DontGiveUptheFight

A thought exercise: since much of Cleveland does not have the density to make subways cost-effective, what are people's thoughts on street-level light rail? Let's say we had the option of converting our busiest bus routes into surface-level light rail, funding, NOACA protestations, ODOT, etc. aside. If I recall correctly, they would be: - Detroit-Superior - Euclid - Lorain-Carnegie - W. 25-Pearl - E. 9th-Broadway. I'm thinking that such a plan would mean taking two lanes (one lane and one parking row, or Euclid's BRT) away from the streets to put the rail ROWs in. Any existing buildings, houses, or business establishments would not be torn down. Considering the traffic lanes taken away and the number of street-level crossings that the light rail lines would encounter, would the logistics make the negatives outweigh the positives? (and we should think of alternative routes instead?) Or would a cost-benefit analysis say that these lanes along these major roads can be eliminated in favor of light rail? I'm thinking that Euclid's could be justified, although a subway is preferable. :evil: Detroit maybe up to the Red Line West Blvd station, which would then jump to the N&S tracks (although light rail and heavy rail are different kind of tracks, so...). I know there was a study done for W. 25-Pearl to Parma where nothing happened, although I don't know too much about how Lorain-Carnegie and E. 9th-Broadway would be affected.

Ah well. But yes, you're right - our metro area (and nation as a whole) does have too many roads to maintain. I'm just hoping that there'd be some reason to get more people around these Red Line stations. I hope what KJP said about rail by itself being able to generate TOD in other cities will hold true for Cleveland. I had thought that the lackluster TOD along west side Red Line stations were due to geographic constraints, and I'd like for these to be overcome. That being said, a place like Tremont doesn't have major avenues running through it, so creating a sense of place along these stations should be possible. I'm just impatient when it comes to city revitalization. :roll: I haven't looked at other case studies of industrial rail ROWs being taken for transit and the resulting TOD. My limited experience has been based on transit that connects already existing places. In a city like Cleveland where neighborhoods have been emptying out, I do think that creating "some place" out of "no place" is definitely something worth doing, but I think it's much more difficult than connecting places that already exist. Instead of harnessing existing energy, it's trying to create that energy elsewhere. You're being way too polite. I love Cleveland so much. But along the Red Line the aesthetic message our city sends is "Welcome to the ugliest place in America." I found this really funny. Thanks for the laugh. I enjoyed the laugh too. :laugh:

Part politics, but, with the creation of the Ohio 9th Congressional District along the lake, could we get more of a unified vision to push the Westshore commuter rail through?

The Red Line goes through some not-so-aesthetically pleasing parts of the city and doesn't run along the main thoroughfares of the city. While I'd prefer it to be rerouted near or under Lorain and Euclid Aves (probably prohibitively expensive), the discussion on Shaker/Opportunity Corridor TOD got me wondering - could we invert the idea of placing transit along existing roads and instead build a new road along existing transit to boost ridership? My thought is to extend Berea Road along the west side Red Line so that it actually connects Hopkins Airport/Berea to the West Shoreway. This road would open up places along the Red Line to more traffic and possibly more riders, especially if the new road and transit together can spur mixed-use development on formerly industrial land. - Red is the Red Line - Yellow is Berea Road as it exists now - Light blue is a possible 1st-phase extension of Berea Road through current industrial areas From Google Maps, it looks like that some of these places that look like industrial wastelands are still places of employment. Somehow developing this land for mixed use would have to account for where these jobs would go. - Pinkish-purple is the 2nd-phase, much more speculative extension - Green are neighborhoods that the new road would affect (through demolition, road widening, increased traffic) and would probably oppose this project The area around Mohican Park/Triskett Station has two possible routings because one route would cut through the park and the other would require building a bridge over the tracks to avoid the park. The former would be cheaper but would probably face more opposition. The routing south of Puritas is very much speculative. Part of it is currently an industrial parkway, and if the road is not connected to the Berea Freeway or the Brookpark Rapid Station, the whole segment of the road south of W 150th Station probably won't get much traffic. A connection to the freeway and the station is needed to bring in more traffic from Berea and the airport that add to the use of the street. New road to spur development - cheaper than re-routing the Red Line along existing traffic patterns?

