Breuer, that's a (very modern) wrap

Submitted by Marc Lefkowitz  |  Last edited November 14, 2007 - 4:19pm
Posted in | »

Illustration of Breuer tower wrapped in glassWhile it’s now clear the firms vying for the county administration project didn’t compare costs of building new versus rehab, Doug Hoffman knows one thing for certain: The existing building—it’s steel beams, granite façade, and cast-in-place concrete walls and ‘bathtub’ windows—is valued conservatively at $20,000,000.

Hoffman, a principal at Weber Murphy Fox, the local architects who teamed with New York firm Davis Brody Bond on a proposal to adaptively reuse the Breuer tower, presented their findings to the Cleveland Planning Commission today. The county purchased the Breuer and three small buildings attached to it for $21 million, and proposes to spend another $10 million to demolish it before building a new office tower for about $175-200 million. A group consisting of architects, preservationists, environmentalists and citizens concerned about government waste attended the presentation.

Hoffman told the commission that his firm’s proposal addressed all of the county’s concerns, including its small floors, lower ceilings, and asbestos, and even offered a flip-side – the existing space has built-in benefits such as good natural light, more privacy and smaller spaces make personal comfort easier to control. A slide of his presentation titled, Word on the Street vs. Our Findings, Hoffman wrote:

“One of the myths is the usability of the building is poor, it’s a bad performer, the net to gross ratio is terrible, the ceilings are too low and the floorplates too small. Our response is the building was ahead of its time, is a great performer and the problems of net-to-gross, ceiling height and floorplate issues can be solved.”

Reusing the building might require removing its exterior skin, which contains asbestos, and recasting the heavy exterior, Cleveland architect Robert Madison, part of the team that won the county job to design the new building, told the PD.

Hoffman’s firm planned to keep the exterior, and thus the asbestos, in place by wrapping the entire tower in a glass envelope. A similar wrap was used in the New York Times Office Tower, Hoffman says, adding, it makes up for the Breuer’s single-pane windows by acting as a “thermal barrier”—holding in heat during the winter, and operable vents allow air to flow out in the summer.

After gutting the building inside, their plan called for new mechanical systems and a design that squeezed in some 2,000 square feet of more usable space. “A modest addition coupled with redesign of the restrooms and a new underfloor mechanical system increased the net to gross ratio from 69% to 78%.”

That would be enough of an increase to accommodate most if not all county departments on the same floor, Hoffman said. Internal staircases could, in certain cases, connect departments between two floors. And, the removal of the small buildings would make way for a two-story atrium providing gathering spaces like a public café, an arcade, and council chambers.

Still, there might be other, better ideas on how to reuse the tower, Hoffman said, “We’re making the case for preservation; we don’t want to promote ours as the only solution. We think the building has great civic, cultural and financial value.”

Besides the $20 million in construction costs, the tower could get a minimum of $15 million in historic tax credits, Commissioner Peter Lawson Jones, who voted for reuse, has said. That's money the county could use for health and human services in the poorest city in the nation.

The benefits of adaptive reuse as summarized by Weber Murphy Fox:

  • Less demolition
  • Less asbestos abatement
  • Less energy consumed
  • Shorter project timetable
  • Cost savings in re-using the base structure
  • Cost savings with less construction time
  • More usable area for $/sf
  • Better opportunity to seek LEED certification

Even if the Planning Commission votes against giving the county a demolition permit, the county can appeal. "There's always appeals actions," says Linda Henrichsen, a staffer at the Planning Commission. "The normal appeal for planning commission would be the Board of Zoning Appeals. After that it would go to the courts."

On June 8 at 8 a.m. in Council's committee room, the Planning Commission will hear a presentation on the Breuer from the county and take public comment. It may vote at that time.

Supporters of reusing the Breuer are gathering for a fundraiser tomorrow morning (June 2) at Johnny Mango restaurant in Ohio City. Breuer Tower Waffles (in honor of the building’s façade) and butter pecan ice cream will be served. And, details of a design competition seeking alternatives to the county’s planned use of the Breuer, with winners displayed at July’s Ingenuity Festival, will be announced soon. For more information on both, contact Daryl Davis.

June 4, 2007 - 12:56pm

slides posted from June 1st presentation by Doug Hoffman

TimFerris Says:

Over at http://save-our-land.blogspot.com/2007/06/slide-show-excerpts-from-june-1st-cpc.html I have posted the more salient slides from Doug Hoffman's June 1st presentation for the CPC.

