^Yeah, but they found refuge in a great shopping mall and got to try on a bunch of clothes and... err... yeah, I guess I remember seeing Night of the Comet, but I uhh, don't remember too much...

 

excellent pic mayday

I'm apparently having a difficult time expressing myself in this thread. I love the Malls. As for the Group Plan buildings, I think they're beautiful but not exactly welcoming (I think Jane Jacobs has my back on this one). For the record, I am not for demolishing, reconfigurating, incinerating, obstructing or otherwise lessening the value of this corridor. I just think that a) some intersparsed retail in the area (significant improvements at 6th and St. Clair, redevelopment between Franz Pastorius and Ontario) would help to bring additional attention to this lovely neighborhood and b) that while it is beautiful and hope individuals (including visitors and conventioneers), get to see it and partake in movies or bocce or whatever their hearts desire), it is not as convenient a location as the homebase for conventions. Live long and prosper Malls A through C ... just not as a Convention Center.

Saving a conventeer the 5 minute walk or $5 cab fair doesn't seem a good trade off for the problems that the TC site brings with it.

I love the Malls. To me they are so much more inviting than Public Square. It's not fair to single them out as being "vacant."  It is simply a direct result of being surrounded by buildings and a downtown that are completely vacant after 5pm.

 

Imagine them expanding north and bridging the shoreway/rail gap to North Coast Harbor.  Then we're on our way to a world class waterfront.

I think sentimentality is getting in the way, here.  I love the Group Plan.  They're beautiful Italian Renaissance buildings, esp Public Hall, where I had my HS graduation (Music Hall).  But after some fence sitting -- where I could visualize a nice rebuilt/expanded CC at this site -- I've got to go w/ Tower City.  When you stand back and weigh both, esp against our history, the choice is easy.

Sentimentality and a hatred for the Ratners is driving much of this pro Mall feeling.  I despise Ratner, too, but whether you dislike him or some of the stores (and clientele, too -- we won't go there) of Tower City, you've got to realize it is the premiere indoor space in this region -- the largest mixed use project, not just in the state, the Midwest, but one of the largest in the US (and world) outside NYC's Rockefeller Center (and TC's not much behind it -- Philly's Penn Center is making a run, esp w/ the new Comcast Tower rising there)... Hey, I hate the fact the Dolans on the Indians, but how sensible is it to root AGAINST the team I grew up with, regardless of how shabby its history is?  Why not build on and enhance what exists and not shoot for the pie in the sky for what doesn't?  Fact is, the CC being built anywhere was a non-starter until the Medical Merchandise Mart tie in arose.  OK, so Mr. Rat was in Frank's electoral/financial back pocket.  So we shoot destroy a prime shot for our city just because we don't like poli gamesmanship?  Can't stand the players?

 

The most important factor to me: TOWER CITY EXISTS.  At the same time, the Mall, despite it's extremely good looks as Dan Burham's monumental public space, still has a ton of obstacles, most notably: it's distant from the current centers of activity (the Warehouse/Flats; Gateway).  There's simply nothing in the Mall area terms of retail and restaurants.  It’s beautiful but sterile and boring except for various, random public events.  It isn’t called our Civic Center for nothing (what are we going to do, move City Hall, the County Courthouse and/or Celebresse Fed Office building?   An expanded mall would still be largely underground with the portion jutting over the railroad tracks toward the lake hemmed in by that giant, 12-use-per-year concrete Browns Stadium (that resembles a spaceship about to lower it's pod-like gang planks), the little airport named Burke that everyone says is somehow indispensable to Cleveland and the Navy yard next to it (and good luck to get Bush or the next probable Republican (I really hate to say) administration to cooperate in relocating the Naval station or closing Burke, esp after the Bushies nefariously tried to underhandedly swipe our 1,200 DFAS jobs.... We talk of all these grandiose plans of hotels, restaurants, even a fancy new train station to spur Amtrak and commuter rail at the site of the current station, and with the new CC majestically covering it...

 

... hey, call me negative, but I simply don't trust Cleveland (its leadership, such that it is)  with all our gazillion grandiose plans.  Weren't all these restaurants, office buildings, condos and hotels supposed to spring up 10 years around our world famous Rock Hall?  Has any 1 of the above been built?  {Answers, respectively, Yes, No}  Promises, you want promises? – where’s that grand 24-story condo over a teaming 515 E. Euclid glass-enclosed parking garage buzzing with exciting street-level – we’ve only got the parking garage and a bunch of empty “future” storefront windows; no promises, no viable plans… no nothing.  And after all that ‘promise’ for an exciting lower Euclid, where are we now? (hell, we’re struggling even to get a stinking bowling alley and Lola’s to open despite making grand announcements years ago) …  So if we do the typical Cleveland thing and elect to stand down on this new TC/Medical Merchandise Mart proposal for our usual illusory, civic/sentimental impulses, you can forget about ANY CC being built at all here, at least in the next decade or more.  We'll muddle on for years – decades--  with the existing joint. 

