The setback is not altering the number of pedestrians, though. Students use the building for class, whether there is a setback or not. The student center (across the street) also has a setback from the street and there is a constant presence of people in front of it all day.

 

The concept in the article is hopefully understood by everyone on this board, but I don't think the negative scenarios it describes apply to this situation. Most of the scenarios that presented an "unsafe" environment included an electrical box in the middle of the sidewalk, chain link fences, and parking lots with no clear sidewalk. In CSU's case, they've installed a modern green space with lighting, benches, landscaping, and a pleasant view all around. Honestly, it's quite enjoyable to walk through there. I don't think there's a basis for thinking this building and its setback creates an unsafe environment. I guess we will agree to disagree.

 

 

This is urban design 101. Setbacks inherently make a sidewalk less pedestrian friendly, as do a lack of public access to and use of a building's ground floor from along a sidewalk. Sure there's pedestrian activity with the student center, but there would surely be more without the setback and if there were more points of access to additional/diverse ground floor uses accessible from multiple points along the front of the structure.

 

You want a building to be more proximate and more porous in its interaction with the sidewalk.

Fewer pedestrians makes an area feel less safe. Read (or just scan the pictures):

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/how-bad-urban-design-makes-san-diego-feel-unsafe/

 

Great article. I can assure you it's no mystery why the few walkable ares of San Diego are bursting with activity and new investment.

I don't mind the setback exposing Trinity Cathedral . However the opposite setback view shows why this choice is flawed. 

The setback is not altering the number of pedestrians, though. Students use the building for class, whether there is a setback or not. The student center (across the street) also has a setback from the street and there is a constant presence of people in front of it all day.

 

The concept in the article is hopefully understood by everyone on this board, but I don't think the negative scenarios it describes apply to this situation. Most of the scenarios that presented an "unsafe" environment included an electrical box in the middle of the sidewalk, chain link fences, and parking lots with no clear sidewalk. In CSU's case, they've installed a modern green space with lighting, benches, landscaping, and a pleasant view all around. Honestly, it's quite enjoyable to walk through there. I don't think there's a basis for thinking this building and its setback creates an unsafe environment. I guess we will agree to disagree.

 

 

This is urban design 101. Setbacks inherently make a sidewalk less pedestrian friendly, as do a lack of public access to and use of a building's ground floor from along a sidewalk. Sure there's pedestrian activity with the student center, but there would surely be more without the setback and if there were more points of access to additional/diverse ground floor uses accessible from multiple points along the front of the structure.

 

You want a building to be more proximate and more porous in its interaction with the sidewalk.

 

I'll have to disagree here.  This is a University building for student/faculty use.  The exact same number of "pedestrians" would be entering and exiting it if it was built right up to the sidewalk with windows and doors all over.  It's not a public building.  As a CSU student I actually appreciate the extra little bit of green space the setback adds to this very urban campus.

The setback is not altering the number of pedestrians, though. Students use the building for class, whether there is a setback or not. The student center (across the street) also has a setback from the street and there is a constant presence of people in front of it all day.

 

What about the night? Rascal House generated a lot of foot traffic all day long, not just during school hours. I'm not suggesting they kept the pizza shop but a better site plan would have incorporated mixed use on that block. Rather than green grass on one side and parking lot on the other.

 

There are easily 3 times as many restaurants on the very next block as there was when rascal house was on that corner. 

I'll have to disagree here.  This is a University building for student/faculty use.  The exact same number of "pedestrians" would be entering and exiting it if it was built right up to the sidewalk with windows and doors all over.  It's not a public building.  As a CSU student I actually appreciate the extra little bit of green space the setback adds to this very urban campus.

 

Stop creating arbitrary rules for different types of buildings. At street level the only urbanist rule is that matters for buildings of all types is how proximate and porous it is for pedestrians. There is actually a civic building farther east on Euclid, the NE Ohio Regional Sewer District building, which has a restaurant on the ground floor and the building is built up to the street. It's a rare example of "very urban" in a street in a city that has forgotten how to create active sidewalks. Give me messy buildings at ground level with intimate street settings and lots of doors, windows, or other opportunities for people to flow in and out, talk, see, hear, interact, etc. That will get you the ol' "eyes on the street" that make sidewalks more active, safer, dynamic places to be.

