Burnham_2011

My point exactly. The difference is the amount of people frequenting the different entertainment zones, not the zones themselves. Personally I like the idea that I could go out to Tremont, FEB, E4, WHD, Coventry or Uptown if I was deciding what kind of night I wanted to have. Toss in a few thousand more residents, some more CSU kids and a better network of public transit and Cleveland has a nightlife to rival many other cities. It just needs a bit time to grow.

I think the "duplication of venues" isn't a problem, in fact I'd say it's what we need (as in multiple entertainment districts). The issue is, as always, the number of patrons to these places (and downtown in general). I live in D.C. and when it comes to "going out" there are 4 standard entertainment neighborhoods: Dupont Circle U Street Corridor Adams Morgan Georgetown Recently H Street corridor (the Atlas District) has exploded and, in its own style, offers another neighborhood. No one ever worries about it siphoning off traffic from other areas even though they all have similar bars, restaurants and clubs, and that's because there are lots of patrons. So we should encourage multiple "entertainment destinations" and hope the continued improvement of the downtown community increases patrons.

Agreed. There is no way that Rock Ventures closes up shop and leaves after spending a hundred+ million dollars on a Cleveland Casino just because the City requires them to adopt their parking ideas to our historic infrastructure. As I've said before, either they have a plan B (and we're not asking for it), or Gilbert knew long ago this Planning Commission would okay any request, so he didn't worry.

I don't know, Punchin Pat, I think this is a nice view to see from ground level. :P [Edit: Note sure the Glass Tube is much better :-P (just trying to make light of a less-than-wonderful situation)]

Here's an alternative (reality?!) version, that would at least indicate an intention to make the parking garage/welcome center truly an organic PART of the city. I added a random store, a Cleveland Cupcake Store (finally!) and a Great Lakes Brewery Pub.

So can I get some thoughts from people on what kind of "retail" would be going in here? It's 4700 GSF, which is a decent size, but not huge. I looked up that the typical Gap/Banana republic is between 6,000 - 8,000 SF. I also found that the average small restaurant is around 4,000. Between the Horseshoe banners hanging outside, and the single door proposed, I'm pretty convinced the "retail" will be Casino Card Sales, maybe a tiny Coffee Kiosk, and nothing "3rd Party". As they wrote: "The proposed “welcome center” project proposes a large retail or restaurant space at the corner of Prospect and Ontario". I'm just not convinced there is either enough space for anything, nor would they want something distinct there. Could you imagine a Sports Bar there? Or a Retail outlet, like a Tiffany's? I really can't, and don't expect it to be anything that would encourage street-life. But I'm open to all of your thoughts...