 

Tower City, RIGHT NOW, offers a large, very attractive & historic shopping mall; the central rapid transit hub with a 25 min Hopkins run, key to conventioneers; an abundance of restaurants – from food-court joints up to high-end places like Century, San Souci, Mortons & Hyde Park, and a bunch of very good places in between (Castaldi’s, Houllihans & the Hard Rock; connections to 2 stadia (including 20K seat, convention-ready Quicken Loans arena) and indoor connection to around 3 million Sq. feet of office space – not including mainly empty Higbees that could offer even more.  Building at TC not only allows the build  up and full exploitation of these valuable resources, it also can finish off Tower City, jumpstart the long-dormant Scranton Peninsula homes project and maybe, w/ all the added energy in the TC/Public Sq area, we could either get several hundred rooms attached to one of our 2 existing TC, top-drawer hotels (probably the Renaissance) or a brand new 600 or so brand new one.  And I neglected to mention that Tower City is much closer to the Warehouse Dist and Gateway, which are our leading, still-burgeoning residential/entertainment areas (and it’s a 2 min Rapid ride down to the (hopefully) rejuvenated, bustling Flats (maybe with a casino/hotel thrown in, depending how the vote goes in Nov – remember, this is conservative Ohio, so don’t hold your breath, esp re the cigarette (or any other) tax levy proposal.

 

So if the bird-in-hand is the Tower City/CC/MMM proposal we’d be extremely foolish to thumb our nose for the illusory Mall project that has, really, little going for it but stately (though sterile) looks, and a whole mess of sentimentality – including mine…

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I just want to F'n cry out when everybody talks about the mall being distant from the WD or Gateway or TC or Erieview.  It's no more than two blocks from any of those!  Take a look at a map, or better yet, take a walk.  You don't get more central to EVERYTHING than the Mall.

 

My reasons for supporting the current mall site are hardly based on sentimentality.  There are a number of good reasons to favor that site over the TC site:

 

The TC site will be a traffic mess.  The entrance will be a stones throw from a newly relocated I-90 entrance and the base of the Lorain-Carnegie bridge.

 

It will be an aesthetic hell, a wall rising up over the edge of the river with a massive exposed truck dock one hundred+ feet above- no one will want to access that riverfront.

 

Developing the TC site instead of the current site will leave us with a slew of vacant civic infrastructure which we have no idea of how to reuse.

 

The TC site is too small to develop a CC with optimal floor configurations.  And how are they going to add an additional 500,000 sq ft facility to that?

 

FC has not been a consistent and honest partner in the exploratory process.  They have backed out and then tossed there hat into the ring based on how happy they were with the proceedings.  Is this who we want to partner with to get this project done?  Also, there is no reason to believe that FC will move on Scranton Peninsula just because they were given the Convention Center.

 

All of the planning studies done so far essentially reached the same conclusion.  The TC site is an inadequate site, the current Mall site works better.

Please don't project your sentimentality onto me, Clvlndr. Such sentimentality means nothing to me when my tax dollars are involved. I raised my concern about Hagan's and Jackson's campaigns being partly funded by Forest City not because I have any feelings for the Ratners (they're not my favorite people but I don't hate them -- I reserve that emotion for people whom I've personally met, come to know and been betrayed). I raised my concern because decisions as monumental as the location of the convention center should be decided with respect to servicing the many, not profitting the few.

 

Now, if it can be demonstrated that there is a viable plan for reusing the existing convention center/public hall, a use for the old county administration building, an effort to breach the Shoreway/railroad with a public promenade (that can include a rail station), a way to use Browns Stadium more than 12 times a year and a plan for Public Square (which otherwise could be rebuilt with year-round, amenity-lined walkways linking Tower City to a renovated convention center), then I'll be all for it.

 

Otherwise, we'll have even more white elephants dotting the downtown landscape, rather than capitalizing on the prior investments we taxpayers have already made. I'd hate to see them lie fallow as silent monuments to special-interest influence.

The Convention Facilities Authority is virtually disolved, and the medical mart debate is not the reason the decision is stalled. The real reason is that no one in the city/county wants to work on this issue right now. For the politicians it is seen as too controversial.

Please don't project your sentimentality onto me, Clvlndr. Such sentimentality means nothing to me when my tax dollars are involved. I raised my concern about Hagan's and Jackson's campaigns being partly funded by Forest City not because I have any feelings for the Ratners (they're not my favorite people but I don't hate them -- I reserve that emotion for people whom I've personally met, come to know and been betrayed). I raised my concern because decisions as monumental as the location of the convention center should be decided with respect to servicing the many, not profitting the few.

 

Now, if it can be demonstrated that there is a viable plan for reusing the existing convention center/public hall, a use for the old county administration building, an effort to breach the Shoreway/railroad with a public promenade (that can include a rail station), a way to use Browns Stadium more than 12 times a year and a plan for Public Square (which otherwise could be rebuilt with year-round, amenity-lined walkways linking Tower City to a renovated convention center), then I'll be all for it.

 

Otherwise, we'll have even more white elephants dotting the downtown landscape, rather than capitalizing on the prior investments we taxpayers have already made. I'd hate to see them lie fallow as silent monuments to special-interest influence.

 

If the shoe doesn't fit, KJP, don't wear it... I was speaking about posts in a cumulative nature -- here and elsewhere -- not specifically you.

X wrote: "I'm sorry, but I just want to F'n cry out when everybody talks about the mall being distant from the WD or Gateway or TC or Erieview.  It's no more than two blocks from any of those!  Take a look at a map, or better yet, take a walk.  You don't get more central to EVERYTHING than the Mall."

