For advocates of preserving modern architecture, the fate of the Ameritrust Tower, designed by Bauhaus-trained Marcel Breuer in 1971, embodies their frustration with the general malaise toward a style that promised architecture for the masses. But, it also holds a glimmer of hope for an ad hoc coalition of government waste foes, architects, environmentalists, and fans of Design Within Reach and Dwell magazine's mid-century design, who are working tirelessly to change the minds of two of the three Cuyahoga County Commissioners who want it razed.

Churches and neoclassical halls have been the low hanging fruit for preservation organizations for years while visionary glass-and-steel and pre-cast concrete structures of the modernists have been mostly shunned. (Update: the county commissioners have sold the Ameritrust Complex to The K&D Group of Willoughby who intend to preserve the Breuer Tower and to transform the complex into a complete, mixed-use lifestyle center encompassing almost 10 square city blocks)

If not for the tireless efforts of local advocates, the public push back from individuals asking questions at meetings and reporting on blogs, the educational forum hosted by the Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative at Cleveland State University—which discussed the importance of modernism—support from organizations like American Institute of Architects Cleveland, incisive reporting by Plain Dealer architecture critic, Steven Litt, a proposal for adaptive reuse presented by architect Doug Hoffman before the Cleveland Planning Commission, the exhibit “What would you do with the Breuer?” at Ingenuity Fest (organized by architects David Ellison and Sally Levin), and the public protests (held by "good government" advocates like Daryl Davis)—the issue certainly would have faded in the daily din.

Back in March, 2007 when the county decided to raze the tower, influential art and architecture professionals sent letters arguing for reusing the tower. Among them were AIA Cleveland’s Anthony Hiti, Intermuseum Conservation Association director Albert Albano and Susan Piedmont-Palladino, director of the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C.

Architect Rafael Vinoly, whose work on expanding the Cleveland Museum of Art is carefully considering the wing designed by Breuer in the 1970s, wrote this impassioned plea:

Given the national scope of attention recently focused on the demolition, one wonders if the Cuyahoga County Commissioners, and in turn the citizens of the county, truly want their legacy to be defined by the destruction of important cultural treasures - especially when there are so many other positive outcomes for both the tower and the proposed new administration center.

It was only a generation ago when governments, developers and the design professions were more than happy to destroy our history, our art, in the rush for newness, giving birth to historic preservation movement. But that was during an era of relative prosperity for Cleveland, but now the city is shrinking at an alarming rate, the local economy is stagnant and downtown is pockmarked by vacant land in high profile areas.

It doesn’t make sense to demolish a perfectly solid building, especially one of historic and artistic significance, when so many vacant lots or parking lots could have been had for millions less than the cost of the Breuer tower site.

With the national spotlight focused on how Cleveland would handle this issue (even The New York Times covered it), GreenCityBlueLake wrote a letter to the National Trust for Historic Preservation asking that it help in the effort to adaptively reuse the Breuer Tower. After some consideration, the Trust agreed to write a letter, which urges the county commissioners to “investigate this possibility to save the building from the landfill through sale to a preservation-sensitive developer committed to saving both the Rotunda and the Ameritrust Tower.”

While momentum finally shifted, the county started asbestos abatement with demolition in mind. Some of the work has resulted in loss of architecturally significant parts of the Breuer building including a window treatment in the lobby.

Even so, an emerging movement to deepen the appreciation for modern architecture – in the hope of securing a developer with an adaptive reuse plan – is underway.

A number of forums and exhibits focusing on modernism, preservation and green building should help, including the “Cleveland Goes Modern: Design for the home 1930-1970” exhibit at the Beck Center curated by Nina Freedlander Gibans for the Cleveland Artists Foundation. The show captured the rush of excitement for modernism in the post-war period as dozens of cubist brick-and-glass homes with flat roofs began to dot the Cleveland suburban landscape. Cleveland was and still is home to a number of prominent architects who were trained in the American Bauhaus at Harvard or embraced modern design, including Ernst Payer, Robert Little, Richard Fleischman, Phil Hart, Robert Gaede, Don Hisaka, and Robert Madison.

And, in November, 2007 the series “Greening the preservation movement: Bauhaus at the brink” invited artists, architects, and the sustainability community to discuss and consider the intersection of landmarks and green buildings, historic preservation and modernism in architecture. For more information, email Susan Miller.

Other articles on Breuer preservation efforts

• Green modernism in Cleveland
• Breuer: That's a (very modern) wrap
• Ingenuity asks: What would you do with the Breuer building?
• Protesting waste in Breuer decision
• Greening the modern preservation movement: Bauhaus at the brink