June 30, 201014 yr ^Yeah, I can't argue with you. It's tempting to to just adopt a design without considering the buses and tell RTA to deal with it... But public square is our main ground transportation hub, so at the very least, it would be great if the commission had more than one or two people who had ever taken RTA (seriously, I doubt it's more than a couple people). I don't mean to overreact here, I just think the commission could have been a little larger to include some different types of voices. If Parkworks is going to be doing the real liaising with the design consultants with the commission really just in charge of lining up financing, then I'm happy enough.
June 30, 201014 yr 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. As a stakeholder? Yes, I do. They are the project sponsor for the intermodal transportation center, so they'd better be involved in some form. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 30, 201014 yr People, this group contains ALL the movers and shakers of this town. They are the ones who will figure out a way to get the plans that the team composed of MMPI, ParkWorks, Cleveland Public Art, KSU's Urban design collective, among others will hash out. It is an awesome team the Mayor has put together
June 30, 201014 yr exactly. this team won't design the malls/ps... they will move it forward. Shoot, I was seriously hoping for some goal posts and an on-deck circle.
June 30, 201014 yr exactly. this team won't design the malls/ps... they will move it forward. Shoot, I was seriously hoping for some goal posts and an on-deck circle. Please turn in your Moderator badge.
June 30, 201014 yr I had thought the commission was also going to coordinate the designs of the two public spaces to ensure they were complimentary. Essentially, someone has to allocate the laundry list of desired uses/programming between the two. I guess it's less clear to me now who's going to be making those types of decisions.
June 30, 201014 yr I find this whole process to be a major step for the mayor. Bringing big powerful (business) minds together into one room has not been his style in the past. This is an exciting moment for Cleveland. This is the exact sort of thinking that was not present during our 90s building boom (gateway, RRHF, CBS). While those projects were in no means failures (well, CBS..), imagine if we had thought about how to create better linkages between those projects. Don't think that this is just about getting a better Mall built. This is just as much about linking the casino, FEB, Canal Basin, PS, NCH, etc.
June 30, 201014 yr I find this whole process to be a major step for the mayor. Bringing big powerful (business) minds together into one room has not been his style in the past. This is an exciting moment for Cleveland. This is the exact sort of thinking that was not present during our 90s building boom (gateway, RRHF, CBS). While those projects were in no means failures (well, CBS..), imagine if we had thought about how to create better linkages between those projects. Don't think that this is just about getting a better Mall built. This is just as much about linking the casino, FEB, Canal Basin, PS, NCH, etc. That indeed is great! :clap:
June 30, 201014 yr ^^Actually, I think I disagree a bit- the 1990s big ticket development boom was heavily driven by a room full of powerful business interests. I don't mean that cynically. Cleveland Tomorrow played a huge role in Gateway and RRHOF. And earlier in Tower City and Playhouse Square. I guess I don't see this commission as much of an innovation- maybe for the current Mayor, but not for the city. As McCleveland said, it's more like a return to the 1990s and the public/private partnerships...which as you pointed out gave us some mixed results. Results none the less though, I suppose. EDIT: Don't think that this is just about getting a better Mall built. This is just as much about linking the casino, FEB, Canal Basin, PS, NCH, etc. I hear ya, but should the city planners inside city hall be doing some of this, with or without a commission? Honest question- I know it's influence changes depending on who's running the place. In the 1990s, it seemed as if Hunter Morrison, Mike White and the CEOs on Cleveland Tomorrow more or less decided how the big projects would play out.
June 30, 201014 yr ^Yeah, I can't argue with you. It's tempting to to just adopt a design without considering the buses and tell RTA to deal with it... But public square is our main ground transportation hub, so at the very least, it would be great if the commission had more than one or two people who had ever taken RTA (seriously, I doubt it's more than a couple people). I don't mean to overreact here, I just think the commission could have been a little larger to include some different types of voices. If Parkworks is going to be doing the real liaising with the design consultants with the commission really just in charge of lining up financing, then I'm happy enough. 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. As a stakeholder? Yes, I do. They are the project sponsor for the intermodal transportation center, so they'd better be involved in some form. I agree here that they should be informed and make observations of how changes may affect routes, but I would not want them actually on the commission making decisions. They need to show that they can take care of their own room before they are allowed to advise on anther's room.
