The Clinic is considering making a proposal to the city to close Euclid Ave between E.105th and E. 89 to all non-Silverline traffic.  Because Euclid Ave will only be one lane each way in that stretch, the Clinic feels like it will be worthless as a traffic artery.  They would landscape the the area to create a a campus-like setting. They have a donor who would pay for the work.

 

What do you guys think?

Um no,

 

What would the road become then? A place to build campus buildings directly onto? More grassy area to make a more suburban office park feel? Closing the road makes no beinifit, and it makes 4 more stops even more useless feeling

Hell no! 

 

This is Cleveland's main street!  It is important to our sense of place that Euclid Ave. remain open, even if it's only one lane in each direction.  Also, closing the street in one place would change traffic patterns on the rest of Euclid, redirecting traffic away from it.  This would make Euclid through Midtown a less visable and therefore less viable commercial corridor.  Isn't the point of the Euclid Corridor to revive Euclid Ave as a mixed use street?

 

This does explain why the Clinic wants to make Chester their front door, however.

^This is separate from the Chester front door idea.  It is a concept at this time. 

 

X, I agree with your statements.  This would take even more traffic off of Euclid.  I don't think that Clinic sees things that way.  They own most of the land between Euclid and Chester. There are some dumpy buildings that will someday be torn down for future expansion. I can see that it would be in the Clinic's interest to create a more campus-like area, but I don't think that its in MidTown's interest.

 

Smackem,

 

They wouldn't build on the street--the Silverline will still be running up and down it. It would become a park-like setting.  Some landscape architect from CA is designing it.

It would set a bad precedent.  The city cannot turn control of the publicly-owned transportation network to private entities.  This is, of course, unless the city really wishes to lose all control of the planning functions it does have. 

 

I'm fed-up enough with all the streets the federal government has closed down in DC in the name of "security"....

But what im saying is that all that you have left is 2 lanes of silver line left, and the other 2 lanes become grass, building an even larger barrier between the clinic and euclid ave. So they might as well use that new land for buildings, make the place less suburban.

 

I mean really does the Taussing Cancer center need more grass in front, does the cole eye institute need a larger landscaped area? I would rather see the city take land away from the clinic, and make the road wider. Their building setbacks are far enough that you could probably do that.

 

Doing stuff like this defeats the purpose of the ECP, providing a contiunous urban corridor that connects two hubs of the city. The only place they could maybe block the road off except for the silver line is up to e4th

While my initial reaction is to say "no thanks," could some good come out of it?

 

How much traffic is there on Euclid in that area?  Carnegie seems to be the primary commuter artery past the Clinic.

 

Maybe it would be good to close off one automobile route through the Clinic campus.  It would make it a more pedestrian-friendly area and might encourage use of the Silver Line.

 

And doesn't the Silver line include bike lanes?  Cyclists would be happy to cut off auto traffic, even for a few blocks.

 

Edited:  And I agree that the city shouldn't give the land to the Clinic, but I don't have any problem with the city selling or leasing the land (reverse eminent domain?)

 

I'd need to know more about the actual plans and I'll have to drive through that area, but maybe I could be convinced....  I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss it.

Closing off streets is almost never a good idea, as it disrupts the traffic grid, concentrating more vehicles onto less roadway, and eliminating redundancy in the network.  Furthermore, surrender or sale of the publicly-owned right-of-way could potentially restrict access to existing utilities under the street, or limit expansion of the transit service through the area.

 

I just don't see how this could be a *good* idea.

Dan,

 

If the city sells the land, why not just load it up with a bunch of easements so that the city can go in later and do what it wants?

Does the Clinic want to own the land?  They want the City to vacate the right of way completely?

I wasn't sure how I felt about this until I started writing some thoughts and asking some questions.

 

My first question is why is the Clinic proposing something like this when the front of its buildings at sidewalk level are of benefit to only those who have business in the upper floors? What use would this plaza have? Wouldn't it end up being just a larger, albeit prettier sidewalk that's just as empty as what's there today?

 

I guess something like this would actually be worth considering if the Clinic's buildings had sidewalk-level frontage that was mixed use. That might make it an active, interesting, diverse, sociable area. But without the mixed-use frontage, I can see this plaza area being like a park in a bowl, making it a dead, faceless and scary place.

I don't know what to think of this.. if I like the idea or not, but it seems to me that this is like a way to create a barrier/wall to the currently lacking MidTown..

seems like an odd way for the clinic to be spending time, money and effort.

my first reaction is that this is a terrible idea and defeats the purpose of ECP and truly connecting donwtown and UC. 

 

However, if investment was done properly and other roads were significantly improved around this area, it could work.  ie, creating a signature blvd or circle around the clinic with improved traffic flow, landscpaing, etc., utilizing Chester and Carnegie. 

 

here is a graphic posted by mayday on a demolition thread: