Here is a GREAT article about Ann Zoller, executive director of ParkWorks.

 

 

Urban Outfitter

Issue Date: June 2010 Issue

 

 

Ann Zoller believes that green space doesn’t just dress up a city. For the executive director of ParkWorks, it can be transformative, creating better neighborhoods and fueling economic development. Yet her greatest challenge is before her — remaking Public Square.

 

............

 

Zoller, 46, believes creating exciting public spaces is not just about carefree recreation — it’s a key to making Cleveland a place more people want to live. She’s emerging as a key ally of younger politicians, such as Joe Cimperman and Chris Ronayne, who are gaining in influence and trying to put their optimistic stamp on the city.

 

.........

 

For seven years, Zoller carted around poster-sized renderings of the park’s redesign, trying to find funding for it. Federal and county money both fell through. Finally, Mayor Frank Jackson approved a key half-million-dollar grant in 2008.

 

“People will tell us no,” Zoller says, “but until they tell us no 17 times, we don’t necessarily listen. If we think something is worthy, we’ll figure out a way to get it done.”

 

That can-do attitude and record of getting results have convinced many civic leaders to turn to Zoller and her nonprofit, ParkWorks, for help building playgrounds, reviving old parks and jazzing up little plazas. But Zoller’s vision for Cleveland is much bigger. She wants to guide downtown’s landmark public spaces from the dull, gray present to a spring-like rebirth.

 

..........

 

That’s the gospel urban optimists preach: Flowers in the city aren’t just flowers. They can make the difference between a downtown people want to work and live in and a place they don’t.

 

..........

 

Joe Cimperman says Zoller transformed how he looks at his job as a city councilman by inviting him on a foundation-sponsored 2001 tour of New York City parks. They visited eight parks in 25 hours, including Battery Park at Manhattan’s southern tip, to see how first-rate squares and plazas and greens, bustling with people, made neighborhoods vibrant and memorable.

 

“Parks and public space mean community development, which means economic development,” says Cimperman. “I came back, thinking, Man, there’s nothing we can’t do in Cleveland!”

 

.......

 

http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=E73ABD6180B44874871A91F6BA5C249C&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=1578600D80804596A222593669321019&tier=4&id=643DFFCF56CA42708205F3F5B44FCD7A

 

 

OK, there are way too may good quotes...just read the damn thing ;)

 

 

"Norman Krumholz, a city planning commissioner and urban studies professor at Cleveland State University, was Cleveland’s chief city planner in the 1970s, when Public Square was last renovated. Building a hill over Superior and Ontario is “crazy,” and all three proposals are “extravagant,” Krumholz says. He’s not convinced a major renovation of Public Square is appropriate. The problem with Public Square is the problem with the city: a falling population, a very poor population,” Krumholz says. “Parks and recreation probably have a much, much lower priority in a city that’s struggling on a day-to-day basis to make it through the day.”

 

Norman Krumholz misses the point. His attitude is part of the reason Cleveland has fallen behind.

Norman Krumholz misses the point. His attitude is part of the reason Cleveland has fallen behind.

 

What's the quote??

 

EDIT: Thanks

Well, I admire the ambition. But, just one small thing.... I am for making what already exists as best it can be first, so the city can show it can grasp the simple things. Grandiose plans are great, but if there is no plan for follow through on the on going up keep of such public spaces such as tree care, litter clean-up prevention, safety, public art maintenance....we then end up having a grand place that is largely neglected. I can cite examples of this already.

 

Unless remaking all of it will somehow change the mindset that neglects the simple things, let's try and take the baby steps to make what we already have the best possible experience it can be. There are two quadrants of the square that fall short of that and just look like one giant littered and poorly maintained bus stop. The other two really aren't bad. So, in the meantime, let's make it as best it can be.

 

One major detraction from the square are the nearby surface lots. The perimeters are never touched to at least make it look respectable... The plant beds are never refreshed...litter is constant...and the emptiness from the lots is vast and lonely. I would love to see places like that get major overhauls first, before we screw with things like the mall, which actually looks decent, and then still have the lots and poorly maintained existing areas. 

