Burnham_2011

Hts121 you're exactly right. Demo isn't something we should take lightly, but this one has little to no benefits, and lots of detriments to the quality and appearance of Midtown.

CORRECTION: Superior and 30th (a gateway between Downtown and Asiatown). Or even Superior and 34th, or 36th would still put it along the streetscape and make it part of the area, not just a visual in the distance. Just offering how chinatowns that I've been to use their gates, they're either the entrance or in the middle, never a barrier at the end.

Looks great! I still think the Gate should be somewhere alone Superior amidst Asiatown so it can be integrated into the streetlife and people can walk through/under it. By making it a bookend to the area it will seldom see traffic beneath/around it. Most of these China Town gates are an entrance to the area, perhaps Superior and 40th area?

ClevelandOhio, This could easily be accommodated somewhere in the North half of the plaza, either in one of the two corners or in the center. I agree with your reference to the Inner Harbor, and would also point to the steps/staging area across from Jackson Sq. It's literally just steps, but it encourages entertainers to set up shop in front of them. There should be consideration given to where electric and water outlets should be available as well.

Scav, which of the 3 do you like best? My concern is that the 1st option basically changes nothing, adds trees and (in my opinion) compounds the disjointedness of the square and the outer sidewalks/pedestrians. The second, which seems most likely to get a shot, is nice, but I agree with Urbanomics that we don't need another great lawn somewhere. Considering the Mall is right there too, a lawn is redundant at best, and wasteful at worst. It's also nearly useless when the temperature is below 50, regardless of snowfall. The third is definitely interesting, and a compelling visual, but taken from a practical standpoint it seems terribly shortsighted. As far as pedestrian uses, who wants to walk up and over ramps and slopes to get from Terminal Tower to the Mall, or WHD to Euclid. It also seems very 20th century in the sense that it is car centric, allowing the cars to run freely (and fast) through the square still. It doesn't have unifying space for entertainment be it the Orchestra, or a juggler, guitarist, food carts, and the mound destroys all lines of sight from each corner. I don't think traditional is necessarily bad or good but must be looked at on a case by case basis. I think EVERYONE here would prefer the early 20th century buildings in this town were still around in areas like the WHD and off Public Square (in comparison to the empty lots). The best squares and roads around the US and the world tend to have older "classic" looks. There's a reason they are classic, like Ionic Columns and Beethoven they will be around forever. I'm not saying this is a unanimously adored idea (in fact on UO its quite new), but if you would explain which you prefer and why it is better (both in design and actual public use) I'd be interested to hear it.

Just a quickie - for those not on board yet with Plaza > Park, and also to show what a true Group Plan vision might hold (Mayor Jackson, you don't need a commission, just post a question on UO :wink:). This has a broad park with the Willard and Huntington Parks connected with the surface parking turned to green space. It also has the street crossing on the mall paved in a similar fashion to the Public Square area. Rockwell is also paved and 1 lane, and E3rd is now a pedestrian walk. I've added the entire CBD as context to show how it relates to points of interest, and how this, once surrounded by vibrant life and economic activity would be a truly great vision for the city.

KJP, I'm with you on the lack of curbs idea, and I'm certain designs could have small lifts/curbs/ramps or whatever engineers come up with at the bus stops themselves, but being able to walk seamlessly from sidewalk to square is essential as it follows the vision of the entire area being a square. In some ways, to me, this idea is as close to closing off both Ontario and Superior AND closing down the perimeter roads too. It also goes well with the Group Plan's idea to make Rockwell a 1 lane minimum use area. I have an idea/question that might immediately get shot down with $$$ issues, but back in the 90s my high school put in nice new brick sidewalks with had electrified heating units in them which helped melt the ice/snow. Has anyone ever heard a consideration for using these on specific and limited sections of the sidewalk/plaza areas? Might be cost prohibitive, I don't know, but considering our winters, it might be worthwhile to have "routes" heated. Perhaps the energy could come from solar panels on top of the kiosks?

For those wondering about Pavers - this road has trucks on it constantly dropping off produce for the market in the background. Has brick, stone, and unique patterned masonry all over the place. This road is open on weekends, but because of the foot traffic people have basically just stopped using it aside from occasional needs/tourists. I think that would be what might happen to Superior to an extent. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=embed&hl=en&geocode=&q=washington+DC+eastern+market&aq=&sll=38.898782,-77.005577&sspn=0.206807,0.308647&gl=us&ie=UTF8&hq=eastern+market&hnear=Eastern+Market,+225+7th+St+SE,+Washington+D.C.,+District+of+Columbia+20003&ll=38.886223,-76.995857&spn=0.020845,0.038418&t=h&layer=c&cbll=38.886057,-76.99617&panoid=Kq0Z39eAJYD76-mmzfw6og&cbp=12,352.53,,0,22.57&output=svembed

I agree about the "nod" to the group plan by keeping the view up Ontario as clear. The use of Ontario (read: Casino, Stanley Block, etc.) I believe will be another key to making Public Square vibrant again. I put up two "paths" red and blue to illustrate a point that I don't believe people will have too much adversity to walking a diagonal or two to get from A to B through PS. Right now to get from the Terminal Tower to the Mall you need to cross 4 separate streets, go up and down grades (the SW quadrant) and go around various steps. The idea I've been updating to match what others are interested in has a red and blue path on it. I don't think many people would prefer (especially in the better weather months) to walk along the perimeter which is a longer route anyhow, than to walk through the square. As you can see the red line is actually shorter. Anyhow, this is just an idea, but I'm not sure that we need to clear a direct obvious wide path from NE to SW corners. This whole area will be very open and visible and much more pedestrian friendly with this sort of plan. PS anyone have any idea of how to get something like the forum's dialog and images in front of the powers that be?

When the CUDC and James Corner Field Operations put out the 3 ideas for PS (which I think all comes in 2nd, 3rd and 4th place behind what's been discussed here), they had images with very interesting (almost tile-like) streetscapes. I'm not saying they were genuine references to materials one could use, but if they were using patterns and tile that are real, perhaps those could be used to avoid only using red brick. Though I would point out that at least using SOME of the same styles from the Euclid Corridor would be helpful in creating a continuous "Cleveland Style". Later the WHD could have new streetscapes put in with similar colors as well. Or one could take a page from Gordan Square and make unique patters for the crosswalks/brickwork. That all comes after a plan would be approved, but I agree 100% that the "little things" are BIG!

Alright -- trying to keep up with all the ideas/thoughts/critiques -- now I've made the Soldiers and Sailors monument much more open and connected to the Square. Mostly it is led up to by steps on all sides (like the Jefferson Memorial or East side of Lincoln Memorial in DC). I have also added three fountains (of the Hanna variety) to the North half of the Square. The Fountain in the Southwestern quadrant could be a larger piece of urban artwork something like this (but circular) http://image60.webshots.com/160/6/74/96/2002674960083553479WHBMOw_fs.jpg. Lastly I've reduced the pavers to only surround the square, which I agree is best. Unique patterns and stones for cross walks, and the areas they are bounded by will make the entire area favor the pedestrian. I couldn't add them here, but I'd argue for early 20th century street lamps to light Superior from the boulevard's median. Any and all street signs lights should be of the same style (regardless of which is chosen).

Finished the PS paving stones everywhere... I can't imagine this much road work would be approved (even if segments, the powers that be ...and suburbanites hate this stuff)... but it would be great. Really like the idea of using the square as a true plaza. Great idea urbanomics, hope my mockups express your idea (with a lil bit o' grass in there! 8-) )

