This guy just gave me another reason for my disgust towards the PD.  The paper has proven time and again that it is completely irrelevant when it comes to urban issues.  Especially the kind of issues such as the one we've been discussing for over 5 years.

The first clue is when they dropped CLEVELAND from the title line.

 

now back to the DOWNTOWN medical mart/convention center.

 

A convention center in UC.  Where there are no hotels, services, infrastructure or connectivity to a convention center.

 

This is just some crazy old man shyt!  and anyone who wants to listen to that shyt is a naive fool!

^I thought they were building a hotel at UC?  Is that project on hold?

^I thought they were building a hotel at UC?  Is that project on hold?

 

There is but that still will not help.

^I thought they were building a hotel at UC? Is that project on hold?

 

Supoosedly yes, but that would only be filling a vaccuum.  It wouldn't bring UC anywhere near the amenity level of downtown.  Not to bring other threads in, but compared to downtown UC is also very difficult to get into and out of.  To me this isn't even a close question.  Downtown is where you have people gather.

 

It would also be possible, though senseless, to put this thing in Streetsboro.  I'm sure somebody could make a case for it.  That doesn't mean Streetsboro should get serious consideration. 

Where would the location be if it were in UC? 

Where would the location be if it were in UC?

It's not going in UC.

 

^I thought they were building a hotel at UC? Is that project on hold?

 

Supoosedly yes, but that would only be filling a vaccuum. It wouldn't bring UC anywhere near the amenity level of downtown. Not to bring other threads in, but compared to downtown UC is also very difficult to get into and out of. To me this isn't even a close question. Downtown is where you have people gather.

 

It would also be possible, though senseless, to put this thing in Streetsboro. I'm sure somebody could make a case for it. That doesn't mean Streetsboro should get serious consideration.  

Hey look at this, for once 327 and I completely agree on something.  :)

 

Jpop buddy, this is for you:

 

I have to say .. it's really, really fun starting a shit storm with you guys.

 

I guess I didn't start it, really. But .. you know. Adding fuel to the fire and whatnot.

 

I still personally think it's an interesting idea, one that should be examined more closely. But .. obviously, people here don't agree. Which is fine, I guess.

it was examined more closely (over and over again until it was beaten to death) and found to be preposterous.  Apparently that doesn't stop the PD from running moronic opinions on it.

it was examined more closely (over and over again until it was beaten to death) and found to be preposterous.  Apparently that doesn't stop the PD from running moronic opinions on it.

 

Bingo!  What is there to examine?  It's not a proper place for a convention center which should be centrally located for the majority of the population.

OK, it likely will not go in UC.  BUT, if it does, have there been any proposed locations?

 

Disclaimer:  By asking where it MIGHT go, I am not endorsing UC as a location.  Furthermore, anyone who answers the question will not be found guilty of aiding/abetting the UC site either.  :-D

i believe the closest it ever got was around 55th and Chester.  And unless someone is willing to bulldoze about 6-8 square blocks in the circle, or perhaps fill in wade oval with some dirt, there isn't anywhere else to put it.

 

End of unrealistic, horrible idea, pie in the sky conversations.  People can no go back discussing the project that is taking place here on planet earth in downtown Cleveland.

^hahah

The "old downtown" has 100,000 workers.

The "new downtown" has 30,000.

Suburban "downtowns" have even less.

 

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how Downtown Cleveland is this hollowed-out shell of dust and memories that the PD is trying so hard to convince us is the case.

 

WHAT IS THEIR AGENDA?

The "old downtown" has 100,000 workers.

The "new downtown" has 30,000.

Suburban "downtowns" have even less.

 

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how Downtown Cleveland is this hollowed-out shell of dust and memories that the PD is trying so hard to convince us is the case.

 

WHAT IS THEIR AGENDA?

 

110,000 workers...

 

Here's my idea for the new convention center, it's very progressive.  It can be hooked to the back of a Euclid Corridor BRT and actually move inbetween UC and Downtown.  Additionally not only do conventioners not have to go outside, they don't even have to set foot in Cleveland! Hooray! Oh, and forest city still wants 40 million for the "air rights" to this.

McCleveland....thirty lashes with a wet noodle!

Ooh can we make it rotate??

 

But seriously, isn't this editorial another example of someone complaining to complain? If it weren't for you guys I wouldn't have seen the piece. This us just someone complaining because they didn't like the mall site.

