Ethan

VID_20210313_133154612.mp4

Well, I'm sure you're more knowledgeable about this than me, but walking around down there, it definitely seems like there is space to add another rail line, and I'd bet on there being space for at least two more lines. Honestly, I'm not sure the courthouse blocks all that much, given how close it is to the start of the red line bridge. (EDIT: by which I mean the level change for the waterfront line). Maybe the line that would exist closest to the entrance of the parking garage, would merge in that space, but the lines that did/would/could exist closer to the existing lines look like they did/would/could merge far sooner. The courthouse is not really the issue, given that the waterfront line already blocks most of that space. I guess if the courthouse and the waterfront line weren't there you could accommodate more lines merging later, but how many more lines does Cleveland really need? As a separate question, how many lines would the people who read this forum like to see added? The pictures/video I took aren't very helpful, and one video wouldn't load, but I included them anyway. Edit: double posted to include video.

This post contains some visualizations of the splash/play areas. Not sure if they are representative of any actual plans or not, but they are still interesting.

This might be another ignorant question, but I don't understand why the parking garage under Tower City can't be renovated to become a train station. I just walked through it, and it seems like other than the cost of removing the the second level of the parking garage, it could be renovated to add one or two more train lines without too much difficulty. The routing onto the red line bridge doesn't look like it would be an issue from this point.

Wow! That is an astonishing lack of foresight! Even for the city of Cleveland. I'm sure I'm late to the party in being annoyed by this, but the city dropped the ball when they allowed that to happen. (It's a shame, because I really like the Federal Courthouse building, architecturally, it's a very attractive building). Thanks for clearing that up for me @Boomerang_Brian! I now have something to do some research on.

Are you suggesting building a new railroad station? Or am I miss-interpretting your picture? Because I don't see why we would decide to do that instead of just restoring service to Tower City. It isn't like every shop is full and the space is too valuable for a couple more rail stops. What is the impediment to using the old stations? Am I missing something? I apologize if this was all covered earlier in the thread.

Useful resource: https://www.tpl.org/city/cleveland-ohio their "where are parks most needed" map is interesting food for thought. It is also interesting to see rankings compared to other cities, and what their metrics think we are lacking in. It doesn't all jive with my intuition, but they have acreage as one of our biggest weak points.

Honestly your opinion seems to be the more popular one, at least in this forum, though I doubt it is more generally. The issue is that most of Cleveland's park have been the victims of compromises, such that they are not as useful as a park of their size should be. For instance, Public Square is still bisected by Superior, and the mall is split by several lane roads. The mall is intended to function as a single space, but with the size of the roads both 4 lanes, it acts as several smaller spaces. This problem was highly exacerbated by adding the convention center. The level change it creates makes it very difficult to move to mall C. Mall C is effectively a a dead end, this problem is shared by both Fort Huntington and Willard Parks, you can't go on from there, you have to walk to E 9th to get to the lake and lakeside attractions. To make the malls more useful we need to connect them more easily together. This could be done by making it easier to cross the street by reducing lanes, but that seems like it would cause a traffic nightmare. Another option is a dedicated pedestrian walkway. The convention center already creates a raised platform over the street, so some of the work for a pedestrian bridge is already completed. Another option is ease pedestrian crossing is adding a median, so that pedestrians can cross two lanes at a time, making it easier to cross traffic.

So this is the park I would really like to see. It is basically a giant extension of Canal Basin park, into a truly large park. Most of this space is currently parking lot or otherwise underutilized. I think this park will fully connect downtown to the river, by bringing the park all the way up to Tower City. This may also help to revitalize Tower City, by making it a central point in a pedestrian walkway. Adding this park will also make at least one bank of the river park/public space from mouth to the industrial valley, with only a few small gaps (especially after Irishtown Bend is realized) which I think is a worthy goal. I wish the old railroad bridge on the south side of Scranton Peninsula could be remodeled / fixed and made into a pedestrian bridge, maybe even with little shops, like Ponte Vecchio, or Pointe Rialto in Italy. But I think the foundation may be bad based on how the elevated bridge isn't level. I also love the idea of adding water guardians similar to those on the Hope Memorial bridge around Collision Bend. It's cool to watch the ships go around, but right now there really isn't anywhere to watch them from. Adding a park here would fix that. Let me know what you think, some of the areas on the edges of this proposed park area could be developed, this is an ambitious idea. I would just hope they are done do with fun interactive street level things that would drive people into the park.

I agree, but giving downtown the big park it deserves, and not utilizing either the river or the lake seems like a waste to me. My ideal large park for Cleveland would be to extend Canal Basin park all the way around collision bend, ideally also including the tip of Scranton Peninsula, and connecting to the rear of Tower City. This location is almost entirely parking lot, and has great park potential. It is also poorly served by roads and transport, so it isn't ideal for large development anyway.

Is there a thread to discuss green space in Cleveland? While I'd like more green space downtown, I also agree with what most people here are saying about downtowns current green spaces being underutilized, and I've had thoughts about what could be done about that.

I strongly disagree with both of you, and think Downtown has far too little green space. This isn't the thread to discuss who is right, but realistically speaking, I'm pretty confident most of the people who live downtown agree with me. Which means the city will be in a PR nightmare if they propose closing down a park (even an underutilized one) without proposing a replacement park. So I think replacement green space is a necessary part of the proposal if the new Justice Center is to be built on Fort Huntington Park.

Great job KJP, great article! I'm very hesitant to surrender any green space downtown, but I agree this would be a good trade, and the current park is underutilized. I'm a little worried the city will flop on the follow through if they decide to go this route, and the second and third phases won't look this good. But we can't make plans unless we assume they will get executed. Honestly my pet idea for this park has been to make the top surface lot portion of both huntington parking garage, and willard parking garage into green space, creating a long unbroken park between Willard park and Fort Huntington Park connecting to the malls. This would also be really go well with an eventual land bridge over the rail tracks and highway. Though I'm probably just dreaming...

Nothing major, but it looks like work has started in some capacity.

Probably, late afternoon sun might be a lost cause. Still if setting the building back more moves the time onset of a shaded public square back a few hours it may be worth it. I checked out the sun positioning web-app that someone a posted a few days ago, and it's hard to say, but it's possible that the slightly more directly westward placement (and thus slightly more southern) on West 3rd could end up being more of a problem than than it's proximity to public square. I am speculating here, and hopefully this is/was considered during the design process. What I'd like to avoid is the situation that Mall A has with Key Tower, where it often seems to spend all afternoon in the shade. @Boomerang_Brian I am onboard with the ideal you are describing, and if the city can get them to add the active use without bargaining then great, but all the comments I've been reading about Fortress Towers have me worried.

I think the pedestrian bridges create an interesting leverage opportunity for the city. In my opinion, it would be a good trade if the city offered SW the pedestrian bridges in exchange for street level restaurants and retail, particularly on the jacob's lot. (After all the pedestrian bridges give them access to their amenities center, and more entrances just reduces security, so maybe the whole first floor could be public use?) Though I'm not sure if anyone will have the backbone to make this trade. I don't mind the pedestrian bridges too much, particularly if they are more than one floor off the ground. (Perhaps the city could also leverage this and make the jacobs lot building a bit taller so as not to look out of place?) On an earlier point in this thread, I'm not opposed to having the tower setback a block from public square, IF that prevents public square from spending the afternoon in the shade, it's beautiful in the late afternoon sun, particularly when the sun is hitting the soldiers and sailors monument.