 

There's a million how-to new-urbanist books that discusses this stuff ad nauseum. Please read Bernick, Calethorpe, Cervero, et al.

 

EDIT: or Speck!

@JeffSpeckAICP: Walkable downtowns require four simultaneous components. Walks must be useful, safe, comfortable and interesting.

I'll have to disagree here.  This is a University building for student/faculty use.  The exact same number of "pedestrians" would be entering and exiting it if it was built right up to the sidewalk with windows and doors all over.  It's not a public building.  As a CSU student I actually appreciate the extra little bit of green space the setback adds to this very urban campus.

 

Stop creating arbitrary rules for different types of buildings. At street level the only urbanist rule is that matters for buildings of all types is how proximate and porous it is for pedestrians. There is actually a civic building farther east on Euclid, the NE Ohio Regional Sewer District building, which has a restaurant on the ground floor and the building is built up to the street. It's a rare example of "very urban" in a street in a city that has forgotten how to create active sidewalks. Give me messy buildings at ground level with intimate street settings and lots of doors, windows, or other opportunities for people to flow in and out, talk, see, hear, interact, etc. That will get you the ol' "eyes on the street" that make sidewalks more active, safer, dynamic places to be.

 

There's a million how-to new-urbanist books that discusses this stuff ad nauseum. Please read Bernick, Calethorpe, Cervero, et al.

 

EDIT: or Speck!

@JeffSpeckAICP: Walkable downtowns require four simultaneous components. Walks must be useful, safe, comfortable and interesting.

 

The concept is understood, having went to school for urban planning. I just think you're taking the "safety" issue to an extreme here. There's nothing about this building or its setback that makes the building feel unsafe. If CSU wants to have a small setback to give the campus a more inviting and "green" feel, so be it. Not too long ago, they were carrying the nickname, "concrete jungle." 

 

CSU is not in the city's main core and it is surrounded by surface lots on all sides. If demand for more density was soaring downtown and all of the parking lots were being scooped up for development, then I think the setback is wasting space on the block. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I mean there's an actual gaping hole with grass and sidewalks along Euclid next to Burgers 2 Beer; it seems to work just fine. I also don't hear any CSU students complaining about the setback, nor are they complaining about their compromised safety. Maybe CSU is catering more-so to what their students want, rather than what us urban-lovers want. So be it.. let's move on and stop complaining about the building that will not change. Thank you. :wave:

Maybe if you were a woman you'd feel differently about safety and the need for more eyes on the street.

 

And maybe if we had usable street walls downtown and not useless decorations of grass there would be reason to develop all those surface lots. Pretty isn't productive and urban photography isn't an economic multiplier. That building won't change but the next one needs to. And I'll keep complaining until we re-learn how to build a city.

CSU is very much in the core, literally adjacent to Playhouse Square.  Euclid Avenue should not transform from downtown theater district to suburban campus in the space of one block.  The central city location is CSU's main selling point, so it would behoove CSU to have a campus that looks like it's downtown.

^Agreed.  I argued that while seeing the plan for the "Green-Ribbon" for the first time around 2007 while at CSU.  Why CSU chose Euclid instead of Chester if they just HAD to install a Green-Ribbon still confuses me as Chester was already largely anti-urban due to the parking lots which stretched along the college's footprint. Fast-forwarding to today, what's crazy is that Chester's street-wall has become more urban in regards to street frontage while Euclid's has arguably become less.

 

I would say though that having the Green-Ribbon wouldn't seem as bad with a larger student population, a better interaction with the sidewalk (why have grass if the students are not drawn to it- what's missing is places where students would naturally want to come and sit- not just having grass with sidewalks) and more programming.  The lot next to Urban Affairs would be packed on days where the college would plan events on warm weather days.  But those days didn't happen much back then, and I don't think they happen much now either.

^Agreed.  I argued that while seeing the plan for the "Green-Ribbon" for the first time around 2007 while at CSU.  Why CSU chose Euclid instead of Chester if they just HAD to install a Green-Ribbon still confuses me as Chester was already largely anti-urban due to the parking lots which stretched along the college's footprint.

 

Ugh....Chester. The school doesn't even bother to identify what building you're at.

I have to disagree with all the CSU folks saying they enjoy the grassy areas. Not a single one of the grassy knolls created in the last decade on that campus is useful. When I was attending CSU, the grassy areas DID feel unsafe at night. My girlfriend at the time lived at the YMCA building and the abandoned Holiday Inn was less creepy than some of those knolls at night.

