Map Boy

Anyone listen to 90.3 @ 9 on WCPN (Cleveland's Ideastream, NPR) yesterday? From 9 - 10 am the conversation was about the smoking ban proposed for Summit County. It was a very interested (and heated) conversation between a pro-ban and an anti-ban advocate and went pretty much like this thread has gone. Each would present data or an argument that seemed unrefutable and the other would come right back with completely contradictory data that seemed equally unrefutable. So, much as is the norm with these sorts of debates, if you went in with your mind set on one opinion, you surely left with the same opinion. And if you went in hoping for guidance, you probably left just as undecided! I'll keep an eye on www.wcpn.org to see if they post the podcast...I'm sure you'd all be interested to hear it!

Not to mention that this could be a productive exercise for many businesses, artists and the like. Free or low-cost marketing for those who do the displays, plus additional foot traffic for existing businesses...plus the subconscious effects of people noticing that there are storefronts and that they are enticing and attractive and that there was an effort behind a project like what we're talking about here. I think that's one of the most significant things for the average visitor to Downtown Cleveland...whether they be an everyday worker or an out-of-towner...that impression of abandonment...that no one cares or is paying attention. If someone takes ownership of these spaces, the impressions of passers-by and other owners and retailers can only improve...and this kind of thing can be contagious!

^Yup, that's the event I posted at http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=6068.0. The flyers seems to be getting good circulation, but I, too, feel that this is just ODOT going through the motions. From what I've heard in recent days, ODOT and B&N are each saying that the decision's been made and that there was ample time for public input over the past couple years. I think the only thing that could throw a wrench in the works at this point would be for Alsenas/Cuyahoga County/City of Cleveland to come up with some funding for another engineering study to prove that the southern alignment is as effective, less damaging and creates more opportunities than the current choice. Any chance of this happening?

Somehow this eluded me until this morning...and now it's too late! Anyone go to this? ** Open to the Public** Joint Meeting of the City Planning Commission, the Design Review Committee and the Cleveland Landmarks Commission on: Friday, November 11, 2005 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM Cleveland Convention Center 500 Lakeside Avenue Room 212 (Enter through the arch on Lakeside Ave.) Through various planning efforts, the Cleveland City Planning Commission has been assessing the need for new downtown meeting and exhibition facilities for more than a decade. These efforts have focused on evaluating sites that can best accommodate a downtown convention center and complementing greater Cleveland’s existing base of hotels and visitor attractions that can enhance northeast Ohio as a major visitor destination throughout the 21st century. Staff of the Planning Commission evaluated seven downtown sites and conducted four community meetings throughout Cuyahoga County that attracted almost 700 people in spring 2003. Based on comments raised by the public and technical reviews of the seven convention center proposals, the Planning Commission passed a resolution in July 2003 that recommended two sites as appropriate for further consideration for new convention facilities in downtown Cleveland – the site of the existing Cleveland Convention Center at the Mall and a site integrated with the Tower City Center retail and office complex along the Cuyahoga River. In May 2004, the Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners appointed the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Convention Facilities Authority (CFA) as allowed under laws of the State of Ohio for purposes of financing, constructing and operating a new convention center in the City of Cleveland. For more information about the CFA, visit its web site at www.conventioncleveland.com. After reviewing previous reports about new convention facilities in Cleveland and alternative sites for it, the CFA determined that a new market assessment was needed in light of changing business travel patterns after the tragedies of September 11, 2001. In early 2005, PricewaterhouseCoopers, leading industry experts, assessed future market demand at all existing convention facilities throughout the United States and determined that Cleveland’s current downtown convention center is not competitive with more updated, state-of-the-art convention centers built recently through the Midwest region. To support greater Cleveland’s existing hospitality industry, the CFA determined that new convention facilities should be built in downtown with: * 300,000 square feet of exhibition space; * 100,000 square feet of meeting rooms, and * 35,000 square feet of ballrooms. In June 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed two alternative layouts – the Mall West Block and the Mall Lakefront – for a contemporary convention center in downtown Cleveland at the Mall overlooking North Coast Harbor. Prepared for the CFA, the plans for each of these alternatives meet the basic building program identified above as well the appropriate support spaces that are necessary for holding events at contemporary convention centers including registration lobbies, circulation corridors, loading docks and other areas for storage, kitchens and administrative offices. An area for a 600-room headquarters hotel with 18,000 square feet of meeting rooms and 20,000 square feet of ballroom space is proposed to be adjacent to the proposed convention center’s main registration lobby with direct indoor access. On July 1, 2005, the Planning Commission ratified a resolution approving the Mall between St. Clair Avenue and the NS freight railroad tracks and other surrounding properties west to Ontario Street (between St. Clair and Lakeside avenues) and north to Erieside Avenue (between Cleveland Browns Stadium and East 9th Street) to accommodate state-of-the-art meeting and exhibition facilities. In September 2005, the CFA received a letter to once again place a site between the Tower City Center retail and office complex along the Cuyahoga River – the River Site – controlled by Forest City Commercial Group into consideration for downtown convention facilities. On October 21, 2005, the City Planning Commission received a staff report of comparative site information for three sites: * River Site * Mall West Block Site * Mall Lakefront Site The information provided includes site plans, floor plans, building sections and renderings for each site as well as descriptions of each site in terms of site size, current uses, proposed convention center layouts, urban context, major utilities, convention center functional/operational issues and transportation impacts/infrastructure modifications that may be useful as site selection for new convention facilities in downtown Cleveland proceed.

roads, sewers, water lines, expanding fire and police coverage, etc. etc...very expensive for the public! very profitable fo the private investor!

of course! the possibilities are endless! shaker square does have quite a few out-of-neighborhood visitors who come in to see movies and to shop in the holiday season...and there's the North Union Farmer's Market, which has regional appeal. I do agree, though, that Euclid & East 6th is more prominent/appropriate! Why not both?

as it is, though, there is enough land on CMHA property to house a pretty significant (3-5 acre) park. We can start with that and when more studies are done and the development potential is more accurately assessed, CMHA can decide whether to build, sell, keep as a park, etc. I guess one problem would be maintenance...if CMHA retains ownership, they'd be responsible for upkeep and safety. If they turn it over to the City Parks Dept., that takes it out of the development arena...

nice! any word on whether or not this is still the practice? I kinda doubt it.

Yeah, as I mentioned earlier, we would all love for that display to still be there. And CMA is renting storefronts at Shaker Square (and elsewhere?), so why not on Euclid Avenue? I'm curious to know about what effort was made, if there was a conversation, if the price was too high or CMA just not interested...

I think we have experts on here for that sort of thing...not that I don't encourage due diligence! Remember kids, research is fun!

well, as we've seen with many public processes (i.e: the Convention Center), just because one day they say that an alternative is "off the table" doesn't necessarily mean that's the final word. I think it would take the City really advocating for it to get it back on the table, which is why I concentrated my attention on City reps with my letters. By the way, where does Bob Brown weigh in on this issue? I haven't heard word one from him and would imagine that his opinion is pretty significant as Planning Director. Hunter Morrison (former Planning Director) wrote a great piece for the current issue of the Kent State Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative Quarterly. I'd like to have him back in the driver's seat right now! (I don't believe the current issue is on line just yet, but past issues are available at http://www.cudc.kent.edu/Quarterly.htm and the current issue can be picked up at CSU's Levin College at 17th and Euclid and probably at the CUDC on Prospect & Huron.) Also, Bob Brown is scheduled to speak at a real estate forum between 4-6 next Thursday, during the Town Hall meeting for the Innerbelt Plan! What's up with that???

maybe we could find a way to assist or provide "gap" financing for something like this...e.g: through a CIL program or through the BID or DCP.

true, but I'd think that if they had the capital to do it, they already would! I make lots of assumptions like this, but really, we should inteview some people and see what their reactions are.

I will acknowledge that interstates do create value for the municipalities that they are gifted to...but I will agree with Dan that they don't necessarily create new investment, but rather draw it away from other, existing areas. This is particularly true in the NEO, where regional population growth is stagnant. I will also say that the public expenditure for interstate and other public infrastructure improvements is not justified in the exurbs where the majority of these significant investments are made, as these municipalities really contribute very little to the overall tax picture and as I said before, the tax revenue they end up producing is really just displaced from somewhere else that once had it (again, in no or slow-growth areas). This is why the reluctance by some of our elected officials to invest in major infrastructure improvements in existing areas is so baffling to me. Why continue to expand and spread out investment when you can build on what you already have in place and make it better and more sustainable?

