Burnham_2011

Old Brooklyn is in its 4th week of its new event "Cleveland Summer Cinema" an outdoor movie night with food trucks, a Platform Beer Co. beer garden and great list of events. Last night there were over 400 people in attendance, wanted to share the good stuff: https://www.facebook.com/events/362668507255212/

Glenville, I agree they look out of place but I think that speaks more to the rest of the DC navy yard area than the fairgrounds/bullpen, personally. The whole area around the metro is filled with brand new monolithic buildings (most in glass and steel) and so anything else stands out (for better or worse). I think it works well next to the stadium as a place for music and beer -- and considering most of those lots are going to be built on one day (soon) they probably didn't want to put too much $$ into it. As for FEB -- I think it's perfect as a temporary option -- the style fits with the active port/rail area and keeps the area from becoming a full on Crocker Park on the water. A little rust would be nice. (just my opinion!)

Just wanted to drop in a couple notes... Using container cars is very "in" right now. In D.C. there are lots of places doing this, one that stands out is the outdoor drinking area next to National's Stadium called "the bullpen". I think if done right it not only looks interesting but is a nice nod to the industrial elements of the flats. http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/04/04/Weekend/Images/IMG_3748.jpg?uuid=EADPeH59EeGkjKtv0ZMpuA Just for fun, there's also a rail car restaurant in DC: http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/bestbites/assets_c/2014/01/011014-BBB-ElRayLede-thumb-620xauto-64163.jpg

Lots of stories like this around the media these days, I wonder if there's any value to the Cavs really emphasizing the "All for one..." motto in relation to broader city. Maybe Sherwin Williams could put up a new ad with Lebron AND the many other icons of Cleveland to promote that we don't start and end with celebrity. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101834974 "Cleveland is an overnight comeback ...35 years in the making" one of the commentators on CNN said yesterday. I like the sound of it.

Costs aside, I can't imagine what the ride times would be like for that. Riding the Healthline from Cedar and Richmond (near 271) to, say, your office in Midtown? During rush hour? The reason the Blue and Green lines work is because they are commuter lines on dedicated rail. Once you get passed Shaker Sq. most of the passengers are already on board and you're just riding into Tower City (I said most, not all). But even a light rail with it's own right of way going down Ceder, let alone a BRT line, would have a lot of stops between the end of the line and Downtown, and the BRT would be subject to some of the east side's worst traffic.

I think it's a challenging site to work with, but also has some incredible opportunities. Take a look at the way the rail and roads intertwine like an Escher painting. Though there would be added costs (possibly shared by the County, City, Port?) there are some unique factors that could lend to beautiful architecture and landscaping choices. It will take a much larger plan involving the parcels around the loop as well, but I still look at this area and think with the right market/financing factors in place something very special could be done. http://goo.gl/maps/0CAGS

@smith Sorry, that "Screen shot" is how I re-envisioned it...

I can't understand why major papers/media outlets (The Plain Dealer is #20 in the US, not bad at all) think making their page look like a blog is the right direction. My good friend works at the Washington Post and always comments that they are trying too hard to compete with blogs for content and style. If a newspaper stands any chance of standing out and getting traffic, I would think a more NEWSPAPER like interface is the way to go. Show me lots of content and articles with an easy navigation. Oh... and show me some NEWS, so that someone who isn't from Cleveland but happens to hit that page thinks the city paper is more than just a few local stories and some entertainment news.

Agreed, and I've noticed on the UO boards that at times people get upset or criticize others for sharing their opinions. I'd just like to point out that's not only unfair but against the spirit of a forum. I posted an image last week of the proposed police station and then an alternative that simply moved the building against the sidewalk and traded some depth for additional street frontage. Those aren't fantasy ideas, it's something that the city can absolutely do (be it through changing regulations that they themselves set, or simply requesting a new design). Regardless when I talk about aspiration I'm talking about vision and planning. Does one building's physical appearance mean the adjacent blocks will become a vibrant urban neighborhood? Of course not, but over time 1 building's C+ development turns into a series of C+ buildings and eventually a C+ neighborhood. Some have mentioned they are "fine" with the building as it is, and that in the future if the economics behind development lean toward new construction, razing the building will not a problem. I disagree. Developing requires an intricate dance to balance the costs and funding, and the cost of razing a building on site might be the straw that breaks the camels back. Also, that police station should absolutely be a part of the fabric of the street in 30 years whether or not Midtown is bustling. My entire point, and my overall wish for the city we all come here to debate, discuss and celebrate -- is that the small things our decisions makers control, be they: architectural details (think: Marriot in University Circle mild redesign after rejection by committee), interaction with the street (read: zoning and building regulations which our leaders CONTROL), and development of pedestrian friendly v. auto friendly policies -- are part of an overall lens or perspective that has long term vision for the city. It will take the economy, change in lifestyle taste from locals, and animal spirits to make Cleveland's Euclid Corridor (and adjacent neighborhoods) as vibrant as levels unseen for 50 years -- but the City's leaders do have significant power to direct and focus those forces once present. I'm not playing Sim City, but rather sharing in this forum's debate on what is and what could be: Cleveland.

