Assuming a TC cc, I'd like the increased sales tax revenue to also go towards adapting the old cc for a sustainable and beneficial use. We really can't let the old cc become an after thought in this process.

 

I agree! If the TC site is used, and then we just have a hulking, empty waste of space on the lakefront, and the TC site was only used because of its proximity to the May Co building and TC, etc, then I'd rather use the lakefront site. I think all of these things definitely need to be taken into consideration, and hopefully, if people in charge are wise, they are.

I take back everything I just said/posted:

 

cleveland.com:

 

Committees formed to push Med Mart effort

Posted by Sarah Hollander August 30, 2007 12:17PM

Categories: Breaking News

 

Now that a quarter penny sales tax is set to go into effect Oct. 1 to pay for a new convention center, the Greater Cleveland Partnership has set up four committees to shape plans for the center and a Medical Mart.

 

The groups will help "put the meat on the bone" for the project, said Fred Nance, chairman of the partnership who is helping to broker a deal that would bring the mart to Cleveland...

 

 

more at:  http://www.cleveland.com

I know this is a whole new dynamic with the Medical Mart and all and the fact that we now actually know where the $$$ is coming from, but it seems like we have been doing "studies" and planning for my entire life in regards to the convention center.  How about the powers that be get their butts moving and fast track this baby.  Do it right of course, but don't talk it to death (and how about taking advantage of some of the past planning to speed things up).

^ I agree. This needs to happen. I've already got a business idea that could benefit from this medical capital stuff.... :)

^a used scalpel store?

cle2032 and mytwosense: I am pro-civic center site for the same reasons.

 

The Civic Center is a unique place with the Mall, near the lake, harbor, and a great opportunity to get the Lakefront plan excelerated.

 

From Merchadise Mart's perspective, however, I can see where Tower City seems to be a better and easier choice with room for a new convention center and a medical mart, and Forest City as a partner. It makes sense to a certain degree, but it still leaves the question, what is going to happen to the current site? I'm glad that it is being offered for film production, but that still isn't enough to do with the site. But maybe now with the sales tax increase, Forest City doesn't have as much influence.

 

This is how I see it:

 

The current site makes sense for those that want the building to serve as a bridge to the lakefront.

 

The Tower City site makes sense for actually attracting convention business to Cleveland.

The only thing that bothers me about the Tower City site is Forest City's asking price for building on their land. Is it really $40 million? If so, I'd be tempted to rebuild the existing convention center and use the $40 million to:

 

> subsidize the construction of a convention center hotel, or

> build a better county administration building that retains the AT Tower, or

> force ODOT's hand at relocating the Inner Belt via I-490 and north through the Cedar Estates area, while relocating its residents to mixed-income housing rather than the human warehouses they're kept in now, or

> take care of all the capital cost needs of a West Shore commuter rail line while having enough money left over to pay its operating costs for two years

This is how I see it:

 

The current site makes sense for those that want the building to serve as a bridge to the lakefront.

 

The Tower City site makes sense for actually attracting convention business to Cleveland.

 

You might want to read the planning report that was done on the two sites again.  The TC site was considered deficient in a number of regards as a convention center site.

 

 

That hasn't stopped them from considering it as a potential site, though.

So we're back to 13 potential sites - unless they're just feeding us crap.

 

I wonder what the Convention Facilities Authority has to say about this. Their site is still up: http://www.conventioncleveland.com/

 

crain's:

 

GCP gears up medical mart effort

 

By JAY MILLER

 

1:13 pm, August 30, 2007

 

The Greater Cleveland Partnership is moving ahead with its effort to bring a new medical merchandise mart to Cleveland.

 

The chamber of commerce group today announced the formation of four advisory groups to make the medical mart happen and to position Northeast Ohio as a medical industry center.

 

 

More at crainscleveland.com http://www.crainscleveland.com

I'm all for them taking a look at what are the most viable sites.  I have a feeling since Nance is involved it should be a pretty honest assessment of locations.  13 seems a lot but whatever.  It shouldn't be hard to quickly whittle that 13 down to a reasonable 4 or 5 sites to do a deeper analysis.  Why do a full-blown analysis of all 13 if there's things 5-8 sites will be obviously lacking.  Most of the work would seem to be done but may need to be revisited and updated with current numbers.  This should be done relatively openly since the public will be paying for this.  I look forward to some sweet powerpoint presentations from the GCP.

As stated before, we have been studying where to put the convention center since the Campbell administration.  It frustrates me to hear that there are even more studies that are about to take place. 

I am wondering if the sites originally studied are up for reconsideration? Norfolk Southern (maybe), Warehouse District (probably not), Erieview (too late - Avenue District), and the one I actually really liked - Port Authority land west of the Stadium.

 

Something about this plan I really liked. Opinions?