No, I understand that -- I'm not talking about fake masonry skins or anything. I'm talking about deliberate construction (like the above) where new structures simulate individual small buildings" on the perimeter by expanding the footprint on the bottom 2,3,5 floors etc. Check out the JoS. A. Bank store. That is completely part of the "new" structure, but with the facade design and the height (it is cut off, but it only 5 floors high before a roof connects it to the bigger building behind). The result is a streetside store that looks like a standalone building, and when placed next to other the historic buildings (see red brick row houses) it creates the appearance of an old fashioned mainstreet while allowing for large buildings on a lot. It's an "unnecessary expense to most builders, but has permanent effects on the streetlife. Compare it to the below. This tall apartment building has a CVS right in the center of this picture, and the ground floor is actually retail! Can't tell? That's because we have a tree lawn, no easily visible signage, and no distinction from the building's brickwork anywhere else. If a line of "rowhouses" were constructed as jutting out from the building to the street they could have active and energized retail making this block a destination. Instead they have a stores that are almost entirely used by the apartment building's residents only. Who knows if that's enough for revenues, but it certainly doesn't encourage unique restaurants and retail outlets to enter the market.

Caught me... I added a simple building facade to last spot on public square. It was mostly to offer a more complete image of the square. For the record I hope whatever goes there has street level activities galore. Also -- does anyone know much about this kind of construction? Below is a street that shows a large commercial building that was constructed "behind" and intertwined with the older shorter buildings. The result is that you get an early 20th century street level effect but can fill in the entire block with larger buildings. While it might cost more, I wonder how much? Imagine if Key Tower had 6 or 7 unique "facades" (even if they are completely fake) with differing depths and heights on the Public Square side. These could hold restaurants, retail, and smaller stores but would keep the Public Square 1920s look alive while allowing for massive skyscrapers to be built.

Here's a mock-up that's sort of a hybrid of the park/plaza ideas. I've used pavers on Superior, but key the rest of the roads as asphalt for now (1 too hard to design, and 2) that seems like a LOT of construction/road work to ask of our fair city, which HATES traffic impediments). I still think SOME green space is useful, so I added a fountain and small lawn area. [EDIT: Imagine the Christmas Tree in the Center of the North half, with decorations symmetrically all around... This would be a beautiful setting for such events.]

Urbanomics: great post/ideas/mockup, and I really like it as well. In fact I'm even tempted to say I like it more than the park idea I listed above. Regardless, though, of which direction the space is made up of (park v. plaza) the key will always be the use of the space, and the buildings around it. I believe that the Casino, connection to Euclid, and whatever is developed (sigh) on the surface lot, are going to be the most important sources of park travelers. We need to find ways to enhance the numbers of pedestrians and, I think, food vendors would be a good start. If the WHD had a larger population one could imagine a farmers market there (though it would certainly be a poor mans WSM), and there are various other activities. Unfortunately with winter being so long it would be important to find a way to make the plaza effect useful when it's covered in snow. The idea i have above has a clear path between the terminal tower and the mall's corner. If there was a paved path it would simply need a small snow plow (sidewalk plow) to clear a path to the malls and medical mart. A final note: part of me almost wants this project to be tabled for a bit, or minimized. If they could close Ontario and connect the North and South quadrants without much more alterations as a Phase I that would be great, but the design, i believe, would be massively different if, say, in 25 years Cleveland had a substantially larger downtown population. A group of Clevelanders at UrbanOhio might have even grander and more dramatic ideas in 2030. :)

