Burnham_2011

While I can think of all the "wrong" things they can do (offer nearly direct access from the highway, to a parking garage, to a seat at the poker table; fill the casino with restaurants, bars, and other amenities that will keep people in one place; and others) I'm sort of at a loss for what they can do to incorporate the Casino into the city's "fabric". Short of putting slot machines on the sidewalks (sporadically placed around town), a Casino is still a self contained entertainment center, much like a stadium. Granted East 4th restaurants do really well when the Cavs (err... bear with me) play in town -- but a lot of that is people watching the game and not going into the Arena. People won't be watching the gambling from local bars. So while I'm in support of this Casino -- and think the first things I mentioned certainly need to be avoided to make this less of a vacuum -- I'm not really convinced there are policies and design elements that make the Casino an engine of activity a source of significant spillover- economic activity (it will have some, no doubt). The article about the Detroit Casinos makes the claim that people didn't want to spend their money at restaurants, on tips, or on beer -- but on gambling. I'm inclined to agree (if I go downtown to go gambling with $100, I probably don't want to drop $40 at Chinato first. Lastly -- I think the Higbee's Casino has the best chance of keeping flow/street life/economic activity moving. I'd be concerned the "permanent" location in an otherwise new "disconnected" (Tower City walkway or not) site might encourage a siloed visit.

It was me A few weeks back I brought it up and a few commenters agreed, but yeah, there doesn't seem to be any conversation about what to do with the Northeast side of Huron. Unfortunately the infrastructure doesn't look like it can be altered (at all?). I wonder how many of those freight doors are used and how frequently. If they could be consolidated perhaps some innovative engineering could be used to make those multipurpous. I think an easier change would be turning the 6 lanes into 4 (or 5?) which, if coupled with some sort of re-use of the landmark building's bottom floor, could make for bigger lots.

The issue of apartments and condos can be handled pretty easily... I've seen it here, in D.C. where a lot of places allow renting of units to transfer into Condo payments should a resident chose to alter their position on the unit. It requires a little bit of finesse with regard to accounting, but honestly it's all over the place here because a lot of people want to rent, but end up staying. It's the simplest way to keep the free-market involved in the process. I think we'd all agree apartments are the way to go (right now) but perhaps some people want to own their space, so we give them the option. It's not up to Johnson (or anyone in government) to decide what the people want.

So I wanted to add a graphic to this discussion for reference, I've added the major components of the space between PS and U.C. (i.e. the Clinic and CSU) and then put in the midtown stops on the BRT. I think taking 2-3 of them out would have made more sense considering the configuration of midtown, but, as Oldmanladyluck has indicated, having this many stops seems to encourage dense planning - which I am in favor or. A quick side note: I think the negative use of the reference to "sim city" should stop. It's very condescending to indicate that other persons in this forum are conflating some video game with reality. This isn't Cleveland.com, and the people who chose to come to UO, read through these forums, and take part in this community are doing so because they care about Cleveland. Yes there are dreamers among us, and yes it is essential that we pair dreams with concrete understandings of policy and process in order to ever move agendas forward. But, Cleveland is not where it is today because we had "too many dreamers".

And to go along with KJP's plan, (since we're still using the PS roads of Superior and Ontario), why not close down the E/W roadways that skirt along the outside of the square. Aside from the one connecting Euclid to Ontario, we could add hundreds of square feet to the park space of Public Square, and still have the major intersection. As it is right now we have too much concrete and too little green, its more like a patio than a park. Imagine walking out of the Casino at 11pm on a Saturday night and in front of you is a span of green space, and soaring towers. Also, though I'd like to connect the 4 quadrants, we should all bear in mind that we are getting a redesigned Municipal Mall (wasn't someone working on a new name for that... all the ABCs and such are no match for names like, Millennium, Forest, or even Central Park.

