Burnham_2011

While I can't cite specific statistics, I know carryover foot traffic is a very real element in urban communities. I can think of a dozen reasons why someone leaving the Casino at ground level facing east on prospect might be drawn to the lights and atmosphere at East Fourth, and this is 100% dissolved if someone takes an escalator up to the walkway and is insulated from the urban environment right up to their car's front door. Even if only .1% (that's 1 out of every 1000) of the 5 million guests Gilbert has had estimated will come each year (http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/02/caesars_and_dan_gilberts_gamin.html) decide to stroll down prospect for a drink or to catch the end of an Indians game - that's 5,000 visitors to East Fourth. Now we can go back and forth over the math -- it's all estimates and guesses -- but my point is that a funneling of guests through a skyway instead of the organic crosswalks which allow people to meander will diminish the value of the casino as an attractor of people to downtown. I can't tell you how many times I've ended up at a bar or restaurant or retail shop simply because I was nearby and noticed it. I understand that the Casino's SE exit isn't immediately facing E4th, this is about long-term vision (something Cleveland has often lacked). Take a look at Prospect facing East. As it stands now there is a lot of ground floor real-estate (including the Columbia Building) that could be filled with stores and businesses as downtown grows in a 15-30 yr picture. The corridor of Prospect from Ontario out to 9th (short of a few surface lots) is one of the best opportunities for development. With the Terminal Tower/Casino at the head. Channeling pedestrian traffic off through a walkway can only hurt this area.

I don't feel so well, say it ain't so! :shoot: Look at all those tunnels! It reminds me of Indianapolis' Artsgarden and skyways. And there aren't any images of how this will connect to the Higbee building. I can't believe that Gilbert would be allowed to demolish any of the facade to connect a skyway. ...so much for adding foot traffic that would develop synergy between East 4th, the Casino and future developments. :whip:

KJP, I'm with you. As I've tried to show with posts around UO it doesn't always take much to draw up a design and dream a new park, residential area, or development. The nuts and bolts are what matter. Can anyone out there take a quick stroll down memory lane to December 2004 when this was unveiled? I'm curious if this sort of plan was meant to be a complete guideline, a mere image of "what could be", or a plan that simply had no backing after it was unveiled. I'm somewhat frustrated by the fact that the 2004 version of the FEB project made it onto this image as though it was "a done deal". Also, not trying to be negative, but in sincerity why is this still up? Does anyone expect this to be actionable (even within, say 30 years)? I'm pretty sure that's a no.

KJP - This is clearly an early draft. More a "thought-piece", as the architects probably hadn't done too much research into the current engineering and designs. If you look you can see that the waterfront line is "split" between the old route and this new subway style route. Perhaps they wanted to keep both to show "options", or maybe they didn't know to delete the old one (thinking it was amtrak, or commercial freight). I doubt the firm was even from Cleveland.

Thanks TBideon. Strange they have to take it down for renovations, one would think they could just swap a new one in at any time.

Sorry this isn't really a "development" news story, but I don't think it belongs in City Discussion either... Google Earth seems to have deleted Key Tower from Cleveland's 3D buildings archive... I think they may have gotten rid of it instead 113 St. Clair because of the construction. Anyone know who to tell about this?

The Huntington Garage has about 250 spots on the top level (counting from satellite image). Using the above to estimate, a full extension would probably come to 400 or so, depending on organization of spots. I also don't know how many levels could be made above the rail tracks (probably only 1 or 2 before the surface lot. That said a really ambitious version would include a parallel garage coming from the Willard lot out to the RRHF. These two would add between 500 - 800 net spots (depending on the # of levels). ...but one could always take the Rapid! :whip:

Actually if you look at the full picture you'll see they have the Waterfront Line moved further North to, presumably, an underground station that would be closer to the new development. Some architect added $15M worth of work with a a few strokes of the pencil. That said, it would be a great move to have a legitimate (subway style) station out there, and might be a catalyst for looking at the downtown loop concept.

So it's all very preliminary of course, but a thought: One of the ideas tossed around for the mall renovation was to cover the Willard and Huntington Garages with parkspace and connect the adjacent parks to the Mall (creating a T of sorts). If they make some large new parking garage that extends out to the shoreway from the Huntington garage they should work with the county to make the entire top level (of the combined garages) parkspace (mall extension). That way the pedestrian walk would be part of the park. Trees would separate the park from the shoreway, and it would add to the connection between the Lake and the City. [EDIT: As Stephen Litt pointed out, you've gotta do this RIGHT from the start. I think the Pedestrian bridge needs to be very forward thinking. Ideally, Cleveland, in 30+ years, will have a strong connection to the waterfront. The new bridge can't be some steal semi-permanent looking skyway that features a parking lot to the west and a railroad canyon to the east. As the drawing below shows, we need the surface to resemble the mall's pedestrian paths, and should have trees. It certainly CAN be done, but only at a higher cost. Either way, the more this evolves organically from the Bluff/Mall, the better ...in my opinion.

The CSU plans were made before any news of the redevelopment of League Park was announced. But this would be a terrific adjustment to their plans, I hope they can coordinate to make it happen.

If FC ends up making bank on these sales perhaps they could look at investing across the street on their damned parking lot! :whip:

Thanks -- you have great insights into Transportation policy, so I figured you might have some insight. As for the "T" idea I understand the need for more consideration. After starring at PS for the last few weeks (and looking at dozens of public spaces around the world) I've decided that what we need is a single space that can be programmed for multiple uses: farmer's market, yoga classes, summer show series, music performances, political rallies, and so on. The SE quad is clearly going to be the monument, the SW quad can be designed many ways, but even with the additional space (with a closed Ontario) it would end up being somewhat redundant to the Northern Quads. I think designing the SW quad to have some green space, gardens, urban furniture, perhaps a water feature and/or ice skating rink would make it a wonderful complement to the overall space. Then the northern quads (joined) could be deliberately designed to host many uses, pedestrian traffic, and retail of sorts. Ontario doesn't need to be closed on the southern half to make this work. Just a thought.

