still wholly intact.  I am writing to you as a concerned citizen, neighborhood resident, and architect to urge you to STOP the demolition of John Marshall.  This noble structure can and should be renovated to continue serving the educational needs of our children for generations to come.  

    

John Marshall boasts beautiful brick and stone construction, as well as fine Art Deco detailing that cannot be replicated in a new building.  Overall, the structure is in very good physical condition, especially for a building that is 80 years old.  The brick is not spalling.  The foundations are not moving.  It has many pleasant, light-filled classrooms.  This solid and proud building has stood for many years as a true landmark in the neighborhood.  It is a part of the community, and it is an enduring symbol of our forbearers’ commitment to the ideals of a quality public education for all.

We all can agree that our students deserve top-notch facilities in which to learn and succeed.  The building as it stands may not meet all the needs of modern educational facilities.  But surely at least part of John Marshall, in particular the original core of the building that fronts on West 140^th Street, could be saved and renovated for use as general purpose classrooms.  The City of Cleveland has stated that it wants to be a leader in the field of sustainability.  Saving and renovating historic structures is the most ‘green’ type of architecture that can be done, earning numerous credits under the LEED certification system.  Just as John Hay High School was renovated and is now a gem of the East side, John Marshall has the potential to be the pride of the West side. 

If you take action to stop this senseless demolition, I am fairly confident that at least 216 members of the Save John Marshall Facebook group, as well as the 2,000 signers of a petition to renovate, would change their votes from ‘No’ to ‘Yes’ on Issue 107.  Because you will have done the right thing.  And you will have demonstrated to us that the School Board is taking Cleveland’s school system in a positive new direction.

Attached for your review, please find my Elegy for the School of the Arts, about another community treasure that was recently lost to demolition.  The location and particulars of the buildings are different, but both structures are architectural gems, built in a time when civic institutions were constructed with pride and intended to endure for many years.  It is too late for the School of the Arts.

But it is not too late for John Marshall.  I understand that the OSFC funding system makes it more challenging to renovate rather than build new.  But sometimes the more arduous path is the more rewarding path.  And it’s never too late to do the right thing.  Until it is, of course.  Until the first day that the backhoes start ripping into the hallowed brick and stone of John Marshall High School.  Then, it will be too late. 

As CEO of the Cleveland Metropolitan School District, you have the power to save this civic treasure.  I ask you to do so now. 

Respectfully,

Daniel DeAngelo

Architect/Town Planner

Here is his response:

The City of Cleveland continues to head in the wrong direction by recklessly destroying its precious architectural legacy.  One day, we will wake up and look around, and we may find that there is nothing left of value in our city to save.  

R.I.P. John Marshall High School. 

SELLING THE BOARD OF EDUCATION BUILDING—SELLING OUR SOUL?

Cleveland Board of Education Headquarters, but not for long.

Is it acceptable for government entities to sell public assets to raise money? 

The Cleveland Board of Education is planning to vote tomorrow, May 22, on whether to try to sell its historic headquarters building to a developer, presumably for conversion into a boutique hotel. 

The school district estimates that it can save $13 million over the next 10 years by selling its headquarters and leasing office space elsewhere downtown.¹ The district faces a projected deficit of $55 million to $65 million next year alone, so cutting overhead costs holds obvious appeal for the board. 

But what is the true cost to the city and to its citizens of selling such a landmark building?

The Cleveland Group Plan of 1903, looking south. 

The Board of Education Building is at the far southeast (upper left) corner.

THE GROUP PLAN OF 1903

The Board of Education building is part of Daniel Burnham’s historic Group Plan of 1903, which was intended to be a public space in the heart of the city, with all of the civic institutions of Cleveland gathered around it.  Constructed over the first three decades of the twentieth century, the Group Plan was to be a manifestation of the greatness and civic pride of Cleveland, then the fifth largest city in the country.²  The Group Plan was one of the first such civic centers built in the country, and it is considered to be a significant example of the City Beautiful Movement.³

Repurposing the school headquarters building for use as a privately run hotel would be a move away from the original intentions of the Group Plan.  It can be argued that two existing buildings on the Mall, and a third under construction, already dilute the purity of the historic Plan.  The Keybank Office Tower and a Marriott hotel were built at the Mall’s southwest corner in 1991. In addition, the Medical Mart building, a medical device and equipment showroom scheduled for completion in 2013, adds a commercial use to the west side of the Mall.  Thus, Burnham’s original concept was compromised long before the school district’s hotel conversion proposal.  