 

These things are close to you and me as locals, but to visitors, esp conventioners (and esp those who aren't into cities like folks on this board) to whom one city looks like the next, the mall can seem like light years away, and difficult to navigate... I know this as I've visited/spoken with many, many friends and colleagues who've come here on business and to conventions.  The fact is most Americans just aren't that adventurous;  some are practically afraid of big cities and barely leave their hotels (why do you think it's imperative for any hotel larger than boutique style to either have substantial convention facilities attached or must be attached to a substantial convention center?  You know the reason we haven't gotten substantial hotels is b/c (the Growth assn, anyway) we lack a quality CC.  Try to look outside yourself and thru the eyes of others who do not share your interests or values.

 

I think clvlnder should fence sit some more.  It will not likely be whether anyone is for or against the mall site.  Its possible the mall doesn't even have a chance.  The outcome of the casino vote will be deciding where this goes.  Its obvious that at this point it pretty much nullifies logic because millions of dollars have entered the decision making process. 

 

My personal unsentimental non-Clevelander thoughts are that the CC on the mall should be built in multiple stages.  Let it grow only as big as is needed.  Over perhaps 10-12 years it could be completed.  Thats assuming they are wanting to spend a half billion on it.  This way the IX center also continues to be used until its no longer needed.

Well it would be nice if the CC was built at TC. That way all of the out of town conventioneers would never actually have to step outside of Ratner owned land and actually have to walk amongst Clevelanders.

I mean, just the thought of it.

One thing that seems to be overlooked is the fact that when the current CC was planned, the site was chosen because of its proximity to the future train station between City Hall and the County Courthouse (Mall C).  Obviously the station was built on Public Square for better or worse, (though I could never imagine Cleveland without the Terminal Tower and wouldn't want to) and since, the Center was always seemed to be just far enough away from anything to become part of the larger scheme of downtown.  Urbanistically, I don't see how anyone can be against the Tower City site.  The only spin off activity you might get with the Mall site is a few more photo opts in front of those sculptures in Mall B.

Why keep layering ontop of a civic urban planning shortcoming from 85 years ago?

Well the idea behind advocating the Mall site is that the Group Plan would be fulfilled and pick up where it left off 85 years ago and "complete" it to the envisioned space that it can still become. With the mall site convention center you have the opportunity to include public access to the lakefront through a promenade or walkway of some kind stretching over the railroad tracks (as was envisioned), and you still have the opportunity to create a new rail station there directly across from the Rock Hall (as is envisioned for the Lakefront plan).

 

In my opinion advocating the mall site has a lot of advantages. It preserves and improves the Civic Center integrity, benefits from the lakefront views (which are a lot more attractive than the river views from the TC site), and has better transportation access. Why the transportation access better at the Mall site? I believe the Mall can accomodate a lot more automobile traffic - both its roadways and parking facilities, it includes a rapid station, and it would be extremely close and connected to the proposed ferry terminal and inner-city rail station.

 

If we don't keep the convention center at the Mall and make these improvements there, we will loose the Mall. In the future it would become the worst tragedy in the city's history since the destruction of Millionaires Row.

 

The Mall Site:

 

Or the river Site at Tower City:

The views are interesting...but how will the mall or lake look (the views) from the proposed CC at the mall.....and what WILL become of the SP in the future...not too sure if that is a valid comparison.

 

I DO agree that we need to get out of towners into the town, but to be honest...we need to get out of towners herein the first place.  Just MY opinion, TC is a better choice because of the proximity of many things conventions look for (transportation,sporting events, restaurants, play house{when Euclid corridor is done} bars, etc, etc)  I KNOW I will be blasted for saying that, but just my opinion.  As much as I find the malls a beautiful asset, there needs to be more to make the area "inviting" at all hours.  After the Ingenuity fest, I walked through there and it was beautiful at night...but eerily silent.  The only sign of life there was the two homelss guys drinking 40's in mall C.  I am torn on what should be done about that area and where the CC should go.  I just think TC has too many things in place already which may leave the mall site out of the loop.  It would be nice to maybe see the current CC become a major indoor activity area as mentioned in an earlier thread.

Hey Cleveland, lets turn our back on the lake for another century!

 

Also, lets not forget the one tourist attraction that eveyone in the world knows us for, the Rock Hall!  Most out of towners for a convention would love to swing by there. 

Anybody who won't walk from the Mall to the WD, Playhouse Square or Gateway (the hood, not the stadia) won't walk there from TC.  They are the same distance.  The only things closer are the Rapid, The Jake and the Q, and most importantly for the Ratners, Tower City.

 

The Mall is actually closer to the attractions of North Coast Harbor and  the offices and hotels in Erieview.

 

The Mall is quite simply the more centrally located space.

^True, but Tower City is just an enclosed walkway away from Gateway (works in the winter) and its just a train ride away from the stadiums, museums and airport. Plus all the advantages the TC mall has for conventioneers.

^True, but Tower City is just an enclosed walkway away from Gateway (works in the winter) and its just a train ride away from the stadiums, museums and airport. Plus all the advantages the TC mall has for conventioneers.

 

this is such a ridiculous point.  In chicago...there is only one hotel next to their CC; NYC - NONE near the Javitz center;  as a person who travels quite a bit and goes to various cities.  People want to be close the the "host" hotel or CC center, but that in no way means they will not walk outside to get to it.  DC convention center open and there was TWO hotel near (within 5 blocks)  it, the Renaissance and the Grand Hyatt.  Now there are a total of 5 (the renaissance, Embassy Suites, Four Points.  The subway doesn't stop near it. and its in a residential area.

