^Wow, good eye!  Same architect (KPF) as proposed Ameritrust tower.  http://www.sydneyarchitecture.com/cbd/cbd4-010.htm

 

When I think about what to do with Mall B, I keep coming back to Public Square in my head.  I think a skating rink/outdoor restaurant/bar like the one in MP (thanks Punch) would be awesome, but where would it be best- Public Square or the Mall?  It could be a great draw to the Mall, but maybe we should be focusing the active program to Public Square to ensure its repopulated rather than spreading it over two open spaces.  Not sure.  Having Parkworks involved in both is good though.

I think the best thing is to consider the two spaces at the same time, as they are really connected, corner to corner.

In the last picture in this post, do I see the proposed/cancelled Ameritrust Tower (which was going to be built on Public Square) in the background? Was the design sold elsewhere?

 

Good eye!

I don't know why this is so complicated. Do what worked before,reinstate the Hanna Fountains. In the summer you couldn't  get a seat at lunch. In the winter, use the pool as an ice skating rink. Hockey anyone?  Add a hot dog cart in the summer , a coffee cart in the winter and you are done.

 

If maintained well, a carousel may be a nice addition....  let's not, however, make what is supposed to be an austere public prominent and proud place look too much like a ticky tacky playground. At the same time, let's not get too far ahead of things because the square/mall are projects that are not going to be reality anytime soon...so..let's make the best of what it can be right now by maintaining these areas well...and utilizing them in a balanced way that draws new interest to the city.

 

A proud place?  We've already got lovely parks on the Mall with places to sit and relax, a gorgeous fountain, lots of room for temporary events, and its hardly ever used.  If building a functional amenity in the middle of downtown residents is tacky, then I'd rather have something tacky that's used daily than something that is "austere public prominent and proud" that only gets used at lunch and rarely on the weekends.  We've already got that.

 

If my post is not read selectively, I admitted that the spaces were underutilized. To redesign it for many of the activities/things we've all been talking about which can be done there NOW in its current state is futile. I said "many" of the things mentioned, too; meaning not all. My aim is quality over quantity.

<b>Ideas proposed for redevelopment on malls B and C around proposed medical mart</b>

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A family-friendly environment that caters to the after-work crowd, year-round use and a site for festivals were some of the ideas offered Thursday night for the development of Malls B and C in downtown Cleveland.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/05/public_forum_on_mall_offers_mo.html

A family-friendly environment that caters to the after-work crowd

 

Because everyone brings their kids & grandparents to work!

 

I don't know why this is so complicated. Do what worked before,reinstate the Hanna Fountains.

 

This is probably our best option.

I don't remember the fountains at all.  In the past, what was the draw of the fountains after work hours and off season?  Basically, what got people to go and how many people?

the fountains leaked.  They were removed.  There are pictures on this site of them.

Because everyone brings their kids & grandparents to work!

 

The discussion on this point revolved around making the malls somewhere that suburban families would WANT to go on evenings and weekends.

Because everyone brings their kids & grandparents to work!

 

The discussion on this point revolved around making the malls somewhere that suburban families would WANT to go on evenings and weekends.

 

I was commenting on the statement itself, one that seems contradictory.  Kinda like my "vibrant" pet peeve... failure to acknowledge that family-friendly and after-work are not at all the same constituencies.  Efforts to please both could end up pleasing neither.  Just a bit of bad writing.  Halfway down the article it's made clear that these were two entirely different suggestions, which makes more sense.

 

Any further details about the meeting?  The item from the article that most caught my eye was the bit about public restrooms.  Awkward to talk about... but necessary... restroom access is a factor I have to consider when planning outings with my parents.

^I hope that didn't lead to the proposition that the mall be turned into one huge cul-de-sac (ba-dum, bum, pish).  Sorry- couldn't resist.  I agree with giving the mall multiple uses, as long as the end result is distinctly Cleveland, and not Chicago or some other city we "aspire" to be.

Yeah, not sure why the focus is on attracting suburbanites. 

 

There are in fact people who enjoy being in the city w/o prompting or pandering.  Some of these people live in Greater Cleveland while many others do not (yet), but I can't help but think that urbanists comprise the more appropriate target audience.

^I hope that didn't lead to the proposition that the mall be turned into one huge cul-de-sac (ba-dum, bum, pish).  Sorry- couldn't resist.  I agree with giving the mall multiple uses, as long as the end result is distinctly Cleveland, and not Chicago or some other city we "aspire" to be.

 

Preach on my fellow 6'4" brethren!