Wow TMH... I'd suggest you take a bit less of a judgmental position on your posts -- if I may offer that suggestion. First off, no I do not live in Downtown Cleveland, I live in Downtown Washington DC. I was raised in the suburbs, sure, but unless you grew up living in the urban downtown environment I'd encourage you calm down a bit on your comments.. Secondly if you've seen any of the designs discussed for public square, or followed the discussion on this forum you'd see that joining up at least in halves (2 rectangles each made of 2 of the 4 squares) are not only popular ideas but supported by the group plan and other urban designers. Central park is not in any way a good comparison. You could fit most of the CBD of Cleveland into it, and obviously with that large an area you will have safety issues, but as you yourself point out Public Square isn't that way. I would argue that closing off the traffic and adding large open spaces (as large as 40 total acres can be...) and some paths would not "Scare off suburbanites". If anything, they are scared of buses, crowds of people they consider to be "urban" (don't get me started) and disjointed public spaces. Stand at E 4th and Euclid (or a bit closer to PS) and look toward the WHD. It's basically a sea of roads, sidewalks, parking lots and very unattractive places. If the square was consolidated and made into a welcoming greenspace people would think it was a beautiful center of town. In fact you say this, "they are frightened when they see anything that looks like an urban environment!" So do you recommend we make downtown more suburban? I would assume not. Building a unique and beautiful park in the center of our tallest buildings, up the street from the Casino and Med Mart, between the Terminal Tower (read: RTA) and nearly EVERYTHING) and at the base of the Euclid Corridor is completely "New Urban" in its purpose and design. "I want suburbanites to stop suggesting park designs with secluded spaces and park benches which only provide places for all of the people that scare suburbanites away." I'm not a suburbanite, (on these forums that's nearly a 4 letter word, so be careful) and I don't see how my proposal is that different from the current Southwestern quadrant with has minimal grade alterations in an attempt to make it a bit more secluded. Lastly -- as Yanni said -- Urban Park space is by far the most valuable asset to a city, (aside from well... people and businesses obviously). Of course we aren't the same size as NYC, that's why proposing a 40 acre public square is my point, not an 843 Acre forest (like C. Park) I'm not sure you're being very clear. Do you think the current layout is just fine? What is urban to you? Should we cater to the suburbanites fears or design a city worthy of people who want a city?

:evil: Maybe we can use gorilla tactics to limit traffic through the square over the next few weeks to skew the study and get this: [EDIT: I fiddled with the design to make it both inexpensive and useful. My idea is to have a waist high (3 ft) colonial style wall along the perimeter with 9 wide openings around the area as to keep the wall broken up and less of a barrier and more a design. This way if you're on the grass looking out you don't see straight out into the cars everywhere, but instead see a nice red brick wall, maybe some public art, this will keep the noise down as well. As for safety, I think the short walls with many opening leading to the sidewalk (and the relatively small size of the park) will make so that at any place inside or on the sidewalk you can see everywhere else making it feel very safe during daytime and early evening. Lighting will make this better at night, though no urban parks are considered "safe" after dark. There are also 9 entrances that I have along the brick wall perimeter so there are plenty of ways in and out, and you can still see the Mall from the entrance of the Terminal Tower.

Hts - I think you're bring a little too conservative (negative?) on the point. Areas like Shaker, Parma, Pepper Pike etc. are not going to see growth over the next 40 years. Most people who grew up in the 'burbs don't want that for their 20s and even 30s. The trend that brought people into the inner ring and then spread further out over the last 45 years or so is fading. People are, sadly, moving away from Cleveland and Detroit etc. and going to new younger cities, but if Cleveland can do the things it needs to to retain young people I see no reason why the downtown can't grow itself without annexing new areas. The WHD alone, could house another 10,000 people easily considering all that open space. If those blocks were developed with dense apartments, and if the avenue district were built up (and out) and if buildings along 9th and 12th were re-purposed to include residencies there is no reason to believe that we couldn't add another 50,000 people to the areas bounded by the lake, I-90 and the River. I think CBC was asking more about a max potential, which assumes first that the city has become attractive to new residents. There is so much space between W9th and E26th and from Lakeside to Carnegie -- that if people were clamoring to live downtown and the City Council rezoned areas from light industrial (geez....) to mixed use residential, I believe the downtown alone would sustain large populations. Areas like Ohio City, Tremont, Hough, and Central could stay as lower density residential areas and still hold thousands more Clevelanders. University Circle and the broader area near E118, and of course Little Italy could all be a site of infill and development. In short, assuming (that's the point) that Cleveland became a mecca for former suburbanites and new talent, the major Downtown, Uptown and Euclid Corridor areas could be host to hundreds of thousands more, and Cleveland could easily be a city of 1 Million without annexing a single square foot.

As mentioned above, this area, if filled with street level retail, and new apartments and offices would be many times more valuable than a new development in midtown or a new tower on public square. (though I'd like those too). The blue are surface parking lots, the roads are highlighted in green, and the facades of the buildings are simply highlighted to show how dense and continuous this area is. No one should be building a Stark like development until these blocks are more saturated. **Has anyone heard of any vacancy numbers for these areas? What are the 2nd , 3rd, 4th .... floors of the taller ones filled with?

Synergy is the key word. To go off of what Hts121 said, we do need to focus on what has the current momentum. We need the area surrounded by Prospect/Ontario/Euclid/9th to become fully saturated with development. Gateway/Casino, Playhouse Square, and the WHD are all areas that, with policies to attract more people, will benefit and create a positive feedback loop. But the synergies between a residence, retail, park, office, street car, urban furniture, clean sidewalks, business friendly policies, young crowds -- that is where the city takes off and shines. Things don't happen in a city by mistake, restaurants without people close (or don't open), stores without clients don't exist, and apartments without residents never get built. It's the chicken and the egg.

ClevelandOhio -- I agree that we should really just focus on things that make us better and let the city show itself as a great place. But I will say this (having a background in marketing) as annoying as it is? That "catch phrase" and easily identifiable quality makes a big difference in encouraging people to buy a product (move to a city). About 30% "Cleveland Rocks" is what I get from people when they hear where I'm from (sometimes phrased as a question). The other 70% is either something about our sports teams (Lebron centric these days, though sympathy is better than the other options), or it's "Didn't your river catch on fire?" Amazing that decades later "Burning River" is still considered a reason Cleveland is unattractive. Burns me up.... But in the world of competing for new young urban residents we can't afford to be a "hidden gem" or a great place to live, who cares what others say! We've gotta market ourselves, and do with clear and concise thoughts. Watch one of those ADD Positively Cleveland videos and you'll see why people don't "get it". Flashes of random cultural festivals, the zoo, skyscrapers and people drinking and eating doesn't scream "Cleveland" it screams "generic environment". We simply need something that is 100% OURS. Big Ben, the Washington Monument, the Eiffel Tower, Space Needle, (Boston) Charles River, Manhattan Island, St Louis Gateway Arch, Golden Gate Bridge... etc. etc. just iconic things that people know. The Terminal Tower isn't too well known outside of Ohio, I'm not sure why that is, but again -- we've been saddled with "Drew Carey" and a burning river....

Hts, I couldn't agree more about "accepting who we are" and building on our identity. I think the issue is that Cleveland does not have a singularly understandable/marketable identity -- and I'd welcome the discussion of this topic to continue here as it is a big part of what Cleveland should be in 40 years. Cleveland has a legitimate claim to Rock n Roll as an identity, and we've cemented that image with the Rock Hall and constant references to Cleveland...rocking. But it's hard to consider Cleveland's Rock identity the same as New Orleans Jazz, or Nashville Blues. Or like other cities which have obvious identities, NYC is well.. NYC. Boston is a Port City with heritage walks Harvard and MIT. Philly is Upenn, Cheesesteaks and old nieghborhoods, DC is the planned garden city capital, Miami is Hot and "Hot", San Fransisco has hippies and trolleys and fleece coats for the bay's wind, Portland is stuck in the 90s and is a cyclist's paradise, Seattle is a place for intellectuals, grunge music, and coffee. (^^ City stereotypes aren't always indicators of reality, but perception affects those who might go to visit or move to a new city) Other identities? Well, our history is both that of Industry (which really isn't much of a "theme" for a city to embrace) and we also have nationally ranked institutions - but museums, symphonies, and hospitals an identity do not make. We have the Browns of course, Indians and things like the Course of Rocky Colavito. These are things that make a city great and full of rich heritage, but cannot be a single unifying identity. We were called the Forest City by Alexis de Tocqueville, perhaps an effort to reforest the downtown? :roll: The city has branded us both the "Comeback City" and "New American City". Neither is bad, per se, but neither really means anything. Basically buzz words. I think the Cleveland Rocks image is one of our better ones - and we should really work to bring musicians to the city, and help increase the number of smaller venues that local bands can play in. Develop the music industry (though it would always be smaller) but work to make the "Rock" and music scene deeper in the city. We are a Lakefront and River divided city, but we know, all too well, the major hurdles to embracing the water front. I think the area North of Browns stadium is the most likely for now, maybe moving the port could happen one day. The wide shallow valley of the Cuyahoga will always make large bridges and a significant disconnect between Ohio City/Tremont and Downtown an issue-- but maybe the Superior Streetcar could reuse the lower level of the bridge and connect them again. I'd love to hear what others think Cleveland really means, and what kind of identity should be embraced moving forward.