I don't mean to post a very long file, but this was the response attached to an email from Robert Brown Director of the Cleveland City Planning Commission. Mods, if you can think of a better way to present this I'm okay with you deleting my post- but I wanted to show everyone what was sent to me: CITY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS WITH REGARD TO PROPOSED CASINO WELCOME CENTER AND GARAGE DEVELOPMENT The Downtown Core Location. The City Planning Commission and staff recognize that the casino developer could have avoided the proposed demolitions and pedestrian bridge construction by doing what most casino developers have done – which is to build a new casino building, with an attached parking garage, in an area removed from the downtown core. We are very pleased that this casino developer chose the more difficult and costly option of placing the casino in the heart of downtown Cleveland, right on Public Square, where many of the millions of casino-goers each year will walk the streets of downtown, patronizing our restaurants, our stores and our hotels. Street Life. The proposed “welcome center” project proposes a large retail or restaurant space at the corner of Prospect and Ontario, replacing a long-vacant building that once housed a religious book store. Immediately east of the new retail/ restaurant space on Prospect will be another pedestrian-oriented space, a “welcome center,” with information about the casino and some possible retail sales area. Together, these two people-oriented, non-vehicular new spaces on Prospect Avenue will help connect pedestrian activity from the casino, along Prospect Avenue, to East 4th Street. These new uses can also contribute to the renovation and re-use of the vacant and under-utilized historic buildings on Prospect between East 2nd and East 4th. In addition, the fact that the main street-level entrances to the casino will be directly on Prospect Avenue and on Public Square means that many if not most of the casino goers will enter the casino from the street, rather than on the pedestrian bridge, walking from local hotels and from the Convention Center, Medical Mart and other nearby venues. Historic Preservation. The decision to place the casino in the Higbee Building results in hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in the renovation and upgrading of this historic building, while giving new life to the historic Terminal Tower complex. The proposal also leaves the historic Stanley Block building untouched and preserves its rear loading and servicing access. Competitiveness. It is important to the Cleveland community that the casino succeeds and draws millions of visitors to the city, along with the thousands of jobs associated with the casino. Other successful, first-class casinos offer their patrons convenient parking and valet parking drop-off and pick-up, along with safe, climate-controlled connections to the casino. For the Higbee Building casino, the only location available for this service, including the extensive valet area required for such service, is at the southeast corner of Ontario and Prospect, where the Columbia Building is located. All options have been examined carefully and none of them are workable. Casino Phasing. The casino developer has stated its intent to make the Higbee Building a permanent part of the larger casino complex, which is proposed to be built on the south side of Huron Road, connected to the Tower City complex. Construction of the second phase casino is anticipated for 2015. Pedestrian Bridge Issues. Although the proposed pedestrian bridge will interfere with some views, particularly along Ontario northbound, the fact that Ontario is a relatively wide street and the fact that it bends just south of the proposed bridge significantly limits the impact that the bridge will have on views. The most significant view that will be obstructed is that of the County Courthouse on Lakeside. However, motorists and pedestrians will not be close enough to appreciate the architecture of that building until after passing under the pedestrian bridge. Similarly, the most significant views of Old Stone Church will occur north of the proposed bridge. Recognizing the importance of the design details, the Planning Commission has instructed the developer to return with a refined concept for the bridge’s design before final approval is considered. Parking Supply. The development of the welcome center garage and pedestrian bridge, connected to the existing Gateway North Garage, allows that existing garage space to be used for close-in casino parking and, thereby, reduces the need to construct additional parking. Also, a portion of the proposed welcome center garage will replace an existing surface parking lot. Conclusion. Considering all the issues discussed above, the City Planning Commission and its staff have concluded that the benefits of the proposed casino “welcome center” complex far outweigh its detriments. We are confident that the development will not only increase the casino’s ability to draw visitors to Cleveland and create jobs for Clevelanders but will also add retail and pedestrian spaces to help spread casino-generated activity along Prospect Avenue and to the East 4th Street district.

I've mentioned this before, but just cant get this thought out of my head, I'd love someone who knows the process more to comment. At this point Rock Ventures has spent hundreds of millions on land, lobbying, engineering/architectural planning, and general managerial preparation for the Casino. There is no way that this is not going to move forward. That said, upon presenting this Welcome Center idea to the planning commission one would have to guess that either there is a Plan B for if it is denied OR they knew that it wouldn't be denied. Put another way, I don't know the legality of it, but I think it's very likely that though we've only seen the Welcome Center designs for a few weeks, the planning commission and/or the mayor had given a general promise to allow Rock Ventures to do whatever they need to get this Casino built. I suppose it's strange, to me, that we never heard anyone in power mention an interest in an alternative plan being floated. They said "we want a nicer looking skyway" but couldn't ask for an alternative and a proposal. If an alternative that did not destroy the Columbia Building was offered but cost an additional $2.5 million to build that would detour Rock Ventures from it being Plan A, but of course it would not have ended the Casino development. So either he knew this was fine to begin with, or he had a Plan B and we just didn't ask him to provide it. Does this sound about right?

Put ground level retail along Prospect and East 2nd in the new parking garage and I'm in. As someone earlier said, replacing mixed use potential buildings with mixed use ACTUAL buildings makes the demolition of an historic building more palatable. But Hts, we all know this is a straight forward parking garage being proposed. No mention of ground floor retail, food, etc. like in the above pictures. In fact, I'd argue that Parking Garages DO have to result in automatic deadzones. It's retail, residential, parkspace, and commercial that create foot traffic (aside from to and from your car). Parking alone does not yield an active space. It's more likely to look like this street in Cleveland...

Hts, the Casino+Walkway+Parking Garage/Demolition vs. Nothing at all, is not a fair equation. There is certainly a Plan B to this, and I think the City should pressure Gilbert to present it or adapt his plan for it. If I were presented the above option, Yes, I would take the Casino over nothing. But it's framing it like that, that gives Gilbert and developers like him all the power. That's not the true equation here. As for "this is not the Terminal Tower" you're right. But this city has lost many great buildings over the decades, many of which were considered historic or beautiful but "not the Terminal Tower" in defense of razing them. I understand some of us sound a bit crazy, but Gilbert will make his money, people will be able to park, and cold weather can be avoided all without demolishing one of the few remaining century old buildings. (Built 1909)

Very good point. I wish we could biuld a stand-alone parking tower, like in Chicago. Flood the market with supply so that surface parking is no longer the "highest and best use" in so many downtown landowners' minds. It is a good point except that this new garage represents new supply as a response to new demand. It only diminishes the demand for surface lots if it changes the equilibrium. As this garage is solely for the new Casino traffic it will do nothing to diminish the demand for surface lots. And depending on how well it satisfies demand, it may in fact lead to spillover parking in the E4th lot perpetuating the lack of development on that lot.

So let me ask this question: If the Casino was not happening -- let's pretend the ballot measure never passed -- and some parking company decided they wanted to build this garage exactly as described just without the skyway. Would the people who currently find this acceptable still think it's okay? I'm just wondering if the acceptance is because the parking garage comes with the Casino, or if some are really okay with this garage as a downtown development on it's own. If it's the former, I'd encourage people to consider that this Casino is going to happen regardless, Gilbert has put way too much into this to back off because of a few hundred parking spots. He'll build a different garage, or find another way to make it work.

If they were getting the Columbia and the Stanley and rebuilding them to have the same purpose that would be a better parallel. As for the other major difference, it's the location. The Euclid > E4 > Prospect > Ontario perimeter has all the makings of a fantastic dense urban area. Take a look at the area from this perspective. The purple are surface lots and the blue are buildings that are not used fully or could be occupied/re-purposed one day. Considering the new development basically makes the block with the Stanley and Columbia a commerce deadzone, and since the landmark building across from Higbees already is, there is little reason to develop westward along prospect. Future business could be focused going eastward, and perhaps (one day) the large surface lot on E4th could be built on, but we likely will not see much happen westward on Prospect. These developments are like dominoes and they need to reach a critical mass to see them move forward. The buildings all have a synergistic effect when developed in conjunction with one another. Taking out a few can destroy the potential of many more.

I'd have to agree with McCleveland. The approach to Public Square from the south on Ontario isn't exactly picturesque, but after looking at the draft pictures with the Horseshoe Casino garage and skyway added, I'm not exactly blown away by the vision of what our city will welcome people with anyhow. There are certain situations where "something is better than nothing" works for urban development. I think we'd all agree a less-than-gorgeous new apartment building in the WHD would be welcome over the continued presence of a surface lot. Likewise the new CSU dorms on Euclid aren't the most architecturally pleasing structures on Euclid, but the new college students they bring into the city more than make up for the lack of significant style along our mainstreet. The equation here is that we gain a few hundred parking spaces, glitzy signage, a walkway, and the city puts away another hurdle between the city coffers and new tax revenue. What do we lose? Aside from the Columbia building, and for most intents and purposes the Stanley, we lose the potential for a cohesive and attractive block. We never get to watch organic developments move from E4th to Ontario and create a consistent unimpeded avenue of shops and commerce. We lose the chance that in 2018 apartments go up in the Columbia, and in 2021 new structures make East 2nd a walled in environment being developed like East 4th. We lose a repurposing of the surface lot south of the Stanley Building and reduce the attractiveness of the Maycompany ground floor to take on new purpose without having boutiques and commerce across the street. No one can guarantee this block will be the next decade of downtown redevelopment, but building this garage will guarantee it does not. Dan Gilbert has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on land and groundwork for this Casino- it WILL happen. So either he has a plan B, if the city doesn't allow this garage to go up, or he has been promised it will go through. If it's the former, I say the City push for his alternatives and show that we mean business when it comes the longterm future vision of this city. If it's the latter, then we're hopeless anyhow... :cry:

Maybe I'm over thinking this, but does anyone think it's possible they fed a "demolish the columbia but leave the stanley" plan to encourage a "well... I guess we could swap the two" plan B all along? Their images of a Stanley building surrounded by new construction seem to make the option an obvious alternative.

I, too, sent one to every email posted here. I added one to Councilman Cimperman as well. Please everyone get involved, send emails, go to the meetings, whether you're in Cleveland or live vicariously through UO from out of state!

The Higbee's Casino is considered temporary in a number of articles: http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-cleveland-temporary-casino,0,7539381.story I'm not convinced this is accurately being reported/communicated, or maybe there's ambiguity for a reason, but either way if there's even a chance this first Casino site will be closed down in the next few years we shouldn't allow this kind of construction/demolition to take place.

Hts - I understand your line of questioning with regard to the sheer economics behind these decisions. I agree, most of the time, that the people in the business of commercial development are great actors in the economics of a city, and thus if they are not rehabbing a building like the Columbia then one wouldn't be too far off assuming the costs outweigh the benefits. That said, we know this isn't always true. It honestly might be that the rehab could be profitable and taken on at some point, but there isn't a developer *today* who is willing or able. Perhaps the Marons have the Columbia on the drawing board for East Fourth "stage 11" just as I'm sure at one point they've dreamed up what to do with the parking lot on E4th. That doesn't mean they have the means today. Demolition, however, is permanent, while lack of credit/opportunity can be temporary. Beyond all of this talk I think it's most important we understand the Rock Ventures true timeline for Phase 2 of this Casino. As others have said, this really seems more and more like Phase 1 is the only, or primary, phase. If the Casino along Huron was a real development staged for next year, they could have all sorts of VIP parking and drop off lanes on the drawing board without touching the Stanley block. This skyway creating/Columbia Demolishing/multi-lane anti-pedestrian monstrosity (in my humble opinion :wink:) is permanent and from the point of view of enhancing the urban quality of Cleveland, seems 180* from what modern urban theory promotes.

So, just some food for thought: I made this map which contains some (most?) of the surface parking lots in the CBD of Cleveland highlighted in Blue. I kept th scope to the WHD and Corridor from Carnegie to Euclid from PS to I-90. In my opinion this map reveals a few things of interest. 1) There really is quite a bit of infrastructure covering the downtown corridors that simply remains unpopulated. It reminds me that, though I get excited at the thought of new construction, it is very important that we encourage the rehabilitation of buildings along with new projects. 2) The area surrounded by Carnegie, Euclid, 18th and 14th contains large swaths of open land surrounded by CSU, Gateway, Playhouse Sq. and I-90. Doesn't anyone else think this would be an ideal place for a large multi-use development. If it were my vote a "Stark" like project could do more good in this area. 3) In the category of Transit, we've discussed finishing the waterfront loop up 18th to Prospect and then back to Tower City. After starring at these streets and areas I think a second loop would split off when the Prospect line hits Huron. One would go up Huron to Tower City and continue the outer loop, (or go westbound) the other would go up prospect, north on Ontario, W on Frankfurt, North on W6, East on St. Clair and then South on Ninth until it hit the Prospect/Huron junction. These loops would thus hit the major areas inside of downtown, and also hit the Waterfront areas. When connected to the Red line's University Circle of W25th stations we would have a fairly comprehensive downtown+ metro transit system.