I was at the meeting yesterday, and came out more impressed with LMN and GGC than I was already.  I'll try to summarize the points as briefly as I can:

 

First, Mark Reddington (LMN) described how his firm takes the basic plan of convention center movement and then "folds" and manipulates it to fit in the settings in which they are building.  Reddington and Shannon Nichol (GNN) then went through the following seven points to describe how they are approaching the project:

 

1. Lifted City: They showed a relief map of downtown and showed how it is, for all intents and purposes, a peninsula raised above the Lake (and the lower, filled in lakefront) to the north and the Cuyahoga River and Valley to the west, and how this influenced street layout (such as Lakeside and Euclid) and how the Mall actually sits at the top of this peninsula.  This gives the site prominence with regard not just to views to the lake, but connections to Public Square and to the east and west. How then ought we to regard this space to honor this prominence?

 

2. Civic Heart: The Mall site is not only in the center of the "Civic District", but is fairly equidistant to the other downtown districts, and as such (although current pedestrian movements don't reflect this), ought to act as a hub for pedestrians. The admitted challenge is that the "Civic Heart" is surrounded by "5 p.m. uses". They contend that while the Medical Mart can contribute to the use of the Mall in the evenings, it is also important to have programs that regularly use the Mall and use it throughout the year.

 

3. City Beautiful: Besides the obvious importance of the City Beautiful movement (and Cleveland's place among the great spaces of this movement), Reddington and Nichols showed how the Mall was intended to have pedestrian activity along its edges, with tree-lined promenades along its western and eastern frames. With the use of the western frame as the truck dock and the eastern frame for cars and the movement of people through the center, that pattern of movement has been replaced with zig-zag patterns that discourage pedestrians to move across the Mall. They would like to restore a more obvious pedestrian pattern that brings people closer to the buildings (which in turn helps to generate more pedestrian interest).

 

4. Place of Arrival: They described the original intent to have the train station at the northern end, and wanted to keep open the possibility of connecting the Mall to the station to the north. They did emphasize that the Medical Mart will also act as an attractor to make the Mall a "place of arrival" and communicated that it should be uniquely Cleveland and speak to our values as a community (similar to how the Group Plan spoke of Cleveland's early 20th-century place as a city of "good government").

 

5 Lakefront Edge: Fairly obvious.

 

6 Urban Alignment: This was similar to "Civic Heart" in that the need for programming was evident, as was the desire to make this a space that served Downtown well.  Additionally, they talked of the need to improve Lakeside and St. Clair so that they were not barriers to movement but contributed to the urbanism of the site. They also described the east-west movement north of Mall C that existed before back when there was a road parallel to Lakeside (before the parking garages).

 

7. Green Ring: Here, they spoke of the Emerald Necklace and how the Mall should act as a hub to the Metroparks and how it should connect to east-west movement on the Lakefront.  They also described how the Mall should manage stormwater on-site.

 

(sorry, this was a lot longer than I intended it to be)

Avogadro- GREAT NOTES!  I'm looking forward to what is proposed.  Thanks!!

My favorite Ranchero comes thru with notes! Gracias.  Fotos?

My favorite Ranchero comes thru with notes! Gracias. Fotos?

 

Ai, cabrón. If I had photos, don't you think I would have shared them already?

 

One more point: they talked about developing "catalyst landscapes", which describes places that generate pedestrian life on their own. For a space that is surrounded by offices and other mainly-daytime activities, having an active space is necessary to generate... "vibrancy".

 

It will be interesting to see how this can co-exist with the current and perhaps future expectation of the Mall as a blank space for large public gatherings.

Here's a quick, to scale mock-up of Mall B with recreational facilities (sidewalks would remain as they are today).  I'm not advocating any of these facilities in particular, I just wanted to give an idea how many things there is room for.  All courts/rinks are professional sized, tennis and basketball courts have an additional 10ft on all sides.  There is still plenty of space left for flexible activities, I put the tents on there to show how easily a small market could fit (tents are 15x15).  This is comparable to some of the better parks I've seen in the area (minus baseball fields), and this still leaves Mall C, with its better view, open to a garden style park.

 

 

You know, at first I thought bball courts and the like were the WORST idea for our grand public space, but after seeing this mock-up and thinking about the attached convention center and med mart, what better diversion from a boring conference than a center that offers bball courts, rock climbing and the like right at the front door!  Especially since people are moving to a more active lifestyle these days.  It may put us at the forefront of an "active" convention movement and it would certainly make our convention center stand out from the rest.

My favorite Ranchero comes thru with notes! Gracias.  Fotos?

 

Ai, cabrón. If I had photos, don't you think I would have shared them already?

One more point: they talked about developing "catalyst landscapes", which describes places that generate pedestrian life on their own. For a space that is surrounded by offices and other mainly-daytime activities, having an active space is necessary to generate... "vibrancy".

 

It will be interesting to see how this can co-exist with the current and perhaps future expectation of the Mall as a blank space for large public gatherings.

 

Not necessarily.  You know how you people are!

Great post Avogadro, thanks for the summary.  What I don't get is how the train station (#4) is still viewed as optional.  To me it's the only no-brainer involved here.

Great post Avogadro, thanks for the summary.  What I don't get is how the train station (#4) is still viewed as optional.  To me it's the only no-brainer involved here.

 

Agreed!  Unless they have a better alternative that can be built on ASAP

Great post Avogadro, thanks for the summary. What I don't get is how the train station (#4) is still viewed as optional. To me it's the only no-brainer involved here.

 

I don't think that it is so much viewed as "optional" as much as it is outside of the scope of this particular study.  I believe that GGN and LMN are making sure that its design is open-ended enough to permit future development of said train station and linkage.

Thanks for the great run-down, Avogadro!  Was there any mention of the potential interplay/competition between a new public square and the Malls?  And recognition of the possible elevation of the Mall surfaces as a result of desired CC ceiling height?

 

The Hanna Fountains were beautiful, but they took up a lot of real estate and more or less guaranteed the whole Mall was just a nice weather outdoor lunch spot M-F.  I think we're all hoping for better used space this time.

 

Litt kind of hinted at it in his last piece, but it's going to be kind of soul crushing if we end up seeing awesome design proposals that end up going nowhere because there's no money left for the execution.

I think MMPI, Cleveland Public Art and Parkworks working together on this can leverage some money. 

Was there any mention of the potential interplay/competition between a new public square and the Malls?

 

Yes.  They said they want to make sure the people redesigning the mall are talking to the people redesigning Public Square and that both spaces make sense.

 

So (and this is my example, not theirs) if the mall is redesigned to allow and even by suited for Cleveland Orchestra concerts, then Public Square doesn't need to have that same capability and vice versa. 

 

That was one of the thoughts that I left with after the Public Square forum held months ago.  I went in wanting to make sure whatever design they went with, it didn't ruin the ability to have concerts there (i.e. the "Thread it" plan).  But if the malls and designed to hold concerts, then it doesn't bother me if Public Square can't.

I've posted this in the CCmm thread. It really deals with Public Square, Casino, FEB, etc..

 

keep an eye on this folks. This has been brewing for a while and now the mayor has latched on..

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/cleveland_mayor_frank_jackson_15.html

and this

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2010/06/how_to_create_a_millennium_park-style_mall_what_about_extending_the_sales_tax_increase.html#incart_rh

 

 

Mayor Jackson, just get the right people in the right place.  That's all you have to do.

MTS, we have an answer to your question

 

:-D :evil: :-D :-D

^a very large parking garage?  What is your point?

 

I knew that.  my point, a parking garage under all that isn't bothered.

 

Having all those thing above our convention center most likely would be.

 

I think all that stuff should be developed along the FEB curving around to CBS and NCH.  It's a huge added bonus for the neighborhood.

 

 

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/architects_envision_clevelands.html

 

Landscape architects were not at the presentation, but Vinoly said the underground convention center is being designed to withstand loads of large gatherings on the park-like mall above.

 

"In general, it's analogous to Millennium Park," he said, naming the Chicago tourist draw Cleveland boosters would like to emulate on the Mall.

 

 

Mayor Frank Jackson names power brokers to city spaces panel

 

Published: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 9:21 PM

Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

 

Commission members include Cavs owner and casino developer Dan Gilbert; developer Albert Ratner, co-chairman of Forest City Enterprises; Ronn Richard, president and chief executive officer of the Cleveland Foundation; and Jennifer Coleman, an architect who serves as chairwoman of the city's Design Review Committee and vice chairwoman of the Landmarks Commission.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/06/mayor_frank_jackson_names_powe.html

 

Why not someone from ParkWorks or better yet from UO, 'bout time we get some r-e-s-p-e-c-t

 

 

But what we don't have is m-o-n-e-y.

The composition of this panel suggests that it's less about the project succeeding and more about the mayor succeeding.

EDIT, I didn't get the context of KJP's post at first (duh!).

 

Not the most exciting crowd to be assessing our marquee public spaces... but I hope they at least have their wallets open at the end of the day, even if it's just to pay the design consultants.

I'm speechless when looking at the list of people on the panel.  And not speechless in a good way.

In fairness, Dan Gilbert could sign with the Knicks or the Bulls as of 12:01 tomorrow, so we'd better ingratiate ourselves as much as possible. 

OK...so who would you rather see on the panel that is more versed in urban design that has the capital and business/political connections to make something happen?

I'm speechless when looking at the list of people on the panel.  And not speechless in a good way.

 

Not many people capable of understanding design etc. :? 

The most I can figure is having some of the corporate involvelent may open the door to corporate contributions......  to the project I meant..

The composition of this panel suggests that it's less about the project succeeding and more about the mayor succeeding.

 

Actually, it's about both.  To wit:

Finding money is another part of the job.

 

"Their role is really to focus on appropriate design and look at funding opportunities, but not by going to the city or the county," said Ken Silliman, the mayor's chief of staff.

 

A huge part of the panel's job (if not its primary job) will be to round up private funding for the public spaces, and in order to get wealthy folks and corporations to open up their pocketbooks, you need folks on the panel with these connections.

I didn't realize being on a design panel required capital and business/political connections.  That kind of thinking has gotten us in trouble before.  Hint: conflicts of interest.  I like Dan Gilbert, his philosophies and his actions, but I would prefer a more professional approach to planning and landscape design.

 

The composition of this panel suggests that it's less about the project succeeding and more about the mayor succeeding.

 

Actually, it's about both.  To wit:

Finding money is another part of the job.

 

"Their role is really to focus on appropriate design and look at funding opportunities, but not by going to the city or the county," said Ken Silliman, the mayor's chief of staff.

 

A huge part of the panel's job (if not its primary job) will be to round up private funding for the public spaces, and in order to get wealthy folks and corporations to open up their pocketbooks, you need folks on the panel with these connections.

 

OK that makes more sense, although those are two very different jobs.

I'm not sure what everyone is so worked up about at this point.  Jennifer Coleman is on the committee to, I'm sure, facilitate design discussion. Though I have no doubt that eventually a firm will be brought in to do the actual design work.  The rest of the group represents the largest business interests in downtown, the philanthropic community, and the corporate real estate community.  I always hear bitching about not having enough public - private partnership... what do you think this group is formed to do?  They've selected the top names out of the private sector and non profits to start generating interest and eventually bring in $$$ so the city and the county aren't on the hook for all of this. Because frankly they couldn't afford to do what needs done alone.  Sheesh.

I didn't realize being on a design panel required capital and business/political connections.  That kind of thinking has gotten us in trouble before.  Hint: conflicts of interest.  I like Dan Gilbert, his philosophies and his actions, but I would prefer a more professional approach to planning and landscape design.

 

When your objective is to raise funding for a public project, yes, those are requirements.  Unless you think a landscape/design firm is more likely to have an investor give them millions of dollars over Dan Gilbert.

 

OK.  So my shock at seeing Holmgren and Dolan on this New Group Plan Board is over. The people on the board are:

 

 

-Dan Gilbert-Cavs owner and developer of Cleveland's casino which should integrate well with the existing structures (funding/design)

-Al Ratner (developer)

-Ronn Richard from the Cleveland Foundation (grants/funding)

-Jen Coleman on the Cleveland Design Review committee (design)

-Paul Clark from PNC (funding)

-Paul Dolan (WHAT place does he serve on this board)

-Mike Holmgren (WHAT place does he serve on this board)

-Eugine Sanders (Education)

-Kathryn Lincoln from the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy in Cambridge, Mass (design, GREAT person to have on the board)

-Henry Meyer III with Keycorp (funding) 

-Don Misheff from Ernst and Young (legal)

-Douglas Miller with Jacobs Real Estate Services (developer) 

-Felton Thomas with the Cleveland Public Library (education). 

 

I was speechless when seeing two of these names.  Unless the mall is designed to serve some type of sports function, why the FRACK are Holmgren and Dolan on this board?  What purpose do they serve?  Holmgren just came to town not too long ago... and knows what it takes to get a team a Superbowl championship.  That's great.  But WHAT does he know about urban design?  Dolan- WHAT does he know about ANYTHING?...... (Just kidding)

 

Dan Gilbert- well, he might not be versed in urban design, but I can see why he would be on this board.  His initiative brought casinos to this state, along with a potential funding mechanism to fund the redesign of the mall.  Along with what we've heard about the design of the casino, which sounds like it should be well integrated with the existing infrastructure.     