 

(sorry for the grainy scans)

 

scroll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like the port authority plan only if Pesht gets built out and the road network is taken to the lake.  Otherwise, I feal as though it is an island development that doesn't feed current downtown retailers.  Architecturally, I think it is great.

Would there be any way the new CC could push back into the existing structures, like the movie theater and food court? 

 

Just trying to figure out a way to get it away from the river

I think Stark's proposal give this plan new feet. It is a good way to extend the WHD and FEB northward.

Definitely. I really love that plan. I also like how it bridges things to the lakefront .. the addition of the parks and everything there look really great, and I think it could be an awesome plan.

 

How likely is it that the port authority will give up their land in time for the cc, though?

^^^^Simply gorgeous.  It doesn't seem like the whole complex and hotel(s) are being shoe horned into a tight space.  It feels very open and purposeful. 

that lakefront site looks great but aren't residents and many here, looking for way that residents can reclaim/reconnect with the lakefront?

 

Putting a new convention center on the lakefront would kill that and kill any chance for residential housing and leisure spots on the lakefront.

 

I think housing there would be a much better fit.

I can't think of a much worse use for the Lakefront than a convention center that Cleveland residents won't often use. (well maybe a large surface parking lot- oops this plan contains that too)  I'd much rather see Pesht built than this, and I don't think you can have both.  That little mixed use neighborhood will be an isolated island behind the megastructure of the convention center.  And doesn't the conference center package look a lot like retro 50's modernism planning to anyone else?  The sweeping, modern buildings, each set back behind it's own little lawn?

 

Heck, I'd rather see the CC go to the TC site than this.

Perhaps you should have another looksy at the two master plans. Plan scheme 1 consist of cc, hotel and conference hotel. Scheme 2 does include a mixed-use neighborhood. Both show the cc with a green roof (similar to the current location. Parking is essential to the area due to its proximity to the stadium; this shows it up graded and partially contained within the structure.

 

Other pluses:

Using RTA Waterfront Line

120 slip public marina

3.001 million sq ft total surface area

1.216 million is green space = 40% green space (parks, trails, and so on)

45,000 sq ft residential

 

minus:

needs to wait for the port to move - too long

 

 

Those plusses need to be balanced against the other potential uses for that property.  I don't think a convention center is the "highest and best use", especially if there is a chance that Stark can get Pesht rolling.

I agree. I see an opportunity (although highly unlikely) for this to be part of Pesht.

The design of the center is excellent compared to what preliminaries we have seen thus far.. but i think that it stands alone in that aspect and all that land is better used to extend pesht. the CC is much more beneficial to the city in TC or the mall site... nice work getting the renderings!

Does anybody care to take a guess at the 13 sites that will be under consideration?

 

Sure bets:

-Behind TC

-The mall

-The port - to the west of CBS

 

Possibilities?

-Over the train tracks to the south of Science Center

-Naval Center (possible to put this thing partially over water?)

-Amtrek station at Ninth and Shoreway

-Burke

-Whiskey Island

-Pesht (if plans fall through)

-The parking lots area immediately to the SW of CBS and south of FEB

-other side of river across from TC

If I recall correctly, there was also some talk about reviewing a couple of sites outside of downtown, namely in University Circle in order to take advantage of proximity to the Clinic and UH.

 

As far as site selection goes, this proximity also seems like a key consideration. Given that one of the reasons Cleveland is well-positioned for a Medical Mart is that potential buyers could see new equipment in action at the Clinic or UH, I would think it would be important to have quick and reliable transportation routes to these sites. Among the two lead sites, TC might have an upper leg with Red Line and Silver Line access available to University Circle (whereas the mall site would require a walk to Public Square or taking the Waterfront Line back to Tower City).

I'd agree that sites are likely to stretch from CBD to UC.  To make the cut to a reasonable 5 or so they will have to look at sites with a big enough footprint to accommodate what will be needed in a CC, MM, and hotels.  The other major factor will be easy access via road and the rapid.  So I feel that a convention center will have to be pretty close to a station or be able to have rail extended to it relatively easily.  Because of this, there should be some representation of RTA on their site selection committee.

Didn't think of that one... I agree that sites in UC should definitely be in the running. Perhaps where Case got a little overzealous with its expansion plans??? The site of the hospital that got torn down??

 

However, I think that CBD is best for Cleveland as a whole (UC has plenty of out-of-towners heading there already for health care, education, training and/or culture - hence, plenty of money) and that is the type of impact that the committee is seeking.

 

I love the idea that Nance is in charge and have every bit of faith that he will guide the committee to do what is best for the City irrespective of private interests (i.e. Forest City).

