Here's some interesting tidbits.... The two major principals involved with the project may not be the most appropriate people to understand developing in an old-city urban setting and accommodating an urban context, including historic preservation, pedestrianism and utilizing existing transit (RTA Rapid, HealthLine) and proposed transit (Cuyahoga Valley Scenic RR, WestShore commuter rail, Jet Express) to their fullest extent. This is ironic considering Dan Gilbert does seem to understand the urban/transit relationship given his co-chairing and private sector funding of the Detroit light rail transit project....

 

Nate Forbes: is a suburban shopping mall developer. He is managing partner of The Forbes Company, a nationally recognized developer, owner and manager of luxury shopping destinations throughout Michigan and Florida. These landmark retail properties include the highly acclaimed Somerset Collection in Troy, Michigan, The Mall at Millenia in Orlando, The Gardens Mall in Palm Beach Gardens, and Waterside Shops in Naples. SOURCE: http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/fr...ce.html#forbes

 

Matt Cullen: is a former General Motors executive who is now running Gilbert's Rock Enterprises, including overseeing real estate developments like the Cleveland Casino. When Cullen asked (Gilbert?) who was a mover-and-shaker to deal with downtown, for some reason he was told to contact Gus and Lou Frangos. Not a good way to get off on the right foot with pedestrian-, transit- and urban-friendly development! BACKGROUND: http://www.mlive.com/business/index....ew_cullen.html

 

And their preferred amount of parking isn't 3,000 spaces, but 5,000 spaces! They realize there aren't 5,000 spaces to be had downtown unless they build a high-rise parking deck. The last I heard their goal was to provide 4,000 spaces. But consider that one Cuyahoga Valley Scenic RR train has the seating capacity of 600 people (CVSR runs six trains a day in the summer, less in the winter). A West Shore commuter train has a like amount (about 10 trains a day are planned). And the capital cost of both (combined $80 million) isn't out of line considering what they're spending for other aspects of this casino project. Yet both could arrive and depart in the basement of the casino.

Why don't they expand onto the Gateway North parking garage into that green space between it and the Q? It's a pretty big space. Then they could build their welcome center in the lot behind the Columbia and Stanley buildings and leave all the other buildings on that block intact.

Save the Columbia Building!

 

EXACTLY!!!!!

How easy is it to demolish an historical landmark, such as the Columbia building? Right now it appears that the Stanley block is staying because a.) there was a lot of hubub about it, and b.) they don't technically own the entire building, what is it, majority shares in an investment group that owns around half the building, with the Maloof's owning the other half?

 

When I first started worrying about the stanley, I think we all figured the Columbia's landmark status would save it, but that dosen't seem to be Rock Gaming's view. They just assume that it would be easy to raze it.

 

We need to start making a ruckus about the whole block, or else we will lose this part of Cleveland. They think they will just be able to appease us by leaving the Stanley block, but they don't get it, we want it all. 

What the deal with council taking so long anyways?

I would gladly trade the Stanley Block for the Columbia Building.

Why don't they expand onto the Gateway North parking garage into that green space between it and the Q? It's a pretty big space. Then they could build their welcome center in the lot behind the Columbia and Stanley buildings and leave all the other buildings on that block intact.

 

They could still build the Welcome Center on the corner of Prospect and Ontario, just make the space all along High St the valet area.  Then link that part to the welcome center on the corner.  Google shows a little alleyway there so build the connection there.  Expand the Gateway North Garage and Done. 

So like this

 

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=41.497473,-81.690683&spn=0.001933,0.004823&t=h&z=18&msid=214307218223262897576.0004a28da369042e5750b

 

Welcome Center

New Parking Garage

Expanded Parking Garage

Connector

Connecting Tunnel

http://tinyurl.com/3ljmsaj

 

 

Exactly like that! What would be so hard about that? It should be able to please everyone.

This whole plan makes me want to vomit.  A skywalk over the intersection of Ontario and Prospect?  A vehicle overpass over High?  Knocking down the Columbia?  Ick, ick, ick!

My guess would be they plan on increasing the capacity of the gateway garage in addition to demolishing the Columbia "block".

But aren't they going to build a huge parking lot under the Huron Casino as well? Or do they seriously expect all that parking to be full just for the casino in the Higbee building?

^ which makes you wonder when they, actually, plan on building the huron one

This is all so frustrating because Dan Gilbert has always acted so urban-friendly, yet now he is okay with tearing down historic buildings for parking garages.

How is this not getting worse press? Shouldn't someone be stepping in and calling out Dan Gilberts urban bluff? We can't let someone who is going to make hundreds of millions of dollars off of an already financially constrained city to rip part of its heart out too.

Is there any chance that if they buy the gateway garage, they will abandon the original tear down plans?