 

How well do you know this Lando guy, McCleveland?

Then there's Scott Wolstein's pale pachyderm, a semi-lakefront site sitting in frozen isolation nearly a mile from Public Square, far out of tolerable walking distance to anything attractive during the seven frigid months of Cleveland's winter. Wolstein promises to build attractions close by. But promises are cheap; concrete and steel are expensive - way too expensive for him to build what he already promised would be a revitalization project on the East Bank. Where did that promise go again?

 

This is the only thing that Strang said that i agree with. I would add that placing the convention center and medical mart in UC is not much better than the East Bank. You think East Bank of the Flats isn't connected...try driving convention traffic 4 miles from your largest concentration of hotels.

 

Someone made the comment about bio-tech firms and other medical technology firms being located in University Circle and that because of that.....UC is now the NEW Downtown. I think we should look at the facts. While there are a number of research facilities in University Circle....how many actual Medical/Bio-tech COMPANIES (tax contributing companies) are located in UC? I would argue that more are located in either Midtown and Beachwood that in University Circle. I'm not saying that UC isn't a center of Medicine, bio-tech research or medical technology usage......it obviously is. But a Medical Mart is about business....it's about sales. The Med Mart isn't going to just be targeting UH and the Clinic for sales of products (if it were...it wouldn't work).......it is going to be targeting hospitals and doctors from all over the country and the world. And what is a visitor going to do in UC after 8pm....walk to Little Italy from the Intercontinental?

 

In addition to attracting visitors, I would think that a Medical Mart should spur business growth near its location. Wouldn't it make sense then to choose a location where there are a variety of existing real estate options open to companies? Downtown not only provides the lodging, transportation access and entertainment options necessary to make a convention center work....it also offers the best environment for new and smaller businesses to grow. University Circle may be the research capital of Cleveland....but Downtown is still THE location where tax paying/entrepreneurial business takes place. Just because University Circle is the center for research.....does not mean that it should be the location for Medical/Bio-tech COMPANIES to locate. Just look at all the technology companies that already call Downtown home....i think it is far lesser of a stretch for Downtown to succeed as a center for bio-tech and medical device COMPANIES than it is for UC to succeed.

 

Plus...one of the biggest issues being lost here is the fact that MMPI (who is going to be "on the hook" for the success of this thing) is in complete agreement with the commissioners as to WHERE the convention center and Med mart should be located. If they had serious BUSINESS concerns...i don't think that they would lock themselves into a 20 year deal.

Then there's Scott Wolstein's pale pachyderm..

 

Okay. So maybe the suggestion that a UC MM/CC site isn't feasible. But hasn't the ensuing discussion been fun?

 

Also, if anything, I'd like to point out Strang's excellent use of alliteration. Kudos.

Well stated urban manna

Plus...one of the biggest issues being lost here is the fact that MMPI (who is going to be "on the hook" for the success of this thing) is in complete agreement with the commissioners as to WHERE the convention center and Med mart should be located. If they had serious BUSINESS concerns...i don't think that they would lock themselves into a 20 year deal.

 

IIRC, MMPI actually wanted to build the MM in UC (or closer to it - i.e. 55th and Chester).... it was the commissioners that told them that downtown was the only option if they wanted to use public funds.

Plus...one of the biggest issues being lost here is the fact that MMPI (who is going to be "on the hook" for the success of this thing) is in complete agreement with the commissioners as to WHERE the convention center and Med mart should be located. If they had serious BUSINESS concerns...i don't think that they would lock themselves into a 20 year deal.

 

IIRC, MMPI actually wanted to build the MM in UC (or closer to it - i.e. 55th and Chester).... it was the commissioners that told them that downtown was the only option if they wanted to use public funds.

 

They did, yes.

due to costing issues.  They were going off the original GCP studies and found it to be cost prohibitive to be downtown... it was never the location they wanted to be.  Which is what lead to their independent analysis.  GCP should never have been allowed to do that study, all it did was waste a lot of time.

Relevant post from the CoolTown Studios Blog re: the Project for Public Spaces (PPS) Top Ten Trends Shaping the Future of Our Communities:

http://www.cooltownstudios.com/site/pps-top-10-placemaking-trends/#When:04:47:50Z

Telling how many of these apply to our downtown and its potential....

 

#3 Going green. For emerging creatives, being environmentally conscious is a foregone conclusion.