 

Reinvesting in the Mall Site will actually put people on the streets and people to work futher strengthening downtown and connect the mall to the WHD, E4/Gateway, Erieview and TC areas.  Why should we continue to concentrate everything out Towercity when this is an opportunity to spread out downtown and get people - CLEVELANDERS NOT TOURIST - back out on city streets.  With the center being placed at the mall it gives other business an opportunity to increase their visiability as people would have to walk past them to get to the CC.

 

the CC at TC is crock full of shit...If the RAT/FC was serious about this they would have ALREADY started improvements to the mall and site.

 

Why should we continue to say...build up towercity and let the rest of downtown fall apart.  For every reason anyone can come up with towercity is the place to be...there are 2 or more reasons to say that there can be more inter

the thing that I wonder about is the likelihood that a convention center issue would pass come election day:

 

would casino money make a TC convention center possible??

 

would a voter-approved convention center at the Mall be an unlikely possibility??

 

 

Downtown is already spread out enough, putting another node of development, instead of overlapping them, is what has lead this city down the wrong path for decades.

Downtown is already spread out enough, putting another node of development, instead of overlapping them, is what has lead this city down the wrong path for decades.

 

The counter-argument is that a mall cc could tie the lakefront into downtown.  The question remains: would it be successful at doing so?  Its a tough span to bridge.

Downtown is already spread out enough, putting another node of development, instead of overlapping them, is what has lead this city down the wrong path for decades.

 

spread out???  WTF????????????

I would not say downtown is spread out at all. I think it might seem that way at first, because of all the surface parking lots, but the reality is that downtown is extremely walkable and distances are very short.

 

These are my approximations of travel on foot to attractions from Tower City - just to give you an idea. Now I haven't timed it exactly, but after having worked downtown and walked to all these places from Tower City these are my impressions:

 

E.4th St. - 3 minutes

W.6th St. - 5 minutes

Q Arena + Jacobs Field - 6 minutes

Convention Center - 7 minutes

Rock Hall - 9 minutes

Playhouse Square - 10 minutes

 

Now all the hotels are very close to everything as well. I can't give you the total number of hotel rooms downtown, but they are all located between Public Square and Playhouse Square.

 

In reality, downtown Cleveland is one of the most walkable downtowns and attractions are highly concentrated. All the downtown "attractions" in New York, DC, LA, and Boston are more spread out in my experience. Now if you take into consideration the whole city of Cleveland and its "nodes" of new development or additional attractions that include places like downtown, Ohio City, Tremont, University Circle, Little Italy, Coventry, etc. then I would say you need to take a car, cab, or rta. Whatever means you choose to get there it shouldn't be that cumbersome or take that long. And once you get to these places from wherever you are coming from, all these neighborhoods are highly concentrated and walkable.

 

The whole issue with "downtown" in my opinion is that people don't walk around that much. Why that is? I can't really say. It could be from lack of awareness of downtown attractions, a perception that walking distance is too far, a perception that it is unsafe to walk around, or simply laziness. I do think that whatever the perception is, the surface parking lots don't help. Namely the parking lots between the Warehouse District and and Public Square. I think once development takes place on these lots we will see a lot more pedestrian activity funnelled throughout the city. No one wants to walk through or past a sea of parking lots to get somewhere, but people might be more apt to walk around if they were walking past occupied street level retail space with shops, dining, and entertainment.

 

Anyway, the location of the new convention center really isn't an issue in terms of visitors being able to walk places. I'm not saying that location isn't important. The location is important to create a favorable impression from the visitors standpoint, and spur some new economic development in its immediate area.

 

 

The whole issue with "downtown" in my opinion is that people don't walk around that much. Why that is? I can't really say. It could be from lack of awareness of downtown attractions, a perception that walking distance is too far, a perception that it is unsafe to walk around, or simply laziness. I do think that whatever the perception is, the surface parking lots don't help. Namely the parking lots between the Warehouse District and and Public Square. I think once development takes place on these lots we will see a lot more pedestrian activity funnelled throughout the city.

 

Anyway, the location of the new convention center really isn't an issue in terms of visitors being able to walk places. I'm not saying that location isn't important. The location is important to create a favorable impression from the visitors standpoint, and spur some new economic development in its immediate area.

 

vulpster has hit it right on the head.  Besides, the CC center shouldn't be made to make "tourist/visitor" comfortable but as an ENHANCEMENT to the residents of the city of Cleveland.  Folks here for big meetings and convention related meeting will go wherever the planner sends them, if they venture out on their own they'll go to the 'happening" place that the residents frequent.  Leisure tourist will know where to go and are more likely to venture out around the city to find out where to go and what to do. 

 

the mall is where the center should go!  I have spoken!  :whip:

^True, but Tower City is just an enclosed walkway away from Gateway (works in the winter) and its just a train ride away from the stadiums, museums and airport. Plus all the advantages the TC mall has for conventioneers.

 

this is such a ridiculous point.  In chicago...there is only one hotel next to their CC; NYC - NONE near the Javitz center;  as a person who travels quite a bit and goes to various cities.  People want to be close the the "host" hotel or CC center, but that in no way means they will not walk outside to get to it.  DC convention center open and there was TWO hotel near (within 5 blocks)  it, the Renaissance and the Grand Hyatt.  Now there are a total of 5 (the renaissance, Embassy Suites, Four Points.  The subway doesn't stop near it. and its in a residential area.