How do we get this to happen? Circulate a petition? Write city council? Write the mayor? Run for elected office? I'd like to get a land-value tax passed ASAP to replace those parking lots with honest-to-goodness buildings that will concentrate activity. I hope that the completion of the Flats East Bank will give incentives to develop those lots when there's going to be lots of people coming in, though I can see the opposite scenario as possible as well. So many people coming into downtown would also drive up the price of parking, creating another disincentive to develop those lots.

Much has been said about how Cleveland has too many stand-alone projects (e.g., Medical Mart, Gateway, RRHoF) that are believed to be silver bullet answers to the city's woes and not a comprehensive vision of what the city wants to be. If that is the case, what would your overall vision for Cleveland be? I actually have a bit of a problem answering this question myself, because I am not sure where the line between "grand vision" and "large project" is. Posts in this thread ( http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,19103.0.html ) have listed a good number of both, but what is the distinction between "vision" and "project"? What is it that we should be focusing on in the big picture that we aren't doing? Because I do feel that many of the one-shot projects that the city is doing are actually necessary for any large city to be competitive. So what's missing in our strategy?

While probably illegal for the government to run families, support for nonprofits could fill in a similar, though less strong-handed role. Caritas, a Catholic charity, does pretty much this in Mexico. They run boarding houses with adult supervisors who are this 24/7 support system and basically the kids' parents during the week. The kids have the option of going home to see the parents on the weekends. In this system, the parenting, schooling, and mentoring are all separate, which I think provides for a certain amount of openness in the kids' lives. When I visited Puebla, Mexico a few years back, I lived in such a place for a week and was quite impressed by how they ran things. I recommend looking to see if any nonprofits or churches would be willing to run such establishments to help kids achieve more. It's impossible to ask schoolteachers to do everything, which is why I think it's so important to have an at-home mentor role if the parents are incapable of doing so. Of course, getting kids there has to be voluntary (if the parents truly believe that their kids will be better off in such a house) or court-ordered if it is proven that the parents really shouldn't be parents. Background checks on the mentors would also be compulsory, and the mentors would have to ensure cohesion among the kids and prevent bullying. I'd also like to make sure that kids are completely supported in such a home. For instance, if a kid realized that s/he is gay, I wouldn't want the people running the home to have a stance of being gay as being wrong. That could seriously mess a kid up if they are told something like that.

So this means we need a subway under Detroit instead, right? :clap: I do think BRT or streetcar is possible on Detroit, even though it's a narrow street. The current configuration of lanes, from north to south, is: - Parking - Westbound traffic - Turning lane - Eastbound traffic - Parking This could be changed to: - Westbound transit - Eastbound transit - Westbound traffic - Eastbound traffic - Parking A few park and rides will probably be needed along the way, though. There'll probably be a lot of people angry over reduced parking.

Whoops! Clearly I need better reading comprehension when it comes to going through earlier posts! The blue route seems better suited for TOD, going by Wolstein and Tri-C. I'd love more development west of Broadway as well, though I don't see how that would be possible. Is the RTA even considering a Red Line counterclockwise loop, or are they only talking about looping the Blue/Green line?

Is anyone familiar with Waterfire Columbus? An installation piece, which originated in Providence, RI, where cauldrons of fire are placed along the Scioto River? I have to admit that when I first saw that Columbus was getting it, I was not happy. I mean, if ANY city deserves to have an installation piece that sets its river on fire, that city is CLEVELAND, all the way! :-D Although, realistically, I understand that the Cuyahoga River is still used for navigation, so placing an installation piece in the river is probably not practical. What Waterfire Columbus looks like: <img src="http://www.dispatch.com/content/graphics/2011/05/21/b78184924z-1-20110521071738-000gojckevm-2-0.jpg" />

I guess this could have gone in the Ohio Business forum or signature structure for Cleveland, but I couldn't decide, so it ends up in it own topic. I'd actually love for this wind power system to be built on Whiskey Island: <img src="http://64.19.142.10/news.discovery.com/tech/2010/10/15/windstalk-park-825x425.jpg"/> Stalks only, no blades, bird-friendly. It could take advantage of the wind coming off of Lake Erie. Full article here: http://news.discovery.com/tech/wind-power-without-the-blades.html

Since the RTA has been talking about this for years, have they ever come up with a map of their own? I'm just curious to see where it goes and what people think of their routing. I've heard W. 30th to the Post Office? That makes sense. Then I would have tram lines on W. 6th and E. 9th (unless E. 9th is suitable for LRT?), and I agree that a tram to connect Public Square with Market Square would be a definite plus. My only hesitation in routing through Public Square is that I don't want it to cut through the square if we're going to close off the streets going through it.