And while the idea of a center exclusively for governmental uses is fine in theory, the reality is that the Mall has never really achieved the lofty aspirations of its planners.  It is a grand, but often-deserted space, especially after 5 p.m. and on weekends.  A district of single use such as the Group Plan lacks the diversity of activity that residential, retail, and restaurant uses provide by bringing people out onto the sidewalks.  With the opening of the new Convention Center and Medical Mart next year, another hotel on the Mall has the potential to inject additional life into this public space.  But is it acceptable to allow the proposed hotel conversion to move the Group Plan even further away from its historic intentions?  Would the benefits outweigh this loss? 

THE QUESTION OF PUBLIC ACCESS

Conversion of the headquarters building into a hotel has the potential to cause other unintended consequences.  Continued public access to the park that fronts the building would come into question under private ownership.  This very pleasant green lawn facing East Sixth Street is a great place for eating lunch or for just relaxing under shade trees in the heart of the city.  It is doubtful that the future hotel management would want just anyone lounging around in their front yard.

Public access to our governmental bodies is an even more troubling concern.  As citizens of Cleveland, we currently have the right to stand on that lawn and air our grievances or hold up a sign in protest.  Where does one go to publicly express his ideas on a school district policy when its offices are housed on floors 5-10 of some privately-owned office tower?  With leased office space, a building owner could conceivably bar entry to the building lobby or to the property as a whole.  This would undermine our ability to exercise our fundamental right to free speech and expression. 

THE ROLE OF ARCHITECTURE

What this really comes down to is a discussion on the place and the value of architecture in our present-day society.

§     What does it say about our culture that we are willing to sell a civic building to be converted to a leisure and hospitality use?  That business is more important than our city government?

§   What does it say about the public funding of our civic institutions that the school district cannot afford to properly maintain its headquarters facility?

§   What does it say about our view of government that we don’t care to maintain these grand edifices, these once important symbols of our community?

§      What does it say about where our priorities lie? 

Surely, we are wealthier as a people, with a higher standard of living than the Clevelanders of 1931, when this building was completed.  But we are unwilling and uninterested in creating symbols of civic pride anymore.  Instead we build stadiums and casinos.  

 Board of Education Building, West elevation facing the Mall

CIVIC ASPIRATIONS

Cleveland’s leaders in the early twentieth century sought to legitimize their growing city by erecting buildings of the Group Plan in the Neoclassical style, borrowing from the prestige and stability of the great capitals of Europe.  They also sought to create enduring symbols of the strength and sophistication for the city.⁴ In 1922, a few years before construction of the school headquarters, the people of Cleveland felt so moved by the imagery and ideals embodied in the Group Plan that they engraved the following words into the stone frieze of Public Hall: 

“A MONUMENT CONCEIVED AS A TRIBUTE TO THE IDEALS OF CLEVELAND BUILDED BY HER CITIZENS AND DEDICATED TO SOCIAL PROGRESS INDUSTRIAL ACHIEVEMENT AND CIVIC INTEREST

PATRIOTISM PROGRESS CULTURE”

These were lofty aspirations. 

 Detail of Public Hall Frieze

 

Cuyahoga County Courthouse

Even today, when approaching the grand facades of the County Courthouse, the Main Library, or the Board of Education buildings, when entering the expansive lobbies with their monumental stairs and ornate ironwork, one experiences feelings of awe, reverence, wonder, respect.  These structures imbue a sense of decorum, of solemnity, of permanence.  And they also speak of a connection to the long history of the city, to those that helped build it, and to those, not that different from ourselves, who walked up those steps and traversed those lobby floors before us. 

The lobbies of City Hall (left) and the County Courthouse.

These buildings are the face of our city government.  They represent our ideals and our values. 

§   What does it say about our values when we are content to house the offices of our civic institutions in nondescript office towers? 

§       What does this say about the importance that we place on public institutions in our city? 

§     What does this say about our aspirations as a community in the early twenty-first century? 

§      What is the symbolism of a decision to sell a significant part of our heritage?

Apparently, the school board has already answered these questions for itself. The cold and legalistic wording of the resolution to sell the facility on the May 22 meeting agenda is revealing:

“Item 8.12:  Determining That The Board Of Education Administration Building Is Not Needed For School District Purposes And Authorizing Disposal Of Said Real Property As Provided By Ohio Revised Code.”  

