Personally, Public Square is an embarrassment to the city, and greatly displays the lack of historic preservation in the city.

 

Look at Public Square in the past. The building uses added to the life of the square, unlike what sits there today. Imagine how amazing the square would be if these buildings still existed today. It would easily be the most active, and beautiful part of the city, instead of the useless space most of use avoid today, if not on purpose, then just based on the lack of purpose/use.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This thread is going to be ugly.  The streetcars certainly do look sexier than the modern day RTA busses and people certainly wore their "Sunday clothes" more often back then.  But, on the other hand, what I see in those pictures looks like a lot of crowds outside waiting for public transportation, which isn't that much different than what we have today.  Point being..... same use, just different times.

^What he said.  Is this thread necessary as we have plenty of PS discussions in other threads.  I see much re-hashing coming up.

^^ I think it appears that way because the pictures are more focused on the quadrants, and less on the surrounding buildings, which what my focus is. If you look at the sidewalks, they have great to decent foot-traffic. And the buildings on the square back then are far more practical for the space and far more attractive. Imagine all those buildings being filled today with local businesses and apartments, with ground level filled with shops and restaurants, with patios on the sidewalk. And the park right across the street. It would be a great scene.

 

And I think if people remain just civil there is no reason this thread shouldnt stay under control! :)

Certainly nothing wrong with posting historic photos to draw inspiration for Public Square redesign, but no reason to do this in a new thread.  And never any reason to give a thread such an "asking for trouble" name.

^^I get it..... but if those buildings still existed, some of them would look like the Stanley Block and, in typical Cleveland fashion, we would hear complaints about how unimpressive our skyline is.

^^I get it..... but if those buildings still existed, some of them would look like the Stanley Block and, in typical Cleveland fashion, we would hear complaints about how unimpressive our skyline is.

 

f$&k the skyline! Ha!, the best areas of most cities are streets with NO skyscrapers! :-P

 

And Stanley Block has a worse location and poor ownership which could have contributed to its demise. I would imagine these buildings being all in great shape, like East 4th and the Warehouse District!

I think Public Square is great.  If the question is whether Cleveland can become a medium-sized Victorian city again, I would be inclined to say no.

Certainly nothing wrong with posting historic photos to draw inspiration for Public Square redesign, but no reason to do this in a new thread.  And never any reason to give a thread such an "asking for trouble" name.

 

I just think a redesign is basically impossible. Yes you can redesign the park, but the current buildings arent going anywhere, and they are the main issue!

 

And I dont think there is anything wrong with asking a question. Our city has some serious problems. I dont want to pretend its all perfect and that Public Square is a great space, because its not, its a joke. Maybe I could have worded it better though.

 

And I dont want to post it in the Public Square redesign thread, because its not a development!(Even though I wish there were some news)

I agree this should be merged with the other Public Square thread. As previous posters have said, it was just a different time. Sure it would be nice to have buildings like that back at the Square and occupied, but given the presence of the huge office buildings surrouding the majority of the square, I doubt it will occur. There is interest in reinventing the square to make it more useable as mentioned in the other thread...

I just think a redesign is basically impossible. Yes you can redesign the park, but the current buildings arent going anywhere, and they are the main issue!

 

I guess I just fundamentally disagree with your inferred point that being lined with small retail storefronts is the only way public square can be relevant or nice or whatever adjective we want to use.  And even if there were filled storefronts lining much of square, I'd still think the current configuration was a horrible waste of public space.

I just think a redesign is basically impossible. Yes you can redesign the park, but the current buildings arent going anywhere, and they are the main issue!

 

I guess I just fundamentally disagree with your inferred point that being lined with small retail storefronts is the only way public square can be relevant or nice or whatever adjective we want to use.  And even if there were filled storefronts lining much of square, I'd still think the current configuration was a horrible waste of public space.

 

I definitely agree that the current configuration is horrible. Improving that, will definitely help the square.

 

But when I look the best Public Squares/spaces around the United States, and the World, they dont look or feel like our Public Square. They aren't lined with skyscrapers and other buildings with terrible interactions with the street.

 

And its not just the new buildings. 200 Public Square and Key Tower are horrible additions to Public Square, if you want to base it on street life and interaction with the square. But the old courthouse is arguably worse. That just creates a large wall to walk next to, with no entrances or anything. Atleast the Towers feed onto the square, if the employees arent just walking to the attached garages. Look at the corner where the courthouse and Key Tower meet. It is one of the most lifeless parts of the square. Im fine with height, dont get me wrong. If Key Tower would have been lined with retail spaces, it would have been a huge difference. Maybe it can be reconfigured.

Many of the buildings formerly surrounding the square do indeed have some amazing architectural details. Too bad they are coated with the pollution of the time.

 

Would love to see one of our young, bright forumers with p-shop skills work up how those building s might look today after being restored and cleaned of all the soot. (color optional)

 

Wow those are some beautiful pictures.