I know this is an old, old, old thread, but I was curious to know what has happened with this project. BRT-light only? No further consideration of a light rail from Parmatown to Market Square, via the zoo? If not, it's a shame.

I sincerely hope so. But the length of time that this has dragged on has made me both impatient and skeptical that this will come to fruition. :? And maybe with the ferry terminal there we can finally develop that land just north of the Browns Stadium! Or maybe I'm just dreaming here...

Is it possible to use this delay in bridge funding to ensure that the new bridge includes options for biking, walking, and transit? It'd provide another way for Tremont residents to connect to downtown without needing to drive on the highway.

I like it a lot, but I think the FAA said no to this plan. That being said, how can this be made possible? Does the landfill around Burke have to be expanded to provide the clearance for harbor cranes and allow planes to land? If so, I think that this could probably happen a lot sooner than the scuttled E. 55th port and clear out more land for lakefront development. I would also like Burke to become a downtown alternative to Hopkins. I think it's a bit ridiculous that the alternative so far is Akron-Canton, which is so far from downtown Cleveland (but, yes, good for Akron-Canton). Extending the Red Line to Burke could then provide an efficient link for people transferring between airports.

I like the use of the Amsterdam-type trams, though I'm wondering about a few things: I assume that using the Amsterdam model means that the waterfront extension would be street-level, in mixed traffic. Would being at street level need dedicated lanes to prevent cars from getting in the way, or would they share the same lanes? I'm wondering this because East 17th is a two-lane street and would be more prone to congestion, while the four-lane East 18th could provide tram-only dedicated lanes. I'm also wondering about the turning radius on the trams in mixed traffic at 90 degree or sharper turns. Red Line counterclockwise loop: Since the Red Line is heavy rail, wouldn't the nature of heavy rail prevent the routing the Red Line at street level? Or would this require a raised route, a tunnel, or a dedicated trench to separate car and foot traffic from the Red Line? Still, I advocate for this Red Line loop to better connect Hopkins with the Convention Center, or even Burke should Burke ever be used as a commuter airport. Speaking of loops, what are people's thoughts on the B and E line free trolleys that the RTA is offering downtown? http://www.riderta.com/pdf/Bline.pdf http://www.riderta.com/pdf/Eline.pdf Depending on congestion, another option is routing the clockwise loop on 17th and the counterclockwise on 18th, or vice-versa. Of course, what you save on congestion you double in costs in station construction. I had drawn a concept map on how to connect Tremont and Ohio City to Downtown (routing along I-90 from Deadman's Curve to Carnegie, then along I-77 to I-490 to W. 25th): http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2768.msg598007.html#msg598007 But after understanding the logistics of the route better, I think that concept needs to be reconfigured. A smaller, possible "outer loop" would be Carnegie - W. 25th - Main Ave/Shoreway - NCTC - I-90 that would link Ohio City, Flats West and East, Asiatown and Progressive Field. Tremont gets closed out of the loop, but Slavic Village would be connected through a East 9th/Broadway tram.

Thank you! Yes, it's sad that a lot of transit proposals don't make it, but I'll live. I know my least realistic plan definitely wouldn't be considered - taking the UC - Shaker LRT and expanding it to an outer loop that connects Kinsman, Slavic Village, and the Zoo with considerations to extend to West Park and Lakewood! :yap: The Cleveland 2025 plan is something I can get behind, really, especially if the Euclid line can be pulled through to the west side to meet with the Westshore commuter rail (and eventually replace the BRT with LRT or a real subway! :clap: ). So I'd pair down my additional requests to these three: - Ohio City loop - we have the highway medians, W. 25th tunnel, and lakeshore tracks already. It would connect so many destination neighborhoods (Tremont, Ohio City, both banks of the Flats, lakefront, Asiatown, Gateway, and connection to Slavic Village) that I really do think ridership on it would be high and a boost to the local economy. - Slavic Village rapid - the rail lines already exist, although a few new connections would have to be built, in addition to the stations. Thus, this would probably be the cheapest of the new lines to build. "Phase I" (because there probably won't be a phase II) would only need to go as far south as Harvard/Holy Name, unless there is reason to believe that ridership would increase if it were pulled farther south. - Streetcar/BRT from Downtown/Flats to the zoo. We'll worry about pulling the line to Parma or making it LRT only if the ridership warrants it. I'll miss the Lorain Ave. streetcar, though... EDIT: I just realized that it'd be about a 10-story transfer between the stations on E. 34th - a ridiculously tall escalator! - perhaps it'd make for sense to route the loop under the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge. Also, I had been under the impression that there was a short tunnel running underneath W. 25th in Ohio City. Is that true or am I mistaken? A reroute of the loop over Lorain-Carnegie means I'd have to rethink about how to connect Tremont and Slavic Village to transit. EcoCityCleveland's East 9th to Broadway/Slavic Village LRT route makes more sense than using the heavy rail line to the east. Perhaps this reassessment would then free up resources to look at Lorain west of W. 25th! :-D <img src="http://64.19.142.12/www.ecocitycleveland.org/transportation/rail/images_rail/e9_rail.jpg" />

