Plain Dealer offers fact and fiction, up to readers to figure out for self.

I suppose the purpose of an editorial is to comment, in simple terms, upon a subject regardless of whether or not one is an authority upon a certain topic in order to appear to have a grasp of said object of ire. I just wish that people that offer editorials, especially journalists, would attempt to utilize the same rules of journalistic integrity that they hopefully studied from an accredited college and not as ideals gleaned from network television. I honestly believe that the print news is our last bastion of domestic information and honestly strives to not be too swayed by local government or the opions of its readers instead it attempts to fulfill its goal of factual accounts for the rest of us to make informed opinions based upon. I admit I typically get my news from such 'liberal based outlets' as the BBC and Reuters but for civic and domestic issues I necessitate the local newspaper to keep me informed.

I may just have to give up and start reading the weekly free mags.

Today the Plain Dealer published a general editorial regarding how the Planning Commission should push forward and approve the County's demolition of the Breuer Ameritrust Tower. I understand the difference in opinions. Truly, I think that opposing points of view are great. What concerns me is when a newspaper spouts information that appears to have been spoon fed to them as independant thoughts deserving to masquerade as such.

Seriously, the tower can't withstand the earthaquakes that the region is known for? Is this a new thing? All the other points raised have been dealt with and could be dealt with by a design team led by the laziest intern. They really don't require that much thought and have been refuted again and again and again and again. In fact, one design team even shared their presentation on how to solve many of those problems at a public meeting (perhaps no one from the PD attended?).

How to consolidate offices? Communicating stairs can be used to connect multiple floors which can be cut open to create grand spaces for each department and can radiate from centrally located meeting spaces (which can be shared).

Low floor to floor for all the new technology and 'hi-tech' wiring? Really? As our technology increases we need MORE SPACE? Doesn't that seem counter intuitive? Exposed spiral ductwork, radiant slab heating/cooling (you only need to add a 2" topping slab to the existing - which could also enclose electrial and telecommunication conduit), soffited plumbing around the perimeter which would not obstruct views from the windows, those are some ideas off the top of my head. Heck, the most hi-tech of all wiring systems is to go, well, wireless.

Windows are leaky? So, replace the glass. That has to be cheaper then replacing the entire skin of the building.

Asbestos is pervasive? Please look at these photos of the Tower under construction and notice that the panels appear to be fastened to the bare steel. The asbestos must have been used primarily as fireproofing and is not as 'pervasive' as mentioned. Regardless, rehab or demolition, the panels would have to be removed and cleaned with either option. The only difference is whether they are reinstalled or thrown out.

It seems that the application of any thought could easily offer solutions to any of the 'arguments for the building's demise' that the county/Plain Dealer could offer.

I also find it ridiculous that this whole conversation exists in a vacuum lacking any sort of design strategy or solution from the selected 'design team'.

Talk about being disingenuous.

Special thanks to Cleveland Skyscapers dot com