The recent decision of the City of Cleveland Planning Commission to decline the Cuyahoga County Commissioners’ plans to demolish and replace the Cleveland Trust Tower apparently hit a nerve.

The Associated Press story on the vote was covered by papers across Eastern Ohio, and profiled the reaction of one commissioner who railed against the idea that an appointed body could deny the will of elected officials. On the other hand, the head of the commission expressed the opinion that “…We don’t get it in Cleveland…in downtown Chicago, they would never tear this down.”

Without a doubt, one by-product of this controversy has been a city-wide, regional and even national discussion concerning the place of landmarks post-World War II architecture, in terms of aesthetics, preservation, and practical reuse considerations. This conversation made it to the front pages of the New York Times on Monday, with a feature article entitled, "New Focus on a Forlorn Cleveland Tower."

In the end, however, the Cuyahoga County Commissioners may well be able to proceed with their plans (actually two of them, as Commissioner Peter Lawson Jones opposes demolition). As this recent story in the Cleveland Plain Dealer points out, Cleveland’s city charter may allow them to veto the Planning Commission’s ruling.  Interestingly, this would mean that two officials elected by a county-wide vote -- only a minority of which were Clevelanders -- can ignore the planning process in that city.

The Cleveland Trust Tower is included on the 2007 List of Ohio’s Most Endangered Historic Sites.

Photo: Cleveland Trust Rotunda and Tower - Used with permission