Recently the 668 Euclid Avenue proposal was unveiled, and it calls for the demolition of the Dollar Bank which is to be replaced with a "pocket park".  First off I'm not too thrilled about the demolition of any buildings. IMHO we are a city that has deep scars of demolition throughout downtown, and the thought of tearing down another really bothers me.   But let's assume for a second that the developer can prove that there is no other way to access the 668 building basement for parking and this building has to come down to make this project viable.  What agitates me almost as much as the demolition was the blandness of the "park".  Regardless of the fact that there was a huge concrete ramp in the middle of it, the rest left much to be desired. It was essentially a concrete patio with some tables with umbrellas, and a couple trees.  Why are we cursed here with such terrible "green space"?  In an effort to change this I have been asked by HGN to try and put together some information on why our pocket parks and plazas don't work.  I have no idea where to start on this, there's not exactly statistical data (if there is please let me know) on what makes some public spaces good and others terrible.  The point of this is so that if this building has to come down we would like to hold somebody accountable for good design of public space, to raise the bar, and demand we get more than the crap thrown out in places such as nat. city plaza, gateway plaza, the malls, etc.  So the question is.... What makes a good pocket park?  How does it become an "inviting" place?  Likewise what makes a bad one...   I mean it can't be that hard, other places do it... check out Paley Park in New York for example    http://www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/one?public_place_id=69  Anyway, I look forward to your responses. Thanks.

Just IMHO, it's what surrounds the area, not the park itself that makes the public space. There has to be a reason for people to be there, not just a plaza or park for the sake of one. So adjacent uses that draw pedestrians in or at least through the area. Mixed uses nearby, by both time and type so it's not desolate after business hours for instance.

 

I believe Jane Jacobs wrote about this quite a bit in her criticisms of certain urban renewal projects of the 60's - locally think Erieview plaza before the Galleria or Capitol South in Columbus before City Center.

EDIT:  I may have overstepped on what this topic was about--I took it as "open" public space downtown.

 

my expert opinion:

 

Like:

 

1) The "Reading Garden," I believe it's called, between the two library buildings (Summertime):

Reasons: Quaint fountains and chirping birds, people reading, people-watching at lunchtime, between two atrractive buildings and a view of the Arcade--quite pleasant.

 

2)  Public Square (minus homeless dining on Sundays):

Reasons: Too many obvious to say.

 

Don't like:

 

1)  Willard Park:

Reasons:  Wtf?  What purpose does it have anyway? ( I hope I'm not being too ignorant here...)  Couldn't we build residental/mixed-use along the street and leave the "park" behind the buildings?  It would much better link up with the E.9 bridge and lakefront.

 

2) Federal Building Plaza:

Reasons:  Just thinking I'm not going to like it...especially since the Mall and Willard Park are so close.

 

3) Parking lots on W.3 and W.6 ...

 

Indifferent:

 

1)  "Avenue District" Park (official name unknown):

Reasons:  Currently nothing special...but does have potential and hopefully will be done right if redone.

 

2)  The Malls:

Reasons:  Now I love the area, but there definitely something missing, and my best guess is people.  If there were residental towers/buildings lining the west side (north of key tower and knocking down and relcoating the other stuff), and the new convention center and medical mart where the main train terminal was supposed to go, The Mall would be a true site to see.

 

3)  Erie St. Cemetery:

Reasons:  Definitely nothing in fault of itself....but the surrounding area sucks.  Stark's 2080 plan could be a good start though.

 

Good post topic, McCleveland.  I agree with you that the quality of open space downtown is generally dismal, sometimes as a result of its design, sometimes as a result of its surroundings (often both).  I'm pretty much in tune with your list, MurrayHill-the reading garden is probably the best.  I'm not so keen on Public Square though.

 

Paley Plaza must be the most referenced pocket park on earth, but it does work pretty well and I am surprised it's formula is not copied more often.  I'm sure a huge group of other people reading this board are thinking the same thing, but you might want to organize a viewing of William H Whyte's The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces- a great little film from the late 1970s which purports to reveal, through observation and research, what the best ingredients are for a small urban space.  Some group in town (CSU Levin?) must have a video of it.  Whyte put together a book too of the same name which should give you some ideas.

a waterfall helps to liven it up and deaden traffic noise. also since it's euclid maybe a food kiosk or street cart would be nice, if foot traffic could support it.

^You just spoiled the ending of the movie!

Pocket parks, green spaces, and plazas in general suck in cleveland becasue there is an abundance of them vs the lack thereof people to occupy them. They all suffer from the same problems. Greenspaces are terrible because they are the well manaucred do not touch type. The plazas are terrible because generaly they are designed to make the "building look better" rather than have people in them. Alot of buildings were just poorly designed without filling out the entire parcel, and the rest is "greenspace and plaza" afterthought. If you go down E 9th street alone, it shows exactly all the problems with them.

 

Parks I like or I think have potential.

-The plaza next to gallereia. Galleria died, the area in general is too officey, but I think it has potential to be good.

-The pocket park in the library.Thats the way pocket parks should fee, cozy and enveoloped by the city buildings, not a buffer near a road.

-Star plaza. It just needs a bit more activity thats all.

-The other plaza on the other end of huron. It needs some activity, perhaps if KD does something right with the buildings it will pick up some activity.

-The paza in fron of pannis on huron. Its excellent outdoor cafe plaza on game days.

Perk Park seems like the perfect example of a park that totally missed the mark, but could be a nice space if redesigned.  It's a good location.  When designing an urban park I think you have to first pick a spot that allows for good people watching, some locations will never make good parks if there is not enough pedestrian activity in the area. 

 

And unfortunately you have to keep in mind that if a park is designed or placed incorrectly it can just become "homeless park".  I think most parks need to have an openness because of this factor.  All the nooks and crannies that were designed into Perk are perfect places for the homeless to hide and sleep, which means no one else uses that park.  The Reading Garden is an exception of an enclosed, almost hidden park that works because of it's association with on entity (the library) that can manage its use.

 

I know ParkWorks is hoping to redevelop Perk.  http://www.parkworks.org/perkpark.html

 

From the sound of the plans, it should be a major improvement.  I agree with whoever said moving water is always a nice feature, whether a fountain or waterfall/pond.  Also, the easiest way to increase foot traffic in that park would be to include a diagonal pathway from the northeast corner of the park at E. 12th to the southwest corner at Chester for pedestrians to cut through, which increases people-watching opportunities.  I like the idea of putting a food vendor of some kind in there.  Artwork is a nice touch, as is entertainment in the summer months. 

 

When I worked for Metroparks, we had a kiosk at every park which promoted upcoming events, the website, interesting facts about that park, had maps, etc.  Something like this in our downtown parks would be cool, but it would have to be maintained and kept up-to-date.

Homeless people aside, Perk is not inviting. It needs to be elevated to street level, and, as oompaloompa said, made more open. Right now it's dark, intimidating and claustrophobic, and this is coming from a guy that's 6'6. No way I'm sitting there eating my lunch.

 

Not that openness = inviting. That circular park in front of Key Tower is equally uninviting. Although I may be biased. I used to walk through there at 6 in the morning going to my office from Tower City and the things I saw going on there at that time of the day would make your blood crawl. Yech.

Homeless people aside, Perk is not inviting. It needs to be elevated to street level, and, as oompaloompa said, made more open. Right now it's dark, intimidating and claustrophobic, and this is coming from a guy that's 6'6. No way I'm sitting there eating my lunch.

 

Not that openness = inviting. That circular park in front of Key Tower is equally uninviting. Although I may be biased. I used to walk through there at 6 in the morning going to my office from Tower City and the things I saw going on there at that time of the day would make your blood crawl. Yech.

 

Very true.  Perk would be a great place for muggers to hide as well, I would never walk through there at night.  It's such a weird, unfriendly design.  And just being open does not make for an inviting space either.  It's complicated to figure out how to create a great public space.  Being ajacent to several restaurants and cafes would help increase the use of benches and picnic tables at most parks.