http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20080320/FREE/858063736/1008&Profile=1008

 

County OK's convention center/med mart deal

By JAY MILLER

March 20, 2008

 

Cuyahoga County commissioners today unanimously approved a preliminary agreement to join with a Chicago-based company to build and operate a new convention center and medical mart complex in Cleveland.

 

The deal with Merchandise Mart Properties Inc. limits the county’s financial risk and creates an opportunity to use the tax advantages of private ownership.

 

Essentially, the county will choose the site and Merchandise Mart Properties will build and own the complex. However, Merchandise Mart Properties then will lease the complex to the county, which will sublease the operation to the developer. The nominal private ownership likely will allow the project to be eligible for a variety of tax credits that would not be available to a publicly owned facility...

 

 

Okay. I'm feeling a bit more at ease about this whole thing. I'm glad that they are opening the site selection to a public hearing. I think this is extremely beneficial to the project, and even if people don't come to an absolute consensus because of the public openness, it will at least keep it open instead of hiding the selection process behind closed doors, which I think is ridiculous to even contemplate.

 

Also, I think it's good that MMPI will be responsible for cost overruns. I think it's important to saddle as much of the cost as possible on private shoulders, within fairness. A project like this shouldn't expect the county's taxpayers to carry the entirety of the cost.

I'm going to smack the dead horse one more time too in asking this question:

 

Why are we making such a huge deal about someone having to walk across Public Square in February just to go from TC to the current CC?!  Really!  Why do we expect people to be protected from all of the elements when they visit Cleveland?  Are we embarrassed b/c it's cold and snowy here in the winters?Hardly anything like an unzipped pant zipper!  I'm so sick of hearing/seeing that point being addressed as to why TC would make a better site! :x

 

I'm for keeping the CC at the current site b/c:

1.  Inherent potential for the Mall to connect all corners of downtown as a result of the activity and spinoff development of the new CC/MM.  It's at the center of it all-WHD, Gateway, North Coast, Business Dist., Playhouse, ETC.

 

As the trek across the square isn't long, the current site is more centralized and more importantly, think it will be way harder to fill the void of an even more vacant Mall if it moves to TC. 

 

2.  TC doesn't suck now b/c there isn't a CC attached to it.  As a transit hub with a 50 story skyscraper and two hotels attached to it, and with some TLC and $$$, there's no reason it can't be the region's best shopping center--or at the very least, a shopping center providing useful amenities to the residents and visitors of downtown, OC, and Tremont. 

 

Even if we didn't get the MM, there's not reason to believe that TC should never improve.  Some people/owners are too cheap.   

Why are we making such a huge deal about someone having to walk across Public Square in February just to go from TC to the current CC?!  Really!

 

Agreed, unless they're all staying at the Ritz they're going to need to go outside regardless of where the center is located. This point seems to be missed when thinking one will never need to leave TC even if the CC is located there.

I think the current CC site people are over estimating the impact the new convention center will have on developing the waterfront.  The current one is still yet to do that.

That was never it's intent.  I don't think anyone is stating the mall CC will fast track develepment on the waterfront.

 

The convention center became obsolete when the IX center opened.  So no "expansion" money went into it.  Now we have an oportunity to correct:

• The past problems of the convention center ALONE. While expanding it to meet current and future needs.
  
• Move conventions from the IX where no spin off activity occurs to Downtown and create future development of hotels
  
• Improve patronage of current, restaurants, transit options, hotels and other amentities
  

 

following along on this discussion i admit i did waver a bit with the plane-->train-->hotel/cc ease that a tc choice would give. sure a rail transit transfer is a pain, but it's not that big a pain considering:

 

a.) there is a good chance many conventioneers will be staying in tc so they can ditch the luggage at a hotel there anyway. sure some will go on to a likely new hotel and other hotels, but isn't that the case in any city?

 

b.) the wfl transfer doesn't seem to stop visitors from going to the rock hall and cbs and other waterfront attractions, does it?

 

c.) perhaps an ace in the hole?  if all goes as planned when the flats east bank goes up our hope is it will look interesting and i think that it could really visually entice wfl riders heading to the cc. i dk if it will be interesting at the wfl ride level, but it could be. they'll be like, "oh wow look at that stuff," which they otherwise might never have seen. so maybe the wfl ride to the cc could get them hyped to want to wander around over thru the warehouse district & flats east bank....and to tc too.