 

#4. Placemaking is becoming more important to the travel industry. See civic tourism and how investing in vibrant downtowns to attract creatives, followed by the rest of the residents (as the trend goes), also builds a strong tourist economy.

 

#6 Being active 12 months of the year. This applies mainly to cold weather cities which in the past have shut down for the winter, though ten years ago many city downtowns were pretty much shut down all year. The point is, cold weather cities have innovated amenities (ie skating rinks, heated lamps, temporary enclosures) that allow people to enjoy public spaces all year round.

Do we want a green Cleveland Convention Center/Medical Mart?

http://www.gcbl.org/blog/marc-lefkowitz/do-we-want-a-green-cleveland-convention-center-medical-mart

Submitted by Marc Lefkowitz  |  Last edited February 10, 2009 - 1:46pm

 

What are the arguments for the city of Cleveland to mandate that a restored and expanded Cleveland Convention Center and new Medical Mart building on The Mall are built with green building principles?

 

“Sometimes lost in the debate of should Cleveland build a new convention center (and where), is what type of building can transform the region by offering a vision of what buildings can be in the 21st century?" GreenCityBlueLake Director David Beach writes here. "How has green building technology helped some cities—most notably, Pittsburgh—create forward-thinking convention centers instead of giant, single-purpose, energy intensive boxes?”

 

Architects and sustainability advocates are joining the call for a green convention center.

 

“The building industry is the single largest contributor to global warming in the country,” writes GBC staffer Michele Kilroy. “The design, construction and operation of green buildings offers cost effective solutions for achieving measurable results in air quality, energy demands, greenhouse gas effects, water demands, waste reduction and can establish our region as an environmental and economic leader comparable to cities like Pittsburgh and Chicago.”

 

"The county's partner in the Medical Mart project, MMPI, owns and occupies the world's largest commercial building, The Merchandise Mart in Chicago. They just transformed this facility, which was built in 1930, into a high performing LEED Silver Certified building. As Clevelanders we ask no less of the project they wish to put in our front yard," writes Dave Pindel, an architect and LEED AP with Herschman Architects, Inc. "It would be unconscionable for any structure with the word "Medical" in its name to be anything but. We press for a facility that will leave not only a positive economic impact on Cleveland but also a positive environmental one."

 

It has been stated by the operator that the building will be built with green principles as well as LEED standards, writes Kelly Brewer, VP of Sales at Positively Cleveland (formerly the Convention and Visitor's Bureau). This public hearing and meeting with Council is vitally important toward demonstrating the viability of the chosen site with the best use of the money allocated publicly for the project.

 

In the lead up to this Thursday’s public forum on the convention center site selection (2 p.m. at the Cleveland Public Library), let’s take a moment to compile a wish list of the type of innovations we expect to see in this building. How do we capitalize on a convention center as an opportunity to establish Cleveland as a leader in sustainable and historically sensitive design, renovation and construction?

Lord, I hope this presentation does not degenerate into a meeting of morons. The damn thing will be keeping with best industry practices, I'm sure. Let MMPI make their case then look it over. If you have problems with it , try a respectful well thought out letter making your case. I have a feeling that people that are not familiar with the project and have not attended any meetings are going to come out of the woodwork and make us look like a bunch of rubes.

A tad off-topic but let me get this straight: GCBL (which admittedly does a lot of great things) which is based in the Cleveland Museum of Natural History is already calling out MMPI for a green building (something I support), the building industry for contributing to global warming (an unfortunate fact), yet the institution in which they're based makes NO mention of how to utilize transit to reach their facilities? They promoted a "Sustainability in Your Backyard" event at the Botanical Gardens and offered no mention of transit alternatives (but ample free parking!), but here they are ready to pounce on MMPI if they dare build something not to their "green" specs? :roll:

Lord, I hope this presentation does not degenerate into a meeting of morons. The damn thing will be keeping with best industry practices, I'm sure. Let MMPI make their case then look it over. If you have problems with it , try a respectful well thought out letter making your case. I have a feeling that people that are not familiar with the project and have not attended any meetings are going to come out of the woodwork and make us look like a bunch of rubes.

 

I agree.  A huge part of the problem is many don't know what a "merchandise mart" is.