 

Moreover, the knolls are replete with odd hills or sidewalk cuts or depressions or absurd gardens, making them useless for frisbee or other campus recreation. Being right next to a major thoroughfare makes recreation even less plausible. If they built these buildings flush to the sidewalks (which would enable mixed use) and set green space between the buildings lining Euclid and Chester (like the quad between the Student Center and library), we would have the urban character of a downtown and the campus-like setting where we can hang out  and recreate in safety.

 

In it's current form, these "grassy knolls" are good only for assassination attempts, hope they don't put one by the library...

Webcam for 1750 Euclid. 'The Edge at CSU'

 

http://oxblue.com/open/clayco/edgecsu

 

In case you've been waiting for another mediocre design from CSU. These match the post from freethink in early Februrary. At least most of the grass courtyard is in the interior of the plot. The plaza along Chester is there already.

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2016/03182016/index.php

 

When I went to CSU, you could still smoke inside.  Everywhere.  No grassy areas were needed, so it was called Concrete State..... :)

That's a better place to put open grass I guess.  But we just don't need any more of it.  If CSU can't bring itself to put a building in that space, a forest would be preferable to yet another lawn.

It's not an amazing architectural design, but I think it's a big urban design improvement.  The current building is a blank wall at street level, with windows starting about 10 feet up.  It's clearly designed to have been a fortress against urban/campus unrest.  This new building is at least glass at the ground level.  Also, I'm glad they are building some green space internal to the campus- I've always wanted CSU to present an urban face to its surrounding neighborhoods with some quad-style greens in the middle.

I wish CSU's "green ribbon" were more internal to the campus, as this green space will be for the new college of engineering, rather than designed for Euclid Avenue street frontage.  I have no problem with CSU wanting more green space for students to enjoy/gather on/etc, but it's the placement on Euclid that I think is wrong. 

It would be different if the green space was actually usable, but it's mostly just grass with sidewalks going all over it. Functional green space would make it feel like a college campus....frisbee, sun bathing, reading on benches. Instead, we get space that's not used at all from what I've seen.

But they don't play with the greenspace toys they already have!  Time for a yard sale to clear some space.  Then we can build something that looks like an urban core on that space.

 

Active urban campuses don't typically have a lot of greenspace.  Instead they're packed with buildings for pedestrians to go in and do stuff besides look at grass.  They're integrated with the dense neighborhoods around them.  There's usually a quad but not three or four of them, and aside from the quad, everything is built and sited in a recognizably urban fashion.  It seems to work well everywhere else, so I don't understand why CSU insists on reinventing the wheel.

In reference to our recent discussions, here are some relevant excerpts from The Walkable City by Jeff Speck AICP:

 

For the typical pedestrian, the most mundane storefront is still more interesting than the most luxuriant landscape. #walkablecity

 

We mustn’t let the greening impulse undermine the core qualities of urbanity that draw people downtown in the first place.

 

“Creating street life” ranks low on most starachitects’ priority lists, down there with staying on budget and keeping the rain out.

 

Pedestrians need to feel safe and comfortable, but they also need to be entertained, or else those with a choice will choose to drive.

In case you've been waiting for another mediocre design from CSU. These match the post from freethink in early Februrary. At least most of the grass courtyard is in the interior of the plot. The plaza along Chester is there already.

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2016/03182016/index.php

 

 

Okay, now this green space/buffer is a different story. There is no landscaping, there are no benches, and there are not even pathways leading to the building besides one main path. Pretty much the entire length of the building has a grass buffer between the building and the sidewalk. This buffer is not usable or enjoyable. If you have walked along Chester on the side of Main Classroom and the Library, you have experienced walking along the buffers there- both of which make a long and boring walk, especially in the winter. At least the Health building's green space out front is pretty and makes for a pleasant and safe vibe. This, on the other hand, is just a waste of space between the building and the sidewalk, and makes the sidewalk feel miles long. Thumbs down!

^ An entrance along the sidewalk with an overhang or something would have at least made the frontage more inviting. Instead we get yet another corner plaza.

What no love for CSU today? This is kind of a big deal and this announcement comes with its own trailer.

 

https://www.csuohio.edu/news/ohio-legislative-leaders-and-csu-announce-new-school-film-television-and-interactive-media

 

 

Remember the one WRL rolled out about ten years ago. Just build that one. Its still on their site.

Missed this story.  Cool!  Not many film programs in Ohio and CSU is the perfect spot for one.  Could be a big step in building up the local production industry.

CSU's new indoor tennis facility opens to the public:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/05/cleveland_state_universitys_te.html#incart_river_home

 

 

PROS: will be nice to have an indoor option in the city during winter months.

 

CONS: tearing out the perfectly nice and popular outdoor courts and replacing them with a $27/hour indoor facility (which apparently has part-time hours.)

 

 

Are there any outdoor public tennis courts left in the city?

I think there are actually quite a few. Off the top of my head: Rockefeller Park, Zone Rec, and at least 2 in Old Brooklyn

CSU's new indoor tennis facility opens to the public:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/05/cleveland_state_universitys_te.html#incart_river_home

 

 

PROS: will be nice to have an indoor option in the city during winter months.

 

CONS: tearing out the perfectly nice and popular outdoor courts and replacing them with a $27/hour indoor facility (which apparently has part-time hours.)

 

 

Are there any outdoor public tennis courts left in the city?

 

Yes, quite a few including the ones that bumsquare mentioned: Here's a map of them http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/glN

The map is mostly up to date; the old ones on CSU's campus have been updated yet. (If you'd like to update it, register at openstreetmap.org and edit it :) )

I think there are actually quite a few. Off the top of my head: Rockefeller Park, Zone Rec, and at least 2 in Old Brooklyn

 

Ah yes, thanks for the heads up on Zone. Appears they're just south of the main building on Detroit, so I'd never seen them. I had tried Gordon Park a couple summers back, but those courts had sadly been torn out/left to rot.

 

Point remains: too bad we lost our public option in the downtown vicinity, though I understand the short-term $ considerations from CSU.   

I think there are actually quite a few. Off the top of my head: Rockefeller Park, Zone Rec, and at least 2 in Old Brooklyn

 

Ah yes, thanks for the heads up on Zone. Appears they're just south of the main building on Detroit, so I'd never seen them. I had tried Gordon Park a couple summers back, but those courts had sadly been torn out/left to rot.

 

Point remains: too bad we lost our public option in the downtown vicinity, though I understand the short-term $ considerations from CSU.   

I'm hoping they add some courts to Canal Basin area.

I think there are actually quite a few. Off the top of my head: Rockefeller Park, Zone Rec, and at least 2 in Old Brooklyn

 

Ah yes, thanks for the heads up on Zone. Appears they're just south of the main building on Detroit, so I'd never seen them. I had tried Gordon Park a couple summers back, but those courts had sadly been torn out/left to rot.

 

Point remains: too bad we lost our public option in the downtown vicinity, though I understand the short-term $ considerations from CSU.   

 

There used to be a lot more in the city including ones next to the Muni Lot downtown (although not the best location for them); IIRC, they were also at where the dog park now stands at the Clark Fields in Tremont... the city once had a very vibrant summer tennis league (several hundreds of kids, from 15-20 playgrounds) from the early 80s to the early 00s; another program has come up in its place - http://www.innercitytennis.net/

I would love to see this happen. The Wolstein Center is such a drain on the university and is way too big. Plus, it ruins that whole block on Prospect Avenue, so it would be great to see residential units be brought up to the sidewalk and actually create some pedestrian activity in the area.

 

 

Cleveland State University may demolish Wolstein Center for smaller arena, housing

 

By Karen Farkas, cleveland.com

on May 23, 2016 at 3:49 PM, updated May 23, 2016 at 3:50 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Cleveland State University would like to replace the Wolstein Center with a smaller arena and housing for up to 1,000 students.

 

As it seeks to transition from a commuter to residential campus, CSU would replace the 25-year-old, 13,000-seat arena with an arena seating 5,000 to 7,000 seats, plus adjacent housing, said spokesman Will Dube.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/05/cleveland_state_may_replace_wolstein_center_with_smaller_arena_and_housing.html

I believe the Wolstein Center is technically in Central, so I dont know if the student housing would count towards downtown's numbers if built there. I like the proposal though... I think that tearing down the Wolstein Center is needed since its costing the school so much. It should be interesting to see which developers come forward with proposals.

