In evaluating the decision by the city of Cleveland and its proxies the Planning and the Lankmarks commissions to demolish the 19th century Stanley and the historic landmarked Columbia buildings, with their striking architectural achievements, and replace them with a "Las Vegas tacky" parking garage and skyway “crashing into” the historic Higbee building where a temporary casino may get built, many were left to wonder, did the city get everything it could in this deal? And, is this progress?

First, did the city get what it wanted, and is there still room to get a better deal? Opponents of the plan cite the loss of urban fabric—that parking garages and their access areas and skyways will degrade the conditions for pedestrians. By saying yes to a parking garage and skyway right in the center of downtown, the city will create a dead zone, a dangerous and unwelcoming area for the throngs of visitors who might have walked to the casino from the vibrant street scene taking shape at E. 4th Street. Opponents point out, there’s a glut of surface parking in close proximity to the Higbee Building, and that the Flats, the ultimate location for the casino, is perhaps where any additional parking, if needed, should go. Why then did the city give little constructive feedback? Opponents, like this commenter to the Urban Ohio forum, are left speculating that the city was so desperate for a casino (or development of any shape) that whoever at City Hall was responsible for negotiating with Dan Gilbert did such a poor job at it, that he or she outright failed.

“I suppose it's strange, to me, that we never heard anyone in power mention an interest in an alternative plan being floated. They said "we want a nicer looking skyway" but couldn't ask for an alternative and a proposal. If an alternative that did not destroy the Columbia Building was offered but cost an additional $2.5 million to build that would detour Rock Ventures from it being Plan A, but of course it would not have ended the Casino development.

So either he (Gilbert) knew this was fine to begin with, or he had a Plan B and we just didn't ask him to provide it.”

It is a failure, of course, when your leaders cannot defend Cleveland’s history, not just for design sake, but because it makes good business sense. The city’s getting a lot of mileage out of the revitalization of Gateway, E. 4th Street and Lower Euclid—all made possible because of the existent attractiveness of old buildings. Even if the Stanley and Columbia buildings are currently vacant, imagine trying to sell Gateway to taxpayers or just picture how poor the view from Progressive Field and the Q would be without those classic buildings surrounding you.

It’s a failure that rankles the state’s largest preservation group who in an emergency decision this week released their 10 Most Endangered Buildings (guess which two made the list…). In their write up, Preservation Ohio answer the second question (about progress) – is it progress when in the process you cheat the rules and give away what made you great in the first place? They write:

Preservation Ohio believes that granting this request, and removing a registered landmark in the process, is an affront to the landmarking process itself. Clearly parking for the casino is necessary, but it should be accomplished in a manner which celebrates the aesthetics and architecture of downtown Cleveland. An opportunity is here to create something which contributes to the urban vibrancy of the area and creates vibrancy for pedestrians, not dead space.

The city, and the visitors to the casino, deserve better than this piece of tacky Las Vegas sitting in the middle of an area with rapidly-diminishing character. This decision would also undermine and diminish a legitimate governmental process that deserves to be respected and used in a consistent and effective manner. As Ohio’s statewide preservation organization, we urge the Cleveland Landmarks Commission to resist setting a disappointing precedent that, once set, will have consequences which cannot be reversed. Both of these buildings merit preservation and a future.

The Planning Commission approved the plan, and the Cleveland Landmarks Commission will review it tomorrow at 9 a.m. at Cleveland City Hall.

The plans may be found in the agenda for the Cleveland Landmarks Commission meeting. An archive of the plans can be found here.

You may register your opinion either by appearing at the Landmarks Commission meeting tomorrow morning at Cleveland City Hall, at 9 a.m., or contact either Commission chair Jennifer Coleman, Commission secretary Robert Keiser (216-664-2531) or Councilman Joe Cimperman (216-664-2691).

To read some thoughtful letters opposing the plan, see Kent State College of Architecture and Urban Design Assistant Professor Steve Rugare's letter to the mayor and the Cleveland Design Coalition's call for further design consideration

(image below is of the proposed Horseshoe Casino parking garage with Stanley building squished in the middle and minus the Columbia Building which stands where the glass and brick stairwell for the parking garage—center-left—would go.)