 

 

It is too bad that the county commissioners are not required to take classes at the College of Urban Affairs... the port site should DEFINITELY not be considered.

 

Cuyahoga County also considering lakefront port site for Medical Mart

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Joe Guillen

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Cuyahoga County has added a third site to its short list of potential locations for a new medical mart and convention center, Commissioner Peter Lawson Jones said Friday.

 

The county is looking at lakefront land within Cleveland's port, west of Cleveland Browns Stadium, for the $400 million complex, Jones said in an interview after giving a speech about economic development at the City Club.

 

Although the lakefront land has been mentioned as a possible site, county officials in recent weeks have focused on two front-runners: land near the convention center and behind Tower City. But if either of the two prove expensive or troublesome, the county will consider other locations, Commissioner Tim Hagan has said...

 

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

 

---

 

 

The lakefront site is a horrible idea. The city for the first time in 50 years has the opportunity to give the lakefront back to the public; why put a huge box on it, blocking views and other possible uses of our prime lakefront? Why go through the hassle of meeting after meeting, asking city residents what they wanted concerning their lakefront if those plans will just be pushed to the side because of a decision by three county commissioners? Why turn your back on these residents, and also on sound urban planning, for an area with very little opportunities for spinoff development? Learn from other cities, Cleveland. Learn from your own past. Keep the lakefront open to the public.

Well I suggest you kids fire off some emails.  I for one do not want the CC on the lakefront.  This idea is worst than TC!!!  Clvlndr, does that make you feel better and can we agree on this?  :wink:

Amen, Oldmanladyluc... As to the impostor/poster above me, who are you and what have done with our MyTwoSense!?   :evil:

Amen, Oldmanladyluc... As to the impostor/poster above me, who are you and what have done with our MyTwoSense!?   :evil:

 

HUSH!

FYI

 

Past Is Prologue

How the [Chicago] Merchandise Mart transformed itself from a relic into a certified energy-efficient marvel—and a model for other outdated buildings around the U.S.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080319_978885.htm

While it sounds nice, I think the public comment idea sucks.  Who cares whether Suzy Schwartz wants the mall location because of childhood memories of the circus at public hall?  The public has no expertise in these things, that's why we hire people w/ a supposedly greater expertise -- it's called representative govt.  I feel strongly it should be Tower City and that rebuilding on the mall would be a huge mistake but, hey, if the commishes decide on the mall, so be it.  Just get the damn thing done and quit dragging it out... In Cleveland, we seem more into big-project soap operas which oftentime don't materialize into bricks and mortar (Exhibit A: the new, relocated County Office building; Exhibt B: Pesht).

 

In Philly, although the convention center is directly connected to the Reading Terminal Market and the flagship Marriott Hotel, my colleagues and I trekked through Chinatown a couple days, also made it to Jim's for a cheesesteak, and went to Little Italy, in addition to taking an afternoon to see Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, and all that.

 

You're correct.  In other words, Philly elected to build (now radically expand) its CC at a location to build upon preexisting retail and activity centers to expand upon the synergy.  The streets around Philly's CC are packed w/ people well into most evenings... Exactly the opposite of the Mall area which has no such energy and is, essentially dead after 6p (and oftentimes before).

I don't really think that the public comment meeting holds any weight. These types of meetings are usually held so that the agency/govt can check off a box. Of course, not all public meetings are of this nature.

^let's hope you're right.

While it sounds nice, I think the public comment idea sucks.  Who cares whether Suzy Schwartz wants the mall location because of childhood memories of the circus at public hall?  The public has no expertise in these things, that's why we hire people w/ a supposedly greater expertise -- it's called representative govt.  I feel strongly it should be Tower City and that rebuilding on the mall would be a huge mistake but, hey, if the commishes decide on the mall, so be it.  Just get the damn thing done and quit dragging it out... In Cleveland, we seem more into big-project soap operas which oftentime don't materialize into bricks and mortar (Exhibit A: the new, relocated County Office building; Exhibt B: Pesht).

 

Whether or not it influences the outcome (it won't) or you care if "Suzy Schwartz wants the mall location..." it's good government to have public input with $40 mil/year of taxpayer money for 20 years going into this project.

 

Here's just one example of the other side of the coin -- for those familiar with the I-670 High Street Cap in Columbus. Wouldn't be there if not for public input. The "experts/consultants" said it would be too expensive, developers wouldn't be interested, etc. etc. I was at the meetings and heard the "experts" say this stuff. Many of us non-experts in Victorian Village and the Short North had other ideas.

