Recent Comments
- John Polk said “I knew Charles when he was EVP of The Atlanta Chamber and I worked for ...” on Memories of Oklahoma City circa 1993
- John Polk said “Back in the mid-80's and early 90's, Cleveland was actually recognized as one of the ...” on Economic development in NEO: A view from the street-level
- John Polk said “Is there any way to substantiate Dimora's claim re: GCP and the PD, other than ...” on Cleveland’s new development dynamic?
- George Nemeth said “Like all glimmers of newness in CLE+ I expect this one to be crushed too” on Cleveland’s new development dynamic?
- Cleveland’s new development dynamic? | Brewed Fresh Daily said “[...] by Ohio voters, as gambling interests convert the Ohio constitution into a zoning ordinance. ...” on Ohio’s casino deal gets a bit more messy
- About BDP Comments
Meta
Derek Arnold · A Love Letter to President Schwartz
July 3rd, 2008
Steven Litt, the PD’s architecture writer wrote a post about the legacy of outgoing Cleveland State University President Michael Schwartz. His analysis was centered around, no surprise, the new architecture that was a part of Cleveland State’s Campus.
Litt’s praise is based on the replacement of some of the more drab elements of CSU’s campus:
That plan envisioned transforming CSU into a residential campus packed with amenities and street-friendly buildings that would spark an urban revival on fallow acres around the campus. It’s very much like what other universities are doing across the country, from Yale and the University of Pennsylvania to Notre Dame and Ohio State University.
Cleveland State has since committed roughly $280 million on its own or in partnership with developers to build 11 projects, all by different architects, but all aimed at piercing the university’s hard, concrete shell.
I think that the buildings that got replaced (especially the University Center) needed to be replaced (I can’t wait to see Rhodes Tower go the way of the dodo) but an aggressive (and necessary) physical plant redevelopment does not a good university president make.
CSU attempted to be more exclusive under the tutelage of President Schwartz. Why did this garner support when being an open and inclusive university did not. That is more the fault of the community and not the University. When the barriers (financial, social and economic) to higher education are getting higher, Schwartz’s CSU seemed to proceed undaunted.
Don’t get me wrong, nothing is wrong with higher standards at public universities in particular and public institutions in general but isn’t it the university’s job to educate those who come for that purpose? Not just those that can afford it or are already capable?