Please (please!) excuse the shoddy image, but I wanted to put out a physical representation for everyone... I wonder why this idea doesn't get more consideration. Unlike the one proposed as the "3rd" option in the Public Square redesign presentation from a few months ago (which had all sorts of asymmetric design elements) this would be more classical and simple. Aside from the square with the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial, we would "pyramid style" build grand stairs that raise to a second level park that would be a single contiguous space. The steps to get on top could contain sections that would be staggered gardens. On top anything from simple plaza space to more interesting urban uses could be put in place. Meanwhile, underneath much of the space would be supports for the upper park, but there would be plenty of space for the buses to pick up pedestrians, and the area would be enclosed during cold seasons. In the long run, retail space could even go beneath the park with entrances along Ontario and Superior, as though P.S. had been developed. I know some might say covering the area might encourage criminal behavior, but if done properly with lighting, and spacial purposing, I think we get the best of both worlds.

...ever? I think in the 30-50 year picture if there isn't residential development (at least making progress from Downtown and UC toward the 60s blocks then we're in big trouble. As for Campus idea - it's less about what is where, and the categories they fall into. What matters most (in my opinion) is that the developments are Euclid Avenue centric. That they face the street, and (in the best case scenario) run along the street instead of being setback with "front yards". Walking along a street with continuous facades is important in that it creates atmosphere and presence (even if it's not all Bistros and Chic Apartments), that can come decades from now, but I believe it's essential that Euclid be treated uniquely, and that zoning and planning heavily encourage a healthline, sidewalk, Euclid Corridor centric development. Compare the Applied Industrial Tech Campus, with a large office building on Euclid against the street. (Not verified but:) Perhaps they have the same number of suites and square footage, but one encourages further density, and the other seems slightly out of place. Once more -- I'm not passing judgment on the content, strictly the design impact of lower density uses of Euclid.

KJP - great points, and I completely agree. My overall point (way above) is that having a dual hub city (UC and Downtown) makes for an awkward tourist (or suburban tourist) visit, which is a reasonable measure of how a city appears to potential future-residents, and overall public. I brought some friends into Cleveland to visit (and to show them this place rocks!) and took them to University circle to start. After perusing the museums and having lunch at Wade Park we jumped on the Health line, which after about 3 stops gave us a tour of depressed neighborhoods, empty buildings and 1 story low density lots. No this is not the entirety of the trip, but until we hit the 30s the Cleveland youtube tourist video was being shoved in my face. They were impressed by some of the downtown, and I did my best to paint the picture of the future, but we can't deny this strip of land is in some ways more visible than the urban-planning eyesore between the lake and our city's bluff (read: railroads and pavement). Hts121: I'm not trying to pretend there are developers ready to build a grand skyline over 66th and Euclid, I'm only pressing the point further that Midtown could make or break the future of the city.

Let me present something to UrbanOhioans. I live in Washington D.C. and there is an area here that reminds me, in many ways, of Euclid Ave. It is called "H Street" or the Atlas District. It's a 1 mile stretch, that as of 2004 one would have not felt comfortable walking down past 9 pm, and would have had nothing to see, do, or experience on any evening. Between the City's renovation of an historic theater, and the development of a streetcar, the one mile stretch has become the new "hotspot" in D.C. In the 3 years I have lived here dozens of restaurants and bars have taken to the street. Yoga Clubs, non-profits, and chic clothing stores have started to fill in the once vacant store fronts. People are going out nightly and the street has a vibe. It's the direct result of public investment in streetscaping and transportation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34449-2004Jun11.html Granted DC has many more Urban residents... But that's not my point. My point is that areas that become serviced by BRT or Street Cars are meant to be Urban and lively. That should be our goal for Euclid Avenue. We have a downtown and an uptown that are, unfortunately 4 miles apart. That doesn't bode well for a city that itself is many more miles spread apart and has a population of <500,000. It's hard to get density, but essential for the kinds of uses and developments we want for Cleveland. The chicken and egg theory, for Cleveland, points to the problem that the best aspects of urban life are yet to be easily and broadly available to suburbanites as an alternative. Living in the WHD doesn't get you a Giant Eagle, or the top notch shopping of Beachwood Place. We can't get people to move en masse downtown until it's a viable alternative. Hough, Central, Kinsman, Glenville these places won't be the "better option" over Parma and Pepper Pike -- what will? A unique, urban, vibrant Euclid Avenue, Warehouse District, Uptown Community, or Avenue District all connected by a speedy, clean Bus Rapid Transit (darn I wish it had been a street car!) is the only alternative that stands apart and reminds suburbanites who "love visiting their cousins in New York" that Cleveland has busy streets, intense night life, and amazing cultural institutions as well. Excuse my misty-eyed conclusion but... Euclid Avenue was once called "The Showplace of America". We need Euclid to be that future and that dream -- even if that means being deliberate and choosy with what is planned and developed. It should be aspirational. We've got Superior, and Carnegie, and Chester for "roads"; this should be an "Avenue" in the best possible sense of the word.