 

OK.  I feel better now.  Whooosaaaaa

I'm not sure what everyone is so worked up about at this point.  Jennifer Coleman is on the committee to, I'm sure, facilitate design discussion. Though I have no doubt that eventually a firm will be brought in to do the actual design work.  The rest of the group represents the largest business interests in downtown, the philanthropic community, and the corporate real estate community.  I always hear bitching about not having enough public - private partnership... what do you think this group is formed to do?  They've selected the top names out of the private sector and non profits to start generating interest and eventually bring in $$$ so the city and the county aren't on the hook for all of this. Because frankly they couldn't afford to do what needs done alone.  Sheesh.

 

I suppose you're right, but this is not at all the sort of public-private partnership I've been talking about.  This involves giving private developers control over explicitly public spaces, and to an extent, public funds.  That's the opposite of a traditional public-private partnership, in which the public takes a more active hand in development.  Parks aren't development, parks are a public function.  Hence the trepidation with putting developers in control of it.  They each have personal interests which may conflict with those of the public.  This issue is not entirely dissimilar from that of privately-controlled traffic enforcement cameras.  Some things are public for a reason, and I don't like it when the line is crossed.

 

Then again, I don't think this is a major issue, just an eyebrow-raiser.

"Unless the mall is designed to serve some type of sports function, why the FRACK are Holmgren and Dolan on this board?  What purpose do they serve?  Holmgren just came to town not too long ago... and knows what it takes to get a team a Superbowl championship.  That's great.  But WHAT does he know about urban design?  Dolan- WHAT does he know about ANYTHING?......"

 

Equally puzzled by this....

First, these people are not the "design team" there will undoubtedly be a gagillion public meetings, and they will undoubtedly hire a design team that will do the actual work.  Secondly, the heads of the three city sports teams are involved because not only do those entities bring in roughly 6 million visitors to downtown each and every year.  They are also HUGE economic engines and charitable trusts.  I am sure that in the end each of these entities will make rather substantial donations to this project, and for that I think getting the heads of the organization involved in the process is the right thing to do (if you want them to contribute to this).

 

But again, I think everyone is looking at this completely wrong.  This is NOT the design panel, though there are a couple of very capable design principals strageically added to help facilitate that discussion. But again, they will end up hiring a firm for that.  What they have done is brought the heads of the largest private and philanthropic entities in downtown all to the table.  As they should at this point.

^Thanks for the clear-up mayor. 

Ok, ok....  I guess I was hoping to see a little more balance (and I guess there is some, but why arent you on it McC?),

 

But... I'll trust what your saying McCleveland. 

And further clarification: this is a commission; it has no authority to do anything to the public spaces.  It will be up to the Mayor and City Council to adopt or reject its recommendations.

 

I understand the importance of bringing deep pockets to the table, but I still think the commission's membership leaves a lot to be desired.  No elected officials?  No downtown residents (that I know of)?  Only one designer?  No RTA or other transportation rep?  I don't think this is a disaster, but I think this group is heavily lopsided towards implementation and severely lacking in visioning.  The design consultants will obviously do the heavy lifting, but they're going to need some guidance too. I would be very interested in seeing how other cities have approached similar challenges- and I say that without preconceived notions.

 

-Kathryn Lincoln from the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy in Cambridge, Mass (design, GREAT person to have on the board)

 

I could be wrong, but I don't think she brings much design expertise to the table.  She's there because of the opportunity for a grant from the LI (endowed by an AZ branch of the original Lincoln Electric family).

And further clarification: this is a commission; it has no authority to do anything to the public spaces. It will be up to the Mayor and City Council to adopt or reject its recommendations.

 

I understand the importance of bringing deep pockets to the table, but I still think the commission's membership leaves a lot to be desired. No elected officials? No downtown residents (that I know of)? Only one designer? No RTA or other transportation rep? I don't think this is a disaster, but I think this group is heavily lopsided towards implementation and severely lacking in visioning. The design consultants will obviously do the heavy lifting, but they're going to need some guidance too. I would be very interested in seeing how other cities have approached similar challenges- and I say that without preconceived notions.

 

-Kathryn Lincoln from the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy in Cambridge, Mass (design, GREAT person to have on the board)

 

I could be wrong, but I don't think she brings much design expertise to the table. She's there because of the opportunity for a grant from the LI (endowed by an AZ branch of the original Lincoln Electric family).

 

You really want RTA involved in this?  I wouldn't say they have great vision, planning, or any of the tools to make this work.