I agree with this. While yes, getting the NCTC done in a cost-effective manner is important, I also hope to get it done right, the way Burnham intended. If it means it'll be a while before it gets done, it's better than not having it done at all. The flip is definitely possible, though as KJP says, it'll cost a lot more to build over the tracks, especially if the structure is also going to have retail, hotel, offices, and other stuff. An alternative is that the station itself is the terraced structure down to the lakefront, which allows people to mosey on top over it on their way to the lakefront. This, in essence, is then the winning design from the 2009 competition: <img src="http://www.bustler.net/images/uploads/2009_cleveland_design_competition_lakefront_station_cover.jpg" /> In the event that the station is hidden from view because it's built into the bluff as indicated in the winning design, then I sincerely do advocate for the inclusion of a gate, arch, glass pyramid, ferris wheel - something on top - to cap off the Group Plan.

^^ and ^, I sincerely hope that is how Euclid gets its subway, although 20 years from now is a bit longer than I'd like to wait. :-D Attached is a proposal - we've been talking about a downtown loop and how disconnected the east and west sides are, so I'm proposing a second loop (Yellow Line) to link the lakeshore, Asiatown, CSU, Gateway, Tri-C, Tremont, Ohio City, and the Flats. Clockwise from Dead Man's Curve to Tremont would be elevated rail similar to this in one of our sister cities, Taipei, Taiwan: <img src="http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/442249/442249,1273165450,1/stock-photo-taipei-rapid-transit-system-mrt-mass-rapid-transit-neihu-brown-line-taiwan-52497346.jpg" /> This would take advantage of the medians along Is -90, -77, and -490. Building over Carnegie maybe a challenge, but Carnegie looks wide enough to accommodate a central median. I have no qualms building over the 90 and 77 spaghetti junction from Gateway South to Tri-C. From Scranton to Detroit Ave, this route may be able to take advantage of the tunnel underneath West 25. If not, W. 25 is also rather wide and could probably accommodate a Yellow Line ROW. The biggest challenge would probably be refitting the Main Ave Bridge to accommodate a rapid deck underneath, as well as incorporating stations into them, to connect the West and East Banks of the Flats. The dotted yellow line is an alternate routing to connect Lorain EcoVillage, Gordon Square, Edgewater, and Wendy Park. However, I don't think this would have the density of traffic that W. 25 would, and W. 65 does not seem wide enough to accommodate a rapid ROW. I prefer the W. 25 routing because I think it better connects the points of interest on both sides of the river. Other notes to the map: - Dark Blue downtown loop is clockwise, Red downtown loop is counterclockwise. This is to agree with previous opinions that someone flying into Hopkins and going to the Medical Mart would find it more convenient to debark at NCTC than at Tower City. - Light blue and "SC" are streetcars. The Lorain streetcar runs from Kamm's Corners to "Gateway South." A separate Carnegie streetcar runs the rest of the way from there to UC. The Clifton Streetcar would run along the improved West Shoreway blvd. I didn't extend the St. Clair and Superior streetcars further east because I don't know if neighborhoods east of E. 55 are strong enough to sustain them. - Orange is a Detroit-Euclid line. I was rather saddened that there would not be a rapid stop on Euclid and E. 9th, but it's only one block away from "Gateway North," so I guess I can live with that if we don't have to spend any more $$$ to dig a new tunnel. The trouble to the west is whether Detroit Ave. is wide enough to accommodate this line. From W 117 West Blvd to Gordon Square, this would require removing street parking, and even then the road might not be wide enough. After W 117 West Blvd, the line would jump onto the N&S ROW with the Westshore commuter rail. To the east, I would extend the line from UC to Shaker Square or out to John Carroll via Fairmount Blvd. - Green and Brown lines: connect downtown to the zoo. The Green Line would then go on to Parma. The Brown Line exists because it made too much sense to connect the zoo with the Aquarium. Why wouldn't you do it? Although the note says to the Brown Line heads to Strongsville (along Pearl Road), I don't know if there'd be enough ridership from Strongsville, Middleburg Hts, and Parma Hts to pull this off. If nothing else, I'd really like to push for the Yellow Line loop just because I think it really would help tie the city together. EDIT: Now includes a streetcar and rapid line (purple) to connect Slavic Village with downtown. The Slavic Village rapid uses existing Conrail lines, but skirts the borders of Slavic Village, so I don't know how much traffic and TOD those stations would get (especially the station on Union Ave.; an alternate site on E. 79th doesn't look much better). I would've preferred running it along Broadway, had it been possible.

