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 problem with the design proposal by uber-architecture firm Gensler is that it is frankly another banal building which does not acknowledge its context nor attempts to contribute to the linear progression of the architectural vernacular.
Banal.
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:
- A diverse array of potential design solutions from a broad spectrum of designers.
- Design solutions that propose new construction methods or materials.
- Designs that enable a community to have a dialogue about a project and embrace.
- Loads of free marketing and press.
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.
5 comments:
At work today we had a discussion about the design...
If you look closely at the rendering, the 'context' behind the building is most certainly not in Cleveland or on Public Square.
Its quite possible that Gensler/Jacobs/Hines only released this image for 'marketing purposes', using an image for another project of a comparable size.
Shades of the same thing K&D did when they released Corna's hackneyed Breuer Tower proposal just to 'get something out there'.
So, let me understand this: without seeing a site plan, architectural renderings, or anything other than a conceptual illustration of the possible facade, you wrote 666 words eviscerating the project? At the very least, you could provide a critique of Gensler's other projects in order to provide some context for your opinion.
*sigh*
Well, at least you're attempting to be more optimistic and positive and less cynical, because I hesitate to imagine what your reaction would be like otherwise.
Christopher, a few comments.
First off, the commentary is warranted based upon the imagery and press releases provided to the public. No site plans, plans, etc. are readily available within the public domain. If you have them, feel free to share.
Second, a criticism if a single project of an architecture firm is warranted regardless of your opinions. The argument about this project in particular is based upon the context of the particular project, not the complete catalog of projects by a design firm. I disagree with your sentiment that the value of an argument has merit based upon whether or not I profile each and every Gensler project; I’m not their PR group.
Lastly, the last paragraph encourages city planners and developers to push Jacobs/Hines/Gensler to continue to develop a design solution that fully engages its context. We ask Cleveland to push for better and not to settle for another developer-driven project. And, why should we not ask for better?
I look forward to posts and critiques that get better reactions from city planners than a “sigh”. Likewise, I look forward to more engaging projects which do the same.
I absolutely agree that there ought to be a serious discussion about the potential merits and harms of the project. And, at this time, we have precious little upon which to base our opinions except for a single (contextless) illustration and a press release. As a result, at this time, it is extremely difficult to craft an informed opinion on this project. When you say "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," you have nothing upon which to base this criticism. We don't know what materials will be used, save for glass. We have no idea how the building will sit on the site and how it will relate to Public Square and, perhaps more importantly, how it could create flow between Public Square and the Warehouse District/Pesht.
This, of course, is not your fault. Without substantial public release of information, all we can do at this point is create suppositions that may very well be contradicted sometime in the future (hopefully well before this project comes before design review).
I disagree with your sentiment that the value of an argument has merit based upon whether or not I profile each and every Gensler project; I’m not their PR group.
I don't blame you for disagreeing with this sentiment, mainly because that wasn't what I communicated. One or two projects would be sufficient to describe why you think that Gensler may lack the sensitivity and ability to give this building and this area the care that it deserves. Judging by Gensler's most recent work on the interior of the NY Times, I am somewhat sanguine. However, as large of a firm as it is, it is very possible (if not likely) that a different Gensler office will do the work. Again, we are kept in the dark about who will do the actual work.
The lack of process transparency, I think, is a more damning indictment of the project than whatever possible design the tower might take. We don't know much (if anything) about the project, are unable to form an opinion, and are presently out of the loop in the decision-making process. You actually his this point when you talk about having a design competition, and I ought to have praised you for this advocacy; I apologize. However, for me, this assertion was overshadowed by what I saw was a dismissal of design elements that may not actually exist, outside of your fears.
I know this is old, but it begs the question to revisit the Ameritrust tower proposal for the square, one designed just a few years after the Standard Oil building required several injunctions to force Sohio to make the building fit the square and the mall and still have a street connection. The Ameritrust proposal is clearly a unique building, and mirrors the cornice of the terminal tower as well as the Euclid Avenue diagonal approach, two musts for any building considered for the empty hole on Public Square, incidentally resultant of demolition in the late 1980s to accommodate this Ameritrust project, which incidentally, is the reason the Breuer tower is abandoned... Ameritrust died in the 1992 recession during which all this great planning and HQ-moving was being schemed, and now we are left with a local mall developer who wants twenty floors of leasable office space as anonymous as Independence or Great Northern.
Post a Comment