Me too - when I was over in London a group of friends joined me for a casino night. The Casino itself was a building flush with its adjacent structures, and with similar architecture to the city. You really only knew it was a casino once you were inside. I think the use if the Higbee's building is an absolutely all-star idea, and great indicator of the way this Casino will work. How maze-like the inside is I can't say, but people will need to enter either by Public Sq. or Prospect, it's impossible that this won't add some quantity to the RTA riders, East 4th visitors, and possible visitors using the Health Line and going to U.C. The key for Cleveland is to get people beyond the myth that there's "nothing downtown" besides the sports teams and the history of a great metropolis. We need them to show up and have them open their eyes to what is going on down here. I'm very optimistic about the use of the Casino (at least Phase 1).

^^^ Exactly. This will either be a win-win situation, or a win-win-win situation.... Just wait, watch and enjoy!

I'll start with my typical response to the nay sayers of investments in Cleveland (and to Cleburger and jjames, I understand you are not the usual CDC posters...) which is to say that business executives don't typically invest money in things they expect to fail... or even consider moderately likely to fail. Successful businessmen do cost-benefit analyses on projects and determine best, worst and most-likely case scenarios. In the case of the Casino I guarantee that after millions were spent campaigning for the ballot issue to make this legal, developing plans for all three cities' casinos, and finally buying the land to develop Cleveland's casino, Dan Gilbert and Harrah's have it in mind to make a profit. I don't think using phrases such as "this has to be a home-run to be successful" make sense. What is a home-run? A million guests a year? Profitability? Spin-off success causing the Jacobs to build a new public square tower, Stark to build the WHD plan, and Euclid to be filled from PS to UC by 2015? In my opinion, qualifying what success is, and what expectations are and should be, is the key to quality discussion and debate in these forums where development (and hopes and dreams :drunk:) are central. That said, thousands of visitors (foot traffic) coming to Public Square each week will undoubtedly have a halo effect on local restaurants and entertainment. Once both the Higbees and riverfront casino's are built the stretch between on Ontario will be some of the most valuable land in downtown. MRN owns some and recent on UO it was posted that Louis Frangos bought up some more of this area. (We can hope it's not for more parking....) http://www.allbusiness.com/environment-natural-resources/land-use-development/15443955-1.html. I think the Casino(s) will act just like the Cavs of recent years, bringing people downtown to patronize restaurants and bars, fill streets with more foot traffic (creating safety) and perhaps continue to shift the stigma of what Cleveland is really like to visitors and suburbanite locals. Maybe they'll start to see how great this town really is.

