One of the things that a public entity can do, under the O.R.C., is to have a two-tiered process with a Request for Qualifications and a subsequent Request for Proposals.

 

In the RFQ, you cast a wide net and set a general set of standards pertinent to the eventual project, without worrying about the eventual cost.  That way, the J'sFR&BDCo can get weeded out early.  The selected firms then would compete for the RFP, for which cost will be a major criteria, but not the only one.

 

Adding an RFQ generally adds at least three months to the process, but done well, you have a somewhat better chance of getting a competent and imaginative designer.  And, if you can get the RFP scoresheet to put more weight on design than cost, then a great designer ought to rise to the top (provided that the contract is under budget).

 

Unfortunately, there is a lot of pressure to contain costs, which oftentimes means that design takes a back seat.  But, with a more enlightened design culture, even the politicos could loosen the purse strings a bit (while still maintaining the legal nature of the process).

I understand.

 

So how does this explain the mess with the Breuer Tower?

I blamed nobody for anything on this thread.  I realize the flaws in the process, I really do, but that is no excuse for public projects.  If anything I'm being critical of people in my own field.  Architects for the most part are slugs when it comes to design, but for some reason you come out and attack me and and say,

"you sure portray in image of ignorance when a firm, team or design does not meet your standards."

Hey man, all I do here is express my opinions and expect better results in a time where contemporary architecture and urban design are changing the WORLD and the way people live and interact with space.  That's what I expect, and that's what we should all expect.  And we very rarely get it.

I question why the hell you are bringing this up on this thread, maybe the one thread where I am absolutely in favor of what is going on.

So how does this explain the mess with the Breuer Tower?

 

Boy, it really doesn't.  I'm afraid I wasn't privy to much of the goings-on with that one.  My understanding is that the final product (if it ever happens) will probably not bear much resemblance to what we've seen.  I'm not even sure if there was a RFQ before the RFP.  I don't think that there was, however.  It's not a method that is used often, but it should be.

w28th:

Ok

 

Avogadro:

Thanks

This sounds pretty cool. I love the Liberty Bridge in Greenville.

The bridge in Greenville, S.C. is unbelievable (as is the entire city). Hopefully this will spur some development down on the harbor.

 

 

I blamed nobody for anything on this thread.  I realize the flaws in the process, I really do, but that is no excuse for public projects.  If anything I'm being critical of people in my own field.  Architects for the most part are slugs when it comes to design, but for some reason you come out and attack me and and say,

"you sure portray in image of ignorance when a firm, team or design does not meet your standards."

Hey man, all I do here is express my opinions and expect better results in a time where contemporary architecture and urban design are changing the WORLD and the way people live and interact with space.  That's what I expect, and that's what we should all expect.  And we very rarely get it.

I question why the hell you are bringing this up on this thread, maybe the one thread where I am absolutely in favor of what is going on.

 

If anyone agrees with you, I do. Which shouldn't be a surprise.

w28th:

Ok

 

Avogadro:

Thanks

 

Aw, c'mon!! I want to see a fight! A BLOODBATH!! 

Sorry. Not worth it.

Something about arguing with architectural students/recent grads that makes it all futile.

Hey now, do I take offense to that?  :|

 

I realize that a 16 week studio project is quite the Disney version of a real life project but I think it's unfair to discount the opinion of a recent grad/arch. student because we don't have the jaded outlook on politics.

 

I think we need to stop this bs in the past few posts!  I'm sorry but as far as design goes in Cleveland, we all have A LOT to learn.

You are absolutely correct.

I apologize for over generalizing. Not all architecture students are arrogant. And not all planning students are over-the-top-optimistic. My statements were based on anecdotal incidents from the past four years, as opposed to a lifetime's career.

 

Yes, you are so very right. Everyone always needs A LOT to learn

(updated article from last week)

 

pd:

 

Cleveland makes excellent choice for North Coast bridge

Sunday, September 02, 2007

by Steven Litt

 

Hooray for the city of Cleveland. The city's top choice for a design team to create a new $6.1 million pedestrian bridge at North Coast Harbor clearly was the best of the six that sought the job -- and the one most likely to produce an outstanding result.

 

The winning team will be led by the local office of Wilbur Smith Associates, a national firm. But the star on the squad is Miguel Rosales, a 46-year-old native of Guatemala who has devoted his career to improving the design of bridges in the United States...