This is great news. The parking/landscaping moat surrounding Wolstein is one of the worst site plans on CSU's campus, and that's saying something. This could greatly improve that stretch of Prospect Ave.

I'm even more excited at the prospect of building residential along Euclid in front of the Music building. It would remove quit a bit of their lawn there. It's actually quite surprising to me that they're looking at building there, since it would go against the "green ribbon" plan.

^ I had heard that lawn talked about as a location for the new film school, so was surprised to hear it's being considered for dorms

I would love to see this happen. The Wolstein Center is such a drain on the university and is way too big. Plus, it ruins that whole block on Prospect Avenue, so it would be great to see residential units be brought up to the sidewalk and actually create some pedestrian activity in the area.

 

 

Cleveland State University may demolish Wolstein Center for smaller arena, housing

 

By Karen Farkas, cleveland.com

on May 23, 2016 at 3:49 PM, updated May 23, 2016 at 3:50 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Cleveland State University would like to replace the Wolstein Center with a smaller arena and housing for up to 1,000 students.

 

As it seeks to transition from a commuter to residential campus, CSU would replace the 25-year-old, 13,000-seat arena with an arena seating 5,000 to 7,000 seats, plus adjacent housing, said spokesman Will Dube.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/05/cleveland_state_may_replace_wolstein_center_with_smaller_arena_and_housing.html

 

Agreed. I think this is necessary. And going to a 5-7,000 arena will make it much more feasible to get smaller concerts, events, etc

I'm even more excited at the prospect of building residential along Euclid in front of the Music building. It would remove quit a bit of their lawn there. It's actually quite surprising to me that they're looking at building there, since it would go against the "green ribbon" plan.

I hear the biggest problem with this location is the quantity of utilities that run underground through that area down to the West end of campus.  They would need to be re-routed and the costs might be a big unknown.

I hear the biggest problem with this location is the quantity of utilities that run underground through that area down to the West end of campus.  They would need to be re-routed and the costs might be a big unknown.

 

The Corlett building was on this site until 2010ish. Is it common for utilities to run underneath buildings?

 

http://www.clevelandareahistory.com/2010/01/demolition-of-cleveland-cadillac.html

I hear the biggest problem with this location is the quantity of utilities that run underground through that area down to the West end of campus.  They would need to be re-routed and the costs might be a big unknown.

 

The Corlett building was on this site until 2010ish. Is it common for utilities to run underneath buildings?

 

http://www.clevelandareahistory.com/2010/01/demolition-of-cleveland-cadillac.html

I'm guessing that the footprint for a 1000 bed dorm is going to be much larger than the footprint of the Corlett building.

^ To give some perspective on that, all of Euclid Commons and Fenn Tower combined are only just over 1,000 beds

Here is a virtual tour of the CSU campus. Looks new.  Also the Chester building has been demolished making way for the construction of the Engineering building.

http://clevelandstate.university-tour.com

^ I really like the new virtual tour. The new Fenn Hall addition will be a huge improvement, and I'm very excited for the new courtyard that'll be behind it (this campus could always use more green space - so long as it's not a suburban-style yard). However, this map really puts into perspective how desperately CSU needs more student housing on campus.

...However, this map really puts into perspective how desperately CSU needs more student housing on campus.

 

Yup, and it can't come soon enough. Demand for on campus housing has been increasing every year. I'm glad a new 1,000 bed dorm will be constructed, I just wish it could be done by...well, yesterday

^What's this now?

^What's this now?

 

Maybe referring to the proposal to tear down the Wolstein and make a smaller arena with dorms next door.

Would you even need to pull down the arena to build 1,000 dorm spaces? Just building up for 8-10 floors on the useless green space and few parking spaces around it would probably get you that many units.

A bolstered Cleveland State basketball team would solve the problem of the Wolstein Center

 

The Wolstein Center site is only one of three proposed locations for the new dorm. I don't know how far things have progressed with site selection. But the Wolstein Center is a big financial drain for the university. It's way too big for what the school needs. I love the idea of knocking it down and replacing it with a smaller arena and student housing.

A bolstered Cleveland State basketball team would solve the problem of the Wolstein Center

 

 

It wouldn't solve its largely windowless bunker-style design, or its large apron (er, moat) of concrete and grass surrounding it. The whole structure says "I don't care about interacting on a human scale with my urban surroundings." And guess what -- it doesn't.