Indeed, the best way to improve Public Square is not to tear it up but to enclose it.  And I guess I agree with Krumholtz to the extent that adding or modifying parks should not be such a high priority here.  Cleveland would get more ROI from steps toward re-urbanization... like filling in the WHD... than from constantly re-doing existing parks, or replacing more buildings with more parks.  Marching in place at best.  Money and time expended for minimal gains.  Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of combining the Public Square quadrants, I just have a lot of things ahead of that on my priority list.

Indeed, the best way to improve Public Square is not to tear it up but to enclose it. And I guess I agree with Krumholtz to the extent that adding or modifying parks should not be such a high priority here. Cleveland would get more ROI from steps toward re-urbanization... like filling in the WHD... than from constantly re-doing existing parks, or replacing more buildings with more parks. Marching in place at best. Money and time expended for minimal gains. Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of combining the Public Square quadrants, I just have a lot of things ahead of that on my priority list.

 

So you suggest that the City buy WHD parking lots and build new housing? You think that's gonna happen?

 

I would think that a dynamic redesigned Public Square would do more for filling in the surface lots in the warehouse district than simply maintaining the status quo.

exactly.

"Norman Krumholz, a city planning commissioner and urban studies professor at Cleveland State University, was Cleveland’s chief city planner in the 1970s, when Public Square was last renovated. Building a hill over Superior and Ontario is “crazy,” and all three proposals are “extravagant,” Krumholz says. He’s not convinced a major renovation of Public Square is appropriate. The problem with Public Square is the problem with the city: a falling population, a very poor population,” Krumholz says. “Parks and recreation probably have a much, much lower priority in a city that’s struggling on a day-to-day basis to make it through the day.”

 

Norman Krumholz misses the point. His attitude is part of the reason Cleveland has fallen behind.

 

"chief city planner in the 1970s" -- that right there makes me want to kill myself...  So much "good" was done in the city planner department during the 70's....

 

I heard the man speak during a case colloquim a few years ago.  He was against the Euclid Corridor and Public Transportation in Cleveland, clearing stating that "Cleveland is a car city."

A few people on a stage and audience questioned him on that and he wouldn't budge.  I kept thinking to myself "this is a professor at Cleveland State??"

 

I'm not calling Krumholz a genius or anything... but I think the city could accomplish more with limited resources by focusing on immediate needs.  To that extent I think he's right.  Rebuilding an existing park (which isn't exactly a wasteland as it is) seems like more of a want than a need.  In our current economic climate, the word extravagant does come to mind.  We can't even police our streets!  And yes, I thnk WHD can do a lot more for Public Square than Public Square can do for WHD.  Our downtown core doesn't lack open spaces.  It lacks buildings.  In light of that, I would focus our resources on adding buildings instead of tearing up and reconstituting open spaces. 

^ Agreed. The scenario is that we have a grand public space...while STILL...we have these totally empty places needing filled. We have a brand new great public space....and still have the voids. I would rather..IN THE MEANTIME, make the existing public spaces as best as they can be...and focus more on filling in these vast oceans of pavement.

 

Even in its current condition, and although I support joining the quadrants, Public Square itself, does not look nearly as bad as all the empty surface lot areas. Even if the bus stations were better maintained and litter cleaned...Maybe a fresh coat of paint here and there, and addition of some native plants and more freshening of the planters, would at least make a world of difference.

 

So, I would rather see majority of monies right now steered toward filling existing voids downtown. One reason I was in favor of foresting the square is because the green will never go out of style, while all that other steel art and such, given the city's current history of maintaining such kinds of things, will quickly look dated and neglected.

 

I guess its a matter of priority. Some seem to feel the re-design will spur the empty spots to be filled...other see it the other way around, in that filling in the voids may lead to better designs of the public spaces. Its not that I am against one or the other...it is rather, a matter of what to do first.

^I think you're simplifying it a bit.  How would you propose the city fill the surface lots?

^I think you're simplifying it a bit.  How would you propose the city fill the surface lots?

 

Short answer:  piece by piece

 

Not that difficult, happens all the time.  The city filled large portions of Central and Midtown with suburban tract housing.  The city filled the industrial valley with a strip plaza.  Now it just needs to aim higher and closer to the bullseye.  It has a number of tools in its arsenal, from loans to tax breaks to prohibitive taxes on downtown surface parking.  Maybe we don't need to do massive all-encompassing lifestyle centers that cost a king's ransom.  Forget phases.  Just bite off what we can chew, one new structure at a time.  We could even make them different from each other, like in the old days.  I'm not sure I want multiple blocks all done in one homogeneous architectural theme anyway. 