 

more at: http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/steven_litt/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-0/1188636818161750.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

Anyways... :-)

 

I spent the day yesterday with the family (Long Islander and Las Vegan??? on the Goodtime III and at the North Coast Harbor and the place was buzzing with activity!  Nice to see!  I'll post pics from the fun weekend in CLE shortly.

I am excited to see this selection, will it have to raise as a result of it enclosing the launch site for the good time III or will tht move?

I guess I'll be ignorant one here, but at least from the pictures on their website, I don't see what the big deal is about this bridge...is it because we are so starved for "cool" things here in the states that we give this bridge more credit than it deserves?

 

Like I said, maybe I'm just ignorant or maybe I just can't see its magnificence from the limited pictures on the site, but to me the covered bridges in Ashtabula are cooler or at least more significant than what I see in the pictures.

 

Since I know you guys know more about this than me, please edumacate me about what makes this bridge great.

 

Thanks!

My take is that this will make it more likely for big events like the Gravity Games or X-Games to come to the Northcoast Harbor.  A bridge helps enhance the area by allowing people to move around much easier.  It gets very tight walking alongside the museums during big events that are using the whole area.  This is also one of the first items to come to fruition in the Lakefront redevelopment plan which a lot of people had input into.  Plus in a city and state of unique bridges, this should add yet another one.

Shouldn't it be noted that neither bridge shown are necessarily anything like what will get built.  These were images of existing bridges designed by the selected firm, no?  The span of this bridge appears likely just 150 feet or so, less than half of the Liberty Bridge.

Correct, I think audidave was just noting that the firm selected didnt knock his socks off with regards to past projects.  I still am excited that at least a firm that has a little artistic creativity was given the job.  Thats all.

 

 

Science center to build walkway to Steamship Mather

Sunday, September 09, 2007

Tom Breckenridge

 

 

The Great Lakes Science Center will build a $3.3 million link to its floating museum nearby.

 

The Cleveland City Planning Commission on Friday approved the design for the 400-foot sheltered walkway between the science center and the Steamship William G. Mather Museum, docked in North Coast Harbor.

 

The Planning Commission panned the design in July, largely because of a permanent opening in the walkway that, at 5 feet wide, was too small for bikers and walkers who stream through the area.

 

The center's new design includes a permanent 11-foot-wide opening. Three larger sections of the walkway would open, weather permitting, with the use of sliding and overhead doors...

good choice for the ped bridge. its no calatrava, but it looks like they do nice work.

BTW, the guy who talks on WCPN every Friday about business and development in Cleveland (Scott Rolston from Fairport Asset Mgmt, IIRC) mentioned last Friday that he thinks we'll see a study about the future of Burke from the Jackson admin in the next few weeks.  Not sure how well-connected the guy is and what the study is, but interesting, if true.  Here's the link - the comment is in the last 1/3 of it. 

http://www.wcpn.org/index.php/WCPN/Player/7335/

That's right.  The City has been fast-tracking the BKL Master Plan.  Work was announced last month, and the consultants wanted to have the first phase completed by October 1.

 

http://www.airportsites.net/MasterPlans/BKL-MP-Update/index.htm

I'm not sure how to interpret this. The Master Plan function is to:

 

To provide a framework for long-range planning (2030)

To graphically present preferred airport development concepts

To define the purpose and need for development projects

To comply with all applicable FAA requirements

To enable the airport to achieve its mission

To assure compatible land use development

To support the financial health of one of a City’s most powerful economic engines

To identify facility requirements for all airport users

 

 

Depending on what "airport development concepts" really means, the document sounds like a blueprint for Burke's expansion more than anything else.  Anyhow, it doesn't sound too positive for those who want to open up that prime real estate for more appropriate, waterfront residential/retail/recreational usage.

 

 

BTW, the guy who talks on WCPN every Friday about business and development in Cleveland (Scott Rolston from Fairport Asset Mgmt, IIRC) mentioned last Friday that he thinks we'll see a study about the future of Burke from the Jackson admin in the next few weeks.  Not sure how well-connected the guy is and what the study is, but interesting, if true.  Here's the link - the comment is in the last 1/3 of it. 

http://www.wcpn.org/index.php/WCPN/Player/7335/

 

I heard that as well.  I didn't know how to take it. Did the guy know something or was he just thinking out loud? If he's just speculating without some insider knowledge, then its rather inappropriate to do so this way.

