« Confirming ALL my biases about contemporary journalism | Main | What happens when you cross a state church with modern fundraising? »
May 18, 2007
Marcel Breuer, Unloved Architect
The 21st century is starting badly for Marcel Breuer - another of his buildings is threatened with destruction, this time a 29-story office building in Cleveland. I last blogged about a threatened Breuer library in Michigan back in April.
Here's the story, with my Soltanesque comments inserted.
The commissioners have differed over whether it would be more costly to raze and demolish the asbestos-laden building and replace it or to renovate it. In either case, commissioners have agreed to preserve an adjacent landmark, the 1908 Cleveland Trust rotunda. Note: the commissioners aren't mere vandalsThe Breuer building has supporters, but few willing to admit loving the boxy, unadorned style. Even Jones takes a long pause before sizing up his position.
"Aesthetically, it doesn't move me," he said.
Style point: I prohibit the use of the word aesthetic and all its derivatives in undergraduate papers because all it means to them is 'move me.'The architect community has pressured commissioners to save the building, in part because of its Breuer origin and as an energy-saving gesture with the thought that it would be less costly energy-wise to renovate.
Watch for this new tactic - calling renovation 'green.' I want to see the numbers before I believe that asbestos abatement for a 40 year old, 29-story, asbestos-laden building is cheaper than removal and building new. We're talking 1968, not some fabled age of great construction.Lawrence Lumpkin, a planning commission member, toured the building in advance of the public hearings and said he was undecided on its future.
"It definitely has some historical significance, but I also wonder if it has the ability to meet the needs of the county services that are being planned for it," he said Tuesday.
David Niland, an architecture professor at the University of Cincinnati, said it would be a shame to tear it down.
"In Cleveland, it's a significant building and the architect himself is one of the icons of the so-called 'modern movement' in this country," he said by phone from Cincinnati. "He had a profound influence on many, many architects."
It's not unique even in Cleveland - there's another Marcel Breuer down the block - the 1970s wing of the Cleveland Museum. I like that "so-called 'modern movement.'"Tony Hiti, 43, an architect and fan of the building, joined a recent sidewalk protest outside the building to support its renovation and predicted the structure would be missed if demolished.
"I think it's a fine example of modern architecture," he said.
Still, Hiti said, "I understand why it doesn't have wide appeal," lacking ornamentation and familiar details like columns, arches or sculpted facades.
In other words, like most Breuer buildings it's ugly. It not only doesn't have wide appeal, it's big in its ugliness. 29 stories of so-called modernism."This is a very important building by one of the pioneering architects of the 20th century," Hiti said as fellow protesters handed out leaflets to fans headed to a Cleveland Indians game.
I'd say that Breuer is better known for the chairs, and those are damned uncomfortable - I lived with a set of 4 for a long time and hated them. I did like their bounce.Dimora and Hagan, who lost a campaign for governor in 2002, didn't return messages seeking comment on the dispute. Hagan said earlier that he didn't want to be lobbied on the issue and had made up his mind.
Hagan has said the government for Ohio's most populous county deserves a signature building. As for Breuer's design, "If it was a great building, it wouldn't be vacant," he told The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer.
Great conclusion - and not a bad way of thinking about the issue.
My criticism of the preservationists and architects is not entirely aimed at Breuer. It looks like a distinguished example of what I will go ahead and call Modernism. But it's not lovely and was never meant to be. Now if you think the style expresses something important about local government, and I'm not at all sure that it doesn't, given the political proclivities of Modernism towards central planning, go right ahead. But I would want to see the numbers worked out very carefully before accepting any 'green' arguments about renovation being cheaper. Renovation will certainly be cheaper in the short term than tearing down and building another 29-story building, but is that scale what Cleveland needs? And in the long run, will it be possible to renovate and retrofit a 1968 building to meet any contemporary standards economically? I have my doubts - Breuer was designing for a different world. Asbestos is just the beginning.
Posted by CrankyProfessor at May 18, 2007 6:39 AM
Comments
'it's not lovely and it was never meant to be'
this states the heart of the matter admirably well - I want to see and visit and inhabit buildings that please me, and not just that I'm told I should admire for their deliberately stark (unpleasing) appearance
Posted by: Philip Sellew at May 19, 2007 10:30 AM
The "aesthetics" and appeal of Brutalism aside, it is important to focus on the context of how such a building benefits Cleveland TODAY. My girlfriend commented on how the existing structure has a "Cleveland" feel to it...
Quite appropriate, if one translates the collective socioeconomic neurosis of a "rust-belt" city into the literal forms of dingy precast "airline" window panels, chunky Modernist form which, until the lobby is entered, falls well short of what Mies accomplished, and a vacancy which would have doomed "lesser" structures long ago...
Yes, its Breuer. Does the attachment of the name, and, quite frankly, an uninspired design immediately deify the stucture? I think not. Even great minds such as Breuer are human, and as such, are not exempt from laying the occasional "egg". Countless inspired, and not-so-inspired examples of Modernism have shown their warts over time.
"Opinion!" they will scream. and a relatively uninformed one from a recent achitecture graduate, no less. So be it. For years prior, my "untrained" eye, whether out of ignorance or subconscious disdain, never associated this stucture either with the city, or its skyline. Not until I had modelled the beast as "surrounding structure" for a school project.
Now, I cannot look away. It is, as I see it, a Brutalist gesture in precast windows grafted onto a lifeless form, ad nauseum. Sorry, but if it were to work as Brutalism, then the stucture itself would inform the expression beyond the application of the precast panels.
I won't even go into the floorplans. Suffice it to say I'm glad I don't work there, but I'm "spoiled". And, heaven forbid the observations of a "layperson" should run afoul of the relatively young, constantly changing, yet curiously entrenched perceptions of Modernism.
Posted by: Chris Rood at July 10, 2007 8:40 PM