 

To use one of my trademark football analogies... less hail mary, more dink & dunk.  Let's get some first downs for downtown.

^I think you're simplifying it a bit. How would you propose the city fill the surface lots?

 

Short answer: piece by piece

 

Not that difficult, happens all the time. The city filled large portions of Central and Midtown with suburban tract housing. The city filled the industrial valley with a strip plaza. Now it just needs to aim higher and closer to the bullseye. It has a number of tools in its arsenal, from loans to tax breaks to prohibitive taxes on downtown surface parking. Maybe we don't need to do massive all-encompassing lifestyle centers that cost a king's ransom. Forget phases. Just bite off what we can chew, one new structure at a time. We could even make them different from each other, like in the old days. I'm not sure I want multiple blocks all done in one homogeneous architectural theme anyway.

 

To use one of my trademark football analogies... less hail mary, more dink & dunk. Let's get some first downs for downtown.

 

1. "piece by piece"  Little catch phrases do not provide solutions. I might as well say "dynamic urban neighborhoods".  A few very high powered developers have tried very hard over the past few years to build on those surface lots. If it were easy, it would have happened by now. To suggest otherwise is pure ignorance.

 

2. "The city filled the industrial valley with a strip plaza."  Not exactly. A corporate entity sold land to corporate/private entity. There was much discussion within City Hall about the developer's plans. While the former mayor thought that the retail plan was the best strategy, the local councilperson fought tooth and nail against it. Once Council allowed the project, the local councilperson fought tooth and nail to provide as many benefits to the City and region as possible. A side from this project...it is ridiculous to label the thousands of acres that make up the industrial valley as a strip mall. Really now..

 

 

I'm not calling Krumholz a genius or anything... but I think the city could accomplish more with limited resources by focusing on immediate needs. To that extent I think he's right. Rebuilding an existing park (which isn't exactly a wasteland as it is) seems like more of a want than a need. In our current economic climate, the word extravagant does come to mind. We can't even police our streets! And yes, I thnk WHD can do a lot more for Public Square than Public Square can do for WHD. Our downtown core doesn't lack open spaces. It lacks buildings. In light of that, I would focus our resources on adding buildings instead of tearing up and reconstituting open spaces.

 

Norm is a fascinating character. He is well regarded nationally as the father of "equity planning". It is a philosophical approach to planning that many do not agree with nowadays. Still, is sort of a rock star in the planning world. That said, I don't agree with much of what he supports. He's a smart guy, but his philosophies are out of touch.

^I think you're simplifying it a bit. How would you propose the city fill the surface lots?

 

How silly of you! By not focusing on Public Square and the Malls of course!

This Ann Zoller is absolutely amazing and thankfully she is in Cleveland. I agree 100% with her philosophy in every way. Having great public spaces is crucial and not so much for people already in Cleveland but to attract new people who will automatically be drawn to a place like a completely revamped Public Square. When I bring people there now they are completely unimpressed and hardly realize they are in the main square of Cleveland. Go to any great city and you will see multitudes of people congregating around an awesome public space which in turn will spurn the development others think should come first. I hope she can convince the powers that be and raise the necessary funds so this can go forward. It's amazing what one person can do for a city. She is a true local gem.

1. "piece by piece"  Little catch phrases do not provide solutions. I might as well say "dynamic urban neighborhoods".  A few very high powered developers have tried very hard over the past few years to build on those surface lots. If it were easy, it would have happened by now. To suggest otherwise is pure ignorance.

 

Ignorant to think we can build buildings in the middle of a city... what is this world coming to?

 

The rest of my post suggested a package of solutions, based around the concept of piece by piece.  I'm not aware of any plan like this which got city backing and failed.  The plans that failed have all been much larger in scope.  It's absurd to claim that nobody can build buildings in the middle of Cleveland.  Instead of saying well, clearly there's a problem, and letting that problem be the norm... I say get to the root of that problem and solve it.  I don't get how redo Public Square = let's raise lots of money, but get buildings built = money cannot exist.  We're not talking about a Mars mission here. 

