The Observation Deck

In order to really maintain the Lakewood look the SSA building should occupy the entire site facing the street with no parking.

dl meckes wrote:So everyone who comes to the building has to drive?

Doesn't say much for our supposedly 'walkable' city that all these buildings practically insist that you drive to them...

Heather Ramsey wrote:

dl meckes wrote:So everyone who comes to the building has to drive?

Doesn't say much for our supposedly 'walkable' city that all these buildings practically insist that you drive to them...

Heather

I am sure you realize it is only considered walkabie when needed for a political ad, or
topic in some civic discussion. After that it is all about "safe drop off" large parking lots,
and getting rid of as much grass and those pesky trees as possible.

Stan Austin wrote:Danielle-- The old YMCA was built in 1959 I believe and the large front lawn tried to mimic the large front lawn expanses of the further out suburbs, of which Lakewood was not.
Stan

Stan

Do you know that for a fact? That the front of the old YMCA was designed that way to
mimic the expanses of the suburbs?

If that is true, was wasn't the front of the YMCA filled with greenhouses, as everything
west of Wooster Road was greenhouses.

OR, could it have been since Lakewood was the "City of Trees" that the front yard 1)
Reflected that and respected the 15 large oak and maples left standing. 2) Went along
with many designs of the time to move buildings off the road for safety and cleanliness?

I would also ask if you remember the old parking lot, which was about half the size
where most people went in, through what we called as kids, a "back door." I would
hope that the ARB would look back into nice details on the mainstreet.

FWIW


.

Frankly, I'm amazed the government permitted the building go where it is at all. Since Oklahoma City and 9/11, the requirements for new federal buildings are very stringent.

Setbacks, blast-resistant construction, ventilation intakes located far away and high enough to avoid contimination. It's not easy to get a design that meets their requirements and still presents a moderately appealing architectural look.

I'm not sure what the complaint is. Does a cracked and vacant parking lot "turn its back" less than a new building?

Bob-- interesting thoughts. Welcome to the Deck. Stan

Bob Mehosky wrote:I'm not sure what the complaint is. Does a cracked and vacant parking lot "turn its back" less than a new building?

Are you suggesting that I should be happy with ANY new structure just because it replaces something that I didn't like?

Just because something is a step above a vacant lot doesn't mean I need to embrace it. I suppose it's irrelevant anyway, as the lot in question is not an abandoned parking lot.

Bob Mehosky wrote:I'm not sure what the complaint is. Does a cracked and vacant parking lot "turn its back" less than a new building?

Bob

The vacant lot is a Dunkin Doughnuts.

Dunking Dougnut better than empty lot.

Sure

Social Security will be where the church is.

FWIW

.

The vacant lot is a Dunkin Doughnuts.

FWIW

Well, half parking lot, half empty church, but I'll concede the point.

Personally, I'll take new construction and keeping jobs in Lakewood over the alternative.

At least if it's a GSA building, we know it'll be maintained, which is more than can be said for a lot of storefronts in Lakewood.

From an architectural standpoint, it looks like the architect tried to maintain a local flavor (brick facade, stone details, close proximity to the street) while meeting the security needs of the government (which are very, very specific).

Is it a masterpiece? Far from it. But it looks like a good, serviceable building.

Bob Mehosky wrote:Personally, I'll take new construction and keeping jobs in Lakewood over the alternative.

At least if it's a GSA building, we know it'll be maintained, which is more than can be said for a lot of storefronts in Lakewood.

From an architectural standpoint, it looks like the architect tried to maintain a local flavor (brick facade, stone details, close proximity to the street) while meeting the security needs of the government (which are very, very specific).

Is it a masterpiece? Far from it. But it looks like a good, serviceable building.

Bob

I am glad that Congressman Kucinich, and both Mayor FitzGerald and Mayor George
worked hard to keep the SS offices in Lakewood. From what I hear, it was not easy
and was quite a fight. I would also give a tip of the hat to the Planning Department
that was really tested in this.

I was disappointed that it was not a 6 story building as originally envisioned 6 years
ago, but you are correct it does reflect the feel of many of the buildings in the area.

While we are on the topic of that corner, I am a little curious why DD/BR was built right
on the street, with very little safe viewing from the side streets. I would have hoped
we learned from Warren and Madison, that it is comforting for motorists to see around
corners.

FWIW

.

Looks good.

I agree with points made on all sides: Glad to have the SSI office still in town. The building could be better, but is not terrible.