 

 

 

Why does Cleveland have to be like New York, Chicago and Washington for everything. Why can't we for once do our own thing. Think about this in the future. A convention person can fly in from Chicago, catch the red line to Tower city , get a snack in the foodcourt and head right into the convention center. If they are staying in one of the hotels then they will have plenty of time to explore downtown when all the new and current projects are built. As it stands the current convention facility is too isolated. Even if they built over the tracks, there is still nothing to eat, just the museums. Tower city is just right next to the Warehouse District and East 4th which would probobly be of interest to conventioneers staying for a few days. Plus like I said earlier this set up works well in the winter.

^True, but Tower City is just an enclosed walkway away from Gateway (works in the winter) and its just a train ride away from the stadiums, museums and airport. Plus all the advantages the TC mall has for conventioneers.

 

this is such a ridiculous point.  In chicago...there is only one hotel next to their CC; NYC - NONE near the Javitz center;  as a person who travels quite a bit and goes to various cities.  People want to be close the the "host" hotel or CC center, but that in no way means they will not walk outside to get to it.  DC convention center open and there was TWO hotel near (within 5 blocks)  it, the Renaissance and the Grand Hyatt.  Now there are a total of 5 (the renaissance, Embassy Suites, Four Points.  The subway doesn't stop near it. and its in a residential area.

 

 

 

Why does Cleveland have to be like New York, Chicago and Washington for everything. Why can't we for once do our own thing. Think about this in the future. A convention person can fly in from Chicago, catch the red line to Tower city , get a snack in the foodcourt and head right into the convention center. If they are staying in one of the hotels then they will have plenty of time to explore downtown when all the new and current projects are built. As it stands the current convention facility is too isolated. Even if they built over the tracks, there is still nothing to eat, just the museums. Tower city is just right next to the Warehouse District and East 4th which would probobly be of interest to conventioneers staying for a few days. Plus like I said earlier this set up works well in the winter.

 

And the the convention center is SMACK DAB in the middle of the WHD and Erieview area.

 

For every reason why someone thinks the CC should be elsewhere there are dozens of RIGHT answers why it should be place in/on its current location!

^Thats a good point and you have very valid reasons for supporting the current site. I guess I support Tower City because of its convienience and accessibility. If developments in retail, lodging, rail and entertainment adjacent to the coast become a reality then the current site would work well. I am basing my judgement on what is already in place. Tower city has the accesibility and things to do, and the mall site has the Convention Center. Its a tough choice, and may become tougher if those Lakeside developments happen.

Think about what a cc is for... only a cc (maybe a hotel and restr). Who are the users? Mostly people from out of town. If we build just a cc at the current location, the new one will probably expand the amount of visitors by a sizable amount - but they will only come during the normal (Cleveland normal) convention season.

 

If we are to include civic functionality to the center, then we have slightly more visitors plus a significant amount of local/regional visitors. By civic functionality, I am talking about many of the amenities previously mentioned in this thread such as physical recreation, daycare, etc.

 

Now look at TC. If we build only a new cc there, what will be the difference in out-of-town visitors? I think that the numbers would likely be the same as for a cc only in the current location, but still higher then the numbers are now. Next, add the civic functions - what do you get? Again, I argue the same results as if we were to build cc/civic in the current location.

 

What does the current location have that TC does not have? Historic location, room to grow, access to the lake, to name a few. Some arguably good things.

 

What does tower city have the current location does not. Most significantly - location. Regardless of how you feel about the quality of the place, it is in an excellent location. This location is central and is screaming transportation hub. You have the airport connection, the freeways, the established parking (although I would argue the less parking, the better - San Fran's Moscone Center has no parking at all. There are two private structures near by.) Coming soon you have the Towpath Trail and the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad. The only mode of transportation that has not been discussed, but could work, is by water.

(Even Pittsburgh has those duck/tour-bus things)

 

There is one thing that has come up a few times in this thread - the convetion season. With the TC site, our season grows from the current 7 months (source: city hall) to at least 10. That is because we can have visitors who will not have to worry about stepping outside in the elements.

The argument against this is there will be no people on the streets. Come on! Has anybody gone to any city for a convention/conference and never set a foot outside - even in the most crappy weather? I've been to many places for conferences and no matter what the weather is, I have gone out and explored. (I know I am not Joe-conventionerre, nor do I claim to be.) This is what all cities deal with, wether you are in Vegas, or Gary, Indiana.

 

Taking into consideration the previous claims, assuming that we will build a center that will have some civic functions incorporated into the center, and assuming that money is not an issue (also assuming the current cc will be used for something useful - oh, and that emotions are not part of the equation), I feel the choice is simple... but that's just me.

 

As much as my "sentimentality" has me leaning to the current location, this VERY BASIC analysis has convinced me that FC/TC is the right choice.

 

 

I think this is the most I ever typed this summer - it must be the Chagrin Falls air :roll:

If I may jump into the conversation... I've been a lurker for too long...

 

In my opinion, both sites have their advantages- TC has obvious advantages with transportation infrastructure with the river, the rapid, connection to the airport, the upcomming towpath trail and the scenic railroad.  The site would put more people into Tower City, which would hopefully get Forest City to change the shopping options in the mall.  There are also more hotels around the TC site than the mall.  However, the site at TC could not be expanded, if need be, and the one major factor that led to the TC site being considered past the other four that were planned was the promised development of Scranton Penninsula (a promise that was dropped by Forest City later due to "market conditions", if I remember correctly). 