 

In Philly, although the convention center is directly connected to the Reading Terminal Market and the flagship Marriott Hotel, my colleagues and I trekked through Chinatown a couple days, also made it to Jim's for a cheesesteak, and went to Little Italy, in addition to taking an afternoon to see Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, and all that.

 

You're correct.  In other words, Philly elected to build (now radically expand) its CC at a location to build upon preexisting retail and activity centers to expand upon the synergy.  The streets around Philly's CC are packed w/ people well into most evenings... Exactly the opposite of the Mall area which has no such energy and is, essentially dead after 6p (and oftentimes before).

 

Again, with the center being rebuilt, there will be more activity.  so your point is moot.

But, public input does not necessarily need to be hosted by the county.  If Cleveland Public Art, or Levin College at CSU held a forum and many people participated, then the county would hear about it.

(Not to put CPA or CSU on the spot, but I think they actually did do something like this when Campbell was mayor.)

exactly punch.

 

csu should be all over hosting this kind of debate.

^The points are well taken.  I'm just tired of the drama.  We sweat-ed it from last summer up until a week ago when, before then, we thought the deal would fall through b/c of irreconcilable differences.  Now, why go through a big site-selection drama.  They were leaning towards TC, why not go with it?  We drag things out so much here.

I actually totally agree with you about how unnecessary all this drama is.  But remember, the original planning study leaned heavily towards the Mall.  I see it as the TC proponents who keep dragging this thing out, requiring a new study to make sure that the TC site wins, and FCE gets its handout.  That really is the only reason this is being done at all.

As an out of state person, contemplating this situation - my opinion is that the Tower City location would be best.  The main reason I feel this way is that I don't think a new CC at the mall location would do much to invigorate the surrounding area.  I think the backers of that proposed site are over-estimating the impact of a 300,000 sq. ft center.  Cleveland may be able to land a few 10,000 - 15,000 person conventions per year with a new downtown convention center - but not real regularly.  Mostly - that size of a convention center will be drawing the 2,000 - 7,000 person conventions which don't have a huge impact on the street life.  In a city with a downtown the size of Cleveland's, the additional business from the few thousand extra people in town during conventions may cause a few more restaurants to open and a few convenience type stores and bars, but not in a way that will significantly change the area around where the new convention center is located.  I'm not sure of my stats on this next part - but I believe the current Cleveland Convention center downtown at the mall location pulls in around 150,000 - 200,000 people per year.  If this doubles to 400,000 (which I think is a pretty high assumption) it will mean an extra 200,000 - 250,000 people per year - or about 1,000 more people (above the current average number of convention visitors) per week day. 

 

I agree it would be best to concentrate the activity around the Tower City location.  Build on what you already have and help it grow and do better.  It sounds like, from several of the posts, that Tower City isn't doing as great as most would like it to be doing.  Some help from a thousand or so additional daily conventioneers in town could help maintain it and hopefully help improve it.    I think to make downtown Cleveland better, the city needs to build on its assets first - to make them strong - before extending out too far to try to improve another area.  I think by trying to expand the reach of the focus area of the city's "attractions footprint" to include this mall area, it will be thinning things down too much. 

 

A few people have mentioned things like "its only two or three blocks" away - (ie. what difference will it make to out of town conventioneers?) or "weather is a moot point".  I think those are very wrong assumptions to make.  Three blocks is a long way for people from out of town that are not familiar with a city's layout.  If they are right near shopping and the restaurants and night life of the Flats, they will easily go there and spend their money.  The "mall" area doesn't seem to present this same view - and three blocks won't allow the people to see the attractive options that are out there.  From a mall location, some will undoubtely go to the Flats and Tower City and spend their money there, but many will wander in other directions or not see much to do,and simply return to their hotel room and order a pizza. 

 

To many out-of-stater's - including myself - the things people are familiar with in downtown Cleveland are The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Flats, and maybe the major sports facilities like the Browns stadium and Gund arena (actually I do remember now that it is actually called Quicken Loans arena - but I only remembered that because I saw people referring to "the Q" and I had to figure out what that was.  We don't know about "the Mall" - so actually - while that area may be important to local planners, most people in town for a convention probably won't care.  They will be looking for fun places to go get a bite to eat and a drink, to walk around and see a few recommended sites (R&RHoF, and - if encouraged or with a particular interrest - maybe the GLSC, maybe the theater district, and maybe some other interesting historical buildings or museums, etc.). 

 

My perspective having been to Cleveland two or three times for meetings, traveling through and for a conference - is that I would want to be close to the Flats and not out in the middle of the "mall" area.  Admittedly it has been ten years at least since I was last in Cleveland - but from what I vaguely remember about the "mall" area, there wasn't that much to see or be interested in.  Also, like I said above - I don't think building a new convention center there would do that much to change the surrounding area in the near future.  I suggest strengthening the existing entertainment area in Cleveland  first before diluting the potential people producing capacity of a CC by sticking it three blocks away from this area.  Also - I don't think Tower City would suck people in and keep them away from the other attractions of Cleveland as some people seem to think.  I've been to TC before - and thought it was pretty nice - but I wouldn't spend more than 45 minutes in there looking around - and that amount of time would likely only happen if I was grabbing something to eat.  People will go in there - but will also go to the flats and the other areas close by to the CC.

 

The reason I mentioned that the weather is not a moot point - is because it is important.  Having a facility that is connected to or very near restaurants, shopping and bars will help greatly in attracting conventions in the less than ideal times of the year (which, sorry to say - but in Cleveland would probably be Nov. - April - or half of the year!)  If Cleveland is competing against Indianapolis for a convention in February - Cleveland will be struggling because Indy has about 3000 hotel rooms directly connected via skywalks into the convention center and will have another 1500+ in three years when the new JW Marriott complex opens with its direct connections.  (And another 2000 - 3000 rooms within a four block walk of the center there as well.)  Having to walk several blocks outside to get anywhere interesting during potential bad weather times will be a big negative as Cleveland competes for convention business.

 

Another point that may be worth making:  from the one article I read in which the owner or manager of the I X center spoke,  it doesn't sound like that facility will be coming down soon - if at all.  That is an important factor to keep in mind when thinking about how much business the new downtown facility will generate.  The one article stated that the I X has 600,000 sq. feet.  Measuring conv. centers isn't always a precise science - but - in comparison to the 300,000 sq. ft. of a new downtown facility - I don't know that closing the I X is necessarily a good thing for Cleveland.  I'm not familiar with the I X facility - but it sounds like it isn't the greatest looking thing and undoubtedly is looked at as pulling away potential convention business from downtown.  Still - if a 600,000 sq. ft facility closes and a 300,000 sq. ft facility opens - there will likely be quite a few big events that won't be able to fit downtown and will either stop happening or will go somewhere else (outside Cleveland).  It may be best for Cleveland to keep this I X place going - however - that will mean more competition for downtown and lessen the ability of the downtown facility to attract as many conventions and trade shows to the downtown area.  Again - this just means that it will be more difficult to reach the number of annual downtown conventioneers that I mentioned earlier (which in turn means the chances of livening up the mall area through new convention traffic might be even more difficult than anticipated).  Also, one other thought -I do think that the Med. Mart strategy is very good for Cleveland and will help increase the growing national awareness of the strong medical and bio-research activities that are going on there.  Well - I think that's more than enough of my thoughts.  Good luck with the decision Cleveland.

 

^well he hit all the salient points and beat them to death like a good out of towner should....  :wave:

 

But seriously, they better be bringing a whole lot more conventions to Cleveland than adding just 1000 people a weekday.  I'd say its a bit hard to predict at this point but Merchandise Mart has more than implied they will bring a good helping of conventions to Cleveland.  I was thinking a good range of convention size would be 4-12,000 attendance.

 

 

 

 

70/65cityguy,

 

Great post. Thanks for the outside perspective.

 

The one thing that has not been discussed recently is a flagship hotel. Does the agreement between MM and the County say anything about a large hotel. Does the agreement dictate that the cc must be at least a certain size?

^The points are well taken.  I'm just tired of the drama.  We sweat-ed it from last summer up until a week ago when, before then, we thought the deal would fall through b/c of irreconcilable differences.  Now, why go through a big site-selection drama.  They were leaning towards TC, why not go with it?  We drag things out so much here.

 

I think the media was leaning toward TC. The Campbell administration and city planners were open about their preference for the Mall/Lakefront. The studies by the county and Convention and Visitors Bureau also favor the Mall/Lakefront site. The (payroll and marketing) budget of Positively Cleveland would have to be reduced in order to pay for the upkeep of the existing center if a new one is built. 