KJP you seem like you might have an idea about this... Would leaving Ontario open in the Southern half of the square (forming a T with Superior) make the traffic pattern changes more palatable to RTA? Especially if it was ONLY open to Buses? Someone wrote many years ago that Public Square is an ensemble of squares, and I liked the sound of that. I think that pavers can make Superior more pedestrian friendly, and a redesign of the SW quadrant to make better use of the Casino and it's position as a "front porch" to The Terminal Tower is a good idea, but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of joining the Northern 2 quadrants, and leaving the 2 southern quads as they are - one museum/monument and one plaza/greenspace. New pics of the Northern half ideas soon to come.

So what does this mean for the old Jewish Federation Building? http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/07/plans_to_welcome_immigrants_ta.html I never saw much come out of this, but there was a plan at one point to make this a welcome center.

Scav - appreciate the size comparisons, its a huge space for sure. I think in the Portland's Courthouse Plaza shows how steps leading down a bit in a larger open space remain open so as to not invite hard to see (less safe) areas. (read: Perk Park). For the record my diagrams leave the north half mostly open because I don't want to offer a firm design, but rather a canvas. Ice skating, fountains, outdoor stages, areas for newstands, seatings, urban furniture etc. should be fluid, inviting, and seasonally appropriate. And yes, KJP, some fir trees.

I don't know much about the strength of the interior walls/floors, but my guess would be that a new facade (with matching skyway) that was perhaps more classical in style, would be more than enough to make the building over. The entire first floor could be re purposed as retail with new floorplans and additional doorways. Maybe even 2 story high ones if they chose to make retail the main draw. Just can't believe how great this location is. Seems like something the Marons would do (assuming the Schofield building is completed and the economy continues to recover). Man what I would do (for Cleveland) with $150M. :wink2:

1) Did anyone find out what was going on here? 2) Sorry if there's a better thread for this, I'm not sure where to put it. But is the Building at 9th and Prospect (the North Side of the skyway) also part of this complex? Is any of that building being used? Even though it's fairly hideous on the outside, it's got huge windows all along the first floor, is adjacent to Huron Point, and has the attached parking garage. Not to mention it's location! Seems like a huge opportunity to redevelop into a retail location.

A note on paving stones to those who had asked about the weight capacity for these stones:

Hts121 - Would you be in favor of having the Crosswalks that jut out from the Square paved? Also, for Superior, would you have asphalt run all the way up to the square itself, or have the intersections and crosswalks paved in stone? I know you agree with infinite money the pavers all around would be better -- but compared to the "Thread it" this thing has got to cost less than half, easily.

Update (as I work on better models). Also, I agree, a set of Design Principles is the most effective way to express the core desires of this plan. However, to compete in the minds of persons higher up in public service, a visual can be very effective.

I thought that perhaps having space for 2 or 3 in the Northern Quadrant that would correspond to permits the city could sell earn revenues and regulate the process. Food carts could also work here, but it could be great if a food truck could drive up at 10:30, set up in their designated area for 3 hours and then leave. The lack of curbs would be idea for this (though we will have pedestrian protecting measures along Superior). It would really blur the line between pedestrian and vehicle areas which I think will naturally mitigate traffic. Might actually improve the RTA's schedule times with fewer cars. :wink: But in all sincerity, I reread Steven Litt's article last fall from the Field Ops proposals and he mentioned Calabresse as a force against closing EITHER street let alone both. Does anyone know if this is simply an impossible mission (to get Ontario closed)?

The Casino, uses along Ontario (south of the square) and ...drum roll please... the vacant lot, will have the most significant impact on additional foot traffic to the square. Though, as WHD and Euclid are built up over time, PS will certainly gain more pedestrians passing through to other areas, and it's location outside of the terminal tower where tourists (suburban and otherwise) still come out to see the heart of the city. EDIT: Also, to those concerned about large swaths of red brick, I think diverse colors (not rainbow, but hues) and patterns are certainly an imperative. I was inspired by this plaza. Sort of like Gordon Square Crosswalks... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Rossio_Lisboa_2007.jpg

Keith, I agree with you on the diagonal, actually! That path has been SW to NE since the Group Plan 1903 if not earlier. The renderings on this board are early drafts and newer ones which are being worked on will have a diagonal path. For the North quadrant I will include more trees (strategic trees?). Aside from areas useful for News stands, and some simple urban furniture (and the Mayor Tom Johnson statue?) are there any objects of significance one believes Cleveland needs to have in their public plaza? Things like our guitar statues, or a 21st statue to...?

I've spoken with Parkworks and am going to set up a meeting, I don't want to speak for UO -- as it's not my place to -- but I will offer the dialogue here as Exhibit A for what people are interested in. If someone can help me find a way to post a .ppt that is larger than 200kb and then post a link here it should be ready by next week.

Just wanted to put this out there as another way to look at the option discussed last week. It was, considerably, harder to do this 3D image, but I think it would be important to submit to Parkworks a version that emulates the ones done by Field Ops. I'd appreciate imput. For the record, I would like fewer trees (like the version from earlier pages birds eye view) but there was only so much one can do to reinvent these images. Also, the Northern Half will/should have urban furniture, news stands, and built up steps where people could sit and watch performers, or eat lunch. But this is just to give a more realistic image. The image is The 3rd and 2nd presented options by Field Ops, and the UO collaborated idea. I think it offers a nice contrast.