I know this conversation comes up sporadically, but I wanted to get the general opinions people have right now of the usefulness/need for true downtown light rail. It's my humble opinion that of all the investments Cleveland and NEO can make to revitalize downtown, the investment in a mass transit option within the Central Business District has the greatest potential to increase private investment. I wonder, both, what people think of this policy, and also where the loop should go. I know KJP said the Waterfront line should go south on 17th, I propose 18th, but would love to hear arguments for each. Does anyone think it should go further east (perhaps using I-90 as a border?) or further west toward 9th keeping it more concentrated. What are the opinions on best practices to connect Tremont and Ohio City to the Downtown area. I truly believe a rail line connecting the neighborhoods of Ohio City, Downtown, and University Circle/Uptown/Little Italy with multiple stops in each (not the Red Line) would be more valuable than a new public square, Municipal Mall, and even Waterfront development. We have too many disconnected places, more of them won't help without easily identifiable, accessible, (the Tower City Hub is not really a general use "stop" on the route, it's clearly a hub) and consistent rail options.

327 - Did you bring that up, by any chase? I laughed out loud, but then it hurt a little...

Here's a thought (if financially feasible, this approach might solve a lot of problems): Expand the gateway garage for the 300+ spots and valet lanes they want. Then they can have their skyway for inclement weather go into the welcome center which will have ample space for retail and a tourism center. They can also have an RTA Casino stop beneath it (and perhaps a connection for the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad) and use the underground space to connect to Higbees and Phase II. This also means the Higbees building and the intersection of Ontario/Prospect remains untouched and fully open to future development. I'm not a fan of skyways in general, but to compromise with the need for winter weather options I think this and the tunnels would create a good option, but do not effect the surface of the city as much.

Hts - I understand your point, but I'm not sure it takes into account the macro realities of urban planning. It's the choice of a person to ride RTA or drive into downtown. It's the choice of Eaton to build a suburban campus or stay downtown. It's the choice of suburbanites to live, eat, and work in areas 10 miles out from the city center and only journey to downtown when they want to watch a Baseball game or see a play. Those choices have been made time and time again to the detriment of Urban Centers the country-over. I'm not saying the "if we build it they will come" strategy works, but I do believe that the built-environment of a city can have massive affects on the way citizens use it. Just take a look at the Moses v. Jacobs history of New York and we see that urban de/construction have lasting affects on the cities livelihood. I can offer my own experience for an example: I have friends and family who live in the suburbs who haven't ventured through E4th or walked through Ohio City in years. They enjoy their Beachwood Place, Legacy Village, and massive roads. Downtown is "dead" like so many CDCers would announce. I have to fight tooth and nail to get these people to stick around downtown after a baseball game. The walkway + parking garages make it just TOO easy to ignore all the things going on around them. I know it's a choice - and I'm not saying we mandate what people do. But it's the role of the government to create policies that do the most good for the general society, and in the case of the City of Cleveland, the vibrancy of the city core is essential to its success. We should do our best to encourage best practices.

http://www.clevelandunite.com/2011/05/01/227/ "In its 38-page report called “Crooked River Gaming: Weaving the New Casino into Cleveland’s Existing Urban Fabric,” the Cleveland Coalition makes a case for those visitors strolling downtown, taking in shows at PlayhouseSquare, dining on East Fourth Street. The concept is the exact opposite of the parking garages connected to The Q and Progressive Field, Torgalkar said. “Instead of making them leave as fast as possible, this makes them look around,” she said."

Came across this today, and thought some perspective might be worthwhile. It's wonderful to see so many active projects moving forward in Cleveland and there is much cause to be optimistic. However, there's still a long way to go and, as an advocate for working toward change, I like to remind others to do more than just post on the forum whenever you can get involved. Two months before the economy collapsed this ran in the PD, accompanied with great art. http://blog.cleveland.com/cribnotes/2008/07/sales_pitch_downtown_cleveland.html