 

The mall site has the advantage of being underground, which I personally like.  It could be expanded past the tracks towards the lake, helping downtown connect further with the lake.  We also have existing historical sturctures at the mall.  It is in close proximity to Burke, which could have conventioners fly in directly (maybe have some sort of underground connection with the mall site, or maybe a dedicated bus/train/trolly connecting the mall site with Burke, the Science Center, etc., don't know how far that idea would go).  However, again, the mall site lacks the already existing hotels around TC.

 

The one advantage that the mall site has that has me now in favor of the site is Cleveland Browns Stadium.  This stadium should be used as much as possible, and I personally love the idea of using it for conventions if and when it is covered via the vision of Corna.  The stadium adds that much more space to the convention center, and is the type of out-of-the-box type of thinking that our town needs... just a couple of my thoughts on the situation

^the city has already decided to dump Corna's plans.

Dump corna's plans...

 

That's dissapointing.

 

I thought the stadium architecture could really be improved by his plan.

Regarding the argument about centrality and accessibility, here is the results from the City Planning Commission's study of the matter on their website:

 

Existing Site (west block option)

Existing Downtown Hotels: A total of 3,021 rooms currently exist in downtown Cleveland within a 10-minute walk of the proposed main entrance/registration lobby for the new Convention Center on Franz Pastorius Boulevard (West Mall Drive) between St. Clair and Lakeside avenues.  Four existing hotel rooms with 1,654 of these rooms are within a five-minute walk of the main entrance/registration lobby facing the Burnham Mall:

 

Marriott Key Center (400 rooms)

Crowne Plaza City Centre (470 rooms)

Hyatt Regency (293 rooms)

Renaissance Cleveland Hotel (491 rooms)

Seven existing hotel rooms with 1,367 rooms are within a five- to ten-minute walk of the main entrance/registration lobby:

 

Holiday Inn Lakeshore (381 rooms)

Hampton Inn (194 rooms)

Ritz Carlton (208 rooms)

Holiday Inn Express (141 rooms)

Residence Inn  (175 rooms)

Embassy Suite Reserve Square (268 rooms)

 

Major Downtown Visitor Destinations:  The following existing activity nodes are located a ten-minute walk of the main entrance/registration lobby for the new Convention Center on Franz Pastorius (West Mall Drive) between St. Clair and Lakeside avenues:

 

North Coast Harbor

East Bank of the Flats Entertainment District

Historic Warehouse District

Tower City Center

Gateway Sports Complex

Lower Euclid/East 4th Street Entertainment District

 

Tower City Site

 

Existing Downtown Hotels: A total of 1,850 rooms currently exist in downtown Cleveland within a 10-minute walk of the proposed main entrance/registration lobby for the new Convention Center on Huron Road between West 2nd and West 3rd streets.  Two existing hotel rooms with 699 rooms are within a five-minute walk of the main entrance/registration lobby and would be directly accessible through the interior concourses of Tower City Center:

 

Renaissance Cleveland Hotel (491 rooms)

Ritz Carlton (208 rooms)

Five existing hotel rooms with 1,151 rooms are within a five- to ten-minute walk of the main entrance/registration lobby:

 

Marriott Key Center (400 rooms)

Hyatt Regency (293 rooms)

Holiday Inn Express (141 rooms)

Residence Inn (175 rooms)

Radisson Hotel (142 rooms)

 

Major Downtown Visitor Destinations:  The following existing activity nodes are located a ten-minute walk of the main entrance/registration lobby for the new Convention Center on Huron Road between West 2nd and West 3rd streets.

 

Tower City Center

Historic Warehouse District

East Bank of the Flats Entertainment District

Gateway Sports Complex

Lower Euclid/East 4th Street Entertainment District

 

 

^^Thankx for the info... that's even more of a reason that it should be built at the mall site... but the city already dumped Corna's plans?  That's unfortunate... I'll keep my conspiracy theories to my self on that one...

^the city has already decided to dump Corna's plans.

 

When?

More specifically, the Jackson administration and the Cuyahoga County Commissioners chose not to pursue a task force to investigate the cost and revenue potential of putting a retractible roof on Browns Stadium.

From the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/critics/skyline/

 

Interesting ideas!

 

 

 

UNCONVENTIONAL

Massimiliano Fuksas reinvents the convention center.

by PAUL GOLDBERGER

Issue of 2006-07-31

Posted 2006-07-24

 

Convention centers are supposed to revive cities by bringing in revenue from out-of-town visitors and creating local jobs. But the more gargantuan they become the less happily they fit into the places they are intended to benefit. In terms of architectural beauty, the convention center these days ranks somewhere close to the aircraft hangar, and for some of the same reasons: both must provide acres of space for a continually shifting configuration of objects, and cater to a temporary crowd of people whose minds are on other things. Putting one of these megaliths into the heart of a city is like trying to dock the Queen Mary in the local marina.

 

...

if anyone cares:

 

from: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060731/BIZ/607310360

 

As casino hotels go up, Detroit wonders who will win the game of HOTELOPOLY

 

Downtown Detroit, a longtime also-ran in the hotel and convention arena, is poised to become a more influential player with the addition of glitzy new casino hotels and restored architectural gems.

 

About 1,850 new hotel rooms are expected to be ready for overnight visitors by 2008, an increase of 56 percent from current levels. The new construction could affect hotel business from Windsor to Cleveland, according to industry experts.