June 30, 201014 yr ^Yeah, I can't argue with you. It's tempting to to just adopt a design without considering the buses and tell RTA to deal with it... But public square is our main ground transportation hub, so at the very least, it would be great if the commission had more than one or two people who had ever taken RTA (seriously, I doubt it's more than a couple people). I don't mean to overreact here, I just think the commission could have been a little larger to include some different types of voices. If Parkworks is going to be doing the real liaising with the design consultants with the commission really just in charge of lining up financing, then I'm happy enough. 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. As a stakeholder? Yes, I do. They are the project sponsor for the intermodal transportation center, so they'd better be involved in some form. I agree here that they should be informed and make observations of how changes may affect routes, but I would not want them actually on the commission making decisions. They need to show that they can take care of their own room before they are allowed to advise on anther's room. Do you understand what their role is/will be??
June 30, 201014 yr ^Actually, I think I disagree a bit- the 1990s big ticket development boom was heavily driven by a room full of powerful business interests. I don't mean that cynically. Cleveland Tomorrow played a huge role in Gateway and RRHOF. And earlier in Tower City and Playhouse Square. I guess I don't see this commission as much of an innovation- maybe for the current Mayor, but not for the city. As McCleveland said, it's more like a return to the 1990s and the public/private partnerships...which as you pointed out gave us some mixed results. Results none the less though, I suppose. Public - Private partnerships... but... 3231 is right. This is a collaboration about linkages, people finally seem to be coming to the realization that individual projects are nice, but a great public realm is needed to connect those places to really drive private investment. I've not seen anything like this in my lifetime. When you hear people talking these days there is a LOT of synergies and collaborations taking place. I too think this is an incredibly exciting moment for cleveland, I think more and more people are starting to "get it".
June 30, 201014 yr ^Yeah, I can't argue with you. It's tempting to to just adopt a design without considering the buses and tell RTA to deal with it... But public square is our main ground transportation hub, so at the very least, it would be great if the commission had more than one or two people who had ever taken RTA (seriously, I doubt it's more than a couple people). I don't mean to overreact here, I just think the commission could have been a little larger to include some different types of voices. If Parkworks is going to be doing the real liaising with the design consultants with the commission really just in charge of lining up financing, then I'm happy enough. 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. As a stakeholder? Yes, I do. They are the project sponsor for the intermodal transportation center, so they'd better be involved in some form. I agree here that they should be informed and make observations of how changes may affect routes, but I would not want them actually on the commission making decisions. They need to show that they can take care of their own room before they are allowed to advise on anther's room. Do you understand what their role is/will be?? Right now I don't believe they are involved with the commission. So as I understand it their role is doing nothing (insert witty comment of choice). Strap indicated that he wanted them on the commission, I'm not sure that would be a productive addition. I do agree that they should be involved with the process in a limited capacity, but I think that RTA has other items they should be worried about. Like not letting grant funding for the NCTC slip through their fingers.