Selling the Board of Education building might make pragmatic financial sense for the school district.  But abandoning this structure would result in the loss of a significant public symbol in the city.  Selling this building to a private developer says something very sad and disturbing about the value we place on our civic assets. 

Can a financial value really be placed on the qualities embodied in these irreplaceable structures? 

This is the larger question we should be asking as a community.

NOTES

¹ Steven Litt, ^“School board’s historic building deserves new life,” The Plain Dealer, 6 May 2012:

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2012/05/hotel_conversion_of_the_board.html

² For further reading on the Group Plan, see my paper on the topic:

http://thecivicartcleveland.blogspot.com/p/unfulfilled-legacy-1903-cleveland-group.html

³ Holly M. Rarick, Progressive Vision: The Planning of Downtown Cleveland 1903-1930 (Cleveland:  The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1986) p.26

⁴ Thomas S. Hines, Burnham of Chicago, Architect and Planner (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1974) p. 166

UPTOWN: URBANISM = A-, ARCHITECTURE = C+

At Uptown, a pair of mixed-use apartment and retail buildings under construction in University Circle, developer MRN and architect Stanley Saitowitz get the urbanism mostly right, and deserve credit for their efforts.  The project is being built at the corner of Euclid Avenue and East 115^th Street (just north of Mayfield Road) in collaboration with several institutions and non-profits, including University Circle, Inc., Case Western Reserve University, the Cleveland Institute of Art, and the Museum of Contemporary Art Cleveland.

 Uptown North Building, looking south on Euclid Avenue.

The developer and the architect made two important decisions that contribute to the project’s success from an urban design standpoint. 

§     First, MRN chose to make the project mixed-use.  This is significant because, by including both retail and housing, the development will invigorate the neighborhood with both commerce and new inhabitants on the streets.  MRN went further to ensure success by pursuing leases with a good variety of retailers. These include magnet tenants like Barnes & Noble books and Constantino’s market.  MRN also made sure that there will be a mix of price points for the eateries that are going into the project.  Diversity enables success.

 

§     Second, MRN and Saitowitz decided to bring the building facades right up to the sidewalk and to place parking behind the north structure.  These moves give the street a sense of enclosure and definition, making it more comfortable and welcoming to pedestrians.  The buildings also frame a new gateway into the east side culture and arts district, strengthening the sense of arrival and lending identity to this stretch of Euclid Avenue.

Uptown gateway looking southwest on Euclid Avenue. 

The principle of building close to the street and considering the pedestrian experience seems to be lost on many Cleveland designers and city officials.  (As evidenced by much of what the Cleveland Clinic has built lately, as well as University Hospital’s recently completed Seidman Cancer Center—two blocks further south on Euclid—that is decidedly non-pedestrian friendly.)

Some of the credit for the positive urban design decisions made at Uptown also goes to CWRU and the Boston firm Chan Krieger, who created the original 2004 project master plan for the university.  These two significant urban design decisions—mixed use and building to sidewalk—are already contributing more to the street life of Cleveland than any other recent construction in the city.

CRITIQUE

I have been watching the progress of Uptown for some time, and had been planning to write a post about it when both buildings are complete in late fall.  But architecture critic Steven Litt wrote an article about the development in the Plain Dealer last week.  And while many of Litt’s comments are well-observed, he didn’t seem to go deeply enough in his analysis to look at the project with a truly critical eye.¹

SO WHY THE A MINUS ON URBANISM?

Two issues raise concern regarding the urban design of Uptown: 

Disposition of buildings at Uptown (Image: The Plain Dealer) 

§   First, the developers have included in the plan a pedestrian-only alley on the south side of the south building, an apparent effort to recreate the magic of their successful development on East 4^th Street downtown.  The storefronts in Uptown’s south building will effectively have two faces, one on Euclid Avenue and the other on the pedestrian alley.  

    The concern arises over whether the activity of the shops and sidewalk cafes on the alley side will draw life away from Euclid.  Sometimes in dual-frontage shops, the street side ends up being a glorified service entry, leaving sidewalks there mostly deserted.  MRN is a savvy developer, so hopefully this concern is unfounded.  The verdict on the experiment will have to wait until Uptown is complete in October. 

Narrow sidewalk with inappropriate planting bed.

§   The other concern is that the sidewalks in front of the buildings on Euclid are only seven feet wide.  If the project is as successful as everyone hopes it will be, the sidewalks will be too narrow to handle the expected amount of foot traffic. Inappropriately designed shop entrances and planting beds will exacerbate the problem.  This concern merits its own discussion as a case study in sidewalk and storefront design, so it will be examined in a forthcoming post.