It doesn't, for example, show its backside to the street to the same degree that the YMCA does. The Y--the place where you go to get some exercise--has no front door at all. As for the SSI building, it's clearly not the main door, but there IS a door on the front. Does anyone know if it will be a usable entrance/exit? Can someone who arrives by bus go in the front door, or do they have to walk essentially around the block and through the parking lot to get in?

At the last census, 25% of the households in Cleveland and 13% in Lakewood did not have access to a car. Ten years later, with gas much more expensive, the Lakewood number is probably higher now. Odds are, those aren't people making the environmentally friendly choice. Odds are, they don't have a car because they don't have enough money to own one. Odds are, a bunch of them are on SSI. They ride the bus and walk.

If that single North elevation door is not a functional entry/exit, then GSA has turned its back on many of the people this building will serve. If it is a usable door, while the building remains far from perfect, I'll take it.

michael gill wrote:
If that single North elevation door is not a functional entry/exit, then GSA has turned its back on many of the people this building will serve. If it is a usable door, while the building remains far from perfect, I'll take it.

It is emergency egress only. In previous iterations, it was a hollow metal man door. It looks like they since changed it to be a nicer glass door, so that helps. The main entry will be a controlled one at the front, err, back of the building off the parking lot, from what I understand.

I am well aware of the challenges that a government building requires. I've never done a SS building but I've worked on a couple of consulates or embassies overseas. I don't think a social security building requires quite the hardening that you describe, Bob. So in your mind, we should just be happy that a building is going up in the place of that church that creates jobs, regardless of how it looks? I disagree. We need to consider the long term aesthetic affects of buildings along the highest profile street Lakewood has. Kudos to the ARB for stepping in to help maintain some standards and some human scale, which is important for a building like this.

That--the front door being for emergency egress only--is disappointing.

Not just that people who arrive by bus or on foot have to walk around the block to the back of the building, but also that GSA simply walks over local architectural standards.

Valerie Molinski wrote:

michael gill wrote:
I am well aware of the challenges that a government building requires. I've never done a SS building but I've worked on a couple of consulates or embassies overseas. I don't think a social security building requires quite the hardening that you describe, Bob.

Valerie,

I'm not sure when you've worked on those buildings, but if it's post Okalahoma City and 9/11, you'd know that the GSA's PBS-P100 standard has chapters devoted to security, both in terms of access and blast mitigation. Now that I think about it, consulates and embassies may not be subject to GSA design standards, although I know the DoS's headquarters in DC is.

If you're seriously interested in learning about it, I'd suggest you download the latest version of the GSA's building standard PBS-P100 from the GSA's website.

All I expressed was my own opinion based on reviewing the Architectural elevations. It looked to me like Architectural decisions for this building were most assuredly not made in a vacuum. It's pretty obvious that the design team made a good effort to align the desires of the city with that of the federal government.

Not trying to start a flame war here, so I'll sign off of this topic........

Bob Mehosky wrote:

Valerie Molinski wrote:

michael gill wrote:
Valerie,

I'm not sure when you've worked on those buildings, but if it's post Okalahoma City and 9/11, you'd know that the GSA's PBS-P100 standard has chapters devoted to security, both in terms of access and blast mitigation. Now that I think about it, consulates and embassies may not be subject to GSA design standards, although I know the DoS's headquarters in DC is.

If you're seriously interested in learning about it, I'd suggest you download the latest version of the GSA's building standard PBS-P100 from the GSA's website.

All I expressed was my own opinion based on reviewing the Architectural elevations. It looked to me like Architectural decisions for this building were most assuredly not made in a vacuum. It's pretty obvious that the design team made a good effort to align the desires of the city with that of the federal government.

Not trying to start a flame war here, so I'll sign off of this topic........

They were post 9/11... so yes, we had to address blast, access, security, etc. The main difference being that consulates and embassies USED to be sited within major cities and after 9/11, they began moving them out into the fringes of cities for better security and protection.

I haven't done a free standing GSA project in a while but I've worked on some tenant improvement projects they have in existing buildings here and know their little quirks as well that are required to be met in buildings. Nothing lately with the extent of having to harden buildings and really look at major security like safe rooms or guard stations and blast proof windows, however.

No flames, here, Bob. I just didn't agree with you. I dont know if it is 'obvious that both sides were met.' Like I said, I do not know the exact requirements that a SS building would require but I think it could have been better. Again, I don't know all of the requirements the architect had to meet (and I know who the architect is on this project and he does good work).

And I said it has improved from its first iterations based on feedback from the ARB as well. I'm still disappointed. I don't think it is a great building. I still appreciate that they are moving in. I still think the building is 'turning its back.' Whether it had to or not is not the issue. Just that it does.