 

I don't want to get too deep into SYC here, but are you saying that was done without tax credits?  Based on what I've read, it seems to have gotten anywhere from 12 to 47 million.  BTW when I say "city" in this context I also mean the Port Authority, which inexplicably controls a lot of the development funds around here.  SYC could not have been built without significant public contributions, and I'm sure that applies to any WHD project as well.

This Ann Zoller is absolutely amazing and thankfully she is in Cleveland. I agree 100% with her philosophy in every way. Having great public spaces is crucial and not so much for people already in Cleveland but to attract new people who will automatically be drawn to a place like a completely revamped Public Square. When I bring people there now they are completely unimpressed and hardly realize they are in the main square of Cleveland. Go to any great city and you will see multitudes of people congregating around an awesome public space which in turn will spurn the development others think should come first. I hope she can convince the powers that be and raise the necessary funds so this can go forward. It's amazing what one person can do for a city. She is a true local gem.

 

Yeah, not bad for someone with a degree in.....  French  :-D

^I think you're simplifying it a bit. How would you propose the city fill the surface lots?

 

Short answer: piece by piece

 

Not that difficult, happens all the time. The city filled large portions of Central and Midtown with suburban tract housing. The city filled the industrial valley with a strip plaza. Now it just needs to aim higher and closer to the bullseye. It has a number of tools in its arsenal, from loans to tax breaks to prohibitive taxes on downtown surface parking. Maybe we don't need to do massive all-encompassing lifestyle centers that cost a king's ransom. Forget phases. Just bite off what we can chew, one new structure at a time. We could even make them different from each other, like in the old days. I'm not sure I want multiple blocks all done in one homogeneous architectural theme anyway.

 

To use one of my trademark football analogies... less hail mary, more dink & dunk. Let's get some first downs for downtown.

 

1. "piece by piece"   Little catch phrases do not provide solutions. I might as well say "dynamic urban neighborhoods". A few very high powered developers have tried very hard over the past few years to build on those surface lots. If it were easy, it would have happened by now. To suggest otherwise is pure ignorance.

 

I tend to agree with 327 in this case.  I'm not sure why we need to develop entire sections of downtown at a time.  Sell off those giant surface lots in the WHD in chunks that developers can currently handle.  We shouldn't be waiting for a developer to propose a redevelopment of the entire block if a building can be built now on a small section.  Then let the city make sure the design of that building fits with what it thinks the overall theme or feel of that section of the city should be.

Overall, ParkWorks is doing some amazing things for Downtown.

 

http://www.parkworks.org/currentp-downtown.html

 

Also, check out the "Neighborhoods" with the Buckeye sculpture we saw from the previous Buckeye photo thread.

 

The Malls and Public Square will obviously be the biggest things on their resume.

^I think you're simplifying it a bit. How would you propose the city fill the surface lots?

 

Short answer: piece by piece

 

Not that difficult, happens all the time. The city filled large portions of Central and Midtown with suburban tract housing. The city filled the industrial valley with a strip plaza. Now it just needs to aim higher and closer to the bullseye. It has a number of tools in its arsenal, from loans to tax breaks to prohibitive taxes on downtown surface parking. Maybe we don't need to do massive all-encompassing lifestyle centers that cost a king's ransom. Forget phases. Just bite off what we can chew, one new structure at a time. We could even make them different from each other, like in the old days. I'm not sure I want multiple blocks all done in one homogeneous architectural theme anyway.

 

To use one of my trademark football analogies... less hail mary, more dink & dunk. Let's get some first downs for downtown.

 

1. "piece by piece" Little catch phrases do not provide solutions. I might as well say "dynamic urban neighborhoods". A few very high powered developers have tried very hard over the past few years to build on those surface lots. If it were easy, it would have happened by now. To suggest otherwise is pure ignorance.

 

I tend to agree with 327 in this case. I'm not sure why we need to develop entire sections of downtown at a time. Sell off those giant surface lots in the WHD in chunks that developers can currently handle. We shouldn't be waiting for a developer to propose a redevelopment of the entire block if a building can be built now on a small section. Then let the city make sure the design of that building fits with what it thinks the overall theme or feel of that section of the city should be.

 

and you think "the city" controls those parking lots and who to sell them too?