^^Agreed 1,000 times over. If nothing else this image needs to be in the minds of the group plan when they make decisions. I only put the landscaped design above to show that even areas of "grass" can be nicer than big squares of it. Creative, useful, interesting, interactive, and open spaces that allow for football, picnics, art installations, as well as the lunch crowd are essential

Niko -- Somethings that I did not add to my plans include all of the many additional uses/public spaces being considered. Check out the wiki page on Millennium Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Park) to see the dozens of public uses that this park has. People have discussed ice skating rinks, public theater space, public art (sculpture gardens), and of course additional landscape design to include secluded areas, shade, park benches, perhaps a children's jungle-gym area, and more creative ideas than I can offer alone! I must confess my "drawings" are just large plains of grassland, but in reality we would have landscape architects make it shaped, full or gardens and urban furniture, and public spaces. As for "what this does" is that it connects Public Square and downtown to the lakefront in a beautiful and pedestrian friendly manner. Right now you have to walk on the sidewalk of E9th or W 3rd (crossing many streets, and always surrounded by concrete and cars), or cross the Football Field paths to the stadium (iron, concrete, and spanning dirty railroad valleys). This would create a way to walk from Rock Hall, Science Center, Voinovich Park and the future Water Front developments to downtown proper that is continuous, parklike, green, and ....impressive.

Punch -- unfortunately, as the articles says, this was conceived as part of the 3C rail project. (read: Killed by Kasich) "hosting a new Amtrak station that would be a stop on the proposed high-speed rail line between Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati," It doesn't mean they couldn't (shouldn't) make an inter-modal transportation center, but making one for Bikes, Pedestrians and the RTA line is really just the same as a waterfront line stop and a Mall D with an elevator to the Amtrak station.... There's no real impetus (or Federal funding for that matter) to make this happen anymore. MMPI and the Convention Center were the next best chance and getting real construction done across the tracks, and they didn't "bite".

You're right -- fixed it a bit, but had to move the firefighters (maybe it could go on the mall somewhere). Also added some stairs facing the new mall(s) and added the Med Mart (sort of). I appreciate the ideas/comments. KJP - We could add a "Mall" stop to your Downtown loop where Mall D connects to the waterfront. W28th - do you know what the next Cleveland Design Competition will be on? Your entry for the 2010 one looks great.

So would "this" be a Mall D design, or is it still beyond what anyone thinks is possible. I tried to take into account the true elevation changes in this area, and promote a smaller build-out, and then "greened" the roofs of both parking garages. I did take the liberty to also extend the Huntington Garage out to the Shoreway bridge and then curved it alongside until Mall D. I also built up the ground between E 9th and the Willard Garage. For those wondering about my exercise in futility - I posted to "yourchangingcleveland" (in the smallest of hopes that some intern has been assigned to go through it on behalf of the group plan) that they should peruse our forum on the mall, and I have always found UO posters to have interesting ideas, critiques and responses to posts (even of imagined designs). :clap:

Wouldn't that have been interesting... I don't know if there are any legal ways to insert language in a Contract to say "We pay $85M for this land, stipulating it is spent to the specifications and wishes of the UO forum on The Avenue" But that would be fun :wink2:

It's a total pipe dream -- but the Group Plan Commission was brought together to put a vision forward, not a feasible option. I just hope that when they announce their big plan it's not 70% of the true dream. If nothing else, I hope they give us a Plan A (feasible, but extensive) and a Plan B the true vision for the future. Millennium park was "envisioned" in the mid 19th Century and wasn't a complete project for almost 150 years. If we imagine the Group Plan wouldn't need to reconvene until 2111, then we should propose a plan that takes that time frame into account. In my humble opinion: this doesn't cut it for what we need to combat the disconnect:

Done. (Though it would obviously become developed Retail/Residential/Commercial). But grass is nice -- for now.

