CbusTransit

The three options are older. The more recent design is this one: http://www.land-studio.org/files/projects/viewer/jcfopublicsqaerial.jpg @gotribe...we already have the green space, though. It's not like we can tear up the mall and develop it. I personally love this plan. I wish Superior would shut down too, but closing it to vehicles and just making it for buses is a good incremental step. I can't wait!

Future transit ideas: -Allegheny Valley Railroad for commuter rail (connecting downtown Pittsburgh to New Kensington via Penn Hills and Lawrenceville): http://triblive.com/neighborhoods/yourallekiskivalley/yourallekiskivalleymore/5173263-74/rail-pittsburgh-project#axzz2vs4jk8O9 -Downtown to Airport Light Rail: This is constantly in talks and was thrown out as a possibility to be funded with recent money from drilling: http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/3601107-74/north-million-rail#axzz2vs4jk8O9 -Peduto wanted a lawrenceville to oakland to hazelwood light rail: http://www.billpeduto.com/2013/03/18/65-river-to-river-rail-connecting-people-to-jobs/ -Various conversions of the East Busway to rail have also been discussed As to the light rail link to Oakland (and beyond), it was much discussed a decade or two back as the 'spine line'. The idea was to expand the light rail from downtown in two directions: to the north shore (and later the airport) and to oakland. Both extensions were studied. The cost to drill to Oakland were considered too much, so the FTA gave them a bone (with some congressional push, I belive) and funded the North Shore extension. Of course that ended up costing more than the projection for the Spine Line in the first place. But its a nice link to travel.

I have struggled with Columbus' new 'smart and open' campaign. It isn't very catchy or hip, but it actually says something about the character of the community. "this is cleveland" doesn't say anything. I wish Cleveland had something about "classic" or "gritty" or "strong" or "resilient" or "grand". I don't know. At least something that says SOMETHING.

If This Is Our Slogan, This Is Sad. I'm holding out that they have something slightly more in-depth in their pocket. It reminds me of "Surprise, It's Columbus". It says absolutely nothing about the city except "we exist! and we're not as bad as you think we are!"

Hmm. I hadn't thought about it as acting like a different type of product downtown. I'm still not sure it wouldn't just poach demand from other projects, but who knows.

just curious, but why would we want to build a much taller tower that would help meet some of the demand when we could have that demand met with other rehabilitations downtown? What is the point of having a taller tower if the rest of downtown isn't rehabbed? This is just fine. We get a new hotel for the convention center and other, older buildings are getting rehabbed for apartments.

How's this?

I agree. I did not get any green from the renderings, but those panels are most certainly not glass. It kinda looks 70s with the lines of dark green in there.

Regionally, Pittsburgh has a wonderful riverfront and looking at Smale Riverfront Park, I immediately thought it will be on par with Pittsburgh's. Congrats Cincy!

I have been struggling to find the final designs for the conversion to a boulevard...do they exist yet? There are a ton of designs on ODOT's page, but it isn't clear to me what the final design is. Anybody? Have a link?

That's exciting! That building seems to have run through many nice restaurants in the one corner that can't seem to make it work. The other corner, with the Greek restaurant, has always been wonderful. Everyone should check it out (family run, and slow service, but the food is darn good)

Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's not true. As I get older I accept that there's things I just don't understand because of my age and that's OK with me. Pokemon for example. But I don't try to tell younger people how Pokemon works because I don't know. And this is something you don't understand. And it should be OK with you. But it isn't. You say I don't understand it. Oh but I do, and again it boils down to the lack of good paying jobs. The number of grown adults living at home with their parents is the highest it has been in decades, since they can't earn enough for a place of their own. Of course there is a percentage of the younger crowd who are fortunate enough to have a good paying job and they may also desire to live in an urban setting without a car and walk to work and the bar. But they are not the majority. Increasingly the majority are working at low pay jobs and barely capable of keeping their head above water. How to I know this, because I talk to their parents that's how. An other significant factor is the number of young people is going down as parents are having fewer children. So naturally there will be fewer getting drivers licenses, etc., but I usually see this reflected as a drop in overall numbers, not as a percentage of a given age group. So you think you know more about it than people who work in the auto industry that actually know that the other factors are affecting their sales in a big way? Or the automotive journalists that also know how the other factors at play? Perhaps they should fire all those eggheads and just hire you. As an actual young person who hates driving, I would first say that my parents are not the best source of information on why i do or do not drive much. But also, I have been wildly impressed by not only my friends who are urban planners, but my friends who have no relation to planning or urban issues. Almost across the board, they are choosing urban neighborhoods and taking transit. They are all (almost) fully employed and capable of purchasing a car, but have little interest in it. It is simply easier to take a bus when I want to play on facebook (or urbanohio). I also think this is all very closely related to the fact that younger people are settling down later and are more interested in going out/drinking. It is easier/safer/legal to walk to a bar and walk home than to drive.

...

but it sounds like it was cancelled to work out some final details? let's hope...

the image @clevelandohio posted

As of right now, I don't like that schematic design. Is this just an initial/conceptual plan? The plaza only has trees--no benches, tables, lamp posts, artwork, etc. that liven up a place and encourage people to stay there.

OMG. I'm like a kid at Christmas. Pleassssse be true.

That was painful to read. We need to tear down buildings for parking, and we need to build new applebees. Painful.

@sixthcity, that is true that developers exist to make money. And for that reason, they will tend to create utilitarian, single-use developments. They are cheap to build and easier to manage. It is the role of public agencies to ensure that what they build meets other needs as well--the vibrancy of the street, etc. That means balancing the needs of the developer with the needs of the community. If the development can still be profitable--just slightly less profitable--and inclusive of a few first-floor retail spaces, then we should require it. On the flip side, if a developer came with a proposal for a gas station (which could probably be extremely profitable), the commission would deny it because it doesn't suit the public interest. Also, just because there are vacancies along Euclid does not necessarily mean retail doesn't work there. In Columbus, for instance, there are a number of vacancies along high street, but it is because none of these vacancies are in updated, modern spaces. I have spoken with downtown people here that have said they could fill numerous spots if there were appropriately sized, new spaces along High Street. There may just be a mismatch on Euclid Avenue as well (I don't know, just surmising).

@bjk, the entire side of the building is a fire escape?

Lol, yea yea, @Oldmanladyluck and @sixthcity, its CLOSE to a lot of stuff and I would feel comfortable walking to all of those things. But you can't be stepping out of the Columbus Hilton directly onto High Street. You would need to step out of the hotel onto Euclid to get a similar feel. I like this new hotel, but the Mall is not as exciting as the short north. The new about this blank wall is not good. We cannot have a nice building on a couple sides and have it be dead on the other. If we want the area to be vibrant we can't let it have a dead space. It needs windows (why can't stairwells have windows?) and a first floor that is active and vibrant.

I don't know, the Columbus Hilton is pretty spectacular up close. Directly on High Street, right in the middle of all the action (downtown, arena district, north market, convention center, and short north). I agree that this design could look better (we'll find out when its built!), but I really don't think you can beat Cbus' location.

If the devil is in the operating cost, today's Cincinnati.com article about Cranley favoring a trackless trolley makes the entire thing moot. There is no reason not to do this. Sigh.

OMG thank you w28th! Architects are ridiculous with weird connections like a weird diagonal line. No one will notice that. How about you match the architecture of the surrounding buildings instead of the slope of a field. Grrrr. Rant over.

Ew! No! I change my mind. The entire wall of the hotel tower faces the park. That is going to feel really weird compared to all the 3 and 4 story buildings surrounding it (with the exception of Key--which I also which had done a podium on the park)