June 6, 2007 - 7:21pm

Breuer Building on World Monuments Watch List 2008

Susan Miller Says:

Here's the link at realneo.us: Breuer Building on on World Monuments Watch List

Cleveland in the cross hairs...

June 19, 2007 - 9:47am

Breuer Tower makes headlines in NY

Susan Miller Says:

Tony Hiti sent this this morning: The attached article about the Breuer Tower (Cleveland Trust Tower) appeared in today’s issue of the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19tower.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

(The link to it is also on the front page: http://www.nytimes.com )

This issue is getting more and more national attention

June 19, 2007 - 11:15am

Is the county guessing on the cost?

Marc Lefkowitz Says:

I found the quote from the county's project manager interesting because she estimates it will cost the county (us) $225 million for the project -- and that's without seeing any real architectural drawings. How much will it cost when it's all said and done? I'm also curious how Peter Lawson Jones came up with the $200 million figure? Does he have a matrix that includes the $20 million saved from reusing the building, another $15-25 million in historic tax credits? Doug Hoffman at Weber Murphy Fox, the only firm to follow through to the second round of bidding with an adaptive reuse plan, estimated the cost for adaptively reusing the existing Breuer tower at $70 sq. ft. (that $75 million doesn't include the new interior build out, the glass wrap, any additions, the parking garage or soft costs).

Speaking of a matrix, thanks to Ed Morrison who posted Hunter Morrison's Seven decision making principles for major redevelopment projects. This should be The Bible by the bedside for each Cleveland Planning Commission member and for the county commissioners.

June 29, 2007 - 10:56am

PD (and CPC)'s reckless rush to wreck the Breuer

Marc Lefkowitz Says:

I wish I had known the Planning Commission called an emergency session today to decide the Breuer's fate. As Gloria Ferris says, how can they possibly have come up with the answers to all their own questions about adaptive reuse?

I just read this Plain Dealer commentary calling for the county to just 'push ahead' (blindly... follow the easy course of demolition when the world is watching Cleveland, the poorest city in the nation, how it handles its historic and physical assets).

Why the lazy reporting? It's as if none of the reporting done on blogs like this one, Gloria Ferris', RealNeo, Cleveland vs. the World even the PD's own architecture critic Steven Litt ever existed? Is it arrogance or a more serious abuse of power when the city's only daily newspaper ignores the facts that each and every criticism that the county's team has thrown up against the Breuer tower was either refuted or dealt with deftly by the one proposal calling for adaptive reuse by the firm of Davis Brody Bond. (only one, but there are probably a dozen more answers to save $20 million and have the greenest project possible by reusing the tower.)

Here are slides from the firm's principal Doug Hoffman who presented to the Planning Commission on June 1. The proposal gains more ceiling height by placing mechanicals in the floor; it deals with the single-pane windows and leaves the asbestos in the curtain wall in place by elegantly wrapping the tower in glass. And it expands the floor space by rearranging the restrooms and service core. The issue of earthquakes sounds like a very fishy red herring.

It was the only adaptive reuse proposal because the county changed the RFP in the second round by eliminating adaptive reuse. Read more on that subject.

Read more about Hoffman's presentation here

And read Gloria Ferris' excellent reportage from the June 8th Planning Commission meeting and the follow up.

The way this is being handled by the Planning Commision casts a pall on that august body.

What facts are they basing their decision on? Certain not respected former Cleveland Planning Commission director Hunter Morrison's Seven decision making principles for major redevelopment projects

To not reuse the Breuer tower and then claim you're going to make it a green building is, in the words of local architect David Ellison, the definition of hypocrisy. Period.

June 29, 2007 - 2:54pm

my thoughts on CPC Breuer decision

Susan Miller Says:

This is the text of an email posted on the subject at realneo. I didn't have time to read the article as after a late night of celebrating arts and culture in our region, I hoisted myself from bed and made it just in time to see this charade played out. They (the 5 who voted to demo the building) should be ashamed. This action can be likened to the flailing of a drowning man - Cleveland, the nation's poorest city being the flailing man.

How people like Paul Alsenas, Bob Brown, Terry Schwartz and Hunter Morrison can go on day after day in the face of such stupidity is beyond me. We lost Genevieve Ray and Ruth Durack, who's next to say, "Goodbye and good luck" to Cleveland? Not that my meager efforts make a difference here, but as I drove away from City Hall this morning, I imagined picking up the dog and continuing right on out of town.  I wonder if anyone else will feel  the same way when they read about it in tomorrow's edition of the mercury-poisoned fishwrap?