Thanks 70/65Cityguy- it's always useful to hear from someone with a more removed vantage point.  It's hard not to worry about the weather- just because we're strong enough to deal with it, doesn't mean out of towners will be willing to.

 

Re. the IX Center- I think the current operating lease is through 2014...which means it will overlap, in its current form, with the new CC for only a few years.  Not ideal, but not the end of the world.  It probably makes sense to keep the IX center around even after that, but with an operating lease restricting it to certain events that wouldn't work well downtown.

I agree it would be best to concentrate the activity around the Tower City location.   Build on what you already have and help it grow and do better.

 

Believe me, The Mall site is extremely close to Tower City. If you were to exit Tower City on Public Square, you would probably be able to spot the entrance to the Convention Center on Ontario Avenue. "Building on what you already have and help it grow and do better," is exactly why some one would favor the Mall site.

 

We don't know about "the Mall" - so actually - while that area may be important to local planners, most people in town for a convention probably won't care.  They will be looking for fun places to go get a bite to eat and a drink, to walk around and see a few recommended sites

 

1. Most out-of-towners won't care once they're here on the lake or the river. I agree exactly, so why not be sure that the citizens of Cuyahoga (who voted to generously pay for a convention center) do what is in the best interest of fiscal responsiblity and good planning.

2. To be honest, the Mall site is much more impressive than the Tower City site from a visitor perspective. The Tower City site offers views of the Cuyahoga River and a weed choked peninsula. I'm sure out of towners would get a big kick breaking the ice over jokes about the river. The mall site on the other hand offers panoramic views of the lake, harbor, Rock Hall and Browns stadium. Out of Towners will get a stronger positive impact of the city on the lake.

 

I actually totally agree with you about how unnecessary all this drama is.  But remember, the original planning study leaned heavily towards the Mall.  I see it as the TC proponents who keep dragging this thing out, requiring a new study to make sure that the TC site wins, and FCE gets its handout.  That really is the only reason this is being done at all.

 

Well, could this be b/c the commishes maybe, prematurely, gave TC a sense of entitlement a year or so ago when the proposal was 1st broached?  -- even before, obviously, there was any deal in hand.  This of course would understandably lead some (esp UOers) to believe FCE had paid some kind of under/table favor in whatever form.  I don't recall the exact sequence of events, but from the beginning all I seem to remember was talk of a Higbee's Build showroom and artist’s renderings of a cc behind TC (w/ Steve Litt's negative critique a long time ago).  I know people on this board have been strong for the Mall since that time, but the 1st I began hearing of it from Hagan & Co. was when the deadline drew near.

 

70/65cityguy, ... Amen, brother.

As a veteran of the convention/entertainment industry, here are my bullet points on why rehabbing the existing site makes more sense:

 

1.  The convention business is dying still after a huge post September 11 decline.

2.  Convention goers do not care about malls.  Witness the top convention markets of Orlando, Chicago and Vegas (well OK it's one giant mall--with prositutes, gambling and 24 hour cocktails--something Tower City won't ever have).

3.  Convention attendees DO NOT USE LIGHT RAIL.  This is something I hear from Clevelanders in favor of the Tower City location all the time.  Save for vendors and some exhibitors at McCormick Place, I can't think of any major convention site that really needs light rail to make it work.  Besides, wouldn't it be nice to have a link on the Lakeside Ave side to the Waterfront Line?  So there would actually be a couple riders who are not homeless?

4.  Public Hall, Music Hall and the theatres are historic places.  Cleveland--wake up!  We have these beautiful facilities that can be spiffed up and integrated into a modern convention center.  We shouldn't turn our backs on these treasures.  I bet most of you don't know about the other theatres in that building, do you?

5.  We already have two huge convention and meeting attractions in place--the Science Center and Rock Hall already host many evening corporate functions and would continue to do so with direct access to the convention center across the tracks. 

6.  No matter what Forest City argues, Tower City is still only a couple blocks away.  So lets use our public money to build on the existing site, and let Forest City kick in their money for an underground walkway or above ground bridgeway to let convention-goers find their mall (if they so choose).

^Totally agree with all points.  They can find their mall at Tower city, Galleria, or maybe even Arcade.  I think the vantage point of the Mall location opens up Cleveland for an incredible range of experiences and opportunities by walking any particular direction or taking a cab or the light rail. 

