urbanomics

The new DCA video released today...

My understanding is that there is no longer a BRT component.

The Group Plan is interesting. The one area of LMN's plan that I disagree with is their concept for re-establishing the grassy bluff north of City Hall and County Bldg. They wanted to tear down the parking garages in the latest plan, if I'm remembering correctly. In their current incarnation, the Shoreway and rail line would devalue any attempted return to the "Postcard days" of this area. The solution to connecting downtown to the shoreline is an infrastructural one. Ideas like the North Coast Transportation Center or extending the Convention Center northward make much more sense for connectivity. I could be wrong, but my understanding was that the idea of removing the garages to restore the lakefront park was only a conceptual idea proposed by LMN, while the actual final Group Plan report only recommended enhancing the landscaping north of the Courthouse and City Hall to connect Willard Park and Fort Huntington Park with the Mall. At least that's how I interpret it: http://media.cleveland.com/pdgraphics_impact/photo/11cgmalljpg-b09cefc673b80f25.jpg I agree with you that I would not want to see the garages removed. If part of the recommendations includes creating a bridge or other connection from the north end of the Mall to the lakefront, I have to believe that the garages (and their structural elements) would be critical to accomplishing this.

Not sure if this constitutes a single project, but I'd go with the Group Plan Commission recommendations. I think, if done properly, it will have the power to spur a lot of the other private developments downtown, like Jacobs' Public Square property, the WHD lots, and the Port area north of the stadium. Not to mention it would help unify all the other fragmented parts that already exist.

^ The new Coast Guard Station... http://greatlakes.coastguard.dodlive.mil/2010/11/groundbreaking-a-new-day-for-clevelands-coast-guard-facilities/

Having lived there for nearly five years, I couldn't agree more. Downtown has some nice elements, primarily elements that would cater to the tourist/conventioneer (specifically lots of recognizable chain restaurant/stores). Leave downtown, however, and there is very little redeeming about it, in my opinion. Nice shots, BTW!

This kind of applies to the 3C's more than just Cleveland, but I've seen these Cleveland-oriented Leinenkugel ads the past few months and figured they produced other spots for a bunch of cities nationwide, but it appears that they really only focused on Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ohio. Kind of cool that they could adapt them the way they did. And I like their beer... http://the330.com/featured/leinenkugel-targets-ohio-drinkers/

^ I was on the 7:26(ish) from Puritas so I was probably on with you. The crowd was much more normal in size, maybe even slightly lighter. The increased frequency has to be helping a lot. Good to see the adjustments having a notably positive effect.

^ I'm confused too. I thought the upfront payment was the primary reason for the lease idea in the first place. From the PD story above: "The governor prefers a lease because of the up-front cash it would yield, Wray said." http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/06/post_475.html

Thanks for the info Jerry. For what it's worth, I actually haven't had any problems with being late. I've still been able to board at just about the same time and get to TC at about the same time, coincidentally since the train seems to arrive at my normal departing time. And I obviously appreciate the concern for passenger safety. Just was curious if adding a third car was something feasible given the circumstances. Thanks for the clarification and update.

Thanks for the insight KJP & Jerry!

First off, I just want to say that I've been riding the Red Line for the past two months and love it. I also think RTA did a good job of getting the info out about delays yesterday (and to a lesser degree today, although I expected it might take more than a day to fix the issues). But is there any reason why, since there's essentially fewer trains running with the signal issues, that they can't add a third car to accommodate the extra passengers (that would have otherwise been on the alternating Brookpark-to-Tower City trains)? Is it because some stations can't accommodate that many cars? Is it cost? Just seems like it could have saved a lot of headaches for both RTA and the riders. The train I was on this morning was basically packed to the doors with standees by the time we left the W 117th Station, with three more stops to go before we got to Tower City.

So help me understand this....the eastbound design may be different than the westbound design? You'd think they would be the same no? That's like taking the front end of a cruise ship and sticking the ass end of an aircraft carrier on the back. Both big and sturdy but completely different. Both bridges will look the same, style-wise, but because the second bridge will need to cross the river valley at different points/terrains/angles, it needs to be designed and engineered differently. You can't just make a carbon copy of the first bridge, slide it north, and hope it meets land at both ends. At least that's how I understand it.

If I remember correctly, ODOT determined that an implosion would run the risk of further destabilizing the hillside, so the slow demolition was the preferred method.

Awesome set!

^ I agree. Burnham, I think you're renderings are great and provide excellent visual aids, but I think focusing on the general concepts (which StrapHanger covered really well) would be the most effective route to take.

I found what I was thinking of. It was Jeff Jacob's casino/hotel proposal from a couple years back. Pretty sure that's not happening. http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/08/developer_jeff_jacobs_opposes.html

Didn't Jacobs also float a CC hotel proposal for the existing county admin site a while back? I recall a fairly bland rendering of a 20-30 story tower. Could that be back in play?

Interesting that Nashville, while being touted as a highly-regarded medical community by it's medical mart developers, only has two "top-ranked" hospitals in the entire metro area, compared to Cleveland's 17. Seems like quite a disparity.

Thanks for the update! Interesting note about the marble quarry.

I was almost thinking that, if Ontario St. was to be closed through the square, you could essentially leave the traffic light in place or install a new one that completely stopped traffic to allow pedestrians to cross. It's not like it would be adding an additional signal where there wasn't one already. But I have no idea if that would fly with traffic engineers or even be a realistic option.

^ Very good point. Dam Square is probably an extreme example of minimal design, and PS probably needs something more to it to generate additional activity. I guess my suggestion was that too much can be bad as well, as you said.