Figured I'd test the braintrust at UO with this question. Posted is the plan courtesy of ClevelandOhio. Next to it is a very simple redesign, in fact it's barely that. I simply put the station at the sidewalk and then cut the depth of the building about 15% and made it front more of Euclid. The parking is still there, but there's less of it in front. Here's my question: aside from the possibility that there are floor plans that require certain dimensions to the building (which is seldom the case) why wouldn't you (as a planner, architect, or councilman) have the guiding principal in your decisions be to make plans (especially on Euclid) as urban and dense as possible -- always. Of course this street is mostly vacant right now with little foot traffic, but if you have an OUNCE of aspiration for your city you'd imagine that plans TODAY need to match the ideal for tomorrow. If 30 years from now the police station has a small parking deck in the back, has leased the lots and is flanked on either side by new developments of retail, commercial and residential ( :drunk: I know that's a big dream) then wouldn't it be odd that the streetscape hits a random tree lined setback at the police station? And isn't it easier to just build the city today how we envision it tomorrow (if it's a matter of a few feet of setback?) In the end I realize there is not one single vision for the city (or for what "urban" means). Euclid may not need to be like 5th Ave or Michigan Ave, but instead might offer a unique "Cleveland" urban street. But can anyone think of a reason why the Default M.O. for something like this isn't "build it so it fits in with the ideal long term" especially if that can be done without new costs?

I always like that idea as well. I know that Gilbert wants to make the Huron/Ontario intersection a "Times Square" of sorts, but to have some sort of park access that wraps from the intersection out to the river would be uniquely Cleveland and fantastic.

Certainly how they look is subject to each person's preference, so I won't propose one look is better than any other. My reference to costs was not based on any internal knowledge of the project, but to rephrase I would prefer the explanation that the design was the result of minimalism in both budget and style and not the vision of the completed project. Again, that's only my choice, but considering how large the development is and how important the stretch along Euclid is that it takes up I am, personally, disappointed by the modern and simple exterior. The use of more diverse materials (perhaps segmenting the project into separate buildings (just 2 or 3) with varied but similar styles) and the incorporation of more conservative designs would have made this area palatable to a broader audience. This project will pioneer price, design, and location all at once, which is a big step. If the same development costs could have provided more traditional exteriors like the 2-4 story buildings in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston etc. (hence my picture) I believe it could appeal to more people. Just my two cents.

Strongly agree. We've gotta stop using inferior materials up in here. I absolutely understand that the product we see in Uptown is the result of available financing and not a misunderstanding of design. I'm certain that MRN and partners would prefer to use brick and incorporate more architectural details if that was financial possible, but I agree that uptown is painfully drab. :sleep: Here's my question: has anyone ever heard of or seen examples of developments that were designed to allow for future architectural enhancements? I'm not talking about simply buildings that are later changed or added onto, but rather a design technique made for future changes? I'm thinking about the Euclid parking garage that was designed to allow for further construction of floors above. Here is a Chipotle in a 3 story building with apartments above (in NY) juxtaposed with the Chipotle at Uptown. Even for a "modern" structure, uptown lacks any design for the windows, exterior surface, edges, etc. and is grey on top of it.

Just for fun -- because it's Friday -- imagine what could have been if Mr. Dream Big himself, Daniel Burnham had thought even bigger. I've always thought the asymmetric plan of a Mall *and* public square set up a lopsided city.

KJP -- Made an update to break up the tree lines in the center of Superior. Added a blue sky and used some of the images from James Corner to brighten up the image (...though I hate when firms use Photoshop to enhance the look just to make their projects look better) Still not alternative designs within the Square(s) but you get the idea. ^Mendo, when you say "stuck in traffic getting into the city" I'm curious how long the delay was compared to whatever you consider a typical commute. I won't argue with anyone that a slower commute isn't annoying, but I think that when projects, like this, are taken into consideration we have to ask whether or not the new traffic patterns cause economically significant delays. I live in D.C. and know people that have a 2 hour commute from their homes to the office, something that is not unheard of in many major cities. The city will need to have decide what constitutes too costly a traffic shift, and have the courage to make decisions that may upset some people -- if the value to the city is higher.

Hts, I won't claim it's "my best" but here's the gist of what a decent Closed Ontario, Paved Superior would look like. Note: The quadrants are not re-purposed in this model, ideally the new Bi-sected PS would have re developed uses and urban furniture/landscaping.

Hts, I too have not seen those roadways as an option, but I can't figure out why. It seems like low hanging fruit to me, as an option. Closing Rockwell makes sense, but why not go a little further, it doesn't eliminate routes to other areas of the square, and there are ways to put wide enough paths in for deliveries and emergency vehicles of course. Has anyone heard a reason to reject this idea? Again, I just think the crucial connection is to the Mall (and eventually the lake, rock hall etc.), we have such a great asset in the mall, but without adjacent uses people won't go there. We can hope for the Board of Education Building to be converted to a hotel, or for the Med Mart to increase traffic, but with such few options I think PS could be viewed as another "pedestrian engine" to encourage use of the Mall.