I hesitated posting this but here goes.  Our current square has two fountains, a park like area (northwest quadrant), and a lot of people waiting for public transportation.  The difference between those photos and today is - wait for it - the color of the people waiting for public transportation.  I have always suspected that the negative perceptions of Public Square have more to do with the people on the square then anything else.  I live downtown and walk through Public Square every day.  I have never seen all of the alleged activities like drugs, muggings, etc.  Personally, I like Public Square.  I lamented the lack of a Public Equate when I lived in Chicago.  OK, I have said my peace.  Be gentle.

I apologize for the typos.  I was using my cell phone and I can not find the edit button.

^ The difference I see is the loss of amazing buildings, that had great interaction with the street, streetcars, a the crowds of people. It has nothing to do with skin color. Not everybody is racist, and it is annoying to always hear that argument.

 

In the pictures at least, you dont see any bums or homeless, or anyone sitting on the ground with a cup asking for money. I know women who dont like walking through public square because they get inappropriate comments, which is completely wrong, and can make a women feel extremely unsafe/uncomfortable. I bet one of our female posters can comment on that. Cars taking over the square also ruined it.

 

I have personally seen fights, yelling, and public urination. And LITTERING(well the aftermath of it)

 

I would like to see Public Square become a gathering place but the current layouts is terrible for that. Also the city's planning doesn't make much sense with the Malls awkwardly near by, competing for crowds. I still dont know why the group plan faced all the buildings away from the mall.

I walked through today and it felt pretty vibrant to me.  Tons of people sitting around. laughing, yelling, full of life.  I thought that was the point of public spaces like this

 

Also, this feels like an offshoot of your 'how the terminal tower ruined public square' thread.

I think all we have to do to fix Public Square is institute and enforce a dress code.  Solved.

I love Public Square...it's a very vibrant area...full off ppl trying to get to one location to the other...

Public square was named the 7th worst square in need of improvement by Project for Public Spaces.

http://www.pps.org/articles/underperformingus/

 

Ideally I would like to see Ontario and Superior closed and parking garage placed underneath the park(like millenium park). This would be a huge improvement. From there you need some landscape architects to design something awesome for Public Square, but something not repetitive of the Mall.

 

I estimate about 518 parking spots could be placed underneath Public Square, making the Warehouse District Lots again less desirable. It could also connect underground to the Casino and Tower City, as well as having entrances onto the park. Maybe Dan Gilbert would interested, and help finance it since it could serve the Casino.

I do think that some of the concerns about Public Square are race-related. I don't doubt that there are problems on Public Square, but I have personally not seen them (except for seeing a young, white Occupy protester getting arrested while his buddy filmed it).

 

When the mayor, who claims to be a public transit supporter, urges that the buses be moved off the square after more than 150 years of it serving as the city's primary transit hub, it tells me that someone is pulling his strings on that one. Politicians usually don't have original ideas (sorry Frank), so when a politician has an idea, it was usually put there by someone else with some deep pockets. And I suspect that someone is a property owner(s) or developer(s) with interests involving Public Square. I hate to say it, but the newest interests on the square are the folks involved with the casino. They seem to see transit and their working-class riders as the antithesis to the glitz and glamour of their casino. If so, then they picked the wrong address for it.

They seem to see transit and their working-class riders as the antithesis to the glitz and glamour of their casino.

 

I will have to disagree with that statement. Considering the fact that Rock Gaming chose to place the casino on top of a transit center and in the middle of a transit hub like Public Square tells me they do see the value in public transportation. They could have chose not to do the heavy lifting and build it at Crocker Park and saved themselves a lot of headaches.

I think they put it in the Higbee building to tie it in with Tower City Center and its two high-class hotels. If you look at the development team for the casino, it's a whos-who of suburban shopping center developers. Their philosophy places a higher value on parking spaces than urban settings. Ask the folks over at Historic Gateway Inc who sought to try to protect downtown's urban fabric from the developers whose foremost priority was parking. Transit is 'barely' on their radar.

 

The point of my statement is that Mayor Jackson, long a transit proponent, is advocating something that has not been done for more than 150 years in this city -- eliminate Public Square as a transit hub. Why?

Public square was named the 7th worst square in need of improvement by Project for Public Spaces.

http://www.pps.org/articles/underperformingus/

 

Ideally I would like to see Ontario and Superior closed and parking garage placed underneath the park(like millenium park). This would be a huge improvement. From there you need some landscape architects to design something awesome for Public Square, but something not repetitive of the Mall.

 

[/color]I estimate about 518 parking spots could be placed underneath Public Square, making the Warehouse District Lots again less desirable. It could also connect underground to the Casino and Tower City, as well as having entrances onto the park. Maybe Dan Gilbert would interested, and help finance it since it could serve the Casino.

 

I'm not calling you an ass, but I find this asinine!  We do not need any additional parking in the center of the city.  What positive could come from the additional 518 spaces considering there is an overabundance of parking within a 300/350 yard radius of the square.  Why do we need to emulate millennium park? 

 

I'm not calling you an ass, but I find this asinine!  We do not need any additional parking in the center of the city.  What positive could come from the additional 518 spaces considering there is an overabundance of parking within a 300/350 yard radius of the square.  Why do we need to emulate millennium park? 

