327

Brutalism and Beachwood aren't the only two choices, and some recent additions aren't all that distinct from brutalist concepts anyway. This new science building is another example. I was hoping for buildings that embrace the street and utilize their entire frontage, like those along main streets in most major cities. The analogue here shouldn't be Cambridge... it should be central Boston. This is right downtown. Lots should be fully utilized, and individual lawns for each building aren't necessary. Even minimal grass is out of place along Euclid, and "significant grass" like in the Corlett Building footprint is simply uncalled for. What should CSU put there instead? Something like the Corlett Building. Consider the area around Wayne State in Detroit, which features a Lakewood/Coventry type of built environment. Other examples abound... downtown campuses don't typically load up on small patches of greenspace, or single-use buildings with setbacks. Those elements are typically used to insulate structures from pedestrians, not to invite them in. The dorms on Euclid were a major step forward, as was the P-H admin building, which features a restaurant right at the sidewalk. The new student center does have a bar in it, but it has no street presence and even its outdoor terrace is isolated by the building's design. It certainly doesn't beckon to passers-by. I would prefer that CSU focus its Euclid Ave developments in the direction of mixed use, increased density, and an unmistakably downtown feel.

Pedestrian and bike bridges do seem like a way to help those constituencies, without taking anything from those who prefer the roadway remain as it is. The continued dismissal of that point of view has been noted by many people, people whose support may one day be needed. As to the money, yes, we both know that. So spend the transport money on improving transport, while using other monies to stimulate development more directly. I don't get how suddenly the boulevard conversion was never intended to stimulate nearby development. Up till now that's been one of the main points of it. If it's only about "access" to the lake... you've got to be kidding me. That does not require disregarding thousands of commuters, an aspect of this which increasingly comes off as gratuitous and spiteful. That takes us back to where we started, with less intrusive alternatives like bridges providing "access" equal to or better than at-grade crosswalks.

What additional land would be opened by slowing down the road that isn't currently open? It's been noted that the shoreway is fronted by undevelopable land on one side (park, industry, sewage plant) and a steep grade on the other. Returns would be severely tempered by these obstacles, even if every bullet point on the shoreway wish list were realized. As for nothing ever developing along an expedient lakefront road, Chicago has done a better than average job of it. I say put the money into actual development if that's the end goal. This is the most roundabout way of building buildings I've ever heard of.

C-Dawg you bring up an interesting point... if you need to make money and don't have any, your choices are very limited. But if you already have money, you can afford to pursue a more rounded education, or even a non-essential major. This leads to the intellectual fields being increasingly dominated by a certain group of people with a certain set of experiences. I don't see much good coming from that arrangement.

Ramathorn! That one made me a little uneasy, but then again most of the building is offices. I just hope the performance venue aspect is retained as well. But given the geriatric focus of all the housing going in, the chances of Beachland-style spillover seem remote.

It worked perfectly for quite a while when first installed. What's this about a week? In that hypothetical, sure, go after the vendor. But that's not the situation here. And it still seems silly to be so hardcore toward this sculptor when many of the trees were DOA and the fare machines have never been right.

Who are these officials? Why did they "shelve" rail planning? Are they still in office? Why did Coleman relent? None of this reflects favorably. The Cincinnati streetcar had government backers who made transit an issue and didn't give up. The same is true in many other cities. Short North has a claim to being Ohio's premier urban neighborhood, but without rail it has a major competitive disadvantage. Now would be as good a time as any for Columbus to clearly indicate that its future lies in Short North rather than... further north. Public investment decisions do not currently display that level of commitment.

KJP the funny thing about contracts is that they're rarely negotiated from equal positions. In this case, RTA was running the show. And in a contract between RTA and a vendor, which side represents the community's interests? Not the vendor. The point is to get the job done and here it's not getting done. It makes no sense to hold an artist responsible for indefinite maintenance. Artists don't have the deepest of pockets, and their creations tend to outlive them. If a tile falls out of a mural at the 117th station, does the original artist have to come and glue it back in? That just doesn't seem like an effective way to manage the situation.

You seem to be under the impression that Columbus is currently a Republican stronghold. It is anything but. The current Democratic mayor was just re-elected to his fourth consecutive four-year term. All seven City Council members are Democratic and have been since 2004. I erred in saying "reliably" when what I really meant was more Republican. And I had no desire to instigate a 2-page pissing match. I do believe statewide politicians tend to favor their home areas, however slightly. This is natural and probably stems from ideological affinity as much as anything else. If Sears did move to Columbus, I doubt they'd end up downtown or anywhere nearby. More likely in Licking or Delaware County.