Thanks for all the comments and compliments. Glad the idea has some appeal and I really enjoy seeing the different thoughts and ideas about how the square can be improved. I understand the concerns over having an abundance of paved surface in the design and realize that there is a very fine line between “plaza” and “parking lot” (plus I could see winter maintenance with substantial plowing/salting becoming an issue). But on the other side, I also think there is a fine line between having a multi-functional, mobile space and having a confusing maze. Adding too many elements to the space, like fountains, hills, grass areas, statues, gardens, etc., can make it less accessible and functional. I think that has a lot to do with the square’s current issues. The SW quadrant has a bunch of tiers and steps, the SE has a giant monument, the NE has a water feature in the middle, and the NW has a lawn. None of them work together in any real fashion and they really end up just impeding any sense of pedestrian flow. Some of the best public spaces have hardly anything to them. One of my favorite examples is Dam Square in Amsterdam: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Dam+Square,+Burgwallen-Nieuwe+Zijde,+Amsterdam,+The+Netherlands&aq=0&sll=41.500008,-81.693791&sspn=0.001097,0.002411&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Dam,+Burgwallen-Nieuwe+Zijde,+Amsterdam,+Noord-Holland,+The+Netherlands&ll=52.373074,4.892548&spn=0.001788,0.006866&t=h&z=18 There’s a monument off to the one side (similar to how the Soldiers and Sailors Monument), a road running through it (similar to how Superior would be if Ontario were to be closed), transit crossing it (like the Healthline) and not much else. And yet it functions well as a public space. I realize that it has a far different history than PS. Dam Square has been a gathering place for the city since Medieval times, while PS is trying to reinvent itself and reestablish some kind of identity. However, I don’t necessarily think that identity needs to be anything complicated or earth-shattering. I may be in the minority, but I don’t think to goal should necessarily be to get Joe Suburb from Berea (or even a downtown resident) to say “Hey, who wants to go hang out Public Square today?” I just think it needs to be able to function as best as possible as a part of its surroundings. I agree that more activity at street level from the surrounding buildings would certainly aid this cause. I also think that programming it with concerts, events, etc. could bring more people out at times. But I also think that the vast majority of the time it just needs to function as a contiguous hub of movement and activity, which is why I think that (at least design-wise) less could be more. Just some more food for thought.

I’m kind of late to the party and I apologize if this is somewhat rambling, but I wanted to submit my thoughts on this because I feel that my vision is notably different than what has been discussed. A lot of the discussion on how to redesign the square has centered around the idea of creating a park, and, personally, I think that is the right idea for the wrong location. To me, Public Square has never been a park nor should it be. In my mind, it is more of a plaza. It is and always has been the center of movement and activity in the city, starting with just people to streetcars and now cars. Trying to make it into a serene park-like setting is opposite of what it wants to be or should be. Personally, that is how the Malls should be designed, not Public Square. A lot of the ideas I’ve seen have been essentially trying to create a new PS and new Mall from the same palate, when I really think they should be two completely different things. I tend to think of PS more like Cleveland’s version of Times Square (albeit far less busy), where cars, buses, and people are able to coexist. It’s already set up to be that way. The Mall is more like Cleveland’s Central Park (albeit on a far smaller scale) where people can go to escape traffic and be in a more serene park-like setting. It’s already set up to be that way too. But instead of trying to develop each space as best as possible within its own unique characteristics, it seems like a lot of ideas are trying to make PS and the Malls into essentially the same thing. PS was originally designed to be like a European-style public space, and I think it should try to be like that again. Look at some of the spaces and plazas in Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, etc., and they all have cars, public transit, and people all coexisting in the same space. They serve more as hubs of movement and activity rather than passive parks. I feel the same can be done with PS. Here’s my mock up: Some ideas: - Make the entire space – from the outermost sidewalks along Tower City/Key Tower/etc. to the center – paved with the same brick or pavers to give a feeling of togetherness so that PS now makes up the entire space between buildings as opposed to just the four squares. Monument Circle in Indianapolis has a similar set-up and I think it really works by calming traffic and making the whole space feel like one big urban room. - Close Ontario as suggested by the Group Plan Commission and unite the four squares into two rectangles. Keep Superior open, but the pavers will calm traffic to make it more approachable to pedestrians. Right now, pedestrians are visitors on the road. Instead, the cars should be visitors on the square. Look at Andrew Young Blvd. in Atlanta where it runs through the plaza in Centennial Olympic Park. - Put an outdoor visitors’ center/kiosk for Positively Cleveland on the south rectangle to draw visitors to the plaza and help PS serve as a starting point and hub that connects amenities. - I’m not sure if this is possible, but with all the new food vendors and trucks starting up around town, why not offer permanent stands on the northern part of the square for these same vendors to cater to the office crowds and visitors? Maybe put some tables and chairs under trees for those who want to sit and people watch. Basically, the whole space is designed to allow for freedom of movement around and across the square while still offering the public gathering space it was meant to support. It opens up in the middle for people who are just crossing through or gathering while still serving to transit riders on the perimeter. There is just more space to move now instead of everyone being crammed along the edges, with people walking trying to maneuver around people waiting. Long winded, but I felt like I’d throw my perspective into the mix. The short of it is: I think PS would be better if designed as a plaza rather than a park.

The MAC would be a downward move in basketball at this point. I think at least part of the reason they wouldn't play in the MAC is a lack of football. Every current MAC school has a football program. The only conference I could see being a good fit and an upgrade for CSU is the A-10: no conference football (like the HL) and maybe a few more historically good basketball schools than the HL.