 

My vote would be on the west end of the Mall in place of the County admin building and anything else that stands in its way. It is a beautiful area with the green spaces, the old courthouse, City Hall and the Civil Center. It would be within walking distance of the WHD, FEB, East 4th, TC and, to an extent, the Theatre District. It would also be a hop, skip and jump from any lakefront plans that may come to fruition - i.e. in the area of the sure-to-be-goner naval center or the port.

That's probably true.  I was a kid then and wasn't paying much attention, but I thought, "Well where else would you put it?" 

 

That kind of naive thinking is actually kind of legitimate looking at it in retrospect.  Lots of people complain about the placement of the new stadium but I've never heard any well-thought arguments for other sites.  I'll stop before I go farther off-topic.

So, has there been a peep out of the medical mart people since the tax was not overturned?

that lakefront site looks great but aren't residents and many here, looking for way that residents can reclaim/reconnect with the lakefront?

 

Putting a new convention center on the lakefront would kill that and kill any chance for residential housing and leisure spots on the lakefront.

 

I think housing there would be a much better fit.

 

I'm in complete agreement here (and with X). A project on this site would not only kill any chance of Pesht making it to the waterfront, it would be another misguided attempt by the city to build for tourists, and not its own residents. A CC here would complete the wall stretching from Burke along the lake to the river. You'd have the 9th st. pier and Voinovich Park for real public access. Every other place you'd have to pay to enter: Rock Hall, GLSC, Browns Stadium, the CC. Where's the street-level retail? Where's the residential? Where's the port? And as nice as the renderings for that building look, the last thing we need is the last, best piece of waterfont land taken up and used for a monstrous, non-public building surrounded by useless, decorative "greenspace". Thankfully, the time it would take the port to move makes this site a non-starter.

 

Concerning sites within UC, the only site that really jumps out at me is the proposed "west quad" space case was going to partner with FCE on. Pushing aside the issues of highest and best use, connectivity, development spin-off and all that jazz; where does all that potential truck traffic into and out of UC get routed from the interstates?

I don't think this baby goes to UC.

 

It's between TC and the existing CC site. I support the TC site; but I'd really like to see a better design for that bldg before I sign off on it. :-D

Oh god, no, not the West Quad site. That would be really bad for so many reasons (including a lot of planning work that has been going on lately).

that lakefront site looks great but aren't residents and many here, looking for way that residents can reclaim/reconnect with the lakefront?

 

Putting a new convention center on the lakefront would kill that and kill any chance for residential housing and leisure spots on the lakefront.

 

I think housing there would be a much better fit.

 

I'm in complete agreement here (and with X). A project on this site would not only kill any chance of Pesht making it to the waterfront, it would be another misguided attempt by the city to build for tourists, and not its own residents. A CC here would complete the wall stretching from Burke along the lake to the river. You'd have the 9th st. pier and Voinovich Park for real public access. Every other place you'd have to pay to enter: Rock Hall, GLSC, Browns Stadium, the CC. Where's the street-level retail? Where's the residential? Where's the port? And as nice as the renderings for that building look, the last thing we need is the last, best piece of waterfont land taken up and used for a monstrous, non-public building surrounded by useless, decorative "greenspace". Thankfully, the time it would take the port to move makes this site a non-starter.

 

Concerning sites within UC, the only site that really jumps out at me is the proposed "west quad" space case was going to partner with FCE on. Pushing aside the issues of highest and best use, connectivity, development spin-off and all that jazz; where does all that potential truck traffic into and out of UC get routed from the interstates?

I don't think this baby goes to UC.

 

It's between TC and the existing CC site. I support the TC site; but I'd really like to see a better design for that bldg before I sign off on it. :-D

 

Maybe its just my computer (and everyone I use), but the plans I am looking at SHOW HOUSING IN THE PROJECT.

 

I should call my tech guy to get my screen fixed... oh, and my scanner, since I scanned the images... oh, and the printer, who printed the planning study. Perhaps I just need glasses.

 

:-D

Oh god, no, not the West Quad site. That would be really bad for so many reasons (including a lot of planning work that has been going on lately).

 

Maybe I should post it in the West Quad or UC thread, but are you saying that the West Quad development is getting ready to move ahead?

No, but things around it are moving ahead (in very different stages).

that lakefront site looks great but aren't residents and many here, looking for way that residents can reclaim/reconnect with the lakefront?

 

Putting a new convention center on the lakefront would kill that and kill any chance for residential housing and leisure spots on the lakefront.

 

I think housing there would be a much better fit.

 

I'm in complete agreement here (and with X). A project on this site would not only kill any chance of Pesht making it to the waterfront, it would be another misguided attempt by the city to build for tourists, and not its own residents. A CC here would complete the wall stretching from Burke along the lake to the river. You'd have the 9th st. pier and Voinovich Park for real public access. Every other place you'd have to pay to enter: Rock Hall, GLSC, Browns Stadium, the CC. Where's the street-level retail? Where's the residential? Where's the port? And as nice as the renderings for that building look, the last thing we need is the last, best piece of waterfont land taken up and used for a monstrous, non-public building surrounded by useless, decorative "greenspace". Thankfully, the time it would take the port to move makes this site a non-starter.