 

 

The reporter replied to a comment in the comments section that seemed to suggest that the demolition and garage purchase were all part of the overall plan.

I would gladly trade the Stanley Block for the Columbia Building.

 

I totally agree.  Razing the Stanley Block would be really unfortunate.  Razing the Columbia Building would be absolutely criminal.

In the rendering linked below, what is the building behind the Stanley Block to the left?  Is that the Columbia?  It doesn't appear as tall as the Columbia, but it also doesn't appear to be part of the parking garage.

 

http://media.cleveland.com/metro/photo/garage2jpg-15a1a762180b9391.jpg

^ It's part of the parking garage/welcome center. Here's another rendering of the building complex as seen from Prospect:

http://media.cleveland.com/metro/photo/casinogaragejpg-c98b65961b8fa8fe.jpg

 

Also, I agree that losing the Columbia building would be worse than losing the Stanley building. It's large, more attractive, and will be much easier to rehab. Wasn't it just recently used by Myers College a few years ago?

As with most any major downtown development (BP building, Society Center, Gateway, etc., etc.) we are going to lose something.  I hope we don't lose the Columbia building, but if we get over $1 billion of construction at such a minimal loss, I can certainly live with that.

I can't live with losing a 10-story century-old beaux-arts building for a parking lot. 

Parking garage.  And you are losing it for the overall development, not just some random garage.  I get it though.  I hope they find a way to work around it.

And again where would these pedestrian bridges go (they certainly are not in any of the pictures)? 

The welcome center isnt directly across from the Higbee building.

I can't live with losing a 10-story century-old beaux-arts building for a parking lot. 

 

Me neither.  That would be absolutely ridiculous.  Hell, give them the Stanley Block and work around the Columbia... please.  Let's be realistic.  We don't need to raze a beautiful building for an extra 50 parking spaces.  Give them the High Street ROW to build on.  Or build over High Street to make up for the 50 spaces you'll be losing by not destroying the Columbia Building.  There are other options here.

Yeah, I know, I was being a bit glib.  But this is the kind of building we have been tearing down for the past 70 years.  It just seems like we should know better by now.

Consider the backgrounds of the people involved: Nate Forbes, Matt Cullen and Lou Frangos. I posted them on the previous page. I couldn't think of a more anti-urban trio than these guys.

 

FYI: there are 600 parking spaces in the Tower City surface lot between Huron and Canal (these parking spaces are located on the old Cleveland Union Terminal coach yards). If Gilbert does what Forest City did underneath Tower City and add a second deck, now you have 1,200 spaces. The average occupancy per car (per USDOT) is 1.2 people. That equals 1,440 people. Three Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad trains will bring up to 1,800 people per day downtown, and two round trips of the Jet Express will add another 300. So that treasured parking area doesn't even yield that many visitors in comparison to the mass transportation modes they're ignoring.

 

Plus each RTA Rapid transit train carries up to 160 seated passengers, and possibly 240 with a three-car train (with standees, the capacity jumps to more than 400 per train). There are 150 Rapid trains operating per day in/out of Tower City on the Red Line, and 198 on the Blue/Green/Waterfront Line -- although 18 operate between the East 55th yards and Tower City only -- so 180 is a more accurate figure. The seated capacity of these trains are much less than the Red Line trains, about 60 per car, or 120 for a two-car train. The total capacity with standees is about 250. So the total in/out capacity of the Red Line is 36,000 riders (vs about 20,000 riders carried now), and the total in/out capacity of the Blue/Green/Waterfront Lines is 45,000 riders (vs about 11,000 riders carried now).

 

Thus, by my calculations, RTA has the capacity to carry 50,000 additional rail riders in/out of Tower City per day -- or 10 times more visitors than the casino operators' wildest dreams parking lot capacity scenario. Add to that the 2,100 visitors that CVSR and the Jet Express can bring to a casino basement station each day. I know the casino needs parking, but considering all the alternatives at their doorstep, do they need THAT much parking?

 

Why not consider making the casino experience start on the boat, train or Rapid -- not just in the "welcome center"? Yes, even on the Rapid. At certain times of the day (especially early evening), imagine RTA running casino trains decked out in a car wrap decorated with dice and green felt and chips designs or pictures. The interiors could be retrofitted with information screens with a low-level sound, there could be red carpeting on the floors (Washington Metro has carpeting tiles). RTA can legally run charter trains, if I remember correctly, but not charter buses.

 

Seems to be there are answers here that haven't been fully considered.

And won't be considered either.  I just hope they strike the right balance between idealism and pragmatism.

You don't tear this down for a 4 level parking garage... period.

 

EDIT: egg on my face... my bad!

What happened to the top two floors?

that's not the same building.

Yeah, I didn't think so.  That's a corner building.

that columbia building was from louisville.

And won't be considered either.  I just hope they strike the right balance between idealism and pragmatism.