I agree it would be great to connect the square and find a way to make it a centerpiece (and even a gateway to the city's best attractions), but I think no matter what they do there needs to be significant effort (and creativity) used to connect the Mall. The NE quadrant, the roadways on its North and Eastern sides, and Rockwell Ave South of the Mall need considerable focus. Personally I would rather they close Ontario and the Roadways toward the Mall. Cars and Buses can be re-routed, but the city only gets one chance to make this sort of change, it's got to be good! (Note: the image isn't my proposal for how the quadrants should be set up, just meant to illustrate the road closures. I think the roads between the mall and PS NE Quad could be landscaped and contain paths that naturally flow from the southern part of the Mall. It could be something really special for Cleveland, and not just pavers and grass plots, but a public garden/arboretum effect that makes the NE Quad almost a Mall A 2.0.

There's been a lot of debate over public square on this forum, and I thought this image was a good example of the issues for Public Square. There's a contingent that thinks we should close off the square and make it one large public space, and others that think it's use as a transit hub/public area is not only acceptable but supported historically as a vibrant land-use choice. When I look at this picture and see the ratio of pavement to park it becomes clear to me that Cleveland suffers from "planning-diffidence". Instead of boldly assigning uses and identities to our assets we end up with timid adjustments that inspire no one (developers) and leave the city only "half way there" on projects. A colleague of mine in the planning department for Shaker Heights mentioned to me that C. Heights has been very good at picking an economic development project and going 100% even at the risk of leaving behind other projects. The idea is to be certain that the inertia of benefits added to an area is not lost by planning things one step at a time, but instead a large investment and change is made completely reshaping the zone. Between the Mall and Public Square Cleveland has an incredible set of assets that, if used properly, can make huge impact. I'm not going to promote one particular idea over another, but instead make the point that whatever uses and designs are decided on be implemented quickly and completely. I recall when James Corner Field Operations presented their ideas, many Councilmen seemed almost giddy at the "Thread it" idea - which is something most of us have considered ill-conceived, and the Mayor's Group Plan of course put out grand ideas for the Mall and PS but the new Convention Center has already changed the dynamic of Mall B in the mean time. We need a comprehensive approach that can be put in motion. I don't mean to downplay the obvious hurdles (costs & bureaucratic process) but in the end that's the name of the game. Campbell gave us the Waterfront Plan, Jackson has given us the Group Plan Part II, but these (expensive) documents languish on the shelves and at best provide a first look guidance to future plans. I love this town and am not trying to be a Cleveland.com poster with negativity, but it's imperative that the leaders triage the projects/plans in the pipeline and move on them to completion. This might warrant a separate topic but I believe that Public Square is the top priority for that list. It connects the WHD to Euclid, the Mall/Med Mart to Tower City, and is (as is true in all towns) the intended centerpiece for the urban core.

On second view of the picture I added it made me think that a future Lakefront plan (sorry, wrong board) should consider planting trees along the boardwalk to create the look of a forest, similar to what Alexis de Tocqueville saw when he arrived (leading to our nickname: the Forest City") "In his travel diary, Journey to America (1831-32), de Tocqueville describes his visit to Cleveland, then a town of about 1,500 people. His party approached Cleveland by boat on Lake Erie on 21 July 1831 at 6pm. He refers to the area as "generally quite flat and sometimes a few feet high, seems almost everywhere covered in primeval forest whose immense trees were reflected in the waters that bathed their roots." He explains that the scenery gives the impression that there is nothing but thick forest, but that "one suddenly sees a church tower, elegant houses, fine villages, with an appearance of wealth and industry," and that "one goes without transition from the wilds into a city street, from the most savage scenes to the most smiling pictures of civilized life."

Even without a lakefront development a tree lines boardwalk would be a significant improvement... then again, we don't build cities to look good in pictures from the lake. :wink:

I'm a fan of looking at things in their context so I took a quick look at the area to orient myself and wanted to share a few things. The Calfee in the lower left corner (in green) and across from the Cleveland Board of Education Building which is perennially considered for sale to be turned, perhaps, into a hotel. Across from the beautifully renovated Calfee it would add another aesthetic plus to Sixth Street. I've added the Mall and Medical Mart, and have East Fourth in blue. I also added the grid which reveals just how large some of our blocks are in downtown (shorter blocks are typically better for pedestrians). Anyhow, wanted to share and see if anything jumps out at the board when they see this view. It seems that every few years a group is pulled together and they draw various maps with "radial" and "linear" paths showing off how the city can become a pedestrian haven, but sometimes looking at what is already there reveals insights.

I'm not sure any of us knows the actual number of rooms nor the breakdown between those with window access and without. Between the East facing wall of mostly windows and the creative layout of these (they seem to cover upper and lower portions of different floors) it is possible that there are very few areas without windows. As for future uses, if the Medical Mart were to falter, engineers are pretty creative people and a reuse could certainly add windows if need be. One step at a time people -- it's a great addition if for no other reason than it doesn't look like a suburban commercial building and it's absolutely a step up from the architecture that used to occupy the space.

Another facade pic:

Thanks everyone!