 

Concerning sites within UC, the only site that really jumps out at me is the proposed "west quad" space case was going to partner with FCE on. Pushing aside the issues of highest and best use, connectivity, development spin-off and all that jazz; where does all that potential truck traffic into and out of UC get routed from the interstates?

I don't think this baby goes to UC.

 

It's between TC and the existing CC site. I support the TC site; but I'd really like to see a better design for that bldg before I sign off on it. :-D

 

Maybe its just my computer (and everyone I use), but the plans I am looking at SHOW HOUSING IN THE PROJECT.

 

I should call my tech guy to get my screen fixed... oh, and my scanner, since I scanned the images... oh, and the printer, who printed the planning study. Perhaps I just need glasses.

 

:-D

 

Maybe one of us has a warped screen, because I see housing, but just a little sliver wedged between the massive convention center and the river.  Seems a little isolated from the rest of downtown to me, but then again maybe my screen is warped. :-D  Or maybe my eyes are crossed. :-P

For f#ck's sake, people - keep the d@mned thread on topic!

 

I can't think of a much worse use for the Lakefront than a convention center that Cleveland residents won't often use. (well maybe a large surface parking lot- oops this plan contains that too)  I'd much rather see Pesht built than this, and I don't think you can have both.  That little mixed use neighborhood will be an isolated island behind the megastructure of the convention center.  And doesn't the conference center package look a lot like retro 50's modernism planning to anyone else?  The sweeping, modern buildings, each set back behind it's own little lawn?

 

Heck, I'd rather see the CC go to the TC site than this.

 

 

ditto. exactly why it should and hopefully will remain mostly buried under the mall site where it is now. cc's should be heard about and not seen, they kill streetlife & access -- the footprint is too massive.

 

All I know is, if it is placed on the TC site, Forest City better develop Scranton Peninsula. We don't need our convention guests looking across the river at the garbage that's there now.

 

Also, I agree that we need a major hotel, even larger than the one shown in the rendering. Hopefully Jacobs can put a large hotel in his Skyscraper, just like he planned to have the Hyatt in the Ameritrust Center. We need a new 1 Public Square.

It's bad enough that those staying at the Ritz have to look at it. If owned one of the slivers of land on Scranton Peninsula that FCE doesn't and was feeling rebellious, I'd put up a sign "Forest City Enterprises owns the rest of this forsaken peninsula."

 

As for a convention hotel, Jacobs' Public Square lot would be a good place. So would the triangle at Superior and Prospect. Or the undeveloped spot at Huron and Ontario where the "We are witnesses" banner hangs. Or the "missing tooth" between the Rockefeller Building and the Perry-Payne Building. Or....

 

GE institute in Cleveland serves as Medical Mart model

Sunday, September 09, 2007

By Frank Bentayou

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Northeast Ohio hopes to create a Medical Mart that holds the promise of drawing thousands of visiting professionals to 50 trade shows a year.

 

The mart could bring millions of dollars into the region, according to Merchandise Mart Properties Inc. MMPI is the Chicago developer proposing the venture in conjunction with new downtown convention conference centers.

 

A model for the Medical Mart has operated on the East Side for decades and plans to increase out-of-town visitors for professional and training seminars...

 

more at: http://www.cleveland.com

WHat is the footprint of the present day commisioner office building and would it be feasible to build a hotel on that corner.

The parcel (which includes both county buildings) is about 280 x 270 ft.

The site has a large enough footprint (compare it to the Marriott at Key Center) - building a hotel on that particular site may or not be feasible (soil conditions, etc.):

 

who the f is frantz pastorious?

building a hotel on that particular site may or not be feasible (soil conditions, etc.):

 

I also don't know how appealing it would be to build an upscale hotel directly across the street from the justice center.

who the f is frantz pastorious?

 

Francis Daniel Pastorius, (September 26, 1651 - c. January 1, 1720), was the founder of Germantown, Pennsylvania, now part of Philadelphia, the first permanent German settlement and the gateway for subsequent emigrants from Germany.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Daniel_Pastorius

 

Franz Daniel Pastorius Boulevard, adjacent to the Convention Center (between Lakeside and Ontario) in downtown Cleveland was named for him at the request of the Federation of German-American Societies of Greater Cleveland in 1983 when it sponsored the German-American Tricentennial Celebration here.

 

http://www.fogas.org/germanday.htm

 

Knowledge is power!

The sound of the Justice Center HVAC machinery is ridiculous.

They can make it three sided, like the holiday inn that has no windows facing the lake  :roll: