CTownsFinest216

so if skyscrapers are the doom and gloom of downtown cleveland, why does manhattan have plenty of street vibrancy. theres certainly a hell of a lot more taller buildings there than here. the 1st 3 pics of washington dc dont look more inviting to me than many streets downtown. the problem in DT cleveland isnt tall buildings, its a lack of retail and people. the difference between us and european or select north american cities is that they have a lot more people around the core which lends itself to more retail/mixed-use. people have an attitude that every square mile of cleveland inside its borders is this terrible place so they stopped going there to live and shop. downtown stores closed and moved out to the burbs. stark has the right idea in what he wants to do. that pic of paris isnt even the CBD, its just a random neighborhood there. if we are going to get into that we would have to build streetwalls of dense mixed-use buildings all over the city. thats just a regular ole 'hood there. obviously i would take a european city or dc with their dense neighborhoods over just a bunch of skyscrapers. it just puzzles me why someone would want a 30 story building on the public square lot as opposed to something taller if it can be built. i dont think it makes any difference there and you have what KJP is talking about with mixed-use right next to it in the WHD. my ideal scenario would be build really dense blocks of brick buildings on the eastside adjacent to downtown. build that whole area up the way it used to be and demolish the innerbelt. the whole corridor between downtown and university circle has the potential to be a great vibrant neighborhood if it is built up. look how there are dense blocks of rowhouses and the like right in downtown. here you walk to the end of downtown (e. 12th) and all of a sudden its completely desolate with nothing there. THATS where you want to build the 10 story superblocks at.

umm.....it wouldnt be surrounded by "windswept, economically dead parking lots". there would be buildings all around it....55 public square, terminal tower, BP, key, and the warehouse district buildings on the lot next to it. i still dont get your logic. how is a 10-story building better suited for the public square lot than a 60-story? i doubt people are going to jump in their cars and head downtown because 1 public square is 10 stories instead of 60. it wouldnt blend in well. i guess you dont like skyscrapers

60 stories is what i heard too, but not the B-H and Eaton part. i think eaton will go into the WHD along with ernst and young having a building with their name on it. those are the 2 buildings fronting superior in those renderings. i think jacobs could propose something mixed-use....with companies looking for new space, the convention center being built, and downtown population growing you could take advantage of all those components. get some smaller companies expanding, put a hotel inside for the convention center, and add residential units. dont know where B-H would go...possibly 1 public square, existing space, or maybe that triangular parcel right across from stark. i would like to see that developed, i hate passing by there and seeing that lot. i understand what youre sayin about market rates though, i just think this would be a perfect time to pursue something like that. where else would you want a 1000 footer downtown? to me public square is the perfect location. i dont get what you mean about hurting street vibrancy. i doubt a 60-story building would have a bad effect whereas a 30-story wouldnt. stark building up those parking lots right by is going to help street vibrancy. with a tall building there the big 4 would all blend in together plus you would have a 30+ building right next to it. thats just my thoughts. i know everyone including myself hates the fact theres a parking lot right on public square but if something 300-400 ft was built there would be no chance in the future to put a new tallest right there.

30+ story? thats not even 500 ft. try 60+ ......leave the 30 story buildings for some other vacant lot in downtown. i think if jacobs could build something that ho hum on public square he wouldnt be sittin on the parking lot. afterall, there was a 63-story skyscraper proposed before. think big

i was very serious about the demonstration. ive never organized a demo before so i would need the help of anyone interested on here to set it up. havent heard about any demonstration plans recently so i guess i'll have to take initiative myself. its sad that more people are not furious with this and want to do everything they can to stop this building from being destroyed. seems like everyone has given up and conceded defeat. this is the most ridiculous thing ive seen......wasting millions of dollars in tax payers money to demolish a 383 foot skyscraper when there are DOZENS of holes in downtown cleveland that could be built on. this is going to be a significant hole in the skyline if demolished, just look at some pictures. and hoooooooold up! the "winning design" was done by KPF? these are the people who did the shanghai world financial center. you mean to tell me they couldnt come up with a tower design ? i bet you the county commissioners told them to build some suburban office park garbage instead of a tower. ridiculous.

so it says he will submit plans by march......how long does it usually take for plans to be approved? id think it would take longer since this is a pretty big project. stark said before he wanted to complete phase 1 by 2009, which doesnt seem possible. 1197 sounds good for jacobs

i will be in the minority when i say this because i obviously think and see things differently than most do. things are done certain ways (and not just in cleveland) because it suits "their" (city officials) best interests. there is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes that we dont know about and people are getting "favors" done under the table (no lewinsky). politicians are corrupt. im not sayin that every single one is or every single one is incompetent, i know there are people out there who truly have a passion for making cleveland better. the bottom line is im going to lump them into the incompetent pool until they actually put their money where their mouth is. being where ive been and seeing what ive seen i dont put much faith in politicians....theyre all the same to me. i think people in general are only out for their own interests. sometimes i dont know what to think. the city has turned businesses off before. they are conservative and too concerned about pleasing a "yes man" whether thats citizens or whoever they answer to. you cant please everyone. i see unlimited potential in cleveland. the first thing that comes to mind when i think about this city is the potential it has. i believe cleveland will have a building boom similar to the late 80s/early 90s in the next couple yrs. there are several firms large enough to warrant a few buildings and several with leases expiring. vacancy rates are down and downtown cleveland continues to see positive growth. i would not be surprised to see something big. thats my opinion and im sticking to it. cleveland's own motto is progress & prosperity. we have been a progressive city and were progressive even back in the early 90s with projects getting done. there is vision here but things in the way of that vision being realized. it frustrates me to no end when we dont get it. almost makes me wanna run for mayor or something i am very blunt and will never apologize for being so

and in my 78 posts ive contributed more to this board than your 1 or 2 word responses that usually abate threads. oh but progressive has a much more successful business model, positive organic growth, a great work culture and a helluva lot more money than me! of course they do, i dont own or run a business nor do i have money. i never will. whats your point? im not allowed to say it would be better for cleveland's sake and their own sake for progressive. once again, are you here to insult me or tell me why the city shouldnt lobby progressive to move downtown ? you're pretty stupid if you like the fact theyre in the suburbs....maybe you live in them? i guess since youre not a member of city council you cant disagree with certain policies they make or how they plan this city. george dubya went to yale, hes smarter than you and has lots of money so you cant disagree with his policies. this is exactly what youre telling me. people really hate me on here for wanting positive things to happen and asking for more. its as if some of you have to disagree with a point i make because you see "CTownsFinest216" to the right of the post. much of the problems in this city dont have anything to do with cleveland being unattractive for businesses, a bad place to live, white flight. they have everything to do with people at the top being incompetent leaders and not getting it. im contributing to this thread which is discussing business in cleveland. you are resorting to personal insults because you have nothing better to say. he agrees with me and said what ive been sayin on this message board. go disagree with him ! quick!

no. where downtown are the holes that would be better served with 10-20 story buildings? the warehouse district parking lots are already being filled with buildings of that size.

the city does things to spur development? :-o which holes do you speak of? the holes i can think of are the western portion of CBD/warehouse district which are already going to be developed and the far eastern portion (avenue district is already starting there). we were discussing the public square jacobs lot. do you think that lot would be more suited for a 10-20 story building as opposed to a 1000 footer? would that give downtown a more urban feel? skyscrapers belong in the CBD. the skyline of a city does matter and does influence people's opinions and civic pride. care to elaborate why theyd think i'm stupid? or do you just not like the fact that every statement i've made makes more sense and quotes from articles posted here have backed me up i'll quote KJP again in case you didnt notice this speakin of which do you know anything else about the jacobs proposal? like actually thinking about designs for that lot maybe?

jesus christ..... i know that they dont occupy the whole damn building. i dont think any 1 company occupies any building fully. the point is significant office towers are usually anchored by a large tenant. key tower was built as the society center for society bank before key bank took them over. progressive is probably the only corporation here that could ANCHOR a tall skyscraper by itself. but its all a moot point because they want to stay in the burbs. theyre stupid for not wanting to consolidate all their offices into 1 building HQed downtown and instead remain on scattered buildings way out. if i were the downtown alliance, i would be pushing progressive to relocate its headquarters downtown. and like KJP just said.....we DO have the support for something major. its a matter of getting it built, which this city doesnt move forward to do. cle2032- cleveland is never going to have anything remotely like paris and amsterdam, especially since the city tore down all of its dense urban fabric in the core for urban renewal projects. that being said i'll take more height downtown since we arent going to have street walls throughout the whole city. our downtown is nothing like atlanta's .....cleveland actually has an organic downtown that has structure to it and is compact. just add height and we're good! atlanta's downtown feels discombobulated at street level. 100-200 ft buildings no business being built in the CBD right now

ideally i would want a mixed-use office/retail/hotel/residential scraper on the public square lot as you said. the proposed signature tower in nashville is like this and over 1000 feet. obviously this building is still a proposal right now but i think something like that could be built in downtown cleveland. the frustrating thing is progressive had plans to build a 60 floor 837 ft building nearly 20 yrs ago yet cancelled plans and now sits on scattered office buildings in the suburbs. progressive has 28.338 employees which is more than key's 19,801. i think that they are the only realistic chance at a significant office tower (new tallest) being built here. they are a major S&P 500 corporation with the employee force and guap to get over the glacial sediment height limit. trouble is, i doubt they have any plans to move from the burbs to downtown :-( if they said yes though....we'd be lookin at a significant addition to the skyline

