Jump to content
Guest MayDay

Cleveland: Cleveland Clinic Developments (University Circle)

Recommended Posts

The UCDD one is tomorrow...

 

UNIVERSITY CIRCLE DESIGN DISTRICT

AGENDA

8:00 A.M., Thursday, January 31, 2008

Church of the Covenant, 11205 Euclid Avenue

8:00 AM 1. UCDD 08-003 – Cleveland Botanical Garden – Liquid Crystal

8:30 AM 2. UCDD 08-002 – Cleveland Clinic Foundation – Demolition of the

Carnegie Medical Building (former Ohio College of Podiatric

Medicine)

10501-10523 Carnegie Avenue

Demolition of the 1930 eight-story stone & steel building that was

occupied by the Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine until 2007. The now

vacant site will be converted to surface parking.

Brian Smith – Cleveland Clinic Foundation

David Krymowski – Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Carmine Russo – Cawrse & Associates, Inc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then the CPC meeting...

 

PLANNING COMMISSION starts at 9:00 a.m.,

in Room 514 at City Hall.

CLEVELAND CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Draft Agenda for February 1, 2008

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Planning Commission Members

Gloria Jean Pinkney

Joe Cimperman

Norman Krumholz

Robert N. Brown

Anthony J. Coyne, Chairman

David H. Bowen

Lillian Kuri

Lawrence A. Lumpkin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

UCDD-08-002:  10501-10523 Carnegie Ave., Demolition of the Carnegie Medical Building (former Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine)

Demolition of the 1930 eight-story stone and steel building that was occupied by the Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine until 2007.  The now vacant site will be converted to surface parking.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting the agenda. Again, for contact information and message to give, see:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2977.msg251765.html#msg251765


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -- Lady Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to move back to Cleveland.

 

Yes, you do.

 

 


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -- Lady Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was anyone able to make it to the UCDD meeting this morning?  I need to move back to Cleveland.

 

I made it over there this morning, and will faithfully do my duty and report back to UO!

 

The first item on the agenda for the installation of two mini-greenhouses (8x10) by the Cleveland Botanical Garden on Wade Oval to research their liquid crystal glass panes passed with flying colors.  They'll be up 2-5 years.

 

The second item was the Clinic's proposed demolition of the old OCPM building on Carnegie and E. 105th.  The verdict from the committee is that the issue needed more information and was therefore tabled for another meeting.  Bob Brown was there and explained the various actions that the Planning Commission could take tomorrow (oppose, oppose until after UCDD second meeting, approve with UCDD approval, etc) but didn't tip his hand. 

 

Arguments on each side were as predicted - the Clinic said that they had every intention of reusing the building when they bought it but realized that it was economically and physically impossible as the building is supposedly in bad shape and could not be used for their needs.  In addition, they are expanding the foot and ankle clinic at Stearns & Carnegie, and will therefore have a greater demand for the patients coming to that facility next door.  They admitted that it's a temporary plan and will eventually have a building there, but have no timeframe or plan for that. 

 

On the opposite side, the committee pushed back on the demolition of an architectually significant building, no plans for the space afterwards, and the lack of information on why the building couldn't be re-used by the Clinic.

 

Other points that I found interesting is when the committee brought up the suburbanizing of the Cleveland Clinic, and somewhere else in the conversation Bob Brown conceded that while Euclid is the pedestrian street, Carnegie is and probably will continue to be for the automobile.  Also, the planner from Case brought up some points about the West Quad demolitions and how many of the Mt. Sinai buildings just couldn't be reused.  There was practically no conversation about reuse as a mixed use project, because it seemed to everyone that it was a forgone conclusion that the Clinic would eventually expand all around there in the future. 

 

I feel that if the Clinic can prove that the building cannot be reused for office space, et cetera, then the committee and the commission will approve the demo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the report, however depressing.


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -- Lady Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other points that I found interesting is when the committee brought up the suburbanizing of the Cleveland Clinic, and somewhere else in the conversation Bob Brown conceded that while Euclid is the pedestrian street, Carnegie is and probably will continue to be for the automobile.

 

That's pretty interesting.  In a lot of ways (grassy setbacks), the Euclid side is more suburban than the Carnegie side.

 

Thanks for the thorough report.  I don't think one has to be very cynical to believe that the Clinic knew the fate of this building as of their first day of ownership.  It's just another addition to their enormous private land bank tied up in surface parking limbo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do provide an opportunity for the public to speak up, but at this time I didn't feel my voice would've said anything that wasn't already said - there were a number of committee members openly opposed to the demolition of the building, and since they are having another meeting to make a more final decision, I figure'd that would be a better time to stand up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would take a couple of weeks to get enough signatures to make the numbers of petitions mean anything. Best to use rational arguments now...

 

Speaking of which, here's another reason why Cleveland Clinic should not tear down the Carnegie Medical Building for a parking lot and instead renovate the building for housing: the parking may not be needed in a few years when we won't be able to get gasoline for our cars, let alone afford it:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2706.msg250906.html#msg250906

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2706.msg243333.html#msg243333

 

To demolish the Carnegie Medical Building for parking is to continue to redesign cities in the manner that General Motors and Shell Oil Co. proposed in 1939 and 1937, respectively, in their City of Tomorrow visions. That no longer is the City of Tomorrow. It's the City of Yesterday, one which has led us to $100 oil, $3 gasoline, dependence on the turbulent Middle East, toxic emissions from more than 700 million cars, global warming, the near-death of vibrant walkable cities and the spatial mismatch between the urban poor and the relocation of jobs to the suburbs. These are all tragedies resulting from the City of Tomorrow.