 

"the city" doesn't build buildings. Private developers do (public works / and government buildings aside).  All of those private developers are able to aproach financing entities like the port authority.  I have yet to hear of a single feasible development proposal of any kind around town where in "the city" and other public authorities such as the port haven't been willing to do everything they can to make said developments happen.

 

Everyone is certainly entitled to their own "ideas", but it is hard to have constructive dialogue when the discussion is so far out of the realm of reality.

Well you might want to look at the example down in Columbus with the new Convention Hotel they are building.  Not that it totally parallels (I realize that there are many factors), but it does give an example of where the local government entities have been able to get somethinng built.

Exactly, they aren't parallel, it's part of the convention facilities (public works). And even then it's quite rare.

I tend to agree with 327 in this case.  I'm not sure why we need to develop entire sections of downtown at a time.  Sell off those giant surface lots in the WHD in chunks that developers can currently handle.  We shouldn't be waiting for a developer to propose a redevelopment of the entire block if a building can be built now on a small section.  Then let the city make sure the design of that building fits with what it thinks the overall theme or feel of that section of the city should be.

 

and you think "the city" controls those parking lots and who to sell them too?

 

"the city" doesn't build buildings. Private developers do (public works / and government buildings aside).  All of those private developers are able to aproach financing entities like the port authority.  I have yet to hear of a single feasible development proposal of any kind around town where in "the city" and other public authorities such as the port haven't been willing to do everything they can to make said developments happen.

 

Everyone is certainly entitled to their own "ideas", but it is hard to have constructive dialogue when the discussion is so far out of the realm of reality.

 

I'm not asking the city to build anything nor do I have any illusions about who owns the lots.  What I am doing is questioning why every new development nowadays is this giant project that takes up entire city blocks.  What are the circumstances that lead to most projects downtown being of NASA scale?  Why wouldn't the parking lot owner sell off a corner of the lot for a new 20 story office or apartment building?  Why don't we see this happen in downtown Cleveland?  Are developers not going to attack a single building project because the margins are too slim? 

 

How can we incentivize the systematic development of those lots?

well in the this particular case now, the owner of the lots wants to develop them.  and is planning on doing it in phases. see the weston / gilbane whd thread. the problem of course is financing.  and seeing as they want to develop the lots, they probably aren't too interested in selling off 1 or 2 which may get in the way of their plan.

Exactly, they aren't parallel, it's part of the convention facilities (public works). And even then it's quite rare.

Exactly, the fact that it is rare is why it should be an example to be looked at (the point being to look for creative examples).  Maybe cleveland can use this when it comes time to build a convention hotel at the County Admin site....  Remember when Cleveland was known for its public private partnerships.... (uh oh McCleveland is in a tizzy) :lol:

well in the this particular case now, the owner of the lots wants to develop them. and is planning on doing it in phases. see the weston / gilbane whd thread. the problem of course is financing. and seeing as they want to develop the lots, they probably aren't too interested in selling off 1 or 2 which may get in the way of their plan.

 

Exactly. You can't expect a developer to sell off parts of a block. When parcels are amassed, it creates greater value. The developer would lose that value if he/she sold it piece by piece. Additionally, the developer would have to sell at a lower price point that would permit the new buyer to find financing. You're asking the developer to forego his profit.

Exactly, they aren't parallel, it's part of the convention facilities (public works). And even then it's quite rare.

Exactly, the fact that it is rare is why it should be an example to be looked at (the point being to look for creative examples).  Maybe cleveland can use this when it comes time to build a convention hotel at the County Admin site....  Remember when Cleveland was known for its public private partnerships.... (uh oh McCleveland is in a tizzy) :lol:

 

I'm not in a tizzy, I just don't think often times people truly understand the roles of a public private partnership  :)

 

The columbus convention hotel is very interesting... and complicated.  It works (hopefully) for a lot of reasons.  I believe the cost of the new hotel there will cost somewhere in the $150-160m range. Franklin Convention Facilities Authority is issuing bonds to pay for the project.  I believe 80% of the repayment costs will be born by hotel revenues.  The beauty of this being a publicly owned hotel is that there is no need to make a profit, which makes the project substantially more feasible.  Of course they need to come up with a way to make up that 20% of the payment or default... which of course wouldn't be very good.  Here's where the convention aspect comes in.  They are diverting a portion of the convention bed tax budget into the project to make up a good deal of that revenue.  But they are still short.  I'm not sure if they have figured out a way to make up the rest of that revenue gap yet.  They were considering an insane hike on parking meters downtown but the public and general businesses went balistic and thought no one would come dt.  I think here it costs .25 for a half hour to an hour.... in columbus it was going to cost somewhere north of $1.  It would have been the highest parking meter costs in the country.  Like I said, I don't know where they have turned now to make up that $...

