The new student center by Gwathmey Siegel and Associates Architects anticipates a Spring 2010 opening.
As the Cleveland real estate and business community rejoices over yesterday's news that the Jacobs Group and Hines are partnering to build a 21-story office tower in the heart of Cleveland, one thought kept crossing our minds - why are we being stuck with another impersonal glass box in Cleveland?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".
The high-rise could very well be located in any other major city without any revisions to the design.
Can It Be Better?
If any designer or property owner answers "no" to the question of whether or not their building can be better, they shouldn't be designing or building. The rhetorical answer always is "yes" - a building can always be better than what we have proposed or built.
Unfortunately, the proposed Jacobs/Hines skyscraper resorts to a developer's formula and cheap materials. There is no interest in proposing extrusions to the form which question setbacks, there is no interest in developing different materials for the facade other than glass and mullions, and there is no interest in attempting to use the project to offset the plethora of intriguing design project emerging in nearby University Circle.
The proposed high-rise is an unfortunate folly for a city deserving so much better.
A Resolution.
As the project moves forward through the City of Cleveland's numerous departments and design boards, we encourage its members not accept the proposed high rise in its current design. We encourage its members to push Jacobs/Hines for a more intriguing building that is sympathetic of its unique location at Public Square.
We also encourage the City of Cleveland to require the new project to meet or exceed the requirements for a LEED Silver building. This would require the building to be highly efficient in its energy usage, carbon footprint, and better for its end-users - which isn't too much to ask of the developers and designers.
Next Time.
For the next time when a developer considers building a new high-rise or mass development in Cleveland, we recommend that a design competition with an RFQ (request for qualifications) process is utilized. A competition may add extra costs to a project which is already being designed and built with a high amount of efficiency, but the benefits of having a competition would offer a substantial project payback that can not be ignored.
Such benefits include:
an example is Nouvel's selected design for the Signal Tower in Paris (pictured) which was selected by a competition. In spite of any aesthetic or architectural criticism, the Nouvel-winning entry has drawn global attention to a specific project and city while continuing to add to a progressive dialogue about design and architecture.What has Cleveland to loose by trying to rethink itself?
Nothing.
Le Corbusier dreamt up Ville Contemporaine. The disappointment that arises from reading this article is that once again architects are failing to observe, review and propose for the current built environment and landscape. Where cities are experiencing declines in population growth, planners and officials demolish vacant properties and seek resolutions for redevelopment. The redevelopment projects are consistent from one city to the next - demo this, mixed use here, redistrict there, and recall the 'Main Street' concept.
When one looks at the proposal for Dubai, one must begin to question what examples from these proposals can be (if at all) used for redeveloping our existing cities and trying to make inhabitable areas better. We need to bear in mind that our level of comfort in nostalgia is inherently flawed and new planning techniques need to be considered in order for our society to continue to evolve (note to self: modern cultures don't live in caves anymore).
The success of Rem's plan for Dubai is not what may or will be built for the Waterfront, but what the global society can extract from the plan and apply to their own city.
Congratulations, Cleveland as you are about to experience Pop Up - specifically Leap Night, part of Pop Up Cleveland, this Friday evening. 