June 30, 201014 yr ^Actually, I think I disagree a bit- the 1990s big ticket development boom was heavily driven by a room full of powerful business interests. I don't mean that cynically. Cleveland Tomorrow played a huge role in Gateway and RRHOF. And earlier in Tower City and Playhouse Square. I guess I don't see this commission as much of an innovation- maybe for the current Mayor, but not for the city. As McCleveland said, it's more like a return to the 1990s and the public/private partnerships...which as you pointed out gave us some mixed results. Results none the less though, I suppose. Public - Private partnerships... but... 3231 is right. This is a collaboration about linkages, people finally seem to be coming to the realization that individual projects are nice, but a great public realm is needed to connect those places to really drive private investment. I've not seen anything like this in my lifetime. When you hear people talking these days there is a LOT of synergies and collaborations taking place. I too think this is an incredibly exciting moment for cleveland, I think more and more people are starting to "get it". I certainly like the way you and 3231 describe today's planning landscape. I guess I would like to know more about how this commission fits into the collaboration, and I'm sure more info will come along. Hunter Morrison's planning staff and the corporate titans during the White administration were not totally oblivious to linkages- hence Civic Vision 2000, the Waterfront Line and the Tower City/Gateway walkway - there was a LOT of excitement back then about how all the pieces were fitting together. I guess I was just a bit chastened by the results of the 1990s process and its heavy reliance on the city's business elite. I guess one difference is the current supporting cast (Parkworks, the current CPC) is sufficiently clued in to help deliver a good product.
June 30, 201014 yr I would liken any linkages then soley to the then head of RTA, and transportation linkages. Most of the developments were separately planned with little thought given to public spaces and how they can affect future investment.
June 30, 201014 yr ^I don't know, I still think you're being a little harsh on the process in 1990s- Civic Vicion 2000 (and I'm betting you have an old floppy copy in your office like I do :) ) illustrated a lot of the same spin-off development opportunities and public space improvements we're still talking about today, including just north of the Mall (linking to the waterfront), and just east of NCH. In any case, I am happy to agree to disagree about the 1990s and happy to concede that these are new projects, with a new cast of planners, designers and corporate muckety-mucks. So aside from some lingering uncertainty about the precise role of the commission and how it will interact with the rest of the parties, I am happy to look forward and get excited :).
June 30, 201014 yr Yes civic vision 2000 was pretty (sorry, no floppy, but if you have an extra i'd love a copy! :)) Was any of it done? I guess my point is, for all the building in the 90's there wasn't a single dynamic urban public space created. Primarily because there was no real involvement from the private sector to make any of those "civic visions" a reality.
June 30, 201014 yr For those that are saying these peopleare not to be thinking about the design of this, "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. There isn't a single person on this panel that has any credentials or experience in organizing the design, planning, and implimentation of a large urban space. I really expect nothing from this panel.
June 30, 201014 yr Yes civic vision 2000 was pretty (sorry, no floppy, but if you have an extra i'd love a copy! :)) Was any of it done? EDIT: ha- by floppy I didn't mean an old floppy disk, just that the oversized, soft bound volumes were big and flexible and cumbersome to store. Well after tearing apart my office, I can only find the Citywide plan and not the downtown plan. They are big and annoying to pack and put on shelves so who knows what I did with it over the years Anyway, going from memory alone, yes, lots of what was shown in Civic Vision 2000 Downtown Plan (actually published in 1988, I believe) was done: Gateway, the WFL, North Coast Harbor, Star Plaza. And with lots of private sector involvement. And not just any private sector, but executives from many of the same companies/foundations represented on this commission. The involvement of corporate Cleveland in making things happen in the 1990s was widely heralded and was turned into a HBS case study. Again, I'm not exactly pleased with the mega projects of the 1990s- I am certainly not defending that legacy. And I'm not stuck in the past- I know this is a different era and new projects. Just explaining why I'm just a little bit wary celebrating this current commission as an innovation and why I am not totally convinced it will deliver the best results if their role really includes focusing on appropriate design as Ken Silliman describes it (thanks w28th for the quote).
June 30, 201014 yr For those that are saying these peopleare not to be thinking about the design of this, "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. There isn't a single person on this panel that has any credentials or experience in organizing the design, planning, and implementation of a large urban space. I really expect nothing from this panel. I interpret this to mean the group will be instrumental in finding an urban designer or work in conjunction with those that have experience in urban building design. Are we getting to caught up in the minutia, and not looking at the bigger picture?
