While 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.
Breuer issue heating up
Susan Miller Says:Just hours before the Planning Commission meeting last week, the Grosse Point Library designed by Breuer made the World Monuments Watch List of 100 Most Endangered Sites.
The next morning at the Cleveland City Planning Commission Meeting to consider giving the County a demolition permit when Chairman Anthony Coyne asked for those who wished to speak in favor of allowing the demo permit, no one responded. There was instead a rather large group gathered to hear Madison's presentation and to encourage the Commission to deny the permit. Gloria Ferris has summed it up nicely.
and there's this just in from Taxpayers Against Waste --
Dear City Planning Commissioners:
The issue before you is a lot less complex than it appears.
Yesterday I came across the city planning commission website while looking for an address and I read what appears to be the mission statement:
The City Planning Commission, established in 1915 (as the "City Plan Commission"), is a body of seven members, six appointed by the Mayor and one is a member of City Council. The Commission is supported by a staff of professional planners and architects.
The City Charter gives the Commission responsibility for preparing plans to guide "development and improvement" of the city and its neighborhoods, and for reviewing all legislation and other matters that concern the "use or development of land".
The City Planning Commission is dedicated to improving the quality of life for all Clevelanders and creating economic vitality throughout the city and its region.
The Commission and its staff pursue these goals by promoting the highest standards for development and revitalization in all of Cleveland's neighborhoods and employment centers.
I note here the charges of "reviewing all legislation and other matters that concern the 'use or development of land' " and "...pursue these goals by promoting the highest standards for development and revitalization..."
The complexity enters with the notion that the city planning commission owes the applicant a helping hand in the spirit of collegiality, a pass, on the standards explicit in this mission statement.
I don't know why the applicant has been unable to present adequate plans before this date but it is not a good indicator of where this project might be headed in terms of cost overruns and possible construction delays.
The City Planning Commission ought to send a very clear message that this application doesn't represent a project worthy of E. 9th and Euclid.
Daryl Davis
The donor's letter which accompanied the $1,000 in cash is copied below:
To: Taxpayers Against Waste
c/o Mr. Ellison and Ms. Davis:
Finally, I found you at last week's Planning
Commission meeting!
I noticed that while Madison, Carbone and their buddies are getting paid $23.5 million to advocate for the county's latest boondoggle you and your organization probably could use a little money.
Enclosed find $1000, and know there's plenty more where that came from.
This is not about Marcel Breuer's Cleveland Trust Co. Building - the issue here is the waste of our tax dollars - follow the money.
1. Why is Cuyahoga County engaged in this project with R. P. Carbone who is under indictment in Lorain County - and why was it so hard for their representative to admit that their company had never torn down as large a building?
2. Once the asbestos is removed from the Cleveland
Trust Co. tower, our asset becomes even more valuable - who, in addition to R. P. Carbone, stands to gain by its demolition?
3. Why were R. P. Madison and Kohn Pederson Fox selected if their design concept proposal is either incomplete or unavailable for our review? Why are they unable to present a coherent architectural project? Why were the application materials submitted to the Planning Commission so poor? Is this normal for a qualified architectural team?
Would the Planning Commission tolerate as bad an application from a private developer?
4. If you look at the RPMadison.com website and the history of their firm - they have clearly not been discriminated against - in fact, they've been involved with most of the large public projects in Cleveland for the last 25 years. Is their selection yet another perversion of the minority set-aside law?
5. The project to consolidate county offices into one building does not represent a gain of any kind merely shuffling these offices to a centralized location. Moving the county offices out of rented space into publicly financed space amounts to a long-term decrease of money circulating in our local economy. Rather than rent being paid to local landlords, the debt service and interest on bonds will leave Cuyahoga County. Who are the landlords who stand to lose the county as a tenant? Who will benefit from the issue and sale of new County bonds?
6. Renovation of space means more money and more jobs stay local. New construction means that more of our money leaves Cuyahoga County to purchase new building materials. Why is this being promoted as a good idea, and how much money are we talking about?
I wish to remain anonymous. Suffice it to say that I am not associated with the Republican or Democratic Parties, the AlA, the Cleveland Restoration Society or the Green Building Coalition.
I want you to proceed in the tradition of our guide and leader, consumer advocate, Ralph Nader.
May God bless you.
What time is that Planing Commission meeting tomorrow? CUYAHOGA COUNTY ADMINSTRATIVE COMPLEX: PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF THE FORMER AMERITRUST TOWER [Tabled from June 8, 2007 to this date certain.] The one where they will try to vote to allow the demo permit while Norm Krumholz is not there?
- parent
- Login or register to post comments
»