Decided to take another stab at this... bear in mind it's the "future" First off is transportation. In the dream future we'd have the downtown loop completed, we'd also have a Superior Avenue light rail that would go from the Warehouse District out to Asia town and E36th to start, maybe all the way to 55th. Lastly (in this oh-so-bright future) we'd have found a random few hundred million dollars and could tear up the BRT lanes and put in street cars. Modern replica's of the old cars from Euclid Avenue's past. With the new transit in line I would like to see the street grid altered over the years. The purple lines in the WHD and the orange lines in the new Superior Avenue District represent alterations to the grip. Narrower streets with wide sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and new streetscapes that incorporate classical styled benches and streetlamps as well as street signs (http://www.vintagepastime.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Vintage-Wall-Street-Sign-245x175.jpg). I don't propose what they specifically look like, but something that is unique and would make Cleveland's streets stand out. I think marketing/branding of a city and its streets are very important. New roads also bisect the larger blocks in these areas creating more space for retail, front windows, and more connections (read: Jane Jacobs). In terms of Public Works I would want the Mall finally connected to the North Coast area with an extended land bridge that is the width of Mall C (also, by then can we rename the mall(s) something grand and simple? Someone once posted Burnham's original name for it... something like that Gateway of Justice or something... Also Public square would be unified into one big 40 acre lot, and traffic would be routed around it. I would also like to see the Columbus Peninsula used as a downtown recreation area. We'll have the crew team's boathouse house and the skate park soon enough, I'd like to see more done in this area. Then the Colored blocks are private development that I would hope could be spurred by more people moving into the city. The purple is WHD and lakefront areas I'd hope could be developed. The blue is "downtown" gateway areas that I want to be developed and not turned into parking lots (read: Stanley Block) The yellow is an area I think is primed for development, and with the new street car loop I think it will be a great location (near playhouse square) The green is the avenue district and I would simply like the plan in all its phases to be completed. This would require a lot of new residents in downtown which in turn would mean more development would be likely in the avenue. The orange grid is my pet idea which is an entirely new downtown neighborhood. On the new Superior Street Car line it would be primed for development and because much of this area is empty, there is an almost endless opportunity design a new neighborhood here, and over the long run (Cleveland 2100?) connect along superior between E26 and E12 to form an avenue of residences and retail. Conclusion: There isn't the money for this kind of development (transit) of course, but if the city can market itself to the aging suburban population and grow its downtown base, and if it can find ways to plan for longterm mass transit lines, I believe much of the above is less of a dream and more of an ambitious agenda. It will take money, determination, luck and.... some more luck. But the areas I've highlighted are all either partially developed, or seeded for it. Superior is wide enough for street cars to return with little disruption, and there is clearly interest in continuing to grow downtown these days. Here's to a bright future :drunk:

I'd agree with ClevelandOhio on the walkability of the city. A big issue is also the size of our city blocks. The blocks in the WHD are as much as 500'x330' which is more than double what Urbanists have often considered walkable/pedestrian friendly. Take a look at this: http://www.spsu.edu/architecture/classes/4116_Shpuza/assigned%20readings/jacobs%201961%20need%20for%20small%20blocks.pdf We have so many surface parking lots in there, we should really encourage any future development to be required to split up those enormous blocks.