i dont like the direction this city is going in terms of new development how can anyone justify most of the stuff that is getting built and replacing what was once there? i have no problem with cleveland hts and lakewood but there IS a problem when these suburbs are more urban than 2 minutes outside of downtown. people in other countries and even other cities across the country would love at what we call urban. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=126151 this thread on skyscraperpage shows new infill in various cities. while some of it is very bad there is also some good stuff and most look better than the majority of projects built in the city of cleveland nowadays. even the terrible lookin stuff is built up the street. i dont get whats so hard about building up to the sidewalk here. what is the point of these tiny little strips of grass in front ....they will not be used as a yard. if you are going to have a yard for a home at least make it more than a strip of grass or have a backyard. otherwise build homes UP TO THE SIDEWALK! 90% of new construction is gonna pale in comparison to early 1920s buildings but IT CAN BE DONE WELL! are people really going to not buy townhome units if they are actually built to street level and quality alll brick structures mimicking what used to be in the area? i live in one of the more densely populated areas of cleveland and it still isnt urban enough to me. i guess i just crave east coast density and will never get it here :-( and as far as filling up downtown before anything else i wouldnt want cleveland to be a city with a "pretty" downtown and urban praries just outside where it looks like a bomb was set off in the area.

:clap: better not suggest a 500 footer.....i got bashed for sayin i hoped for one in the pesht thread i also remember gettin bashed a long time ago for sayin i predict there will be a new skyscraper under contruction by 2010 (not necessarily completed). hopefully we can see office tower construction start the same time as the warehouse distrct. and NO dont use that public square lot, they need to keep that lot empty until someone proposes a 1000 footer for it

:clap: you just proved my point again the federal government and state paid for most of st louis' METROLINK rapid transit lines hooray for BRT apologists! oh yea, here's something else i found directly from RTA's website D'OH RTA never receives any money right? so they just happened to stumble upon this "much sought-after pool of money" again.....why couldnt a a rail line be built down euclid? everyone keeps telling me it cant. MayDay- the onus is on you and everyone else who keeps bashing me and telling me a rail line could not be built down euclid avenue. you and others have told me RTA could not get money to support a project like that. as for your other comment, i wont respond to it because it tells me what kind of a person you are and your mentality.

the $400 million figure is what ive heard and what was said on here. go do a search on these forums. blame whoever gave me the wrong information when i asked what it cost $400 million appears to be the figure of total investment into the corridor so it costs $168.4 million for the ECP, assuming that isnt just funding and is the actual cost of all construction. you still havent proven ANYTHING to make me lose credibility for my statements. how many posts have i read on here when ive brought up the idea of modern streetcars like portland only to be told that it "costs too much money and BRT is the cheaper alternative". well, looking at the figures it appears that a streetcar line costs LESS PER MILE than running BRT down euclid. how does this happen? pope's figures (which i thank him for providing) merely proved my point once again. $57 million for a 4.8 mile streetcar system VS $168 for a 9.8 mile BRT. keep in mind, portland also only got $5 million from the federal gov where cleveland got $82 million from FTA and $50 from the state of ohio. portland was able to build an initial streetcar line almost all through local sources. only a small percentage of the ECP cost was funded by RTA, the city of cleveland, or other local sources. i thought RTA didnt have any money to pay for this kind of stuff, yet they have a couple hundred million to replace a street that already had exisiting transit service here is the st louis metrolink until someone on this forum shows me stone cold proof that RTA asked the FTA for money to be used on a rapid transit line extension (or new line) the figures im seeing for recent rapid transit construction and funding suggest to me RTA is not doing all it can and the excuses about money, federal funding are just that......excuses. do we not have existing tracks that we can use and simply build stations? theres a different between "spewing negativy" and wanting more than half assed solutions in a city that DESERVES MORE i think the city would be better off without cant do mentality leaders who are only out for themselves and not thinking on a grander scale for cleveland BRT is half assed to begin with. see the last sentence of your post. its a half assed solution instead of building a subway, light rail, or streetcar line. like you said, subway lightrail and streetcars that could have been implemented along this route. ks, re-read my post. i was asking, not telling.