 

^Do you really think so Pope?  I would think Cleveland and Detroit's pull on each other end at Sandusky.  But, then again, I am not a hotel industry expert

Terrific article, jamiec. When it comes to building urban stuff, we can always learn a lot from Europe.

^Do you really think so Pope?  I would think Cleveland and Detroit's pull on each other end at Sandusky.  But, then again, I am not a hotel industry expert

 

i would think in terms of conventions. I believe we have the larger space, and by the end of 2008 our downtown room total will be up to 5,155.....

 

but same thing here, i'm no hotel industry expert either.

^Really, what hotels are in the works?

He's talking Detroit. When Pope says "our city" he means the D.

He's talking Detroit. When Pope says "our city" he means the D.

 

its amazing, after soon to be seven years in august, i still do.

None of the Mall backers have answered one question: if the Mall the ideal, no-brainer site you say it is, why wasn't it rebuilt and expanded there years ago?  The scary thing about the Mall fans is that when you in cite all hotels and amenities the current convention center is allegedly close to, you are tacitly saying we should spend hundreds of millions of struggling-city tax dollars to expand the current cc without a guarantee of expansion there in terms of hotels, condos, restaurants and new, expanded train station, etc.  That’s simply unacceptable.   We don’t need any more empty developer-speak catchphrases like: “Phase I” or “future expansion plans” or “promises for future development” or “long range plans” or, … you know what I mean.  Initially, I was on board with Mall expansion IF all the above attendant development was guaranteed.   Otherwise, I’m not interested.  And from what I’m hearing, Mall backers aren’t guaranteeing anything.

 

The Mall backers did tip the scales, a tad, when noting the mall site has more room for expansion.  It sounded correct.  However, a closer look at GOOGLE Earth and maps of both areas reveal that’s not necessarily true.  Mall expansion can go out over the railroad & Rapid tracks, and maybe wrap around (to the north) both City Hall and the Courthouse to a degree.  But the Shoreway or future Lakefront Boulevard immediately to the north of the tracks is a barrier.  And even if, somehow, you could build a hundred or so feet past and over the Shoreway, you’re then hemmed in by Browns Stadium and the museums.  Surely you’re not telling me that you’d consider tearing down either of these to popular museums – esp the Rock Hall – for a boxy, largely empty convention center?   And why couldn’t there be expansion at Tower City to the east and west?  -- esp to the east, where the new cc could wrap around the north bank of Collision bend and rest upon that unsightly hole where the eastern Rapid portal is.  Also note there is additional space (over the East Side Rapid, NW of the Huron/Ontario corner)  where the now-famed LeBron “Witness” billboard is, as it is a gaping hole left by the Van Swerignens that has never been filled in by a projected office building.

 

And no, I don’t care how many hotel-room/walking-per-minute statistics you throw around (even that provided by the City Planning Dept), except for the southernmost tip of the current site the Mall location (and that in itself is a stretch), the Mall site not in the thick of any serious hotel, restaurant or retail area.  The current underground cc attached to Public Hall on the Mall is a stately, monumental and majestic site, to be sure, but it’s still sterile and barren of activity 90+% of the time.  And unless you guarantee the attendant development with the expanded center on that site, the overwhelming probability is that it will remain similarly lifeless in its expanded state.  As I said before, the Mall area is no different than most civic center areas of big cities (accept ours was much better planned and carried out – no other city, accept D.C., fully executed such a grouping of public buildings as did we, and we should be rightly proud of that).

 

And as to MyTwoSense’s discussion of Chicago’s cc location away from activity--Dude, you answered your own question: it's Chicago.  There at least a couple hundred high-rise residential and mixed use construction projects underway in that town as we speak.  We here in Cleveland need a convention center and attendant development to stimulate growth and life in our downtown.  To Chicago, however, a convention center would merely get in the way of their explosive downtown/fringe downtown development.  It's why their McCormick Place cc is located 3 miles from downtown along a barren stretch of Lake Michigan just down-shore of Soldier Field and their similar (to our Group Plan Mall buildings) handsome Italian Renaissance aquarium, Field nat-hist museum and planetarium.  Because it’s Chicago, and a place most people want to go, as opposed to Cleveland, with our decidedly-unfair mediocre-to-bad reputation, they could have built the thing in northwestern Indiana and still been a draw simply because everyone wants to go visit Chicagoland.

 

Once again, I still don’t see how people can argue for the Mall expansion given that Tower City, and its numerous indoor-interconnected residential/restaurant/hotel/The Q arena/transit/(not to mention existing 3+million sq ft of office space) superstructure, already exists.  To the contrary, the Mall proposal is a typical Cleveland ‘to-be-built’ scenario.    Aren’t we weary of all the developer promises and letdowns to continually grasp at pie-in-the-sky while thumbing our noses at a sure thing?  -- and for that matter, if the Medical Merchandise Mart people are in talks with Ratner and Jackson to guarantee X-hundred thousand (new) sq feet of space, why on earth would we tell them to go take a hike (regardless of what we think of Ratner or Jackson)?   The MMM people know what they’re doing; they know that the Mall cc has been in a precarious, undersized, under-utilized no-growth state for decades and, being bottom-liner business folks, they understand Tower City greatly trumps the Mall as the place to be when taking into account all the above existing/interconnected advantages I (and others) have listed.  Yes, at a distance, the sensibly economic thing to do would be to rebuild what we already have.  But shouldn’t we be about what best puts us in position for downtown to advance.  A Tower City cc gives us that, while the Mall doesn’t .   

 

To think otherwise simply makes zero sense to me.

