You can't simultaneously question the foundation and jockey for high value.

 

I was thinking the same thing.  My thinking is the Mall Site, the land and the buildings has a high price tag do to their historic nature.

 

Even with a "flaw" the property, the location and current buildings should retain a high price tag.

The Mall has been a DRAIN on the city's coffers. The city has no money or plan for the Convention Center. It's "historic" nature is that of a abused "asset" that the city has not/can not maintain and allowed to deteriorate. The only thing the city can do with it is to continue to neglect it. They should be tickled pink that it will again produce revenues for the citizens of Cleveland.

 

I hope no one finds this comment offensive.

The Mall has been a DRAIN on the city's coffers. The city has no money or plan for the Convention Center. It's "historic" nature is that of a abused "asset" that the city has not/can not maintain and allowed to deteriorate. The only thing the city can do with it is to continue to neglect it. They should be tickled pink that it will again produce revenues  for the citizens of Cleveland. 

 

I don't think  you're going to get a disagreement from any of us.

:-( Boo Hoo we didn't get what we wanted.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/01/forest_city_enterprises_calls.html#more

Forest City Enterprises calls for public review of convention center site decision

Posted by Jim Nichols

If these determinations weren't made public, they should be.  It would be one thing if they did not reveal the selection because of the need to secure surrounding real estate, but.....  :-o

FCE is crying over spilt milk.  If it were the other way around, they would defend the decision to the hilt.

That's not the point though.  Just because it is FCE, does not mean they are not making a valid point.  Furthermore, just bc they would possibly act in the same way if their site was chosen, it still does not make secrecy acceptable.

 

 

That's not the point though.  Just because it is FCE, does not mean they are not making a valid point.  Furthermore, just bc they would possibly act in the same way if their site was chosen, it still does not make secrecy acceptable.

 

 

 

I get that and I think we all understand that. I'm all for "transparency".  However, enough is enough!  This is ridiculous.  FCE is calling in favors to turn the tide of public interest in its favor for their on benefit.

 

Delaying this project hurts US, the taxpayers.

That's not the point though.  Just because it is FCE, does not mean they are not making a valid point.  Furthermore, just bc they would possibly act in the same way if their site was chosen, it still does not make secrecy acceptable.

 

 

 

Just what is their point? The manager operator of the project believes the their best chance of success is the Mall Site despite what they and their lackeys say?

 

I don't mean to disparage lackeys, some of my best friends are lackeys. No offense intended.

So FCE is going to sponser public meetings so the site gets moved to their property?  That's hilarious.  Seeing them squirm is pretty entertaining.

Does anyone think their complaints will be taken seriously? Could this possibly further a deeper review of the process?

I think it would be a positive thing if MMPI and the Commissioners laid out their thought process, and what was involved in their decision making. I'm for this, becuase this is using public money, and the commissioners don't have an exemplary track record of awarding projects on merit lately. Also, I think that by airing this out, we can put the decision to bed and move ahead.

 

The site selection is the right one. Let's just reinforce that point and start building.

I think it would be a positive thing if MMPI and the Commissioners laid out their thought process, and what was involved in their decision making. I'm for this, becuase this is using public money, and the commissioners don't have an exemplary track record of awarding projects on merit lately. Also, I think that by airing this out, we can put the decision to bed and move ahead.

 

The site selection is the right one. Let's just reinforce that point and start building.

 

Bravo.  I'm not against the site either, but I am for transparency.  Can you imagine the uproar if FCE was awarded the CC, yet was not transparent?

I sense a bit of power shift away from local entities . I view it as a good thing. Too long the locals has been acting and receiving as if this area were their own private sandbox to crap in as they please. While still very skeptical of the "leadership" the law of unintended consequences seems to be at work. People coming in saying we're about good business and to hell with your petty politics. We are here to do business. Good for you. Good for us.

 

Now we are getting down to hardball, but only a fool stays in a fixed game. This is about more than a individual project. It is about the future of the region.     

This is complex because on the one hand, the commissioners made the right decision.  On the other hand, they made the right decision so badly that they almost shouldn't get away with it.

This is complex because on the one hand, the commissioners made the right decision. On the other hand, they made the right decision so badly that they almost shouldn't get away with it.

 

Thats exactly what I was thinking but didnt know how to put it into words. 

From Cleveland.com:

 

"Cuyahoga County commissioners today are likely to hire an engineering firm to evaluate the foundation of the Cleveland Convention Center to decide whether the base can support having a new convention center built on top of it."

 

Whole article at: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/01/cuyahoga_commissioners_may_sel.html

I think this is a valid concern. I support them investigating this further, and if it causes them to choose TC over the current site .. I'll be massively disappointed, but at the same time, I'll understand their decision.

 

I think it's good that MMPI's site selection process is receiving a bit of scrutiny, though .. especially on this particular point. They need to make sure that the foundations are solid enough for the type of development they want to put there. That's totally understandable, and it should be done.

They should not choose the TC site even if this one proves unsuitable.  I really think it would be difficult to come up with a worse place to build this type of thing than behind TC.  Nobody else is clamoring to buy that land!  Nobody else has shown the slightest interest in it ever, as far as I know.  There hasn't even been a random lark of a development plan for that site since the 20s, has there?  At some point we have to admit that it's a steep slope overlooking a wasteland and move on.  The flats site would be head and shoulders better as a backup option, so I hope people don't just blow Wolstien off at this point. 

They should not choose the TC site even if this one proves unsuitable.  I really think it would be difficult to come up with a worse place to build this type of thing than behind TC.  Nobody else is clamoring to buy that land!  Nobody else has shown the slightest interest in it ever, as far as I know.  There hasn't even been a random lark of a development plan for that site since the 20s, has there?  At some point we have to admit that it's a steep slope overlooking a wasteland and move on.  The flats site would be head and shoulders better as a backup option, so I hope people don't just blow Wolstien off at this point. 

 

I disagree putting a convention center there.  That means we have another LARGE BUILDING blocking the lake front and people are upset that they would have to walk far from tower city, the flats is even further away with no support functions.

 

Everything is in place near the mall, building down in the flats would require much needed hotels, restaurants, bars to be built in conjunction, not a primarily residential neighborhood. 

 

The neighbors would complain about the overnight set ups...trucks coming and going for various deliveries and the nightmare traffic for big events like boat and car shows.

I'm not arguing for flats over mall, I like the mall site.  Just saying the flats is a better #2 option than TC.  If the CC were to go in the flats, it may change the overall mix there away from residential.  But not that much.  Either way, I don't think anyone would consider living in the flats if they have a real problem with industrial/commercial noise.

Holy shnikies. Not this again.

I'm not arguing for flats over mall, I like the mall site.  Just saying the flats is a better #2 option than TC.  If the CC were to go in the flats, it may change the overall mix there away from residential.  But not that much.  Either way, I don't think anyone would consider living in the flats if they have a real problem with industrial/commercial noise.

 

If you're spending that kind of cash for a NEW residential neighborhood.  I think people would be concerned and it wouldn't mix.

This is complex because on the one hand, the commissioners made the right decision.  On the other hand, they made the right decision so badly that they almost shouldn't get away with it.

 

I think that can be said about the whole process since the beginning and the decision to increase the sales tax, why stop now.

 

The thing that bothers me is how that I have absolutely no faith in any of the cost estimates being thrown around. The mall site has the water table issues and the TC sites requires it to basically be built onto stilts into an unstable hillside. Neither of these issues are show stoppers but both of them will require some tricky engineering. If this gets built at either site for a final cost closer to $500 million than to $1 Billion I will be amazed.  The flats site  is cheaper and I would believe that but as has been pointed out numerous times already that is another big box creating a dead spot in the middle of what I believed to be a new Cleveland mixed/use residential district.

 

 

EDIT: I know that MMPI is responsible for overruns but if this blows up (engineering nightmare ala Beantowns Big Dig) there will be public money used to finish it...

 

I talked to the guy from Osbourn after they made a  apple to apple (according to the specs GPC asked for) for GCP and the report was that the sites and cost were equivalent. This was with a NEW foundation and a NEW stand alone MM Bldg. It seems likely with new specs and the ability to reuse the existing foundation there would be substantial savings. If both site are equal, it seems to me that the balance would logically tip to the publicly owned property in need of rehabiatation A fellow I will refer to as Junior kept this report as deeply buried as he was able, telling Osbrn they would handle it in the manner they chose and down played it. Osbrn said in a S.Litt article they were put on a "short leach" by Junior. Sorry to not be clearer but I've been "warned" about offending the Great and Powerful and upsetting the more "sensitive"  among us.

 

warned?  who the hell knows who you are?  it's an alias.

I talked to the guy from Osbourn after they made a apple to apple (according to the specs GPC asked for) for GCP and the report was that the sites and cost were equivalent. This was with a NEW foundation and a NEW stand alone MM Bldg. It seems likely with new specs and the ability to reuse the existing foundation there would be substantial savings. If both site are equal, it seems to me that the balance would logically tip to the publicly owned property in need of rehabiatation A fellow I will refer to as Junior kept this report as deeply buried as he was able, telling Osbrn they would handle it in the manner they chose and down played it. Osbrn said in a S.Litt article they were put on a "short leach" by Junior. Sorry to not be clearer but I've been "warned" about offending the Great and Powerful and upsetting the more "sensitive" among us.

 

So is that to say that the Mall site estimate released by the GCP was totally fabricated?

So since Forest City is suddenly crying for transparency, then shouldnt that come out?

No, not fabricated. Osbn Report is buried in their somewhere and factual. I think GPC ask for a tight report within close parameters , in a lawyer like manor, to get a answer that was in line to their agenda. They (GCP) got exactly what they asked for,no more, no less.

"In a lawyer like manor"  Which would mean by a lawyer..... (junior)    :wink:

 

 

Edit:  I see now that my initial assumption was incorrect.  Not what I remembered but makes sense as well. 

I would  defer.....to S Litt's article on advice  from  :) I am confident in Osbrn's integrity. if in conjunction with architects they say it will work, bank on it.

I talked to the guy from Osbourn after they made a apple to apple (according to the specs GPC asked for) for GCP and the report was that the sites and cost were equivalent. This was with a NEW foundation and a NEW stand alone MM Bldg. It seems likely with new specs and the ability to reuse the existing foundation there would be substantial savings. If both site are equal, it seems to me that the balance would logically tip to the publicly owned property in need of rehabiatation A fellow I will refer to as Junior kept this report as deeply buried as he was able, telling Osbrn they would handle it in the manner they chose and down played it. Osbrn said in a S.Litt article they were put on a "short leach" by Junior. Sorry to not be clearer but I've been "warned" about offending the Great and Powerful and upsetting the more "sensitive" among us.

 

warned? who the hell knows who you are? it's an alias.

Relax, breath deep, ommmm

But Wolstein's is so sparkly and pretty!

Yeah right. I could've drawn that...

 

Everything is in place near the mall

 

 

Really?  Like what?  retail?  connected hotels?  Direct airport rail?...

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but what is the 'hallelujah!' moment so many people are having for, essentially, rebuilding what we already have: the existing site with little more convention space, a somewhat modest MMPI HQ building (I plus, I'll admit), no new promised hotels (and we're still very hotel-poor compared to our competitors, and we've always been told we need a major conv center upgrade to get the really big hotel we need; we simply cannot blow this), retail blocks away and I site hemmed in by the Justice Center, rail tracks/the Shoreway  -- oh yeah, and as of now, no tangible plan for an interconnected rail station, despite the progress toward, at least, the 3-C Amtrak corridor.  I just don't see the 'great breakthrough' with the Mall site.  And frankly, given KJP's adjacent concept post, the Wolstein/lakefront plan may offer more -- at least Wolstein's planning hotel, office and retail infrastructure tied in.

 

Nevertheless, there must be transparency with this choice.  I'm not buying the fact that, after Hagan & Co. and MMPI have taken this long, there's suddenly an urgency to hurry this thing through to the point of hiding key selection data from the public -- trumping up the fear of falling behind NYC's Med Mart plans is an elaborate ruse... If the Mall is truly significantly cheaper and the City can really come for with something truly imaginative for the Mall rather than simply rebuilding what we have -- with a very small net game in sq. footage exhibition space -- then maybe I can get a little excited about MMPI at the Mall.

Clvlndr we don't agree on this topic.  Lets start there.

 

located near the mall site are hotels, restaurants, retail and TC.  Its two blocks away.  As a person who attends many conventions and oversee's a department that coordinates many.  Being two blocks away is not a major deterrent.

 

Why would we build a convention center on the lakefront further away from those things.  Building in the CBD is the best thing to do.

 

I thought that a convention center hotel was apart of the deal or is that apart of the spin off.

1) 500 room hotel

2) Enclosed atrium connecting the hotel and convention center and featuring shops and restaraunts

3) 500,000-square-foot convention center

4) Glittering glass roadblock to lakefront access

 

 

1) 500 room hotel

2) Enclosed atrium connecting the hotel and convention center and featuring shops and restaraunts

3) 500,000-square-foot convention center

4) Glittering glass roadblock to lakefront access

5) and a partridge in a pear tree?

 

I do not under stand the reference or the point being made.

 

excuse me, I just looked at the map.  I thought this piece of crap was to be placed in the flats.  please replace lakefront with the word riverfront and the joke half works.

^ I don't get it. The joke must be over my head.  :roll:

excuse me, I just looked at the map. I thought this piece of crap was to be placed in the flats. please replace lakefront with the word riverfront and the joke half works.

 

Yeah, the arguments against the flats site need to stop referring to it as "waste of lakefront space" or "blocking lakefront access".

 

Lakefront access is already blocked there with or without a convention center (or anything else).  Note the train tracks, massive piles of rock, and big warehouses.  The site proposed - assuming it would be in the space Eaton was to occupy - isn't even riverfront.  It's inland, boxed in by the waterfront rail line.

I think the concern is potential eventual lakefront access, which could only be realized in 30 years or so when the port moves.  At which point, the port area would sit squarely between the CC and the lake.  Tons of access, no blockage.  If we really want lakefront opened up, we need to move the salt mines and the shipyard and the waterworks and the airport and the stadium and Bratenahl.

.... and Bratenahl.

 

LOL

Yeah, the arguments against the flats site need to stop referring to it as "waste of lakefront space" or "blocking lakefront access".

 

meh.  not being able to see through a building also makes it a barrier.  as a person with eyes, I would like an unobstructed view of the lake.  also, I would like a view that does not include this piss poor excuse for a building. 

 

burying the convention center is the best thing you can do for everything next to it.         

What perplexes me is this developer is smarter than this. He knows it obviously does not stand a chance. WHY is he proposing it at all? It only inflames and reminds people of the public money already sunk into a project on the brink of obliteration. He would do well to tout the positives to investors,other than the public, of having his project so close to a vibrant and growing downtown. I don't get his end game.

What perplexes me is this developer is smarter than this. He knows it obviously does not stand a chance. WHY is he proposing it at all? It only inflames and reminds people of the public money already sunk into a project on the brink of obliteration. He would do well to tout the positives to investors,other than the public, of having his project so close to a vibrant and growing downtown. I don't get his end game.

 

:wtf:

I wondered that myself.

Question for the crowd:

 

I know it's heresy for those with classical urban planning educations, but would the functionality of the current convention center site improve if there was an underground ped passage from the NE corner of St. Clair and Ontario (future home the Med Mart), to Key Tower/Marriott, to 200 Public Square (fka BP bldg), and on to Tower City? 

 

I'm most definitely against above ground ped bridges if, for nothing else, their habitrail aesthetics, but I find the conventional "enclosed pedestrian routes suck the life off of streets" critique unproved.  Certainly some of the most vibrant cold weather cities (Minneapolis, Montreal, Toronto) have extensive enclosed pedestrian circulation systems, at least some of which are tied well into the public transit system.

 

For a city with such miserable weather for a few months of the year, I'm actually surprised there hasn't been more of an urban planning/architectural response to the elements over the years.  Although arguably, Cleveland's rich arcade history is an expression of this as much as it is an economic response to the under supply of sidewalk-front retail space 100+ years ago.

 

Thoughts?

There is now a underground ped to the Crown Hotel from Public Hall. There are a gaggle of steam lines and utilities under St.Clair. $$$

^Yeah, I know it's not feasible in the immediate future given the cost.  You'd have to dig very deep or relocate a lot of utilities.

Bridge/pedestrian tunnel do the same thing.  It takes people off the street.

 

To me they are both wrong! 

 

I do not understand why people are so focused on some sort of "comfort" passage for people going to and from the convention center, maybe it's just me but not having any "comfort" passage is a bigger marketing draw for the potential restaurants, bars, lounges, etc. near the convention center.

 

If the weather is bad, a visitor is more likely to enter into an establishment for temporary shelter and spend some money.

 

A comfort passage lets them bypass it all.

 

This should be an economy generator.

 

Personnally I like what Montreal has done with hiding a little bit of retail in the basements, then connecting those basements, so I think your idea has some merit. I think it wouldn't be a bad thing if done right, but I'm not one of "those with classical urban planning education".