I think a more targeted approach to funding certain HSR corridors instead of spreading the money along several corridors would have been a able to yield more results. Attached is a modification of DOT's HSR corridor map, with red as "priority 1" and blue as "priority 2" lines. Grey is what is already under construction, white are the other lines already planned. Dotted green lines are lines that are not planned but I think would make sense. The reason I picked priority 1 corridors as I did was to connect America's 4 world cities, NYC, LA, Chicago, and DC. The connection of our world cities is important from a global competitiveness perspective, as domestic and foreign companies that want to do business in (or tourists who want to travel to) our premier cities should be able to travel among our top cities quickly. Fortunately, Ohio is at the center of NYC, Chicago, and DC. I think this would justify a higher priority in project completion and Ohio would benefit from the positive spillover of increased commerce among these cities.

^^^ I like your diagrams too, and I think if that's what's likely to happen, it's workable. However, I would like to make the additions in the attached image to complete the Group Plan. I realize that maybe the red is hard to read, but red is the centerpiece building that would complete the Burnham plan, attached to the mall via a plaza. Considering that the waiting room would already be built, I'm thinking that the anchor structure would have retail, hotel, conference rooms, and maybe offices for RTA, 3C, and HSR and Amtrak branch administration offices. Of course, if the NCTC is built in stages, it could be 20+ years before the whole thing is completed. A modification now that the image has already been posted: the pedestrian entrance for the shoreway would probably also be in the red building, to prevent conflict with the buses that are going in and out in the area where I had originally marked. And I meant "pending future traffic" not "lending." :roll:

I think it was a mistake that the Red Line appropriated existing rail lines and is not aligned with Lorain and Euclid Avenues. People talk about low ridership on the RTA in general (yes, I’m aware the Red Line has the most riders) and the lack of adequate TOD along the Red Line route, but it think the reason is this: Transit should have been built along existing traffic flows in the first place, whereas heavy rail lines in general are purposely built to avoid busy neighborhoods. It would have made much more sense to route the Red Line along the same route as the cars to capture the traffic that was already there, instead of trying to get people to go to places where they wouldn’t go otherwise. Cleveland’s Red Line seems to be trying to thread Detroit, I-90, Lorain, and SR 237 with the end result of capturing little of the traffic from any of these arteries. Yes, I do think that Triskett has a nice station, but the fact is that Triskett isn’t the artery that Lorain is, I think, is why TOD along the Red Line has underperformed. The importance of roads such as Lorain and Euclid would have provided a spine for TOD. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the Blue and Green lines along Van Aken and Shaker Blvds have more established TOD than the Red Line while having less traffic. I think the west side would have been better served by two lines, one along Lorain and the other along Detroit. I don’t want the Red Line to repeat these mistakes in the future, although I think the eastward extension running parallel between St. Clair and Euclid might be close enough to these arteries to draw its own traffic, especially if the route goes all the way to Euclid Square Mall. Granted, realigning the RTA would cost astronomical amounts of money that we don’t have, plus the climate of the country isn’t too friendly to rail right now. I also understand that tunneling underneath Lorain and Euclid would have to be justified by density that Cleveland doesn’t have – so I’m wondering about the cost feasibility of this alternative, adapted from this post: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,5563.msg53841.html#msg53841 1) If heavy rail is too expensive, then a streetcar or street-level light rail along Lorain from the Red Line's Ohio City stop to Kamm’s Corners; an imperfect but OK solution similar to the HealthLine BRT without being a BRT. While I do like the idea of linking Great Northern Mall to downtown, North Olmsted seems a bit far for a streetcar and that distance would be better suited for a subway. 2) Same for W. 25. This line could run from the Aquarium/Flats West Bank to the Zoo, with a possible extension into Parma. Although once in Parma I don't know if it would continue to follow Pearl into Parma Heights, or split along Ridge Rd and head towards Parmatown Mall. 3) The downtown section of E. 9th would benefit from surface rail, but south of Tri-C, I don't know where it would go. The neighborhoods south of that area along Broadway don't look like places where people are going. I guess one option would be looping the line over I-490 to connect to Tremont and the W. 25 line. 4) Eventually, (and I know I'm not alone in this :evil:) I think a subway under Euclid could complement the BRT streetcar line above ground. Hong Kong runs this above their main subway line: <img src="http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/daodao/photo-s/02/36/d1/97/hong-kong-streetcar-in.jpg" /> Ok, Ok, I know HK is one of the densest cities in the world and Cleveland isn't, but it's streetcars are still fun. I suppose if we're impatient, we could dress up the HealthLine like Lolly the Trolley, which someone had called a bus in streetcar clothing. :-D 5) I prefer a line along Detroit instead of Clifton through Lakewood because Detroit is where downtown Lakewood is. Understandably, Clifton is wider and more able to accommodate transit, but I think building there spreads out, instead of reinforcing, economic activity for existing businesses. Since digging a subway under Detroit is prohibitively expensive and the street is too narrow for dedicated ROW for streetcars/BRT, I guess that leaves us with appropriating the N&S line just north of Detroit. But I think West Shore Commuter Rail also wants that line. Hmm... :? I've been flirting with the idea of elevated rail as something less expensive than excavating subway tunnels (if I’m wrong, let me know). However, I’m not sure if this would be considered beautiful or an eyesore. I think of elevated rail as modern and beautiful, but in the same vein, I think of elevated highways are ugly and divide city neighborhoods. I’ve also heard that aesthetics were also a reason why the elevated PeopleMover was not welcome in Cleveland. My hesitation of placing elevated rail along Euclid is that it would eliminate (instead of complement) the existing BRT and would block the view of the Cleveland Trust Building. Another question: how feasible would it be to refit bridges like Main Ave, Lorain-Carnegie, and the Innerbelt to include a lower deck for RTA and streetcars, like the Detroit-Superior bridge? Or would that expense be astronomical as well (or even require tearing down the bridge and rebuilding it)? Map to come when I think more about what I think such a network would look like.

I'm curious to know, how did the old rail companies of yore such as Penn Rail and New York Central build their passenger lines, and why can't today's rail companies build rail lines? I think I read somewhere that part of Penn Rail's money was a government subsidy, but I don't know if all those tracks were indeed bankrolled by gov't money and not private capital. If the old rail lines were built with private capital, what has changed that makes building a long-distance rail line more challenging now than then? It is the rise in cost of wages, even when accounting for inflation? Have certain elements of rail construction risen more in prices than other forms of construction - for instance, is HSR inherently more expensive than traditional rail? Or do modern day companies have the finances, but lack the interest to do so? Or was it all government money given to corporations to build these rail lines and now we just lack the political will to make these new HSR rail lines possible? So many questions to understand why building the infrastructure was possible then but so difficult now... :wtf:

^ Same. I'm under the impression that the winning design from the 2009 competition won't necessarily be what's built, is that correct? That's a shame, because I really liked the below-level terraced-hill design that bridges the mall and the lakefront with a roof area where people can hang out. That being said, I hope that there's a little something above ground to visually complete the Burnham Plan. Yes, it's nice that the current lack of a structure between the court house and city hall provides a nice view, but the empty space there is also kind of weird. It's very apparent that something's supposed to be there, but isn't. At the very least, I'd like there to be some kind of gate like this in Sevastopol, Ukraine: <img src="http://images.travelpod.com/tw_slides/ta01/497/524/steps-of-sevastopol-sevastopol.jpg" /> Or like the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany: <img src="http://www.travlang.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/brandenburg-gate-at-seen.jpg" /> Or something modern like the glass pyramid at Paris' Louvre: <img src="http://0.tqn.com/d/goeurope/1/0/W/k/1/paris-louvre-pyramid.jpg" /> A gate of some sort would be low enough and see-through enough to provide some view of the lakefront through it. A modern design similar to the Louvre pyramid would complement the RRHF, also designed by I.M. Pei.