Well, lets face it, I think all supporters of the Tower City site feal as though this is their only chance to fill in the huge hole/parking ramp that greets people coming into the city.  They use other reasons why Tower City is better, but in the back of their minds, this is their logic.  I don't know which site I prefer, I am just happy the med mart is coming.

^I prefer the TC site, but I've never even thought of 'filling the huge hole/parking lot' as a reason for locating the new cc there.

I would just love to see something across the street from the Gateway Arena (The "Q"), rather than just having the street fall off.

 

That said, I perfer the original site

In my view the convention center would do best at the TC location. It would greet people coming into the city and give the overall skyline from 71 90 east and 77 a much more impressive feel to it. Some people argue that an underground convention center would be much more impressive and that point is debatable. The upside to having the whole convention center shooting up and proclaiming "I am Cleveland" just speaks out to me, as well as many other Clevelanders who perhaps don't go to conventions and simply enjoy the architecture, much more. It is a matter of pride for Clevelanders all around. On top of having such a symbolic building, I'm sure that conventioners would also welcome the added advertising that position offers.

 

As far as the old convention site goes... I believe that the Greater Cleveland Film Commission is currently looking for a headquarters. You might come back rightly and say "I don't believe that there's that big of a future for the film industry in Cleveland" and I would have to agree with you (at least for the foreseeable future).

 

Another option that I think would work best is to create the Cleveland Aquarium in this area. As many other people advocate that this convention center is open to the views of the lake... what better opportunity to tie it into aquatic life in a museum? It would be a much better transition than just a plain convention center in my opinion and would connect many of the other retail and hotel areas around the mall as well. This works well for people that want the space filled and not abandoned.

 

All in all the TC site just keeps speaking out to me to be the best. FC has expressed interest in developing the peninsula opposite the Cuyahoga if they get the convention site they want.. so why not? Yes yes I know there will be some people here that'll come and say that they don't like FC and their plans for the convention center at TC because they've made too much profit off of Cleveland already. Well sirs, that is what business and corporations are for - to make money. FC is not going to invest in something that it doesn't believe will make them profit. If it works out with the whole overview layout of Cleveland then I stress again, why not?

 

Let FC build its convention center, let the old convention center become an aquarium, but most importantly - let the developers develop! There indeed has been too much bickering over which project is best and the longer you wait the more likely people will get fed up and burn the project altogether!

Urbanite, If you're looking for a "symbolic" building "shooting" up, you may be disappointed with what the convention center is likely to be (regardless of location). All prior renderings of the Tower City site (I've posted some in this thread as have others) depict a long, low, box-like structure along Huron Road. Moreover, unless some new designs find a better way of doing this, expect the truck loading docks to face the river side of the convention center. I'm sure there will be a glassy facade aligned roughly with the The Avenue portion of Tower City and facing the river (as prior renderings have depicted), but that's apparently all the glassy portions you will see.

 

Yes I'm aware final designs can and probably will change. But I wouldn't expect architectural masterpieces at either location. Expect places that function well within the physical constraints of their sites.

 

BTW, Forest City won't be building the convention center, the county will. And convention centers, except for a few cities, are notorious money-losers. They are loss leaders that are intended to boost other aspects of city's economy. Sometimes it even happens that way....

I can't wait for the site selection to be announced so we can stop rehashing the same arguments over... and over... and over.

and over and over.....

You think the site selection will end the debate? (And I wasn't debating the site -- I don't have a preference).

 

We're still debating whether Key Tower should have been built taller than Terminal Tower (since 1991), if Albert Porter should have built a freeway through the Shaker Lakes (1960s), why Cleveland doesn't have a subway (1954, 1944, 1930, 1920), if they should have put streets through Public Square (1910s?), and even if the Columbus Road Toll Bridge was the source of the east-west side rivalry (1830s).

stupid toll road.  I am glad I burned it down in a past life

You think the site selection will end the debate? (And I wasn't debating the site -- I don't have a preference).

 

We're still debating whether Key Tower should have been built taller than Terminal Tower (since 1991), if Albert Porter should have built a freeway through the Shaker Lakes (1960s), why Cleveland doesn't have a subway (1954, 1944, 1930, 1920), if they should have put streets through Public Square (1910s?), and even if the Columbus Road Toll Bridge was the source of the east-west side rivalry (1830s).