 

 

it may work because it is a public works project.  it may not.

 

I think a lot of us are missing the point here that myself, a couple others and 327 are promoting. It is about PRIORITY and PHILOSOPHY... Ones that do not place carts before horses and instead, choosing ones hat focus on making what already exists the best it can be.

 

In this case, it involves the city exercising a development PHILOSOPHY/PRIORITY that would practice the general rule of thumb of "fill the existing voids first"  Do this as much as possible...and HOW and IF possible.

 

Right now, we often take what I describe as a "pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey" blindfolded approach by promoting to build something grand...then we remove the blindfold and discover we build something nice....YET still have a lot of crappy and empty areas we could have focused on first right near what we built. We focus on totally redesigning something that was far less an issue than totally empty spots. 

 

While I am absolutely in favor of a square redesign, to me, it is a matter of what we should look at doing first.....and if I had to chose between steering efforts towards that, or filling in voids around downtown, I would first choose filling the voids so as to not spread ourselves thin. 327 is right about his football analogy. It is about taking small steps that will in the end, create the complete puzzle to make something great....Quality over quantity, INSTEAD of making one GRAND thing and basically ignoring other elements we need to focus on.

 

Guess what? We will have a great square.....and still have scores of empty lots, and other existing structures in need of renovation and if the past is the best predictor of the future....  we can look forward to seeing those eyesores for years to come.

Exactly, they aren't parallel, it's part of the convention facilities (public works). And even then it's quite rare.

Exactly, the fact that it is rare is why it should be an example to be looked at (the point being to look for creative examples). Maybe cleveland can use this when it comes time to build a convention hotel at the County Admin site.... Remember when Cleveland was known for its public private partnerships.... (uh oh McCleveland is in a tizzy) :lol:

 

 

Just what I'm talkin' 'bout!

It's debatable whether the city can force development on downtown lots (maybe penalize owners for undeveloped lots or taxing parking are two ideas that come to mind).  However, when the city is considering spending money on a greenspace project and closing down its main public transportation route those decisions come directly at the expense of the city's poorer residents.  I believe this is what Mr. Krumholz is talking about.  I know most of us (myself included) are concentrated on improving the physical appearance and overall "urbanity" of our town.  But calling someone outdated because he cares more about a city's residents than its buildings seems a bit harsh.

well until someone takes the parking lots away from weston, building on the WHD isn't an option. end of story.

 

we do have a public private partnership going.  It's the MM/CC.  It's similar to the Columbus hotel, only our private entity is at least bringing something to the table $25m.  Maybe there is an opportunity down the road for a hotel, but lets get the CC done first.

 

It's amazing so many people don't understand the concept of how you can use public investments to leverage and drive interest in private development.  But if it makes you feel better, continue pretending that the public can develop those lots.  That is certainly your perogative.  Personally I'll continue supporting the people who are working to transform public spaces from rust belt to places that inspire, and make the private sector WANT to make invests around them.  This isn't much different than Euclid Avenue.  I have heard from several developers doing some of the smaller scaled projects (even if they were part of a larger planned area) that said simply they wouldn't have pursued those developments if it wasn't for the public investment of the massive upgrade in infastructure.  There are also certainly cases where entities will move forward regardless of public investment.  The art museum, the clinic, UH. All I'm sure would have moved forward with or without ECTP, but ECTP adds value to them and attracts other investment.  In a different market it may not matter what PS looked like.  developers and tennants would just want to be there.  But that isn't the market.  A reimagined and dynamic PS may be the thing that gets a large corporation who wasn't considering the area to say "this is where we want to be" which in turn could be the piece that gets those projects off the ground.  Again, leveraging private investment with public $.  We can't build the office towers or residential blocks for them, but we certainly can make the most conducive environment to entice them to do it.