 

"making the Warehouse District Lots again less desirable" 

 

The WHD lots are in my eyes a far bigger problem than whatever's supposedly wrong with Public Square (which if you ask me has a lot to do with the WHD lots themselves) and indeed replacing them with new development. They're just awful, and if we could be rid of them by way of replacing them with something underground it would be unquestionably positive.  As far as I know, though, I don't think it's feasible structurally due to what's beneath the square.

I think they put it in the Higbee building to tie it in with Tower City Center and its two high-class hotels. If you look at the development team for the casino, it's a whos-who of suburban shopping center developers. Their philosophy places a higher value on parking spaces than urban settings. Ask the folks over at Historic Gateway Inc who sought to try to protect downtown's urban fabric from the developers whose foremost priority was parking. Transit is 'barely' on their radar.

 

The point of my statement is that Mayor Jackson, long a transit proponent, is advocating something that has not been done for more than 150 years in this city -- eliminate Public Square as a transit hub. Why?

 

Well I will only say that I don't expect Dan Gilbert to solve all of our transit problems by May 14th. Those are decades in the making. All I know is we have a billionaire who has shown an interest in developing in the urban core and Cleveland will only benefit. 5 years down the road let's see who has made a more significant impact. Some of the parties you have listed above have been extremely negligent up to this point in making a difference. And to keep things on topic regarding Public Square I am confident you will see this project effecting transit in a positive way, now and in the future. Hopefully those involved in transit decisions will be smart enough to notice.

Public square was named the 7th worst square in need of improvement by Project for Public Spaces.

http://www.pps.org/articles/underperformingus/

 

Ideally I would like to see Ontario and Superior closed and parking garage placed underneath the park(like millenium park). This would be a huge improvement. From there you need some landscape architects to design something awesome for Public Square, but something not repetitive of the Mall.

 

[/color]I estimate about 518 parking spots could be placed underneath Public Square, making the Warehouse District Lots again less desirable. It could also connect underground to the Casino and Tower City, as well as having entrances onto the park. Maybe Dan Gilbert would interested, and help finance it since it could serve the Casino.

 

I'm not calling you an ass, but I find this asinine!  We do not need any additional parking in the center of the city.  What positive could come from the additional 518 spaces considering there is an overabundance of parking within a 300/350 yard radius of the square.  Why do we need to emulate millennium park? 

 

Just thinking, if we are going to rip up public square, it could be useful to hide parking away underground. It would make other lots less desirable/profitable, as well as bring people right to public square. If you had pedestrian exits and entrances on the square people would be walking through the square to leave and get back to their car, increasing the amount of people walking through the park.

 

And Millenium Park is now Chicagos second highest tourist attraction, just behind Navy Pier. So clearly it has been successful, has driven a lot of development around it, and is always a fun active area. Nothing wrong with that!

Improving Public Square could drive development on the Public Square lot, as well as the nearby Warehouse District lots.

Public square was named the 7th worst square in need of improvement by Project for Public Spaces.

http://www.pps.org/articles/underperformingus/

 

Ideally I would like to see Ontario and Superior closed and parking garage placed underneath the park(like millenium park). This would be a huge improvement. From there you need some landscape architects to design something awesome for Public Square, but something not repetitive of the Mall.

 

[/color]I estimate about 518 parking spots could be placed underneath Public Square, making the Warehouse District Lots again less desirable. It could also connect underground to the Casino and Tower City, as well as having entrances onto the park. Maybe Dan Gilbert would interested, and help finance it since it could serve the Casino.

 

I'm not calling you an ass, but I find this asinine!  We do not need any additional parking in the center of the city.  What positive could come from the additional 518 spaces considering there is an overabundance of parking within a 300/350 yard radius of the square.  Why do we need to emulate millennium park? 

 

Just thinking, if we are going to rip up public square, it could be useful to hide parking away underground. It would make other lots less desirable/profitable, as well as bring people right to public square. If you had pedestrian exits and entrances on the square people would be walking through the square to leave and get back to their car, increasing the amount of people walking through the park.

 

And Millenium Park is now Chicagos second highest tourist attraction, just behind Navy Pier. So clearly it has been successful, has driven a lot of development around it, and is always a fun active area. Nothing wrong with that!

Improving Public Square could drive development on the Public Square lot, as well as the nearby Warehouse District lots.

 

Public Square doesn't need any additional parking street level or below.  There is an overabundance of parking gargages near by, again, why would we need to add any additional spaces?  Especially if the WHD lots are not going anywhere?  Even if those lots are developed, we dont need the additional space.

 

Public square do to it's location will always have some sort of bus/transit feature.  Would I like to see it resemble something like Washington Square or Rittenhouse Square in Philly;  Linclon Park in DC; Washington Sq. Park in NYC yes in layout and landscape.  But trying to turn it into Mill. Park is ridiculous.  I don't want Public Square to lose its soul, history or identity.  It must remain uniquely Cleveland and serve a number or purposes, not including parking!