I disagree neighbor.  Having the center attached to Tower City only helps one group.  Tower City.  Not Cleveland as a whole.   - MyTwoSense

 

Huh?  Helps only one group?  Surely your not still letting your hatred of Ratner/Miller/FCE cloud your vision.  Does Tower City belong to them or, rather does it not belong to all of us?  Is not TC the most important mixed-use complex in all of Cleveland and, if so are you ready, as you sound, to simply let it die simply because you have it in for Ratner?  Is that logical, MTS?

 

Tower City is right across the street from/can stimulate Stark/Pesht and, finally, link TC with WHD, our most popular/prosperous residential/entertainment area.  Ditto, to the East, it can stimulate growth in the dead zone linking Public Sq to E. 4th.  Right now Fat Fish Blue is one of the only prosperous retail or restaurants in that zone.  I really don't see how rebuilding at the current location helps downtown so much.   

 

How much has the old underground CC at the location helped?  How much spinoff can you have at the Mall which, true to Dan Burnham's revolutionary Turn of the (20th) Century grouping, is surrounded by a wall of single-use (mostly handsome) public buildings that go dark M-F after 6p, particularly the (not so handsome) Justice Center, which would block the MMPI/CC from the WHD?   --- and lets not forget, in our infinite wisdom, we've rebuilt the Stadium along the Mall/CC's northern flank -- assuming CC receives air rights to build over the RR/RTA tracks as we discussed yesterday.  After the conventions are over, do you really see this area as a people place generating needed revenue for the city?

 

 

RyanScav, how many conventions/events do you attend a year?  That could be applied to anyone here to attends conventions.

 

DC center opened up in an area that had nothing, now its bustling with new hotels, restaurants and the neighborhood has vastly improved.  When I'm in Atlanta I'm able to walk to restaurants downtown as they purposely built a hotel corridor between Peachtree and Courtland. In Tampa the center is attached to a hotel and four other hotels are withing a short walk and there are restaurants and amenities close by.  When in Houston the Convention Center opened with a great hotel and is in a good location downtown from hotels, restaurants, etc.

 

As you pointed out.  IF the CC is built at TC, TC improves, but how does putting the CC at TC, improve developments and business that are convention oriented (restaurants, hotels, amenities, etc.) or new business that will come (that don't exist in Cleveland since the majority of money making events take place outside the CBD at the IX Center) to Cleveland to capitalize on new convention oriented business.  Marketers, travel editors, Convention directors, Company Travel Managers and convention coordinators, etc will say TowerCity looks great, but go away from the site and there is nothing to do or see.  

 

WE have to think about the larger picture not just today's convenience. So what if TC is connected to the rail station and two hotels.  If you place the center at its current location those coming for conventions have 6 hotels within a three block radius therefore sharing the wealth.  

 

You also increase the number of restaurants within that three block radius, if attached to towercity, you say to conventioner, DO NOT LEAVE, we have all you need INSIDE this building.

 

Also, if FCE was so intent on getting the center, why have they not done anything with the mall to improve the retail selection; built a new hotel or at least asked the Marriott Corp./The Renaissance to expand as well as market TC as a "destination" within Cleveland?

 

Why sacrifice the location so that FCE can benefit?

I disagree neighbor.  Having the center attached to Tower City only helps one group.  Tower City.  Not Cleveland as a whole.   - MyTwoSense

 

Huh?  Helps only one group?  Surely your not still letting your hatred of Ratner/Miller/FCE cloud your vision.  Does Tower City belong to them or, rather does it not belong to all of us?  Is not TC the most important mixed-use complex in all of Cleveland and, if so are you ready, as you sound, to simply let it die simply because you have it in for Ratner?  Is that logical, MTS?

 

Tower City is right across the street from/can stimulate Stark/Pesht and, finally, link TC with WHD, our most popular/prosperous residential/entertainment area.  Ditto, to the East, it can stimulate growth in the dead zone linking Public Sq to E. 4th.  Right now Fat Fish Blue is one of the only prosperous retail or restaurants in that zone.  I really don't see how rebuilding at the current location helps downtown so much.   

 

How much has the old underground CC at the location helped?  How much spinoff can you have at the Mall which, true to Dan Burnham's revolutionary Turn of the (20th) Century grouping, is surrounded by a wall of single-use (mostly handsome) public buildings that go dark M-F after 6p, particularly the (not so handsome) Justice Center, which would block the MMPI/CC from the WHD?   --- and lets not forget, in our infinite wisdom, we've rebuilt the Stadium along the Mall/CC's northern flank -- assuming CC receives air rights to build over the RR/RTA tracks as we discussed yesterday.  After the conventions are over, do you really see this area as a people place generating needed revenue for the city?

 

 

 

What has TC/the miller/FCE done with OUR investment??  Seriously???  Its not about hating them by any means.

 

We all know the current CC is inadequate on many levels, but the new design eliminates many of those issues.  The County buildings will be eliminated and so what if people have to walk past the Justice center to get to the warehouse district.  That is a mute issue, since many resident live there.  Has the Justice Center being were its located people or  buying or renting in that area or restaurants operating in the area?  If so, then the occupoancy rates would not be so high, correct?

 

The current center is one/two block north of the proposed stark development.  This whole "people don't want to walk" or "what about clevelands weather in winter" is BS.

Why sacrifice the location so that FCE can benefit? -- MTS

 

Again, we all benefit, not just FCE.  I'm sorry, MTS, but you're reflecting the balkanized logic that keeps leaders & developers fighting and continues to hold this city back.

^^ Has FCE been the ideal owner of TC?  No.  Should they have gotten a quality Dept. store in Higbee's space?  Yes (but, remember, FCE didn't cause Higbee's to be taken over by the yayhoo Dillard's either).  Like it or not MTS, whether you, I or anyone on this board agrees (which I do) that FCE hasn't done enough, doesn't negate the importance of this building to downtown and Cleveand as a whole.  And even in it's weakened state, it is still one of, if not the, most impressive buildings/complexes in this city.  I'm still not connecting with your thought process: OK, they're lousy owners, lets kill this major complex and, to hell w/ the effect such will have on Cleveland?

 

The Justice Center does in fact block a projected CC from the WHD.  Obviously, people can walk around it, but why should they have to?  the JC would be a neighborhood splitter and, imho, one of Cleveland's biggest problems, neighborhood-wise, is that our hottest/hippest areas are cut off from one another making them seem like islands pedestrians have to "get to." 

Well you and I are going to have to "agree" to "disgree" on the subject of location for the new CC.

we could have a poll so everyone could get an opinion in, but i think its going to be beneficial either way. I just believe that we could majorly improve one of our flagship locations. people attending these conventions will still be walking from their hotels. Nonetheless, i am far from an expert in this area.. I just hope our officials know what will be best for the city.

Alot to address here.

 

Re: The current CC site being seperated from the Warehouse District from the JC- Has anyone here ever walked along Prospect or Huron at street level through Tower City?  It's alot of blank walls, wind, and a nasty crossing to get over Superior Ave, perhaps the most pedestrian unfriendly street in Downtown.  This path is even more pedestrian unfriendly than crossing through the Civic Center and across the JC.

 

Re: Tower City spinoff and the need to "prop" TC up- Will Tower City not benefit from having the Medical Mart/CC as a part of our Downtown landscape even if it goes to the current site?  I know they are important, but I don't like throwing so much of the spinoff to them alone.  Putting $400 million of public investment into someone's backyard like that is doing way too much to prop up one private property owner over the rest of Downtown.  It just isn't fair to others who have invested in our Downtown as well.  Put the CC in a neutral site and them compete for the spinoff business, like everyone else.

 

Re: the use of lakefront land- The "lakefront" extension of the CC would include stretching the Mall (ie the largest public space in our Downtown, which stretches right through it's heart) along it's top, bringing it closer to the Lakefront and helping to bridge the gap between Downtown and the lakefront.  And let's not get revisionist with these assertions that this is a bad use of lakefront land, because it isn't lakefront land, it is the air rights over the impediments to the lakefront that we would be building over and making into pedestrian friendly public space.  Stating otherwise is either misinformed or misleading.

 

Re: using the current CC/Public Auditorium for studio/soundstage space- can anyone point to any sort of study to prove that this is a feasible use that can support the upkeep of these structures for some time to come?

 

Re: site suitability of the TC site for Convention Center layout and use- the Planning Commission already studied the sites and found the TC site to be seriously deficient and inferior to the current CC site in terms of layout of the CC's space and access.  I've posted the results of that study here multiple times, apparently nobody reads it. 

 

Which brings me to: F-ck it.  This is going to FCE no matter what.  The rest is dog and pony show.  I'm wasting my time.

Well you and I are going to have to "agree" to "disgree" on the subject of location for the new CC.

 

Hey, but it's fun to debate... On this one, in the long run, downtown wins either way.

..... in the long run, downtown wins either way.

I agree with that!

ideally the new cc should be the renovated cc plan, no question. it is such a creative and ingenious update of an already ingenious site, it seriously kind of takes your breadth away. it will be highly talked about and admired. this unlike some awkward cc built into a mall, which is how the tc site would be seen.

 

renovation has so many benefits. most of all it keeps an otherwise huge and difficult downtown structure buried out of sight and mind where it belongs, but also it will spur a new hotel and other businesses around the mall area, will spread the convention-related business around town better, will further connect the city to the lakefront and will even improve wfl transit.

 

And let's not get revisionist with these assertions that this is a bad use of lakefront land, because it isn't lakefront land, it is the air rights over the impediments to the lakefront that we would be building over and making into pedestrian friendly public space.  Stating otherwise is either misinformed or misleading.

 

Great point.

 

Re: using the current CC/Public Auditorium for studio/soundstage space- can anyone point to any sort of study to prove that this is a feasible use that can support the upkeep of these structures for some time to come?

 

Well said.  It's the same thought that I have every time I hear someone say that the Mall site can be re-used as a soundstage-type space.

Re: site suitability of the TC site for Convention Center layout and use- the Planning Commission already studied the sites and found the TC site to be seriously deficient and inferior to the current CC site in terms of layout of the CC's space and access.  I've posted the results of that study here multiple times, apparently nobody reads it. 

 

 

I lean towards the TC site, so I'm curious about this study.

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/Convention/convention.php

^Thanks for posting that- a very useful review.  I think I'm fully on board with the current site-especially if it involves building something (the MM and a hotel?) on the county land and crappy privately owned stuff on the west side of Mall B.  Building this thing at Tower City just looks like a total design clusterf*ck that will loom large (literally) over too much of downtown and the Flats

 

I don't know much about the operations of the current convention center, but I was sort of surprised how hard it was to find specs and plans about it on the web.  And I found very, very little about the Public Hall facilities (and on a City site, the Public Auditorium is mislabeled as Music Hall-cute).  This site has some nice photos of Music Hall and the Little Theater, neither of which I've ever been inside of, but they look pretty awesome and I'd think they could add a nice classy touch to some conventions if the rest of the Center was modernized: http://realneo.us/blog/susan-miller/name-this-theater-in-cleveland

In an ideal world I'd love to see the original site revamped for the CC and the Medical Mart still be placed in the Higbee's or May Company Building... It's like 4 blocks.  It would help breathe life into Tower City... not leave the current site barren, and add some life to an area that is extremely stagnet.  Another thought to consider is that when the initial proposal for the existing site was released, it called for the razing of the county building for a new hotel and/or a medical mart to go in it's place... of course that was when the county was planning on leaving for the Breuer / Rotunda site.  Now they'd need a new home for this site to even be contemplated.  In my UtopiaCleveland, Breuer Tower gets saved / redone as condos/hotels... Medical Mart goes in the Higbee Building... and the County locates with Stark which should give him enough to get Pesht going... Pesht being a partial link between the mart and the CC.  But I've stated many times before... I'm pretty sure this decision is well already made.  Get ready for the TC site, and let's at least hope that the attached convention center can help recreate Tower City as a legitimate shopping destination, and that they can come up with a good plan on how not to have the existing site be a wasteland.

Get ready for the TC site

 

and the key to the final location decision, in spite of having the input of the location committee and consultant is that the commissioners will make the final decision (yeah, I'm sure they will take into consideration the recommendation :roll:).

I think when it comes to Tower City, downtown and Convention Center there are two different thought processes

 

1. Aim to build a stronger downtown by using the existing/lakefront site, and we will see a better Tower City.

2. Aim to build a stronger Tower City by using the riverfront site, and we will see a better downtown.

 

I think when it comes to Tower City, downtown and Convention Center there are two different thought processes

 

1. Aim to build a stronger downtown by using the existing/lakefront site, and we will see a better Tower City.

2. Aim to build a stronger Tower City by using the riverfront site, and we will see a better downtown.

 

 

if i may.. boom shacka lacka..  you hit the nail on the head.

 

lets hope our leaders take the right advice.

^ Well thank you, but I think we still disagree. I am strongly in favor of the Mall site

I can understand both camps, but I fall into the first camp. Aim to build a stronger downtown by utilizing the existing center on the Mall site. If downtown is strong, we will see a better and more vibrant Tower City Center.

 

I consider Tower City a great asset, a regional hub of transportation and a signature gateway to downtown. However, I do not consider Tower City a "civic" space. Tower City Center with its RTA hub is a gateway between downtown and Greater Cleveland commuters. It should reach out to the community to which it is linked by transit lines. Forest City Enterprises should focus on running Tower City Center as the city's signature commercial and retail complex, and perhaps consider becoming a key player in transit-oriented residential development for Cuyahoga Cuyahoga County along those transit lines, which the county has already provided.

 

The Mall site has greater long term appeal and possiblity for downtown for several reasons. It is the only place to do it right.

1. This gurantees the county will not be left with an obsolete monolith in the middle of downtown. Preserves and bolsters one of the leading "civic" spaces in the country.

2. Plenty of room for adequate space or potential expansion.

3. The abundance of intermodal transportation linkage (car, rapid, inter-city rail, ferry, air) available at E.9th Pier

4. Allows for greatest reach by downtown pedestrians by placing the Convention Center in the middle of Public Square, Northcoast Harbor, Warehouse District and Erieview District.

5. Restores faith in Cuyahoga citizens by showing leadership is capable of following through on the Group Plan and Lakefront Plan.

 

Many cities have a regional transportation hub and a seperate inter-city transportation hub. I suppose that is what I am pushing for with Tower City (Public Square) and Northcoast Harbor (the Mall).

 

Needless to say, I'll be disappointed if it goes to Tower City.

Reading that post actually changes my mind. One thing to consider is that we COULD possibly lose a scranton peninsula development.. though there is no way we could guarantee that. Regardless, the thought of FCE benefitting from this so much after doing so little with their own space makes me ill.. and that thought makes me want to go with the mall site. And, if i may be honest, the mall sites design is SO MUCH MORE promising. I can really see potential in the site, and really see a lot of potential in the TC site to get ourselves stuck with a giant piece of junk on our doorstop.

 

keep our ears open!

The best argument to make to County Commissioners is to "Finish the Group Plan!" My gut feeling is PLJ is for the Mall site just because he seems to be the most logical thinker.  No clue how the other two feel.  It sounds like Hagan might not be sure which way to go hence the outside consultant.  That wouldn't seem to be Dimora's style.  I like that the Mall adds another route to the Lake from downtown Cleveland hence "opening up lakefront access".  I also like that it forces the county to make serious decisions about some of their office space downtown to relocate them.  But this also makes way for adding 1 or 2 new hotels in the vicinity and multiple new restaurants.  To me this spreads downtown out nicely.  By sticking everything at Tower City you have everything at Tower City. 

 

I think this makes Cleveland a much more fun city to visit.  To be able to hop off the plane in 5 years to take a train to Tower City and then a short ride on the Waterfront line to the new convention center and hotel complex.  A convention goer would be able to do a flyby of Wolsteins Flats with glimpses of Starks developments.  That should be a great view from the top of the Mall.

^I see no great need to "finish the Group".  Besides, I don't see the Mall, as unfinished  -- most of us only know it’s 'unfinished' is by history books (or websites) telling us Burnham planned a union station there... If 'finishing' is the driving reason for rebuilding on the Mall, I can’t see it seriously advancing downtown...

 

As to 'concentrating everything at Tower City, why shouldn't we build upon a site with such potential.  Building upon a location that already has some traffic flow creates excitement and energy -- visit the big Indianapolis’ CC + big (convention) hotels + Circle Centre Mall + Conseco Fieldhouse + tons of clubs, restaurants and street retail (including a large Borders bookstore) all in one place to see what I mean; it's why most visitors rate (exciting) downtown Indy higher than (schizophrenic) downtown Cleveland.  So why, audidave ‘spread (downtown) around’?...  The mindset here seems to be to ‘punish’ Tower City (see, the Ratners) and/or not reward them … Downtown's and Cleveland's problem is we have a number of nice neighborhoods that are unfinished and, yet, we ready to start the next one which, quite naturally, will be unfinished, too.  Consider the lost impact of new-ish the Hilton Garden Inn as it sits off to the side of downtown on Carnegie away from everything…  So we end up with islands of activity surrounded by dead zones.  I mean, how creepy is it, evenings -- even on weekends, to walk to/from Tower City to either the WHD or E. 4th along empty streets where, many of you gripe about being accosted by the homeless (who wisely set up shop along these routes)...

 

That said, for all you Mall fans, I wouldn't count out it out -- Tower City's hardly a done deal.  We've got county-owned land, on the western flank and a beautiful, largely empty deteriorating county owned Public Hall.  Bingo.  We know in this town big projects are often sacrificed at the alter of fiscal and political expediency.  For the commishes, therefore, the Mall is a win-win... With either site, esp the Mall, if a big hotel is not a part of the equation, preferably bigger than the 600-room one discussed in the CPC study, a new CC falls way short in my book... and I don't mean, in our usual approach, a hotel 'in the future' ... 'when the economic climate is right', or whatever...

 

clvlndr, I can only speak for myself, but you really need to get of the "we want to punish" , "we hate the ratners/FCE" cry. 

 

My location choice is based on various factors, but having hate for FCE and their management of Tower City is not one of them so please stop saying that.  Thanks.

The best argument to make to County Commissioners is to "Finish the Group Plan!"

 

I see this as the type of thinking that would doom a convention center. We need to think about what kind of center would attract the most business. Additionally, I think Burnham's plan is somewhat flawed. If we built out his plan, then we would block off the view of the lake, stadium and museums that you can now presently see from the Malls. In my opinion, that is the best thing that the Mall has going for it.

 

I see this as the type of thinking that would doom a convention center. We need to think about what kind of center would attract the most business. Additionally, I think Burnham's plan is somewhat flawed. If we built out his plan, then we would block off the view of the lake, stadium and museums that you can now presently see from the Malls. In my opinion, that is the best thing that the Mall has going for it.

 

I totally agree

^Me too.^  Does anyone remember the plan that was posited by someone a while back to extend the Mall all the way to the lake, past Browns Stadium and the GLSC?  I saw a rendering once, then never again.  It was "just" a private citizen's idea, but I think the kind of idea people could rally around.  That's how I think we should "finish the Mall".

 

I don't think concentrating activity at TC will increase Downtown's vibrancy.  The problem is that it is a massive internally oriented development that is mostly quite hostile or at least dead at street level.  If anything the Mall site, because it forces some crosstown pedestrian traffic, holds better promise to enliven Downtown and "connect the dots".

I don't think concentrating activity at TC will increase Downtown's vibrancy.  The problem is that it is a massive internally oriented development that is mostly quite hostile or at least dead at street level.   If anything the Mall site, because it forces some crosstown pedestrian traffic, holds better promise to enliven Downtown and "connect the dots".

 

:clap: Very well stated.  Can I get an AMEN?!   :clap:

You are all very right... and it's still going to go behind tower city.

I don't remember, but do the commissioners, other than PLJ have a "special" relationship with the Ratners?

You are all very right... and it's still going to go behind tower city.

 

I'm afraid you're right.

I don't remember, but do the commissioners, other than PLJ have a "special" relationship with the Ratners?

 

I don't think that the Ratners think very highly of Hagan and Dimora. Of course they want to stop losing the million dollars a month that they losing at TC and will push the commissioners to select TC for the CCMM. The Ratners are very smart people. They see right through Hagan and Dimora.

I'd love... LOVE... to see the existing site as the convention center, with the actual Mart in the Higbees Building. It forces the interaction we all crave.  It could do so many great things for downtown.  But if you open your ears at all, you hear the same things... and it's that this thing is going to end up behind tower city.

I was more referring to the architectural renderings that came up from the last study of 2 years ago as  finishing "the group plan"

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/convention/detail.php?ID=ml

I think this works quite fine

As to 'concentrating everything at Tower City, why shouldn't we build upon a site with such potential...........  The mindset here seems to be to ‘punish’ Tower City (see, the Ratners) and/or not reward them …

 

 

clvlndr, I think the argument has been that the Ratners have been rewarded over and over with.... much public money for they're projects, winning the Federal Courthouse and linking etc. etc........... (insert any number of Roldo articles here for the extreme version)  and they still haven't "done" a whole lot in return and are just looking to cash in wherever they can while continually crying and looking for more handouts/bailouts.  I don't know how much I agree with some of the arguments against them, except they're weakness as a mall manager.  But otherwise I think they are certainly an important part of Cleveland.   

 

As important as I think it is for Tower City to be successful, (since I think it is such a great space with many things going on in a single location), I don't want to see a decision made based on "to help out Tower City".  Since there has already been plenty of that.  If it has the best and most attributes fine, but to abandon what we have at the mall and the possibilities there to "help Tower City" just seems a bit much.  Of course Forest City will make all kinds of threats in the meantime (again) that Tower City will fail if ........          

I was more referring to the architectural renderings that came up from the last study of 2 years ago as  finishing "the group plan"

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/convention/detail.php?ID=ml

I think this works quite fine

 

i always love checking that out -- i think its much better than fine, it's brilliant.

 

i especially love the extended mall's "infinity pool" style view of the lake.

 

this has nothing to do with the ratners clvlndr, the lakefront cc renovation is easily the more logical and superior cc plan. it doesn't stick people in an enclosed shopping mall --  it gets them out and about. heck, even if the weather is absolutely horrible and conventioneers want to stay indoors they still can by taking the wfl rapid from here around to the new east bank flats, tc or whereever.

 

unfortunately, as others said i too suspect it's an insider/done deal for tc. it ain't over yet tho, so we'll see.

 

 

Mostly everyone agrees that Cleveland really needs higher density downtown.  How would the Mall location increase density? It barely would, compared to TC.

 

One of the most promising locations downtown where higher density can be built on an already-existing base is the TC area.  Now that the city has one shot at increasing density, why waste that shot on a second-rate location (Mall) and ignore the most promising spot (TC)?  Whether FCE would get a free ride is irrelevant to this debate (I have no connection to FCE whatsoever).  Hate of FCE - which seem to be a recurring theme when it comes to the TC location - is a pointless argument and shows bias.

 

Also, how would a Mall location contribute to Cleveland's skyline/image, if the CC is built largely underground (correct me if I'm wrong)? It wouldn't. I think that's a huge negative.  Economic development is important, but so is Cleveland's skyline.  Burying the CC in the ground contributes 0 to the skyline.

 

We don't have the luxury of Chicago or NY, of having 2-3-4 mega-projects every year; we've got one shot, and we need to get maximum bang for our bucks.  Looking at both density and skyline, I can't see how the Mall location is better than TC.

Mostly everyone agrees that Cleveland really needs higher density downtown.  How would the Mall location increase density? It barely would, compared to TC.

It would force people outside to walk to and fro events, restaurants, etc.

 

One of the most promising locations downtown where higher density can be built on an already-existing base is the TC area.  Now that the city has one shot at increasing density, why waste that shot on a second-rate location (Mall) and ignore the most promising spot (TC)?  Whether FCE would get a free ride is irrelevant to this debate (I have no connection to FCE whatsoever).  Hate of FCE - which seem to be a recurring theme when it comes to the TC location - is a pointless argument and shows bias.

 

It's a mall.  So heming it in a tight location is better?  What will we do when the new space needs to be expanded?  We'll be at square one all over again.

 

Again, who on here has stated they hate FC in conjunction with the CC center?  FCE's mismanagement of other projects has no bearing on the location.  UNDERSTAND THAT!

 

We don't have the luxury of Chicago or NY, of having 2-3-4 mega-projects every year; we've got one shot, and we need to get maximum bang for our bucks.  Looking at both density and skyline, I can't see how the Mall location is better than TC.

 

Don't compare Cleveland's developments to any other cities, it's a non issue and penis envy.

There isn't really a density issue near Tower City except for towards the WHDistrict.  A convention center isn't going to add to the skyline either way (it would probably result in something clunky and awkward behind Tower City though).

 

As stated above, convention centers usually have a way of killing street life when above ground. (large boxes that can go for blocks) 

 

Again, as MTS will point out again, it is not about hate for Forest City. 

Oh he just did! :wink:

I was more referring to the architectural renderings that came up from the last study of 2 years ago as  finishing "the group plan"

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/convention/detail.php?ID=ml

I think this works quite fine

 

After refreshing my memory by checking out the link, I'm pro mall/existing CC site.  It keeps a low profile, provides access to the lakefront and promotes activity in the area.  THe TC site would best be served for future office, hotel, residential or some other development which can take advantage of the river views.  That is much better instead of trying to shoehorn a behemoth into the limited site at TC. Each site obviously has its pros and cons but that is my limited opinion. 

Again, as MTS will point out again, it is not about hate for Forest City. 

Oh he just did! :wink:

 

he he he.  HUSH!  :wink:

 

I was more referring to the architectural renderings that came up from the last study of 2 years ago as  finishing "the group plan"

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/convention/detail.php?ID=ml

I think this works quite fine

 

After refreshing my memory by checking out the link, I'm pro mall/existing CC site.  It keeps a low profile, provides access to the lakefront and promotes activity in the area.  THe TC site would best be served for future office, hotel, residential or some other development which can take advantage of the river views.  That is much better instead of trying to shoehorn a behemoth into the limited site at TC.

 

Can I get another AMEN?!

I don't see how "skyline" is improved by smashing a convention center up against Tower City either.  Oh sure you'll be able to see it but then everyone will be amazed at how retarded it looks overhanging the river with roads going up and down next to it.  I don't really think when people talk "density" they mean directly attaching large structures next to even bigger structures.  I'd say that the mall site increases density by a much bigger magnitude than TC site.  The Mall site will absolutely increase density on the lakefront, a new doorstep into Cleveland.  Thats been the goal of Cleveland as well is to have better access to the lake.  By putting the CC at TC there might not be a need for a hotel.  By placing it at the Mall there's a good chance a large hotel or 2 will be built and this could add to the skyline.

At the risk of veering off topic, FCE could help Tower City by finishing Tower City. Is a big box convention center shoehorned in between Huron Rd. and the river the highest and best use of that area behind TC or is it possible that a nice mixed use neighborhood (like FCE has developed in so many other areas of the country) is the better long term plan for FCE/Tower City and Cleveland?

At the risk of veering off topic, FCE could help Tower City by finishing Tower City. Is a big box convention center shoehorned in between Huron Rd. and the river the highest and best use of that area behind TC or is it possible that a nice mixed use neighborhood (like FCE has developed in so many other areas of the country) is the better long term plan for FCE/Tower City and Cleveland?

 

Now it's time for a hallelujah!

Hallelujah!  Amen!  This is turning into a revival!  Let's hope the Commissioner's catch the fevah of faith!

Let me start out by saying that I am in favor of the mall site.  I look at it this way:

 

If the CC and MM are put on the mall they would be surrounded by:

          a. to the North - the lake, RRHOF, GLSC, NCH, and CBS

          b. to the East - E 9th Street, Avenue District

          c. to the West - WHD, FEB, FWB

          d. to the South - Public Square, TC, East 4th Street

 

The TC site does not have the same kind of centrality and is more isolated.  Plus, I hate the idea of trying to "shoe horn" a fancy new CC into the site on the river.  I agree that the more underground the CC can go, the better..... build hotels and shops on top of and around it.

 

Now, if it was GUARANTEED that the TC site would inspire development across the river, then my tune might change.

If the convention center is put on the mall with the medical mart located within Higbees, everybody wins.  Forest City gets money that they want, and the city gets a convention center located in the best possible place (IMO).

 

Lets face it- yes, Tower City is a superb mixed-use location.  However, how could argue that putting a convention center behinid Tower City is the best use of land that is currently underutilized and has been screaming for years for a better use?  I would love to see some type of economic study done of the two sites, weighing the pros and cons.  However, we've wasted 3 years of talking, and it's time that something get done.  I'm sure that some type of study comparing the two exists somewhere.

 

Based on existing infrastructure already in place, and weighing the fact that the mall is already publicly owned, I have to go with the mall.  As was said earlier, the Waterfront Line will be at the Mall's doorstep.  Taking the train from the airport to Tower City, then going around the Flats East Bank to the Mall site would be SWEET.  That's just my opinion however.  We can weigh the given statistics to come to some type of logical conclusion, minus some type of economic study comparing the two sites as to which site would have the most economic impact.

 

Mall-

 

Total Site: 23.2 acres, including Mall B between St. Clair and Lakeside avenues, Strawbridge Plaza (Mall C) north of Lakeside Avenue to the NS Railroad tracks between the access drives for the Huntington Park garage and the Willard Park garage, the area between the NS Railroad tracks and Erieside Avenue from the west side of Strawbridge Plaza (Mall C) to East 9th Street

 

All property is public-owned (100 percent of proposed site) including air rights over the railroad tracks north of Strawbridge Plaza (Mall C) between the east side of the Cuyahoga County Courthouse and the west side of Cleveland City Hall.

 

An encroachment under the entire width of the Lakeside Avenue right-of-way for a length of approximately 600 feet currently exists for the exhibit halls located below the street.  This encroachment would continue to be needed for the proposed convention center layout.

 

Tower City-

 

Total Site: 12.1 acres of air rights all privately-owned: including area bounded by Huron Rd., Ontario St., the north side of the Cleveland Thermal Steam Plant, the Cuyahoga River, and the Sherwin Williams research facility.

 

An encroachment over the entire Canal Road public right-of-way between the Sherwin Williams property and the Cleveland Thermal Steam Plant (controlled by the City of Cleveland) is proposed to maintain four lanes of vehicular traffic along the east bank of the Flats and to provide underground utility access.

 

An encroachment 25 feet wide over the south side of Huron Road’s 90-foot wide right-of-way for a length of approximately 1,200 feet between West 3rd and Ontario streets (controlled by the City of Cleveland) would be required to accommodate the exhibit halls and their adjacent loading docks without extending over the edge of the existing Cuyahoga River bulkhead.  The proposed structure would be a minimum of 24 feet above Huron Road.  A pedestrian bridge approximately 30 feet wide is proposed to span the entire width of the Huron Road right-of-way to provide an interior connection between the second level of the proposed convention center’s registration lobby and a new upper level within the Skylight Concourse of Tower City Center.

 

An encroachment over an existing 20-foot wide public easement (controlled by the City of Cleveland) immediately adjacent to the Cuyahoga River for approximately 500 feet of water’s edge.  The exhibit hall loading docks for the proposed Convention Center would extend over the entire width of the easement approximately 126 feet above the Cuyahoga River bulkheading.

 

Existing Hotel Space-

 

Mall-

 

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)

 

Tower City-

 

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)

 

Transportation impacts-

 

Mall-

TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS/INFRASTRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS 

The access ramps to and from Memorial Shoreway (SR-2) on the east side of East 9th Street would be eliminated to allow for construction of the access drive for the main entrance/registration lobby of the proposed Convention Center between the railroad tracks and the Shoreway’s through lanes.  The Shoreway’s through lanes would remain in place allowing east-west traffic to continue between the Main Avenue Bridge and I-90.  Traffic between downtown Cleveland and the west side currently using the Shoreway ramps at East 9th Street would have to use existing ramps at West 25th Street on the west side of the river providing access to the Veterans Memorial Bridge or the West 6th/Lakeside Avenue ramps on the east side at the north end of the Historic Warehouse District.

 

A new station area, including vehicular and pedestrian access, would have to be integrated with new Convention Center development north of the railroad tracks to maintain cross-country passenger rail service provided by AMTRAK.

 

New elevators and/or escalators at the west end of the North Coast (East 9th Street) station could provide climate-controlled pedestrian access between GCRTA’s Waterfront Line light rail service and the proposed Convention Center’s main entrance/registration lobby.

 

Tower City-

 

A vehicle drop-off loop for cars, taxis and buses is proposed between West 3rd and West 2nd streets at the Huron Road level within the proposed Convention Center air rights.  Portions of the exhibit level of the Convention Center would extend over this drop-off area potentially requiring additional mechanical ventilation to exhaust fumes from idling vehicles away from the exhibit halls.

 

Loading docks for the Convention Center are proposed to be located at the exhibit hall level along the river side of the floor plate, 24 feet above Huron Road and 124 feet above the Cuyahoga River.  Truck access to the proposed Convention Center loading docks would occur using a two-lane, 900 foot-long access ramp proposed to rise along the west side of Ontario Street between the former Eagle Avenue Viaduct access and Huron Road. 

 

A second ramp is proposed to be constructed west of the Convention Center loading dock ramp and slope down to provide access to existing public parking below Huron Road serving Tower City Center and the proposed Convention Center.  Both ramps would have to bridge the GCRTA rail tracks that serve the Red, Blue and Green Lines and operate in a trench on the west side of Ontario Street.  Roadway, access between both these ramps and the downtown street grid would be at the current intersection of Ontario Street and the closed Eagle Avenue Viaduct.

 

For daily commuters using the parking below Tower City Center and people using this same parking for events at the Tower City Center Amphitheater, the Gateway Sports Complex and the proposed Convention Center, these ramps would shift southward from the existing ramps on Huron Road west of Ontario Street to Eagle Avenue across from Gateway Plaza between Quicken Loans Arena and Jacobs Field and 1,000 feet closer to Carnegie Avenue and the Innerbelt’s Central Interchange providing access between downtown Cleveland and I-71, I-77 and I-90 at Ontario Street.  This may require the acquisition of property on the west side of Ontario Street between Carnegie Avenue and Huron Road to additional traffic lanes for queuing of turning traffic into the Tower City Center parking.

 

Access for Tower City Center loading docks and relocated docks of the Landmark Office Building is proposed to use Canal Road.  The existing roadway would be widened to four travel lanes maintain access to the Sherwin Williams Research Center, the Stokes Federal Courthouse and the Flats Entertainment District as well as the Tower City Center complex.  With the permanent closing of the Eagle Avenue Viaduct in 2003 and its subsequent demolition, the increased traffic on Canal Road generated by the proposed Convention Center and Tower City Center retail expansion may necessitate the construction of the East Bank Connector to provide a direct roadway link to I-77 and I-90 at the Central Interchange.  Funding for the engineering and construction of the East Bank Connector has not been identified.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation currently is engaged in a multi-year process of planning major transportation improvements to Cleveland’s Innerbelt.  Included in this planning effort is evaluation of replacing the Central Viaduct that spans the Cuyahoga River Valley and reconfiguring the Central Interchange where I-71, I-77 and I-90 merge and provide access between the interstate highway system and the downtown Cleveland street network that may include modifications to access along Ontario Street.  Construction components and phasing currently are being developed and could impact vehicular access during construction and during early years of operation if a Convention Center is built at the River Site.

 

 

 

 

There are many other factors involved, but these are some of the main points that we talk about here. 

 

"hemming things in a tight location" is exactly what "density" means.  Density leads to traffic, not the other way around.  High density would be much better accomplished in the TC area, where there is already a basis to build upon, than in the Mall area, which right now is probably one of the lowest-density places downtown.  From the TC area, density - and traffic - can spread around as restaurants, retail space etc. reach full capacity and other stores, bars & restaurants open nearby.  Plus, with less hotel rooms nearby, compared to the Mall location (1850 v. 3000+), this would either generate more traffic back & forth to hotels, or more probably a new 500+ rooms hotel in one of the empty lots by Superior.  This could jump-start Pesht or a similar project.

 

The assumption seems to be that the CC will necessarily be a big ugly box that we need to hide somewhere (like, underground).  Why so?  The Gund Arena could have been a big ugly box - but it's not; it looks nice and it's a Cleveland landmark. A CC with a modern design on a sloped location would certainly contribute more to the skyline than a hole underground.

 

I don't mean to set off (again)  :-D someone's inferiority complex by comparing Cleveland to other cities, but look at where the highest density is in other cities: in crammed locations bordered by rivers/estuaries/gulfs etc.  The best place to start if we want to achieve high density is right by the river, not inland.

"The assumption seems to be that the CC will necessarily be a big ugly box that we need to hide somewhere (like, underground).  Why so?  The Gund Arena could have been a big ugly box - but it's not; it looks nice and it's a Cleveland landmark. A CC with a modern design on a sloped location would certainly contribute more to the skyline than a hole underground."

 

Have you SEEN the renderings for the TC CC design? Hid.E.ous. I'm not saying they couldn't design something more appropriate but the current renderings are pretty awful - I would LOVE to see something better so I can change my tune.