This action should galvanize the arts community and historians with that of the environmental community like never before to rise up against this sort of injustice. We will have to advocate night and day to insure that the works of artists (that includes architects) will not be cavalierly swept off the face of the earth so some already fat cat can make some politico rich and famous. We will have to decide that it is in the best interest of the the hard work done by artists and environmentalists to fight to see that this work remains in place, is stewarded and shepherded as a legacy for the future. Just like the fiasco that faces our Breuer Tower, our greenspace, our stream restoration projects and our efforts to live in a healthy environment might be undone in just such a quick and dirty manner.

If I was Bob Madison, I wouldn't be so eager to be the architect of this new edifice for Cleveland's Tamany Hall. Some have speculated that Joe Cimperman has higher political aspirations, but ward boss is apparently a pretty good spot for arm-twisting. Maybe one day we will learn to look back before pulling out into traffic going the wrong way.

June 29, 2007 - 4:08pm

Don't go Susan

Marc Lefkowitz Says:

You and the wise sons and daughters of Cleveland can't leave because the Breuer is just one of many issues where somehow the people we elected to represent us forgot that government isn't in business to gamble away our hard-earned money on the promise of a silver bullet solution like a shiny new office tower. I feel like this issue has galvanized a group of us in the arts, sustainability, environmental, architecture, planning, etc. fields like nothing before. I feel like this may lead to a stronger coalition the next time if we're smart and plan ahead so that this can NEVER happen again.

We were taught in planning school that government is supposed to function on an economic premise of making decisions to break even, certainly not to profit and not lose money. I found the arguments made on behalf of the county by the Plain Dealer today, frankly, to be specious because a. they've already been refuted b. more creative minds have thought about solutions to the space planning issues c. those solutions will mean preserving an important building worth a conservatively estimated $20 million and I can go on.

As our friend Tim Ferris points out in his latest blog post, "Everyone here has been remiss in doing the due diligence required when it comes to net cost to the public--back then, now, and later...Where is the side-by-side for acquisition cost, tax credits, demolition costs, abatement costs, and so forth? I've been to the hearings. It's not there. It's all just speculation. There is still no concrete plan for the new building. This whole thing reeks."

Kind of sez it all, don't it?

p.s. I love the Tamany Hall analogy.

July 2, 2007 - 9:55am

Planning Commission's Breuer resolution

Marc Lefkowitz Says:

They won the battle (locking in public access from E. 9th to the Rotunda) but lost the war (losing the Breuer building).

In an email exchange from last week, Commissioner Peter Lawson-Jones suggests that the Breuer may stand for awhile longer, probably another year, because the county is strapped for cash. Critics of the decision to destroy the Breuer might use the time to mount a legal challenge to the county's move, although no party has stepped forward to file suit.

In the exchange, I asked Jones: did the county’s process, when it was evaluating which building to purchase have a cost-benefit analysis or decision matrix of some kind comparing the cost to adaptively reuse vs. build new? If not, why purchase a building in the first place and not identify a vacant parcel of land on which to build? Unless the county also discussed the benefit of demolishing a ‘troubled’ abandoned building like the Breuer, it just doesn’t make much economic sense.

Jones replied: The two less than comprehensive studies that the County requested showed that preservation would save a minimum of $20M over new construction in the short run. More importantly, after the majority determined that they preferred the latter approach, no objective comparative studies were subsequently ordered. The comment in the PD's editorial that the BOCC had an open mind on this issue was grossly inaccurate. The A&E teams were advised to consider new construction only.
 

CUYAHOGA COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX
Proposed Resolution  (passed by the CPC June 29, 2007 by 5-2 vote - Kuri and Krumholz voting Nay)

The City Planning Commission approves consolidating non-judicial offices and agencies into a new County Administrative Complex at East 9th Street between Prospect and Euclid avenues that are now located in buildings in and around downtown Cleveland to best serve the citizens of Cuyahoga County.  This new County Administrative Complex will be a high-performance, integrated environment for a minimum of 1,500 County employees and some 1,700 daily visitors in the downtown core that will:

1.  Renovate the historic Rotunda Building (900 Euclid Avenue) as a main public entry for the new County Administrative Complex with pedestrian access available through the existing Euclid Avenue entrances during normal business hours and incorporate flexibility for reuse of the grand interior space that encourages its use for community and special events, and

2.  Construct new offices and support facilities specifically for a new County Administrative Complex on a consolidated site with the understanding that this requires the following:

a.  Deconstruction of the Ameritrust Tower (2017 East 9th Street) that ensures preservation of the Rotunda Building as an integral part of the new complex;

b.  Demolition of the Prospect Building (2073 East 9th Street) and the Huron Building (917 Huron Road) previously approved by the City Planning Commission on March 30, 2007;

c.  Vacation of the Barn Court public right-of-way that bisects the proposed site of the County Administrative Complex and dedication of a new public right-of-way from Huron Road that wiil maintain vehicular access to properties east of the new County Administrative Complex that currently have access along Barn Court, in accordance with provisions of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Cleveland.

