i would prefer the malls and the land bridge to the lake. Public square is fine as is for now and is a place for people waiting for busses. the malls could really be turned into some cool

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 ANOTHER non-story by the PD.

 

Fixed that for you.

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...

 

OK, the article is up now.

3231 you hit the nail right on the head.  How in the world is anything contained in that PD article "news"?  Why even bother with it...filling up space.

 

It is clear the commission's biggest challenge (a group which is only beginning its process) will be to find the $$$ to do anything, especially anything grand.  Everybody likes to throw out their pie in the sky hopes and dreams but nobody can come up with a particul way to fund them without taxpayers going nuts (who has the balls to take the criticism or even face the very good likelyhood of being thrown out of office).

 

Unfortunately, while there is much talent on the commission, I have great doubts it will be able to meet the funding hurdle.  I for one cannot even venture a guess where the $$$ will come from.

 

 

The acutal  new convention center is a perfect example of the difficulties.  For years groups were formed (both private and public) to come up with a workable plan for a new center.  The stubbling block was always funding and nobody had the balls to propose anything that would raise the ire of the taypayers.  Say what you will about the current commissioners, but they were the ones who finally had the will to impose the tax (without a public vote no less).  And they only did it with the "cover " of the Medical Mart propsal and the promise of a new industry.

 

I hope I am wrong about all this but I just see months (Years??) of meetings with little in the end.

To be fair to the PD, they are also pointing out that structural design decisions made now will likely limit what can be done on the Mall for the next several decades, even if funding does become available.  But yeah, most of the info was already known, and it kind of presents as a disappointment stuff that we more or less already expected.  The last conceptual designs pretty much implied that the side "rooms" were where the action would be, beyond the grassy slope.

 

One good thing about these discrete rooms, perhaps, is that they may allow for incremental funding/sponsorship and construction, so we don't have to wait for a single huge slug of funding to see anything happen after the convention center is completed.

As I said in the CC/MM thread, the Seattle based landscape architect who designed Millennium Park has been hired by MMPI to design the malls.  Just because there is no funding yet, doesn't mean there isn't any planning.

Did we really think Mike Holmgren was going to do the planning for the mall, or just the fundraising for what MMPI wants to do

they are acting like a spectacular mall was somehow promised and it isn't being fulfilled. 'mammoth sculptures or fountains' were never in the plan

As I said in the CC/MM thread, the Seattle based landscape architect who designed Millennium Park has been hired by MMPI to design the malls. Just because there is no funding yet, doesn't mean there isn't any planning.

Did we really think Mike Holmgren was going to do the planning for the mall, or just the fundraising for what MMPI wants to do

 

Wait a sec though, design was one of the explicit mandates of the commission- through consultants, obviously.  Aside from funding and compatibility with Convention Center operations, MMPI shouldn't have the final word.  I'm not complaining about what's coming out of the process, because I like it, but the way it was announced or covered was kind of misleading if the the principal design element of Mall B (the grassy slope) has essentially been decided and, because of the roof structure, is essentially fixed for decades.

 

they are acting like a spectacular mall was somehow promised and it isn't being fulfilled. 'mammoth sculptures or fountains' were never in the plan

 

What plan?  There was all kinds of discussion about what would be cool on Mall B.  Until the grassy slope came out, there was no plan, just the surface restoration placeholder MMPI was obligated to deliver.  "The plan" was supposed to come out of the commission's final report.  Which it still will, but with significant structural constraints.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer...

When news breaks, we fix it!

 

And when there is no news, we create it!!

 

We gotta give you saps, er readers some reason to crack open our fishwrap, catbox liner, er newspaper.

As I said in the CC/MM thread, the Seattle based landscape architect who designed Millennium Park has been hired by MMPI to design the malls.  Just because there is no funding yet, doesn't mean there isn't any planning.

Did we really think Mike Holmgren was going to do the planning for the mall, or just the fundraising for what MMPI wants to do

 

Wait a sec though, design was one of the explicit mandates of the commission- through consultants, obviously.  Aside from funding and compatibility with Convention Center operations, MMPI shouldn't have the final word.  I'm not complaining about what's coming out of the process, because I like it, but the way it was announced or covered was kind of misleading if the the principal design element of Mall B (the grassy slope) has essentially been decided and, because of the roof structure, is essentially fixed for decades.

 

they are acting like a spectacular mall was somehow promised and it isn't being fulfilled. 'mammoth sculptures or fountains' were never in the plan

 

What plan?  There was all kinds of discussion about what would be cool on Mall B.  Until the grassy slope came out, there was no plan, just the surface restoration placeholder MMPI was obligated to deliver.  "The plan" was supposed to come out of the commission's final report.  Which it still will, but with significant structural constraints.