the comments posted on the PD article are completely justified. this comment is exactly on point most people think the exact same way aas me about the ECP because they see reality. its not some amazing project that will tranform our economy or transit system and create jobs. its not going to increase ridership, theres already a bunch of bus lines down euclid and the people who took those routes will just take the silver line now. will the BRT be better than regular buses? marginally. this is still another example of how cleveland missed the boat and still doesnt get it. its a pet project to stuff RTA's and city leader's pockets more than likely. cleveland has a well used bus system. ask people who take the bus whether they would rather take light rail/streetcar/subway as opposed to a bus and 9/10 times they'd say yes. not to mention the disadvantages of this new project such as having to cross a main avenue because stations are in the middle of the street and the fact that stations are spread farther apart. ever had to run to catch a bus? i have, and i sure as hell wouldnt want to run out in the middle of euclid ave to flag down a BRT. how does it cost $400 million for this? $400 million for a glorified bus, new stations, and improved streetscape. ok. would it really be more expensive to extend the rapid line? why didnt RTA put modern streetcars along euclid instead? it was too expensive........right? hmm $400 million to build a bus rapid transit?

this thread is depressing as hell just goes back to what i say about tearin down everything good in this city to replace it with new crap have we heard of preservation, rehab, adaptive re-use in cleveland?

ive been well aware of the glacial sediment issue for a long time. didnt stop key tower, terminal tower, BP, and erieview from being built. its called digging deep. you obviously dont understand my point then. from your posts on here you fall into the same "cant do" camp that inhabits NE ohio and seem to be happy with just development period. do you think things are going to happen if nobody wants them to? the economy here sucks and cleveland continues to lose population in droves. we dont need those parking lots in the warehouse district filled so why not tell bob stark to cancel his plans. who shops or lives downtown now? stonebridge.....they'll never sell any units there no one wants to live downtown. pittsburgh is building high-rise residential in the year 2007. is their economy really much better than cleveland? its still losing population. im glad we have people like stark and zaremba who actually put their money where their mouth is.

so the taller building in that rendering was for ernst & young. i really hope a 500 footer can get built here......its pretty weak that metro of 3 million only has 4 buildings over 500 feet. how much office space does ernst & young currently take up in cleveland? they have a lot of buildings in other cities...i like the scraper in sydney a lot. maybe stark reads UO so bob if you're reading this go vertical please when are they going to begin construction on the warehouse district? on a side note, does anyone here have an emporis account? they list 7 proposed high-rises and 2 on hold. what all would those be? thats the problem. things dont get built here, whereas in other cities they do. we are either left waiting years and years for things to finally get done (lakefront plan, warehouse district, avenue district) or they dont get done at all. there is this non-chalant attitude by people that "oh there will eventually be something good to come along". thats why you have people who truly love urbanity here move away to nyc or chicago and become transplants. cleveland has so much potential but unless people at the top get it and get serious about building real progress this city will never realize it. the only thing holding back cleveland is cleveland

is that building in the rendering that looks slightly taller than 55 public square the lot on public square? it looks like it from that angle but i cant tell. i hope not cuz a new tallest belongs on public square when that eventually happens.

if i had a billion dollars i would create hyper density residential all over the near east side of cleveland just outside of downtown. id try and bring in architects who actually knew what they were doing and could replicate the type of built environment that once existed in the area. unlike most on here i would not try to gentrify with 300k condos.....these would be affordable housing/apartment units. i would pitch the development to local/national businesses and RTA in hopes there could be mixed use retail and a potential rail line. encourage biotech or tech start-ups around the area to move into the areas where old industry are rehab, restrore, and reuse old buildings throughout the city and fill in gaps with infill built right depending on how much money things cost...if i could put a 1,000 footer (mixed business/residential/hotel) on public square id do it too i would be very ambitious and try to stretch the money as far as it can go

that winning design looks like it was done by a 3rd grader. what goes on in these peoples minds who decide things for this city? and these are known architects?? if that gets built im gonna puke while other cities are busy imrpoving their skyline with more high-rises cleveland's gets...........shorter?

LMFAO......ridiculous. what a bunch of fuckin morons. why is there a high speed train straight outta tokyo in the fleischman crap? i say we knock down downtown cleveland and just build an office park who wants to organize a demonstration with me ?

yea i completely agree that this site is flawed. i was wonderin why things like barber shops, laundromats, transit wasnt included. i dont really think living near a movie theatre or book store has more to do with how walkable a neighborhood is than those things. they didnt include a lot of things for me. how is the closest movie theatre to shaker square cedar lee when theres a theatre right on the square?!?!?! wonder what the score would be with that included and if joseph beth booksellers hadnt closed shop. i was doin random locations in cleveland and a lot of them rated lower than my score. downtown cleveland got a 76 and lakewood near the w. 117th rapid station got a 75. you know somethin is flawed when parma gets a higher score than shaker square.