 

I'm smelling the old "we can't do it here because we've never done it that way here" thing...  Nothing I posted isn't being done elsewhere with casinos which regularly subsidize passenger rail and transit services (ie: Atlantic City Express Service, aka ACES; the X Train from Los Angeles to Las Vegas; the Pittsburgh casino subsidizing regular-route New Castle Area Transit Authority buses from New Castle 50 miles away; plus light-rail links in a number of other cities.) And, sorry, but I would rather determine the future by making and selling crystal balls than trying to read them....

 

http://www.acestrain.com/

http://www.xtrainvegas.com/

http://www.newcastletransit.org/newcastle/routes/route71/Pittsburgh%20schedule%202011.pdf

http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Casino-seeks-light-rail-link-1098739.php

http://www.suite101.com/content/santa-fe-albuquerque-train-adds-free-wi-fi-a221255

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Building_(Louisville,_Kentucky)

 

EDIT: Wow, I guess I hand't refreshed the page in a while.  Sorry about that.  There were like 4 new replies after my post went up.

 

Speaking of which, is there some way to display a warning with SMF when you go to posts and new posts were added in the meantime?  I know vBulletin supports this.

And won't be considered either.  I just hope they strike the right balance between idealism and pragmatism.

 

I'm smelling the old "we can't do it here because we've never done it that way here" thing... 

 

Then your sense of smell is off.  I'm just saying that what you suggest will not be imposed in lieu of parking options, which is what I thought you were advocating.  Please do push for the 'options' you seek.  Balance is what I am looking and hoping for. 

Glad to hear. I am advocating, not imposing. I wish I could make the casino folks undertake an urban design that capitalizes on the existing assets nearby.

On a related note, the Cleveland Coalition recently published a report on the casino plans. We'd enjoy hearing what you think of it.

 

http://www.clevelandcoalition.org/2011/featured/cleveland-coalition-releases-crooked-river-gaming-report/

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2011/04/cleveland_coalition_releases_recommendations_for_downtown_casino.html

I took a day trip down to Pittsburgh and of course visited their new casino to get a feel for how they did things. I suggest anyone who reads this forum and has any interest in the ultimate design of our casino to take a day trip to Pittsburgh to not only see what they did but to better understand how a regional casino that's not Indian/Vegas/Atlantic City operates.

 

With all this talk of how to incorporate the casino into the fabric of the city, I can't help but feel it's all in good thought, but a moot point to the clientele base of the casino. The casino in Pittsburgh sits on the river and has a gorgeous view. There is only one place in the casino that has natural lighting ... a really nice multi level lounge area with comfortable seating and beautiful glass windows giving a panorama of the landscape to the southwest of the river. How many people were utilizing this wonderful space in the casino ... 3. Yes, just 3 people were using this space out of THOUSANDS who were gambling in the flashing lights of the nearby gaming floor.

 

Yes, I realize I'm probably stereotyping a bit, but from all the regional casinos I've visited the clientele base is almost always the same. These are not your yuppies who like to eat at nice restaurants downtown or even middle class suburbia who come downtown every once in a while with the kids to see a game or play ...

 

The question becomes for Cleveland then ... Do you design the casino for the clientele base that will most likely patronize the casino? Or do you do design for the city that surrounds the casino?

 

Not to be a debbie downer, but I think it's going to be extremely difficult to get the typical casino crowd to set foot outside of the casino. It really is the million dollar question. So many of the casino crowd just come to gamble and leave and have no desire to do anything else. How do you get at least some of these to set foot outside?

 

I realize that the casino, because of its proximity to the Q and Progressive Field, will draw some extra people during events that will be atypical of the usual casino crowd. But then again, since these folks come downtown already, I can't help but think that the casino could negatively effect some of the neighboring entertainment districts. When I went in to the Pittsburgh casino, I felt compelled to gamble a little. I blew 20 bucks in a matter of minutes and didn't feel to good about it. How did I react afterwards? I just ate a sandwich instead of having a nicer meal downtown... I could see a lot of people who already come to events downtown be intrigued  by the casino, walk in, lose cash, and forego a dining experience because of it.

 

So not to get too off topic, but I see these proposals with river view terraces and shops and restaurants and wonder, who's going to use these? Does the Horseshoe casino really believe that it's going to attract a different crowd than other regional casinos in the midwest? Realistically what % of total casino goers would leave the casino during their excursion to patronize a nearby establishment, 2 -3%? What % of total casino goers who do not already come downtown for events/entertainment would leave the casino to patronize a nearby establishment? I'm afraid to actually see what that percentage would be, but it's the crucial number in figuring out what the casino will do to downtown.

Sounds like, based on your experience with the Pittsburgh casino, having one in Cleveland won't contribute much to the city. Is that correct?