It may have been crass, but I enjoyed how Mayor Daley solved Chicago's lakefront airport problem literally overnight by carving impenetrable Xs on the runways so that Meigs Field could no longer be used.  Mayor Jackson certainly will not pull a similar move, so it looks like we'll be stuck with an airport.

it could be that, in light of the roadblocks to tearing bkl out, the development angle is the only other option.  they were, if I remember correctly, talking about putting something commercial into that area.  restaurants etc.  if the roadblock is that serious, then why not consider making the terminal an accessible, useable part of the area? 

That bullet list is not specific to Burke.  The site says:

 

"The general goals and objectives addressed by an airport master plan include the following:" (emphasis added)

 

And then they have the list.  We'll have to wait and see what comes out of it.

Moving this to better location.  From the Cleveland.com "blog", entry titled "Burke to remain open; development talks under way"

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=9545.msg220813#msg220813

I guess I am fine with this Burke news being that there is still so much developable land in the core of the city.  I would hate to see Burke completely loaded with residential/commercial in basically an island area therefore putting a squeeze on future development downtown.  I would be fine with a park there or something of the type.  However, having a corporate/regional airport downtown is a plus for the region. 

Even though it's a visual wasteland, I agree.  But it would be advantageous to get some sort of public access to the Lake on its northern edges. 

Creating a residential/commercial mecca at Burke is basically like building Crocker park.  You couldn't walk to it obviously (I-90 kind of in the way).  Therefore, before we start thinking about redeveloping Burke, lets reconfigure the shoreway to open it up to pedestrian activity. 

Burke should become a state-of-the-art full intermodal transportation hub incorporating the airport, the port of Cleveland's relocation (with rail access and container handling capability), along with the proposed ferry terminal for vessels to Canada. There would be nothing like it anywhere and the port's relocation clears the lakefont west of CBS for Pesht.

    This also isn't taking into account the potential lakefront passenger rail station for the Ohio Hub plan.

    Any and all commercial development that is being talked about for Burke should be steered downtown. I've heard there's lots available? :roll:

  It is this kind of short-sightedness in planning by Cleveland politicos that makes me scratch my head. These people just can't seem to grasp the whole "density" thing.

It can't be this simple, can it? Or am I just out there?! :?

^ $$$

Burke should become a state-of-the-art full intermodal transportation hub incorporating the airport, the port of Cleveland's relocation (with rail access and container handling capability), along with the proposed ferry terminal for vessels to Canada. There would be nothing like it anywhere and the port's relocation clears the lakefont west of CBS for Pesht.

    This also isn't taking into account the potential lakefront passenger rail station for the Ohio Hub plan.

    Any and all commercial development that is being talked about for Burke should be steered downtown. I've heard there's lots available? :roll:

  It is this kind of short-sightedness in planning by Cleveland politicos that makes me scratch my head. These people just can't seem to grasp the whole "density" thing.

It can't be this simple, can it? Or am I just out there?! :?

 

I like your idea, but why attack those who are actually out there doing this thing with a non-sequiter like that?  Just because some people think Burke would be a prime development opportunity doesn't make them short sighted or mean that they don't "grasp the whole 'density' thing".  Where are you getting that?

Actually, it was my idea (http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=9545.msg188153#msg188153). But I think we need to find out whether the mayor's plan will block the creation of a super-intermodal hub.

Actually it was my idea and I have the site plans, renderings and CAD files to prove it - plus the grade I received for it too (plus two other students). It includes the ferry, Amtrack relocation, greyhound relocation, incorporating Ohio Hub and Cleveland/Lorain Rail, residential, commercial and retail development and a few other things. I even proposed it to the city.

 

I've been meaning to post it since last spring but forgot. Maybe now is the time. I try to get to it tomorrow and post it on the Burke thread.

Actually it was my idea originally.  I have plans sketched out on a cocktail napkin, which I have since wadded up in a little ball for safekeeping.  If I find it, it shall be unfurled and posted and the issue settled once and for all!  My silly putty and toothpick model is, alas, no more.

How could it be your idea when you can't even spell Amtrak correctly!?!?  :-o

 

Actually, I think I came up with the idea when I was playing with my mashed potatoes in 1977. I called it Close Encounters of the Erie Kind.

Off-topic, but to this day whenever I go home for the holidays and mashed potatoes are being served - my dad sculpts a "Devil's Tower" out of them.

How could it be your idea when you can't even spell Amtrak correctly!?!?  :-o

 

 

I'm a thinker, not a speller.

...and this is why they invented SimCity people.  Go build your favorite lakeshore.