YSOH, yes, I think it could definitely make a difference in the minds of many Downtown residents, workers, visitors. We on this forum can easily say that progress is being made and that storefronts will take care of themselves when certain projects come to fruition. But what about the visitors and workers who don't know what we know? There are many very high-profile places Downtown (Euclid Avenue being the primary example) that a visitor woud see as a "bombed out" or "blighted" place. So, yes, doing something in the short term could have an effect there in the minds of passers by. But I also think that the example this sort of effort would set could build morale and accountability and enthusiasm by all tenants and owners Downtown. "Hmmm...so and so is doing something cool, so I probably should too!" etc. etc. Plus, there could actually be rent-paying tenants that come out of this and provide owners with more $$$ to do bigger improvements...

MayDay, you're right on about property owner issues, but Lower Euclid and Prospect are now owned by something like FOUR people after all the land acquisition in recent years. It's obvious that they are planning for growth and occupancy in about two years, as 515 Euclid is ready to go and all the E. 4th and adjacent properties owned by MRN have been or are being renovated, but what do we do about right now? MRN is actively renovating several of their stores, so they need barriers and have done creative things with murals...which I like a lot. 515 has gorgeous glass storefronts that are clean and attractive, regardless of the lack of occupants. But I think we'd all agree that it would be a lot more positive if that CMA display was still in the corner location! And then there are all the vacancies proceeding east on both Euclid and Prospect in buildings that just look like they've been abandoned. Are these indicative of real estate speculators waiting for the right time to sell? How do we engage them at present to be creative and think more progressively?

Another issue that's come up quite a bit is the question of what existing property owners and their real estate agents are doing to market their space. I have to imagine that they want tenants, since tenants = profits, but it just doesn't seem like anyone's trying very hard! I understand the Lower Euclid situation right now...I wouldn't want to open a business there with all the construction that will happen in the next 2 years, but what about the rest of Downtown? Are we talking speculation here? Lazy/absentee landowners? Ineffective realtors? If they're actually doing their best or actively don't want tenants right now, then it might be on an outside effort by a group like the ones I mentioned above to initiate a creative effort to enliven vacant storefronts. another question: are their code enforcement issues with property owners downtown keeping their windows clean and their entrances clear of litter?

Who is the contact person for the Downtown BID anyway? I know I've heard the name before, but it's escaping me now I think that the BID and the Downtown Cleveland Partnership would be good places to start and if they are unresponsive, it may be the type of program that could work as Civic Innovation Lab startup...

Seriously, he's going to have to a lot better job of acknowledging EVERYONE...not just the people that he seems to think are "true clevelanders." I'm ready to be vocal too, send letters, emails, make phone calls, go to public meetings. If I don't feel like he's making the right decisions or listening to certain people, I'm going to let him hear it! note to self: refer to this post in months to come when I get tired of doing this!

could be...it seems like every other store in there is selling sporting goods and memorabilia! YSOH...were the stores open normal hours or were they extended for this reason?

You don't think that building rail lines spurs investment??? Why do you think places like Atlanta and Los Angeles exist? KJP, I love the quotes that you highlighted in the previous articles. I only hope that more people...especially legislators...share those opinions and acknowledge those facts.

I'm curious about why he's with Jackson, though. I mean, I can't imagine it would be for personal gain only. Things like this are bigger than that. Then again, I tend to underestimate self-promotion as a motivating factor... Anyway, I'm hearing more negative stuff about Jackson after the election from people who weren't speaking out during the days leading up to it. "If we'd really wanted Jane in, we had a whole pile of stuff we could have doled out about Frank." Stuff like that. Problem was, they weren't too hot about Jane either, so they just kept it to themselves. I'm not going to reveal details or who I'm talking about, but it's nothing monumental...just code regulation, neighborhood loyalty sorts of stuff that show how he can slight certain parts of his constituency if he decides they're not important.

But why can't they develop up to the sidewalk on the CMHA land north of Riverview and south of the THI buildings and have a greenspace behind that on the unstable land? I understand if they need to go further with studies before developing back there, but on the street frontage? I'm sure it just has to do with determining the overall safety and potential for all that land...

event posted at http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=6068.0;topicseen

nah, i wasn't eligible. i considered him, but primarily (no pun intended) because some close friends were behind him. He seems to be very liberal and had no real opponents. An advocate for gay rights and a good record in the courts. his public persona wasn't very bright, which he could develop in years to come, but in person (I was told) he really captured people.