The Cleveland City Planning Commission supports the County's intentions to meet the highest standards of:  1)  architectural design to create an integrated workplace adaptable to future needs that functions at the highest levels possible for green building and sustainable architecture as demonstrated by LEED certification, and 2) urban design to ensure the new County Administrative Complex supports the revitalization of downtown Cleveland, advances the concept of transforming East 9th Street into Rock and Roll Boulevard and enhances the vitality of the surrounding Historic Gateway neighborhood and Euclid Corridor area through improved streetscapes and integrated plazas and courtyards.

To ensure that private investment occurs in the area surrounding the new County Administrative Complex, the City of Cleveland will convene an interdepartmental task force to prepare and implement a redevelopment strategy for the super-block bordered by East 9th Street, Euclid Avenue and Huron Road for vacant and underutilized property and enhancement of Barn Court and East 12th Street public right-of-ways as active pedestrian environments.

During the project master plan, schematic design and design development phases, the County will provide monthly reports or presentations at the regularly scheduled meetings of the Cleveland City Planning Commission and its Design Review Committee.  As part of the project master plan phase that is now underway, community meetings sponsored by the Board of County Commissioners and the Cleveland City Planning Commission will be held  to encourage public engagement in the planning and design of the new County Administrative Complex including the following information as it becomes available but no later than December 31, 2007:

*  Report on Using Historic Tax Credits to Renovate the Rotunda Building and 1010 Euclid Building to support Development of the New County Administrative Complex
*  Statement of Design Intent for LEED Certification
*  Facilities Development Program
*  Project Master Plan
*  Architectural and Urban Design Guidelines

June 29, 2007 - 2:18pm

Breuer demo vote passes

Marc Lefkowitz Says:

It's true. The Cleveland Planning Commission voted 5-2 in favor of giving the county permission to demolish the only skyscraper that modern master Marcel Breuer ever built today (only Norm Krumholz and Lillian Kuri voted against).

As our friend Norm Roulet at RealNeo puts it:

So we can attach the five names of the City Planning Commission members who voted to demolish the Breuer to the names of the two Cuy. County Commissioners who are pushing this plan and assign to those seven people full responsibility for destroying $millions in embodied energy, and a globally significant architectural landmark, and the 'citiness' of downtown Cleveland, forever. We shall need to tombstone... here is the first report I've found about the CPC vote today to demolish the Breuer - so who are the five members who voted to demolish, and who voted against as their names shall now be carved in stone forever. Oh, and let's not forget the names of "The Editors" of the PD... for now we can just call them the Breuer Bashers.

I'm kind of partial to "Breuer Destroyers" myself.

June 11, 2007 - 1:38pm

Breuer's stay of execution

Marc Lefkowitz Says:

I was out of town last week and just caught this PD blog item that (I think?) states the Planning Commission denied a demolition permit.

It says the commission wants more information about cost savings inherent in adaptive reuse. The presentation from architect Doug Hoffman included the $20 million figure from their consultant, Orfield Labs. And that doesn't include the environmental cost otherwise known as the embodied energy which Daryl Davis' expert calculates could run as high as $11 million.

The commission wants more information about the Breuer's potential historic tax credits (credits that Commissioner Lawson Jones thinks could be around $15 million). Sarah Beimers at the Cleveland Restoration Society informs us that, although the Breuer isn't listed on the National Register (and some might argue it needs a separate listing from the Rotunda), she has no doubt the State Office of Historic Preservation would give its stamp of approval for a special exception (which is what it would need since it's under 50 years old) if someone bothered to pony up the $15,000 it would take to get it listed. It seems a listing would end the debate and ensure the tax credits, bolstering the case for adaptive reuse.

Finally, I was at the June 1 Planning Commission meeting when commission member Lillian Kuri asked about plans for the Rotunda building (she directed the question at Hoffman, but I think it was intended for general consideration). Kuri is concerned because the county has stated a desire to keep the E. 9th and Euclid entrance to the Rotunda locked. The only time it would be open is for special events, like if someone rented it out for a wedding. That suggested use doesn't sit well with some commission members, so they want a guarantee that the Rotunda is accessible from the street and remains a public space.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.