It may have been crass, but I enjoyed how Mayor Daley solved Chicago's lakefront airport problem literally overnight by carving impenetrable Xs on the runways so that Meigs Field could no longer be used.  Mayor Jackson certainly will not pull a similar move, so it looks like we'll be stuck with an airport.

 

I heard Chicago is still paying for that big X

I heard Chicago is still paying for that big X

 

Oh, whereever will poor poor Chicago ever come up with the funds??

I heard Chicago is still paying for that big X

 

Oh, whereever will poor poor Chicago ever come up with the funds??

 

 

  They are having trouble in the expansion plans for midway airport. FAA is getting them back for the X.

^I can imagine that it would be quite difficult to expand Midway.  That place is surrounded by dense neighborhoods on all sides.

^I can imagine that it would be quite difficult to expand Midway.  That place is surrounded by dense neighborhoods on all sides.

 

 

  That there problem,not ours,we have capacity for continetal to expand,so we must keep burke.

 

Would love to see charters leave burke like in the early eighties.

Burke should become a state-of-the-art full intermodal transportation hub incorporating the airport, the port of Cleveland's relocation (with rail access and container handling capability), along with the proposed ferry terminal for vessels to Canada. There would be nothing like it anywhere and the port's relocation clears the lakefont west of CBS for Pesht.

    This also isn't taking into account the potential lakefront passenger rail station for the Ohio Hub plan.

    Any and all commercial development that is being talked about for Burke should be steered downtown. I've heard there's lots available? :roll:

  It is this kind of short-sightedness in planning by Cleveland politicos that makes me scratch my head. These people just can't seem to grasp the whole "density" thing.

It can't be this simple, can it? Or am I just out there?! :?

 

I like your idea, but why attack those who are actually out there doing this thing with a non-sequiter like that?  Just because some people think Burke would be a prime development opportunity doesn't make them short sighted or mean that they don't "grasp the whole 'density' thing".  Where are you getting that?

 

Ok, first off I'm going to apologize for hacking into y'all's computers and stealing this idea and passing it off as my own. :roll:

      But seriously, I've heard a member of the port authority board say firsthand that the above scenario is on their agenda and in the works. They (the PA) are very interested in moving their operations to land north and east of the aircraft operations. He also said that Cleveland is the frontrunner location for a ferry terminal (according to their Canadian counterparts). I've posted this info before. The port has been in the PD and Crain's discussing the possiblity of adding container freight to their operations. That would play right into the PA's potential move to Burke (flat, open space for container staging; highway access, rail access). A potential Amtrak/OhioHub lakefront station (KJP) would just add to the synergy of this site. This intermodal scenario isn't some pipe dream.

        X, What I was getting at was this: With all the vacant lots/property downtown and midtown why would the city look to develop commercial space adjacent to Burke? I could see this if a business came to the city and specifically wanted to be next to the airport...that's cool. In my view, anything developed on the fringes of Burke is cut off from downtown by the shoreway and could take space away from the transportation-oriented development that could and should be centered on that land. The open land along the lakefront, including Burke, shouldn't be developed just because it can.

        Let's examine the Rock Hall. It was a great addition to the city. It's a striking building, and it looks great in photos. It draws many thousands of out-of-towners to our city. It's great for marketing the city. But can anyone tell me why it's right on the water? What's near it? What development has it spun off down there? It's cut off from downtown by the shoreway and the RR tracks. Good luck walking down E9 to it in the winter/spring. My point is that just because it's a great idea or a good addition to the city doesn't mean it has to go down on the lakefront. It should have been built near TC or on Euclid ave in one of the many vacant bldgs. No city should be so desperate for development that it just lets anything be built anywhere, highest and best use be damned. We let that happen with the new Browns Stadium, but that's in another thread.

        X, I want the city to focus on developing the vacant land downtown before we start looking to develop the land around Burke. Keep building up the density and connectivity and synergy and all that crap downtown. Burke should be off-limits to anything but transport-oriented development.

      That's my position and I'm stickin to it. :-D

 

This morning on Cleveland Public Radio, they said that closing Burke Lakefront Airport would shift more air traffic to Cleveland Hopkins and require about $1 Billion in upgrades to Hopkins.  ("they said"--sorry about the unreferenced quote)

That's fine that your position is that development should be focused on lots within the existing boundaries of Downtown.  Just keep in mind that reasonable people might consider the possibility of opening up additional Lakefront land for residential and commercial development, which could easily be done as a TOD, mind you, to be a good thing.