 

It's time we walked away from this destructive, disproven and obsolete model of urban design and embraced our existing buildings, neighborhoods, sidewalks and the wonderful social setting of the front porch, balcony or alfresco cafe. Keeping and renovating the Carnegie Medical Building for a mixed-use, walkable vision for the Cleveland Clinic is part of that new set of healthier values. If any entity should support that set of values, one would expect that Cleveland Clinic would be front and center. It's not too late to change. Start by embracing the Carnegie Medical Building and setting a course for a more sustainable future for Cleveland's largest employer.


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -- Lady Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell that to my boss!  :angel:


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -- Lady Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see this anywhere...but it's also 4 in the morning ...

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2008/01/_the_cleveland_clinic_wants.html

 

Cleveland Clinic's request to demolish Art Deco building is tabled by review committee

Posted by Steven Litt/Plain Dealer Architecture Critic

January 31, 2008 16:56PM

 

The Cleveland Clinic wants to tear down the eight-story Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine Building at East 105th Street and Carnegie Avenue to make way for a parking lot and an eventual expansion of its campus...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio Podiatric College beautiful building and a landmark for that corner for generations.  CC's allegedly not having any use for it is b.s.  While I appreciate the jobs, research and prestige CC gives us, so often it acts like an out of control monster that has contempt for Cleveland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that that building is in such bad shape that they can't renovate it. This building needs to be preserved.

 

Any thoughts on a petition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that that building is in such bad shape that they can't renovate it. This building needs to be preserved.

 

Especially one that was in regular use until just the last year or two.

 

What are the laws declaring a building an historic structure when the building's owner wants the structure demolished?


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -- Lady Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the laws declaring a building an historic structure when the building's owner wants the structure demolished?

 

Not sure of the specifics, but most require the owner who wants to demolish or substantially alter, to petition for permission to whatever commission issued the declaration of historic status: city, state or federal.  The past cases I’m aware of, though, involve owners who buy a property already so designated meaning, they’re on notice.  (and like most things in our profit-driven country, if a compelling case were made by the Clinic centered on, e.g., increasing CC’s financial viability along w/ CC’s national prestige, a waiver or variance to the designation could still be granted)  I think it's tougher sledding for preservationists where the ownership predates the designation, in which case the owner could file in court to rescind the declaration on the grounds it's an unconstitutional taking without just compensation.  But that's rare, and the specifics as to when and when not such designations are considered taking-s, is beyond me...  So chances are, if the OPod buildings aren't currently designated historic, there's not much that could be done to save them absent a petition before the City's historic preservation commission where, then, I'd think the burden would be very heavy on the preservationist if CC made a showing that, true to Peter van Dijk's statement in the article, the building is incompatible with its plans and not functionally usable to them and, therefore, to force CC to keep it would work an unfair financial hardship on the institution, esp in light of the fact it (apparently) had no historic designation at the time CC purchased it... but, of course, CC would have to come much stronger (and be very detailed about future expansion) than a desire for surface parking with some amorphous plan for development at some point in the future.

 

... that's my guess, anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The setbacks on Carnegie aren't too significant. The setbacks on 89th--well, I assume that you need a setback so that drivers are able to see whether or not there are any pedestrians on the sidewalk, etc when they exit the garage.  I do wonder about the large amount of land to the immediate north of the garage. What is that for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting- the little site plan shows the larger of the two existing parking garages on E89th being replaced with green space.  I'd love to hear more about the Clinic's master plan for the area.  Not sure if it would comfort me or scare me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what it means -- that an applicant wants the building to be protected from demolition. Wonder who the applicant is?


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -- Lady Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the wink? Do you know who the applicant is?


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -- Lady Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty significant, as the Councilperson has to support any nomination for Landmarks. Without the coucilperson on board, the Clinic could have a pretty hard time tearing this down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make sure I have this straight, the councilperson for that area supported the nomination to Landmarks and thus is presumably in support of preservation?  Anyone know who the councilperson is in that area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make sure I have this straight, the councilperson for that area supported the nomination to Landmarks and thus is presumably in support of preservation?  Anyone know who the councilperson is in that area?

 

www.clevelandcitycouncil.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To bounce to another Cleveland Clinic topic... this issue isn't new, but I'm curious what other people think about the Cole Eye Institute (see http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.503057,-81.616874&spn=0.002772,0.004973&t=h&z=18&om=0).  Is this really just the most poorly sited building of all time, or do you think there's the thought of expanding west sometime, despite the service ramps and driveway.  And what's with the turn-around driveway stub?

 

I can't begin to describe how angry this POS building makes me.  Two separate car drop-offs.  The enormous unlandscaped yards facing two the city's principal streets.  Am I overreacting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To bounce to another Cleveland Clinic topic... this issue isn't new, but I'm curious what other people think about the Cole Eye Institute (see http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.503057,-81.616874&spn=0.002772,0.004973&t=h&z=18&om=0).  Is this really just the most poorly sited building of all time, or do you think there's the thought of expanding west sometime, despite the service ramps and driveway.  And what's with the turn-around driveway stub?

 

I can't begin to describe how angry this POS building makes me.  Two separate car drop-offs.  The enormous unlandscaped yards facing two the city's principal streets.  Am I overreacting?

 

I'm with you 100% on this one. I'm less harsh on the Clinic than some on this board. ie I don't think the new heart center is that bad and I like the Crile building.  But the Cole Eye Institute is so so bad. What a gigantic waste of space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...