 

“Our priority in this stage of the process was the pairing of a local partner with an internationally renowned landscape design firm, insuring extensive local participation and input into this project,” said MMPI senior vice president Mark Falanga in a statement to media. “Everyone involved is very pleased with the pairing of and expected outcomes from GGN and local partner McKnight Associates.”

 

Two nonprofit organizations, ParkWorks Inc. and Cleveland Public Art, will work with MMPI to design the public spaces on the malls above the underground convention center.

 

http://crainscleveland.com/article/20100429/FREE/100429784#

Cleveland's new Group Plan Commission has a year to build a new vision for the downtown Mall

Published: Wednesday, October 06, 2010, 5:21 PM   

Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

 

Imagine native prairie grasses rustling in lakefront breezes, luring butterflies and migratory birds to the downtown Mall.

 

Picture outdoor basketball games, volleyball tournaments, a splash park, playgrounds and a reflecting pool. Or think of striding along a five-kilometer loop at lunch on tree-shaded promenades with views of Lake Erie. All this and more could be in the works for the Mall, most of which will be rebuilt as part of the $465 million effort to construct a medical mart and new convention center in Cleveland.

 

The problem is that the basic budget for the project, sponsored by Cuyahoga County in partnership with MMPI Inc. of Chicago, includes $21.5 million for the Mall, an amount that won't buy much more than trees, turf and concrete.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/10/clevelands_new_group_plan_comm.html

 

Nice.  A pedestrian path from W. 3rd to E. 9th makes sense.  So does putting a new entrance to the PA facing the mall and ending that silly divide.

Lots to absorb there, but so far, it looks pretty awesome.  I like how they're trying to resuscitate elements of the old Burnham plan while also taking the spaces in brand new directions.  Good stuff.

 

The E. 3rd Street mews is a great idea and will pull the Mall up to Superior.

Awesome.

Just across the street from the Arcade's Superior entrance, I should say 'sort of' across from.

Nice. A pedestrian path from W. 3rd to E. 9th makes sense. So does putting a new entrance to the PA facing the mall and ending that silly divide.

 

 

As I read the pop ups to the graphic image, the underground connection to Public Auditorium will be preserved.  Can someone verify that I read that right?

Winter on the Mall? Designers of the medical mart and convention center are coming up with plans

Published: Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 3:48 PM   

Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

 

 

Cleveland, as everyone knows, is a place with spectacular winter weather, especially down by the lakefront.

 

LMN Architects and the landscape architecture firm of Gustafston Guthrie Nichol, both of Seattle, know this, and they're taking it into account in plans for the new medical mart and convention center in downtown Cleveland. "Certainly, we are deeply considering the four seasons in the design process, as we must do in all projects and climates," Shannon Nichol, of GGN, wrote in an email.

 

She was responding to an earlier email sent Friday by Cleveland architect Bill Gould, in response to a column about the future of the Mall, which will double as the roof of the convention center. The column was accompanied the green and leafy image you see atop this blog. 

 

"Cleveland is a Northern city like Minneapolis," Gould wrote. "The mall is deadly in winter. (Mid November to mid March ) I see no provisions for shelter or cover in bad weather."

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/10/winter_on_the_mall_designers_o.html

^Nice- some really great ideas in Nichol's response.  I guess sledding on the sloped Mall B roof was so obvious it didn't even need to be mentioned...

But what about the connectivity to Tower City?

 

(sorry)

 

This whole project has the potential to have the biggest impact on the city since Gateway, maybe more, especially if the NCTC is born out of this.

 

I am exited what the group plan has in store for Public Hall.

 

 

Strap - they are probably waiting to unveil sledding as a WOW factor when they are ready to release plans to the public.

 

 

LMN Architects and GGN landscape architects propose new visions for downtown Cleveland to Group Plan Commission

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/12/lmn_architects_and_ggn_landsca.html

 

The article purports to link to a PDF of the presentation, but I can't find it.

That is the worst rendering I have ever seen.  Did they use water colors?

 

And while I understood the idea of turning the roofs of those garages into parks, I am NOT in favor of bulldozing the entire garages.  We need to bulldoze our parking lots, not our garages.

^Probably colored pencils.  I don't think it was meant to be anything more than a rough sketch as part of much longer presentation.  Doesn't matter; that specific proposal is DOA for the foreseeable future.

 

Oh man, they just edited the article to remove the part where it said "The PDF is available here" or something like that.  I want to see it!