 

 

^so how long have you worked for Forest City?

^exactly. the old cleveland cc is incredably unique for its day, being already partly underground. thats where any huge street life blocking monster like a cc should ideally be located imo. so i say no matter that they do not incorporate the cbs i think the new cc should be a renovation and expansion of the old cc.

 

not to mention, anyone can design a free-standing big box like a cc, but rebuilding the old cc under the mall and perhaps connecting it to a wfl rapid/future commuter rail/future ohio hub rail station is the opportunity of a lifetime for any truly creative-minded architects.

 

btw re the nyc cc:  in no way would i model anything after nyc's javits convention center. that thing is isolated away from the city way over in the windswept serapes. and thank goodness! if it were built anywhere else i cannot imagine the horror of it, besides being the badly dated butt ugly monster it is it, it would block out any and all surrounding streetlife. supposedly they are expanding & redoing it w/ streetlevel shops and stuff -- we'll see.

 

 

While I don't favor an isolated big-box convention center, I don't think a CC has to be a de facto "life blocking monster". I recently attended a convention at Milwaukee's Midwest Airline Center (http://www.midwestexpresscenter.com/) and was pretty impressed with how it was interwoven into the surrounding urban fabric. And despite the fact that the convention center was connected to a number of hotels via skyways, large crowds of conventioneers did in fact venture outside.

None of the Mall backers have answered one question: if the Mall the ideal, no-brainer site you say it is, why wasn't it rebuilt and expanded there years ago?  The scary thing about the Mall fans is that when you in cite all hotels and amenities the current convention center is allegedly close to, you are tacitly saying we should spend hundreds of millions of struggling-city tax dollars to expand the current cc without a guarantee of expansion there in terms of hotels, condos, restaurants and new, expanded train station, etc.

 

I'll answer your question why it wasn't built three years ago.

1. Maybe it would have if funding had been approved. It hasn't. A new convention center is controversial no matter where you put it, because politicians and their constituents want to believe that it is worth it.

2. Maybe because despite the fact the city and county would prefer a mall site (which they do), you have contigencies like Forest City making threats and throwing their political weight into the issue. Now I'm not criticizing their right to do so. Forest City is a major downtown land owner and they have the right to make their proposal and for it to be seriously considered, but their influence has cost the city/county lots of time.

 

   

Once again, I still don’t see how people can argue for the Mall expansion given that Tower City, and its numerous indoor-interconnected residential/restaurant/hotel/The Q arena/transit/(not to mention existing 3+million sq ft of office space) superstructure, already exists.  To the contrary, the Mall proposal is a typical Cleveland ‘to-be-built’ scenario.    Aren’t we weary of all the developer promises and letdowns to continually grasp at pie-in-the-sky while thumbing our noses at a sure thing?  -- and for that matter, if the Medical Merchandise Mart people are in talks with Ratner and Jackson to guarantee X-hundred thousand (new) sq feet of space, why on earth would we tell them to go take a hike (regardless of what we think of Ratner or Jackson)?   The MMM people know what they’re doing; they know that the Mall cc has been in a precarious, undersized, under-utilized no-growth state for decades and, being bottom-liner business folks, they understand Tower City greatly trumps the Mall as the place to be when taking into account all the above existing/interconnected advantages I (and others) have listed.  Yes, at a distance, the sensibly economic thing to do would be to rebuild what we already have.  But shouldn’t we be about what best puts us in position for downtown to advance.  A Tower City cc gives us that, while the Mall doesn’t .   

 

To think otherwise simply makes zero sense to me.

 

I think Tower City is a great mixed-use development and can't imagine the city without it, however FC has kind of failed on maintaining it properly since it was installed. It is a shell of what it once was. No matter what we seem to connect to Tower City it doesn't seem to be getting any better. Despite the facts that after Tower City was installed Gateway was connected to it, the nightlife/entertainment district downtown has moved from the Flats closer to Tower City onto W.6th and E.4th, the new Federal Courthouse was built on the river with connections to it, the downtown residential population has doubled, and tourism has been on the rise, WE STILL DON'T SEE A HEALTHY TOWER CITY - at least not like it used to be. What makes anyone think that the convention center goers will be the "silver bullet" for Tower City or that convention goers would even want to do a ton of shopping and dining there.

 

Its simply the most important thing, for everyone's interest, to do the convention center right so we get as much conventions as possible, and make the smartest decision when it comes to land-use policy.

 

The Mall/Lakefront site seems like a better site to me.

1. It automatically assumes the existing facilities will not sit empty.

2. The potential for a tourist/visitors district is a lot more promising for the land between E.9th and W.3rd on the Lakefront. Whereas the riverfront and Scranton Peninsula seems to be a lot more promising in terms of residential and mixed-use as the present land-uses suggest.

3. The designs for the center at the Mall/Lakefront site, seem to be a heck of a lot more attractive. The space is potentially larger, there are sweeping views of the Lake and Rock Hall, there are the manicured lawns and landscaping of the Mall.

4. A new hotel would most likely be built on the western portion of the Mall or on E.9th across from the Rock Hall. There is no space to build a new hotel at Tower City. Why do you need a hotel for this convention center? Because the Renaissance and Ritz aren't really "convention" type of hotels. A Hilton or Lowes maybe (which we don't have), but not a Renaissance or Ritz.

5. The reason why the current convention center at the Mall site has not succeeded is not because of its location! It is because the facilities are very outdated.