 

sigh. how sad to have to pile on that list of old worries and woes, but i cant resist adding one you left off -- so let's also add 1986-ish to the unbuilt subway debate list (dual-hub).

 

totally agree that a public site selection decision (a second one at that!) won't end a thing as far as debate about a new convention center. unlike the subway dodges, in this case that's not a bad thing. better to make to sure to do it right, whatever the heck site is selected.

 

 

You think the site selection will end the debate? (And I wasn't debating the site -- I don't have a preference).

 

We're still debating whether Key Tower should have been built taller than Terminal Tower (since 1991), if Albert Porter should have built a freeway through the Shaker Lakes (1960s), why Cleveland doesn't have a subway (1954, 1944, 1930, 1920), if they should have put streets through Public Square (1910s?), and even if the Columbus Road Toll Bridge was the source of the east-west side rivalry (1830s).

 

Sorry KJP, that wasn't directed at you or even meant to be a bad thing... It's a public forum and certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I just think we (UO's / City & County Officials / General Public) have rehashed this issue over... and over... and over... and over.  I think it's pretty fair to say the masses are divided.  It's just that everyone who likes the TC site likes it because X,Y, and Z.  And those that like the existing site like it because of A,B, and C. Only no matter who is bringing it up it's always the same X,Y, and Z and the same A,B, and C.... It's just getting tiresome.  And how long has this been discussed, how many studies have been done (and how much public money spent for these studies).

 

And yes, once the site selection is made, the debate phase is over... then it's time to start the whining / gloating phase. :lol:

 

And i still maintain that the Mall Site is better... but it will still get built behind TC for a variety of political reasons...

^ I don't buy that.  CC may just be built at TC because TC is the better site, period.

tastes great.....less filling.....

^ I don't buy that.  CC may just be built at TC because TC is the better site, period.

 

Sorry... but i've actually seen some of the reports.  There's a reason they officially selected the mall site the last go round of this... They still don't even have a clue of 1. How to work the infastructure for the TC site to make it viable... 2. Any realistic idea how much the infastructure for that crap box on the river is going to cost.

 

that being said... they'll probably still try to cram this thing back there.  I'm officially done talking about this until a decision is made.

^That's my biggest fear about the TC site.  It is going to be that "crap box" that was proposed before.  I am not an expert but I cannot see how anything architecturally pleasing can be crammed into that site and we are going to moaning about it for years. 

 

^That's my biggest fear about the TC site.  It is going to be that "crap box" that was proposed before.  I am not an expert but I cannot see how anything architecturally pleasing can be crammed into that site and we are going to moaning about it for years. 

 

You're right, there is nothing in NYC that is architecturally pleasing..

^That's my biggest fear about the TC site.  It is going to be that "crap box" that was proposed before.  I am not an expert but I cannot see how anything architecturally pleasing can be crammed into that site and we are going to moaning about it for years. 

 

You're right, there is nothing in NYC that is architecturally pleasing..

 

It was a crap box because something like a convention center in the size we require for this to work physically can't fit back there.  That's why it has hulking structures devouring West Huron Road creating a virtual tunnel.  it's why the thing looks a crap box on stilts that's about to collapse at any second and fall into the water.  And it's why they still have absolutely no idea how to build the infastructure to actually access this bastardization or how much it would cost.  Your comment about new york is utterly absurd.  There is not a single example (and I spent 2 years working on a building and practically living in New York), not a SINGLE example of ANY comparable site to what they have to deal with here.  In fantasy land people can have their pretty and iconic CC peacefully mergeing with the river banks.  But here in reality it is a crapbox smashed into the side of Tower City, propped up from the river on stilts with imaginary roads that haven't been designed flying through the air to create loading dock access.  And if you think this convention center is magically going to make Barney's reappear inside TC you are out of your fricking mind.

"But here in reality it is a crapbox smashed into the side of Tower City, propped up from the river on stilts with imaginary roads that haven't been designed flying through the air to create loading dock access."

 

Absolutely - unless they know something we and most people with an modicum of understanding of siting a convention center don't. If the architects/planners can actually make the TC site work aesthetically, I will happily stand corrected. I'm sure they can make it function, but if it's going to look good... well, I'd like to see how. It's not just access to A loading dock, it's access and an appropriate marshalling yard (aka where trucks sit and wait to load/unload) for least 20 loading docks - 20 being an approximate industry average that they're hoping to meet.