^^That's what I was thinking!  So they want to yank out some parking garages and put in their place some dirt single tracks that roll past scrub brush and weeds along railroad tracks.  Very innovative!!  Well at least that is what it looks like from the "artist" rendering..  :weird:

Draft - For Review Only

Whats the status of the North Coast Transportation Center now that 3C is dead? I didnt see that in any of the renderings

I like that one. This city needs green space more than it needs to get rid of parking lots. I like the attention that the north face of the project is getting but.. gosh we need to get public square up to snuff too.. its a pedestrians nightmare and provides a critical connection to the rest of the city.

Whats the status of the North Coast Transportation Center now that 3C is dead? I didnt see that in any of the renderings

 

I'm hearing rumblings that the project was suspended. But that's a subject for the NCTC thread.

I didn't think I would like the idea of removing the garages, but now that I see it (in glorious watercolor) I get it.  Think of the beauty shots of a city on a hill.  Crossing over the tracks will be easier as well.

Whats the status of the North Coast Transportation Center now that 3C is dead? I didnt see that in any of the renderings

 

I'm hearing rumblings that the project was suspended. But that's a subject for the NCTC thread.

 

That wouldn't be unexpected, but let's hope that in renovating the mall they plan for the revival of the NCTC.  Hopefully someone involved is reading these threads....

^That's my hope as well.  It's not a surprise that the project is suspended, but the design of the mall / CC must keep a future NCTC in mind.  We would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we built a new mall / CC that made the construction of the NCTC prohibitively expensive due to added demolition and rebuild costs of the mall / CC.  Make it easy to add the NCTC in the future.

Honestly I dont like it at the mall.  There are other places at train station can be built to connect downtown

LMN Architects and Gustafson Guthrie Nichol envision bold ideas for downtown's Group Plan Commission

 

by Steven Litt

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio — It can be hard to see Cleveland with fresh eyes. But that's exactly what two talented designers from Seattle are asking Clevelanders to do.

Where others would see the tired heart of a shrinking city with chronic low self-esteem, they see big opportunities.

 

read more at: http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/12/new_concepts_for_cleveland_gro.html

The one rendering from the design challenge earlier this year or last, showed a grassy pedestrian ramp on top of the proposed transportation center that bridged over the tracks and connected the mall to north coast harbor, it looked sweet

The malls have a very large potential of becoming something great. I like the idea to close east 3rd street.

The malls have a very large potential of becoming something great. I like the idea to close east 3rd street.

 

Me too.

The one rendering from the design challenge earlier this year or last, showed a grassy pedestrian ramp on top of the proposed transportation center that bridged over the tracks and connected the mall to north coast harbor, it looked sweet

I've seen this before and I'm a huge fan of the idea. There needs to be more downtown connection to nch and I think that is the most efficient way to do it. A combination of this and the "grand stair case" idea presented in the article would be very appealing.

All good stuff.  While walking down Superior past East 3rd the other day, I thought about the idea of closing East 3rd to auto/bus traffic and really liked how that would pull The Mall into Superior.  It's a good spot to do it, too, because the Hyatt is right there.  And the library.

^Yeah, I really like that feature too.  Hope RTA doesn't squash it- I think they use that little stretch on some of their routes.

 

Well, that would cost a lot more money. Millenium Park is successful, but it cost nearly $500 million (about 2 x the proposed coast). Also, one major reason for it's success is the close proximity to busy Michigan Avenue. You already had the critical mass of people near by to support Mellenium Park when it was built, plus a ton of residential buildings going up next to it. I don't think the interactivity of Mellenium Park created its success. It was successful because it was a nice addition to an already active area.

 

Yes.  The traffic and usage of a park is determined more by its surroundings than by its features.  The Mall is surrounded by high-security government buildings that close by 5pm.  It is cut off, by these surroundings, from traffic generators like residential and retail and entertainment.  We could display a real live unicorn there and we still would not see a substantial change in its usage.  I would therefore not recommend breaking the bank on features.

 

I agree with you about the surrounding conditions and with yanni_gogolak about the overly optimistic renderings, but not sure your conclusion necessarily follows.  Some open spaces are attractions in their own right, if they are programmed and offer activities rather than mere amenities for passive or spontaneous use.  I need to take a closer look at the proposals, but I think they might offer a great blend of neighborhood attractions (recreational amenities for downtown residents), visitor amenities and maybe even some regional attractions (that ice rink).  That last category is a tough challenge though.

Well, that would cost a lot more money. Millenium Park is successful, but it cost nearly $500 million (about 2 x the proposed coast). Also, one major reason for it's success is the close proximity to busy Michigan Avenue. You already had the critical mass of people near by to support Mellenium Park when it was built, plus a ton of residential buildings going up next to it. I don't think the interactivity of Mellenium Park created its success. It was successful because it was a nice addition to an already active area.