June 30, 201014 yr I have only B&W photocopies of Civic Vision 2000, and then only of the areas north of Lakeside and a little bit of the Warehouse District. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 30, 201014 yr the article also specifically mentions breaking down into four groups, only one of which will focus on "design" of the malls, the other groups focus on financing, community participation, and governance (i.e. programming and maintenance). This really isn't much different than the public square task force that produced work from FO. I think it is a safe bet that outside of some "brainstorming sessions" about what they would like to see out of these spaces and how they would function... not much differently than if 10 or 15 of us got together... that is the only real "design work" this comission will do, at some point a firm will be brought in for that.
June 30, 201014 yr Are we getting to caught up in the minutia, and not looking at the bigger picture? yes.
June 30, 201014 yr Well I still can't find my big full color guy, which annoys me to no end after all the times I've had to fit it into a box of books over the years as part of my nomadic existence. But I did find some pictures of it on UrbanOhio! http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=13775.0
June 30, 201014 yr By the way...who is going to the first meeting and reporting back....I don't trust the PD to be accurate.
July 12, 201014 yr From Litt: A new Group Plan Commission for Cleveland has a chance to revise Daniel Burnham's historic vision for downtown Published: Monday, July 12, 2010, 9:45 AM Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Chicago architect Daniel Burnham left a colossal imprint on Cleveland more than a century ago with his 1903 Group Plan for downtown. Now, in 2010, Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson is asking a new Group Plan Commission to revisit the grand but sterile mall and the zone around it. The area has never lived up to Burnham's original vision, in part because the train station ended up in the Terminal Tower complex. Inspired by more than $1 billion in new downtown projects on the horizon, including a casino, medical mart and convention center, Jackson sees an opportunity to improve a large swath of downtown, from Public Square to the Lake Erie waterfront, including the mall. The question is whether the new commission, which meets for the first time Thursday at 7:30 a.m. in Room 514 at Cleveland City Hall, can rise to the occasion or whether it caves to pressures that have led to mediocre planning and civic design in the city's recent past. http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/07/group_plan.html
July 12, 201014 yr Good column. I usually like Litt's stuff. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 6, 201014 yr I'm not sure if this comment should be in the CC/MM thread or the Mall discussion, but question: after checking out the revised plans at http://bocc.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_bocc/en-US/CCMM-08052010-Update.pdf, it occurred to me that while a raised view of the lake is a great idea, will the designers also include an improved pedestrian bridge linking Mall C to the lakefront? Does anyone know if this be part of LMN's plans or the landscape architect/New Block Group Committee?
August 6, 201014 yr ^ I think that's the plan of the intermodal transportation center where the Amtrak station is located now. http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/intermodal_transportation_cent.html
August 6, 201014 yr ^ I think that's the plan of the intermodal transportation center where the Amtrak station is located now. http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/intermodal_transportation_cent.html Not if GOP candidate John Kasich gets elected Governor :(....: "I don't support a 39 mph train, OK? It's not going to happen if I'm governor, OK?" Kasich said. "If you want the train, I hope you can get over that and vote for me anyway. But you're not going to get that train." http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/08/john_kasich_yvette_mcgee_brown.html Unless we build it just for Cleveland...
August 6, 201014 yr I think the intermodal center is the result of a federal funds grant that's separate from the 3C rail project. RTA already gave about $300k to the city for planning. Of course, to these people that's a thimble's worth of cash for all the planning and talking that's going to happen for the next millennium. I for one hope (and think) that steam will pick up on this project if the Medical Mart construction gets underway (and they say groundbreaking might happen by Oct/Nov.)
August 6, 201014 yr ^I think MH's point is that the reason d'etre for an intermodal center sort of evaporates if you take away one of the modes. Fun thought that occurred to me this morning: a sloped lawn on Mall B could make a great wintertime sledding ground for the kids. Coupled with a skating rink at the south end of Mall B and some wintery concessions, could be a bad/ass off season family attraction.