GENERIC MODERNIST ARCHITECTURE

Uptown North Building, looking northeast on Euclid Avenue.

While Uptown gets most of the urbanism right, Saitowitz' chosen mode of architectural expression is more questionable.  His buildings are pleasant enough examples of Modernism.  But they are a generic Modernism.  Their visual language doesn’t have much to do with Cleveland or Northeast Ohio.  These buildings could be anywhere in the country—New York, Atlanta, Los Angeles.  No cues within Uptown’s imagery tell us that we are in Cleveland, Ohio. Generic buildings lead to the homogeneity of our cities, a sense of disorientation, and a loss of the uniqueness that makes each city the special place that it is.

  Modernism makes for dramatic pictures though.

Modernism can be a fine and dynamic language. But Saitowitz’s Modernist interpretation misses the opportunity to draw upon the architectural legacy that exists here.  A richer kind of architecture responds to the specific climate, history, and building practices of a region. It can express this response through its form, materials, construction methods, and details.

Good architecture takes at least some of its cues from the local precedents.  In this way it can “resonate with the landscape and the cultural context” of its setting, as Finnish architect Juhani Pallasmaa puts it.² This approach embeds a building more fully within a place.

For example, Saitowitz expresses the rhythm of Uptown's structural bays by leaving their gray concrete columns exposed—a standard, anywhere expression of the Modernist idiom.  Imagine if the designer had chosen instead to sheath the columns with a sleek roman brick and a simple buff sandstone base.  Still tastefully modern, but a respectful acknowledgement of Uptown’s neighbors one block south, at the corner of Euclid and Mayfield. If cost was an issue, or more subtlety desired, the designer could simply have mixed bit of Ohio clay into the concrete for color.  Small, thoughtful gestures could have made the new buildings feel more like they belong in Northeast Ohio.  

Mixed-use building at the corner of Euclid and Mayfield.

DURABILITY

The appropriateness of the designer’s material selections for Ohio’s harsh climate also causes concern.  One assumes that the aluminum siding material and the projecting sunshades have been engineered to withstand our weather.  But when looking at these materials and their detailing, one wonders about their durability.  How will they look fifty years from now, seventy-five years from now?

Will the siding details and the underlying polypropylene membrane keep out the moisture of fifty rainy springs?  Will the sunshades remain straight and unbent under the burden of heavy snow and icicles that seventy-five winters bring?

The architect demonstrates his Modernist virtuosity by punching crisp window openings through the aluminum siding material on his buildings.  No question the lack of window trim gives the structures a streamlined appearance.  But window trim and sills are not just decorative affectations.  The window casings serve a very real and functional purpose:  They keep water away from the building face, protecting it from deterioration and infiltration at a vulnerable location. 

 

Some architects rely on technology—a polypropylene membrane, heavy sealants around windows—to keep weather and water out of the building. But more durable design solutions can often be found in local building practices that have been tested over time. 

FUNCTIONALITY VS. DECORATION

Shadowlines don't lie.

Finally, the shading devices above the window openings are problematic for another reason:  they will not really be effective at keeping the sun off of the glass.  Saitowitz chose to make all of the sunshades the same depth, regardless of whether the windows are three feet tall and horizontal or eight feet tall and vertical. It is clear that these metal projections will not accomplish the goal of shading the tall windows.  Apparently, the architect was not really serious about reducing heat gain and increasing energy efficiency. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that these eyebrows are mere aesthetic flourishes.

CONCLUSION

Time will reveal whether the material choices and detailing decisions made by the architect will endure.  And despite Uptown’s shortcomings, MRN, Saitowitz, and their institutional partners earn high praise for setting a good urban design precedent. If the project proves to be economically successful, Cleveland developers may take notice and follow Uptown’s urbanistic lead.  And, hopefully, government leaders will push them to do just that.  If so, Uptown will serve as a positive step forward towards better urbanism for the city and its people.

NOTES

¹ Steven Litt, ^“Modern-style buildings by architect Stanley Saitowitz give University Circle's Uptown development new sense of place,” The Plain Dealer, 8 April  2012:

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2012/04/architect_stanley_saitowitz_cr.html

² Juhani Pallasmaa, “Place and Image,” from An Architecture of the Ozarks, The Works of Marlon Blackwell, by Marlon Blackwell (New York:  Princeton Architectural Press, 2005), p.30.