 

Also, PS is completely held back by two things, (yes EC) it's incredibly poor upkeep.  But first and foremost the fact that it is the most pedestrian unfriendly public space possibly in the US.  It is dominated by the automobile.  The only time people ever gather there is when traffic is shut off.  We have a great opportunity to reimagine PS, AND to do it in concert with the malls to create a cohesive vision.  And hopefully during this process address a way that the DCA can get back involved in the much needed upkeep.  As 3231 mentioned many posts ago, reimagining this area will do far more for the WHD lots than you can imagine.

It's debatable whether the city can force development on downtown lots (maybe penalize owners for undeveloped lots or taxing parking are two ideas that come to mind).  However, when the city is considering spending money on a greenspace project and closing down its main public transportation route those decisions come directly at the expense of the city's poorer residents.   I believe this is what Mr. Krumholz is talking about.  I know most of us (myself included) are concentrated on improving the physical appearance and overall "urbanity" of our town.  But calling someone outdated because he cares more about a cities residents than its buildings seems a bit harsh.

 

How do those decisions come "directly at the expense of the city's poorer residents?"  I'm not seeing it.

Spending money on parks instead of services and altering transportation routes that are used primarily by poorer residents directly affects poorer residents.

Not to say that money should never be spent on greenspace projects, but there already are some pretty large ones practically connected to public square. 

Spending money on parks instead of services and altering transportation routes that are used primarily by poorer residents directly affects poorer residents.

 

Have you looked into the potential funding sources for these projects? What gives you the idea that the poor will directly affected? Is it possible that this investment could lead to greater tax revenues that are a benefit to the poor in the long run?

First of all, this Shout Box thing is freaking me out.

 

Spending money on parks instead of services and altering transportation routes that are used primarily by poorer residents directly affects poorer residents.

 

Have you looked into the potential funding sources for these projects? What gives you the idea that the poor will directly affected? Is it possible that this investment could lead to greater tax revenues that are a benefit to the poor in the long run?

 

Well, yes, in a roundabout way, but not like new residents would.  Public Square is currently sufficient to attract 1000s of new residents and businesses to serve them.  It ain't perfect, but given the challenges we face right now, it'll do.  The shorter path to more tax revenues would be to add housing for more taxpayers.  The shorter path to higher property values would be better policing.

 

If the money's from the city, it should probably go to police.  If the money's from the county, it should probably go to RTA.  Both agencies are in ugly states right now.  Far uglier than Public Square.  I don't want to rain on anyone's parade...  Ann Zoller sounds like a wonderful person a great asset to the city.  I hope she finds the funding she seeks.  I just don't want it to come from the city or county.  We have some basic nuts & bolts issues we need to address first with those funds.  And we're already in the process of tearing up and rebuilding Perk Park.  Let's wait and see how effective that is before doubling down on that sort of investment.

In summary. I favor a square redesign and agree with McCleveland about what is holding it back. I also understand that by redeveloping such spaces, that it helps to promote surrounding investment. However.........There is one flaw we are still leaving out, and that is, the city's lack of proper maintenance on such a place.

 

It has been demonstrated again and again, and why would redesigning the whole thing make this important aspect of "follow-up" any better? How would you like to have this beautifully redesigned space...bigger and better than ever, and risk it being maintained like at least 2 and a half quadrants of the square and surrounding areas like the perimeters around those gorgeous parking lots....giving even a bigger home for panhandlers and other unsavory fellows?

 

Now, will this happen and be the case? Maybe not, but I am just going by how I see this area currently maintained. As 327 said, it isn't perfect, but it will do for now. But it would then be extremely important if we just keep it cleaner, make it feel safer with a police foot patrol presence.....and curb the panhandling and loitering to erase this image of one giant bus stop, it will make a big difference as it already is.

 

Then when we can LEARN and demonstrate as a city that we can make it the best it can be as its...THEN, I would go to the next step and do the grand dance. Baby steps..baby steps...Then we walk!

^ I agree there are more pressing needs for funds than the immediate redevelopment of PS.  However, we should plan and come to a consensus on the best option so that if funding were to come available suddenly, a la 3C funding, we could take advantage of it.