August 6, 201014 yr ^I think MH's point is that the reason d'etre for an intermodal center sort of evaporates if you take away one of the modes. Fun thought that occurred to me this morning: a sloped lawn on Mall B could make a great wintertime sledding ground for the kids. Coupled with a skating rink at the south end of Mall B and some wintery concessions, could be a bad/ass off season family attraction. There is still Amtrak passenger rail service to/from that location, and there's several plans for restructuring and expanding train service to Cleveland. So even if 3C doesn't happen for a while (it will be impossible for Ohio to remain an isolated black hole forever), there are still other near-term opportunities. And, yes, I was also thinking that sledding would be awesome there. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 19, 201014 yr This is a big city and "impressions" on the street is what marketers are looking for and area's around convetion centers are key locations. Cleveland isn't a big city anymore. But even big cities have such linkages: Toronto, Seattle, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Montreal, Chicago and even some city on the Hudson.... http://theweblicist.com/wordpress/category/landmarks-buildings-statues-and-monuments/west-avenue-pedestrian-walkway/ "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 19, 201014 yr KJP now you're playing the semnatics game to fit what you like. I dont believe they are necessary. Now that bridge we see picture for the worlds fair. I can dig that. But underground linkages, goes against us fighting for more usefull street level retail. Why have it if we're going to send people from place to place underground?
August 19, 201014 yr ^ If one were to make a beeline from an intermodal station to Terminal Tower, where would one encounter street-level retail? Certainly not around the Mall (surrounded by government buildings and the MedMart/Public Auditorium).
August 19, 201014 yr Thats not the point. The issues is people by passing any current (yes I knwo it's not much) and any future retail. Yes I know we have rain, sleet, snow and heat. Every other city has varying degrees of weather as well. To me it's just an excuse to build something that isn't needed and that has to be maintained.
August 19, 201014 yr Can't they just make the rapid station connect to mall C, that will let people take the train straight into tower city and they dont even have to walk. And it would be cheaper then building a tunnel.
August 19, 201014 yr To me it's just an excuse to build something that isn't needed and that has to be maintained. I'm not proposing that anything be built this isn't going to be built already (or at least is being considered for construction). I'm proposing that the corridors and other interior spaces within the convention center be designed to allow direct public access around-the-clock so people to may travel from hotel, to convention facilities, to intermodal station, to North Coast Harbor attractions or any combination of these. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 20, 201014 yr To me it's just an excuse to build something that isn't needed and that has to be maintained. I'm not proposing that anything be built this isn't going to be built already (or at least is being considered for construction). I'm proposing that the corridors and other interior spaces within the convention center be designed to allow direct public access around-the-clock so people to may travel from hotel, to convention facilities, to intermodal station, to North Coast Harbor attractions or any combination of these. Oh....thanks for clearing that up my friend! ;)
September 22, 201014 yr Well this is torture: Cleveland.com has a new article about the Mall design, but the link is broken... Millennium Park-like designs not in the plans for downtown mall http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2010/09/millennium_park-like_designs_not_in_the_plans_for_downtown_mall.html Hoping it works soon...
September 22, 201014 yr ^Weird... there was a headline and little photo on the main Cleveland.com page and the link I posted above, but now they're gone. Maybe it was posted before being finished or something. We'll see if it pops up later.
September 22, 201014 yr Maybe the author was upset because there was no plans for a large stainless steel bean (aka Cloudgate) or (conspiracy theory) the publisher, who is on the new group plan commission saw it and pulled it. With the same landscape architect as Millennium park, I think it is going to be hard not to have similarities
September 23, 201014 yr Here's the reality: -there is not enough money in the budget to do anything significant with the Malls in the convention center budget. The contract with MMPI states that the Malls must be similar in nature to the current design. This has been know for a long time. -the landscape architecture firm is developing a Plan B. It is basically a "if you had a lot more money, you could do this with the Malls" -the Group Plan Commission is figuring out how to come up with the money to fund Plan B (as well as Public Square, land bridges to the lake, etc) This sounds like a non-story by the PD.
Create an account or sign in to comment