Maybe they could put 3 or 4 wind turbines on the Mall and grind up some of those flying rats (pigeons) :)

A tad off-topic but let me get this straight: GCBL (which admittedly does a lot of great things) which is based in the Cleveland Museum of Natural History is already calling out MMPI for a green building (something I support), the building industry for contributing to global warming (an unfortunate fact), yet the institution in which they're based makes NO mention of how to utilize transit to reach their facilities? They promoted a "Sustainability in Your Backyard" event at the Botanical Gardens and offered no mention of transit alternatives (but ample free parking!), but here they are ready to pounce on MMPI if they dare build something not to their "green" specs? ::)

 

Can't agree with that and that should be brought up.

A tad off-topic but let me get this straight: GCBL (which admittedly does a lot of great things) which is based in the Cleveland Museum of Natural History is already calling out MMPI for a green building (something I support), the building industry for contributing to global warming (an unfortunate fact), yet the institution in which they're based makes NO mention of how to utilize transit to reach their facilities? They promoted a "Sustainability in Your Backyard" event at the Botanical Gardens and offered no mention of transit alternatives (but ample free parking!), but here they are ready to pounce on MMPI if they dare build something not to their "green" specs? :roll:

 

Not to go too off-topic, but I'm really disappointed in how little transit options are mentioned in many websites in general. It seems to be a cultural thing that needs to change.

 

But maybe that's something you can comment on in the gcbl blog posting? Let them know that that's something that upsets you.

Oh, they know. Believe me, they know.

I'd think that the Mall option would make the CC green simply by virtue of being embedded in the ground.  Heating and cooling that thing would have to be a lot more efficient than it would for an above ground building, no?  Plus the green roof (Mall B) and reusing Public Hall?

Plus you're recycling an old facility into a new one, rather than leaving a vacant one with few re-use possibilities sitting around and rotting away as it has been.

This thing begs to be LEED certified, it is basically just filling out the paperwork as it is a natural fit.

It's funny that all these people are so worried about "greeness," (which is somewhat of a joke in my opinion for several reasons that I don't have time to get into), and the same ones that drive in from the cul-de-sacs.

Not to go too off-topic, but I'm really disappointed in how little transit options are mentioned in many websites in general. It seems to be a cultural thing that needs to change.

 

Amen.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/02/_the_publicprivate_partnership.html

 

Why wouldn't taxpayers own the Medical Mart?

Posted by Jim Nichols

February 11, 2009 22:30PM

 

The public-private partnership for the convention center and medical mart proposed for downtown Cleveland is structured like this: the public sector would pay for it, and the private sector would own and operate it, with little public oversight.

 

That arrangement -- a government-funded, privately owned and run convention center -- apparently is unlike any other in the country, some experts say...

Seems like both sides of the coin aren't too keen on this arrangement.

Looks like Forest City and the plain dealer are keeping old Heywood on the payroll.

The devil is in the details. It would seem to be that the local power brokers are lining up to kill the deal not modify it. I will NEVER buy another PeeDee. Right now things are heading downhill. The Mayor will play hell with negotiations and that will be the end of it. Call me disgusted.

Is there a difference between building a convention center with sales tax money and building Cleveland Browns stadium with sin tax money?  I was living in Columbus when they were building the stadium and am curious...did people make the same arguments then?

It's too bad for the "local power brokers" because they really have no input in this process.  It's between the County and MMPI (at least it's supposed to be).

^Gateway, Jacob's Field (I know) and the "Q" were financed nearly exclusively with the sin tax.  The Rock hall was financed primarily through a hotel bed tax.  The Browns stadium was a mish mash of sin tax extension, bed taxes, parking taxes, ticket taxes etc. 

 

When the commissioners were looking at generating income for the CC the sales tax looked like the way to go, because the above projects tapped out all of the other revenue streams.

Just out of curiosity, do you know what happened with those other taxes? Are they still generating income for those projects? Have they decreased at all?

It's too bad for the "local power brokers" because they really have no input in this process.  It's between the County and MMPI (at least it's supposed to be).

 

Doesn't the city own the convention center still? The sale to the county is a pretty big input for strong arming if MMPI has said that it is the current site or nothing at all.

 

Edit: Taking off tin-foil hat now....

The City of Cleveland owns the Convention Center(Mall) and Public Auditorium(Hall).

I was planning to attend the discussion this afternoon until I had a meeting scheduled over it.  Not to sound rude, but is there any chance someone going could get video or audio?  I'm not sure if it will even be allowed, but it would be nice to hear what was said.

The City of Cleveland owns the Convention Center(Mall) and Public Auditorium(Hall).

 

Thanks to you, I'm going to start calling it The MallHall.