 

Yes.  The traffic and usage of a park is determined more by its surroundings than by its features.  The Mall is surrounded by high-security government buildings that close by 5pm.  It is cut off, by these surroundings, from traffic generators like residential and retail and entertainment.  We could display a real live unicorn there and we still would not see a substantial change in its usage.  I would therefore not recommend breaking the bank on features.

 

The traffic and usage of a park is determined more by its surroundings than by its features

 

What do you base that off of?

 

Observation and critical thinking.  Some of the reasoning is found in my post, some is found in the one I originally quoted.  Here's more:  Parks are by nature a pedestrian amenity.  We may drive to them, but we generally don't drive on them.  As a result, parks are utilized largely by those who are already in walking distance.  They typically arrive at that point, near the park, because they had a separate reason to visit it (or they live nearby). 

 

That ties into the nature of what surrounds the park.  Apartments?  24 hour activity cycle, peaking with evenings and weekends.  Entertanment?  Meals and evenings, sometimes late night.  Retail?  Primarily evenings and weekends.  Government?  Very very limted, no evenings no weekends.  And even when you are visiting a government building, it's often not an experience you want to linger or dwell on.  You're probably missing work to be there.  Thus the Mall isn't even that busy 9-5 on weekdays when the government stuff is open. 

Speaking of ambitious renderings, if the mall truly was that pedestrian gateway to the lakefront then I'm certain the draw would be much much greater.

 

 

Speaking of ambitious renderings, if the mall truly was that pedestrian gateway to the lakefront then I'm certain the draw would be much much greater.

 

 

 

That could be vital. The connection to the lake, rock hall, science center, and stadium could really help out its usage.

 

It would be a nice walk for visitors staying at the Marriot who want to go to the rock hall or science center. The Crown Plaza isnt far away either.

And while in chicago, we stayed north of the river but made sure we visited Millenium Park. I think people would be willing to walk for something special.

Going back to the comment about how Millenium park Succeeded because it was in close proximity to Michigan avenue and other activity.  City Park in St. Louis still seems to have a large draw enough though it does not have a draw like Michigan Ave.  The reason I think it succeeds is the amenities it has.  When I visited I saw many families there who probably did not even live in the city.

Closer to home, Voinovich Park draws people because there's reasons to go there, including a skate park (now gone!), nearby tourist venues, etc. But there's no retail or housing.

Going back to the comment about how Millenium park Succeeded because it was in close proximity to Michigan avenue and other activity. City Park in St. Louis still seems to have a large draw enough though it does not have a draw like Michigan Ave. The reason I think it succeeds is the amenities it has. When I visited I saw many families there who probably did not even live in the city.

 

The Gateway Arch isn't a draw? 

Going back to the comment about how Millenium park Succeeded because it was in close proximity to Michigan avenue and other activity. City Park in St. Louis still seems to have a large draw enough though it does not have a draw like Michigan Ave. The reason I think it succeeds is the amenities it has. When I visited I saw many families there who probably did not even live in the city.

 

The Gateway Arch isn't a draw?

 

The Gateway arch is at least half a mile from the park...

Going back to the comment about how Millenium park Succeeded because it was in close proximity to Michigan avenue and other activity. City Park in St. Louis still seems to have a large draw enough though it does not have a draw like Michigan Ave. The reason I think it succeeds is the amenities it has. When I visited I saw many families there who probably did not even live in the city.

 

The Gateway Arch isn't a draw?

 

It isn't, in fact they recently had a competition for solutions on ways to better integrate it into the urban fabric and make it an attraction.

http://inhabitat.com/winners-of-the-st-louis-arch-renovation-competition-leaked-early/

<i>Look like they are at least thinking about a pedestrian bridge to the lake</i>

 

<b>Cleveland Planning Commission approves medical mart, calls for vibrant downtown mall</b>

 

MMPI will spend about $20 million on the mall's surface, and the plan presented Friday by LMN Architects and Gustafson Guthrie Nichol, both of Seattle, included basics like concrete sidewalks, 120 steel benches and dense rows of American Elm trees.

 

Commission members discussed adding a volleyball or basketball court to the northwest corner of Mall C, and questioned whether barbecue pits were a smart idea...

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/01/cleveland_planning_commission_1.html

BBQ pits are a smarter idea than basketball and volleyball courts.

BBQ pits are a smarter idea than basketball and volleyball courts.

I would say the opposite.  With the current obesity epidemic I think we need more ways for people to exercise, not more ways for people to eat :)

 

There's room for all that stuff.  The more things to draw people down there, the better.

But would basketball courts draw large groups of teenagers hanging out at and swearing that would turn people off especially families? We want it to become a family friendly environment. Im not saying basketball courts would automatically be bad, but it does have the potential to be. Tennis courts would be less of a problem but then again, how often would they actually be used?