So we have until February 14th to see what the Group Plan 2.0 has in store for Cleveland's Mall and Green Space... I wanted to put out this image which, I bet, has been in the mind of most UO readers forever... I call it the "Cleveland Big Dig" after Bostons.... debacle? But really... Cut off (ala Robert Moses) from the Lake for so long, that the dozen ideas that have been floated over the decades just don't seem to be enough. The only true complete option is to tunnel the rail and roads beneath the surface, and slope the mall and the original Cleveland Bluff between E9 and W6 out toward the lake. It will feed into future Lakefront plans, make the Rock Hall, Science Center, and Stadium fully pedestrian accessible and offer such a spectacular view from the water that people will be stunned to see the city of Cleveland. I offer: one fell swoop, one big project, one (very expensive.....) final connection of Cleveland and Erie.

I go away for a few hours and come back to this! Wow... Okay so since the question was answered (yes things can be built on that land) I wonder if any developers realize it (since it sounds like it has been 2 decades since the last consideration of a building plan for it. Something else to consider is, again Huron. As it is, right now, regardless of claims that this Casino will be built with "connections" in mind, it just doesn't seem possible. The walk to WHD or E4 isn't bad, but they are separated enough to keep pedestrians from lining the streets between the areas. Something that stood out to me in the "Connecting Downtown Cleveland" slideshow put together by Mark Hinshaw of LMN was the idea of focusing on the Prospect > W 6th and Huron > W 9th corridors. If the city worked to gain funding and a plan for streetscaping that would make these routes "obvious" (and if there could be some way to develop the Huron Rd. along the Casino) then this could truly be the "flow" of our city, which is a unique twist...

Also, another Log-on-the-Fire... My general perspective is that in a city like Cleveland (one where the Suburban-Tourists need to be re-acclimated gently (pfft!) to the urban lifestyle), venues and destinations need to be linked by obvious transportation and/or arteries so that they can feel comfortable "walking around town". As such, my concern with the Casino is that (as was debated in this thread earlier) few people will go from W 6th to the Casino even though they are a few minutes apart (by foot no less!) simply because their lack of comfort/understanding of the landscape will bother them. We'l need to lure suburbanites and visitors alike with sprawling and connected entertainment, not just oasis in a desert of dimly lit parking. I currently live in Washington D.C. and can draw a map where my fellow young urbanites will walk up until and no further, even if other entertainment venues are just blocks away -- we will not cross unfamiliar territory without a subway stop or cab... It is not our place to try and change the rules of urban economics, but rather to learn of them and make our cities work within them. Cleveland cannot be an exception to this. So I had a quick question: in this map I surrounded the area beneath the Sherwin Williams banner in Green. It is a hole in the ground leading to the Huron tunnels for the Rapid. I was wondering if anyone thinks it's even possible, let alone an interesting idea, to put in I-Beams and make this developable land. Nothing tall, just a 1-story restaurant/bar/club area. It's pretty big and could probably fit 2-3 venues. (P.S. I realize this is a pretty exceptional and even outlandish idea to toss out... and likely prohibitively expensive, but 1) All buildings need a foundation, perhaps this won't be that much different (cost or otherwise), and 2) I'm just trying to live up the the Burnham homage... why not think big when it's just UO friends!)

I've brought this up before but didn't seem to hear much of a response... Has anyone seen or heard of plans/considerations for the north side of Huron road? Right now if you walk along Huron you see a lot of freight entrances between Ontario and W. 2nd. Though it's not property the Casino will own, it seems as though their attempt (or proclamation of one...) to make the Casino a part of the city fabric and "outward" in it's energy wouldn't really work if it faces a big UGLY cement wall... I did recall Rock Ventures mentioning looking to ways to make the Huron/Ontario intersection more easily navigated by pedestrians, but none of the sleek-sexy videos showed much of anything different besides the casino building itself.

^^^ I think some places that have done this secure the roof to the adjacent structures, and some use independent columns to hold it up. Either could work, (perhaps a mix is needed in terms of engineering), but I just think it's a good idea to really make the East 3rd "courtyard" an entrance to the mall from Superior. In one of the PDFs on the Group Plan they had this image: The "bubbles" of light were kind of confusing, but part of my envisions Chinese style lanterns hanging from a glass atrium. ...or something