I don't think "passing the buck" means what you think it means. I'm stopping the buck. You're suggesting the buck splits into 100 pennies with wings.

Key piece of info: This is RTA's project. If for whatever reason they couldn't provide for upkeep, they're at fault because they created the situation. I don't see much point in splitting hairs and diffusing blame when one agency spearheaded the whole shebang. And yes, the current level of upkeep does make our city look cheap.

Yes I know they left but since the Casino and medical mart is coming there should be renewed interest in this space because high rollers will be there so Forest City should be pushing high end retailers a lot and also could add the downtown residency boom as an incentive (which was missing in the 90's) Not poking at you personally...but this is the logic that amuses me..when people assume this casino is gong to attract some high end roller crowd. I'm similarly amused when people assume a casino would bring in drifters with flies buzzing about their heads. I lived in Detroit when their casinos were built-- right next to the projects, mind you-- and the crowd they drew was decidedly upscale. Of course they weren't all "high rollers" but it was a better mix than the area had seen in decades. And Detroit's downtown has improved since the casinos came in. It has a lot more going on now than it did before they opened.

You have a point. But I think Kasich's plan is to 1) boost Cbus as Ohio's first city, and 2) make Cbus more reliably republican in the process. Sears would bring a lot of high income transplants from the Illinois exurbs.

No. I don't think there are any department store spaces left downtown at all, though I'm sure we could have filled one with the money it took to build Steelyard Commons.

Lovely.

Why not? You have to maintain the sidewalk in front of your house. And if you don't or can't, the city or other local government jurisdiction (in this case RTA) will assess you for the cost of them taking care of it instead. Same deal with the HealthLine. Then they should go ahead and do so... fix and assess. But leaving things messed up for all to see should not be an option. Regardless of how they've got it set up contractually, this is RTA's baby and ultimately it's RTA with egg on their face. Setting up the contracts in a way that nothing gets done is hardly a victory.

I like those a lot, and it's unacceptable to leave them inoperative for an extended period. It's also unacceptable that the artist would have to pay out of pocket. Outdoor lighting needs regular maintenance and that shouldn't be blamed on the artist at this point. I'm fed up with RTA refusing to maintain the Health Line and trying to shift the responsibility to others. This notion that individual property owners have to maintain the landscaping is absurd. The whole idea was to help them, not to fling ongoing expenses at them. That kind of behavior makes it more difficult to muster the support we need for future transit expansions.

I just read the last 5 pages of this thread. Not clear if the total cost here is 1.6 million, or 1.6 million per phase. For that kind of money it's a shame we can't get roofs on the shelters or the fountain that was originally planned. Based on renderings alone, I had thought those mounds were the park's best feature. Having seen it in real life now, I think the fountain would have been the best feature. But there is no fountain.

I think we should seriously consider how Ohio has fallen so far behind in this regard. Short North is doing a better job than the rest of the state, but Keith M. is right... a few streetview tours are worth a thousand words. What's practically impossible here seems routine elsewhere. We need to get to the bottom of that. We need to shut down anti-density forces in our cities and we need to rearrange our spending priorities. We need to stop focusing on "boulevard vibrant greenspace" and focus on getting buildings built. Frankly, we've been getting our asses kicked.

The design isn't my chief concern... I'd thought all this bare grass along Euclid was accidental, a side effect of other goals pursued. Access to the arena, an art building that never got built, etc. Now it sounds like the grass itself is a goal. I can't get behind that. I think CSU fundamentally misunderstands what makes a city street attractive and functional. This philosophical approach is a page straight from Beachwood's book. I'm beginning to see how those inappropriately suburban designs for the Chester development came to pass. Why would someone approve that? Because they believe patches of grass draw people to a city's main street, that's why. The vast anti-density conspiracy strikes again!

I respectfully disagree... to me that design looks garish and hacky, especially sitting next to Trinity Cathedral.

Will these fins be rain/snow resistant? Shade is a smart priority for a place like Bakersfield.

That's a bit heavy on the stereotyping. Have you been to a casino? There's usually a sizable upscale contingent along with the little old ladies. And retail attached to casinos is usually more upscale than what's at Tower City right now. Ideally, yes. That's why I'm not sure this "outlet" plan is really the way to go. Downtown Cleveland should not be trying to emulate Lodi or Grove City.

So do you think this will happen? Yes. The casino fills the anchor-tenant void, drawing enough general traffic to make smaller stores viable.

Makes perfect sense to me.