 

Of course, I say that as someone who was never a fan of having a casino here. But since it was approved, I thought we could use it to draw some amenities to the city that wouldn't otherwise be here. And I hoped it wouldn't wreck the city too much -- the threatened demolition of the Stanley and the Columbia buildings suggest it might do just that.

Sounds like, based on your experience with the Pittsburgh casino, having one in Cleveland won't contribute much to the city. Is that correct?

 

Of course, I say that as someone who was never a fan of having a casino here. But since it was approved, I thought we could use it to draw some amenities to the city that wouldn't otherwise be here. And I hoped it wouldn't wreck the city too much -- the threatened demolition of the Stanley and the Columbia buildings suggest it might do just that.

 

I'm doubtful it will contribute much to the city. There is a multi-purpose path that goes along the river next to the casino (similar to the tow-path). While it's nice to say that they incorporated the casino with their multi-purpose trail ... it didn't appear that the patrons would ride a bike to the casino.

 

I think a lot of the designs that try to incorporate the Horseshoe casino into downtown Cleveland will all be for show and serve no real practical purposes for the city or the patrons of the casino.

 

With that being said, I whole heartedly support the casino being built here. I would say that 25-33% of all license plates in the parking garage for the Rivers Casino in Pittsburgh were Ohioans, (and a good portion of those had the 18 sticker on the plate). If Ohioans are going to throw their money away in Pittsburgh, might as well do it in downtown Cleveland!

 

As awful as it sounds, in my opinion, they should just find an empty Wal-Mart or Sam's Club with a big parking lot to put the casino in. Would save millions of dollars, the same amount of people would still gamble, we'd find an adaptive reuse for a difficult structure, and the net economic effect for Northeast Ohio would be the same. :P

I have hoped that we would not use other casinos as templates.  There is an opportunity to do something truly unique here.

 

And like I have said, I hope they can work around Columbia and Stanley.  However, sorry to go against the grain here, I really won't think twice about them once they are gone if they do get the wrecking ball.  Just being bluntly honest.  I would consider that a minimal loss for $1 billion+ in downtown development. 

 

I think for some, they are truly concerned about those buildings, but for others who never thought the casino was a good idea it is just another reason to fly the "I told you so" flag.

I have hoped that we would not use other casinos as templates.  There is an opportunity to do something truly unique here.

 

And like I have said, I hope they can work around Columbia and Stanley.  However, sorry to go against the grain here, I really won't think twice about them once they are gone if they do get the wrecking ball.  Just being bluntly honest.  I would consider that a minimal loss for $1 billion+ in downtown development. 

 

I think for some, they are truly concerned about those buildings, but for others who never thought the casino was a good idea it is just another reason to fly the "I told you so" flag.

 

I would hate to lose two historic buildings to a parking garage to build at the tail end of the casino fad in America. I was in Cripple Creek, Colorado a few years ago where they had legalized gambling to restore parts of their historic downtown. They kept the facades of their downtown storefronts with the casinos being built behind. A lot of the casinos had already gone out of business. It was a very depressing and eerie feeling walking on a sidewalk of a town with abandoned casinos. Not to say that's going to happen right away in Cleveland, but the bold truth is that no fad lasts forever. I really hope there's a committee that is thinking of ways to adaptively reuse this casino in 5-10-20 years or whenever the gaming industry goes out of style. If these two historic buildings must go, they could theoretically save the facade of the structure?

 

They do have the opportunity to do something truly unique here and I wouldn't be surprised if people are already designing with the inevitable gaming industry decline in mind.

 

Now if only Euclid Avenue could get a few IHOPS, Baker's Square, Discount Tobacco, Sheetz, and a bunch of stores that sell applique grandma's little angels sweatshirts ... then we'd have no problem getting the casino traffic to patronize downtown establishments. ;)

 

 

OK, comparing the Pittsburgh casino to the one being built here is bad enough, but comparing it to ones in Cripple Creek, Colorado? really?

OK, comparing the Pittsburgh casino to the one being built here is bad enough, but comparing it to ones in Cripple Creek, Colorado? really?

 

Why not? Very few casinos in the US are constructed inside of historical structures. The Cleveland casino will be built inside of a building that is ~80 years old. Outside of Cripple Creek, I can't think of many other examples of casinos built into rehabbed buildings in a downtown.

The one in Pittsburgh isn't in the heart of the city. It's KIND OF close to the stadiums and museums. It's not a few blocks from places like E 4th and the warehouse district, not to mention public square and what lays ahead for Euclid. You can't walk to Rivers casino from the heart of downtown, but you can walk from any downtown hotel to the Higbee building or new construction casino. Pittsburgh and Detroit are horrible examples. St. Louis is a better example except for the fact that our casino will be much nicer than what they call casinos. But as far as location in relation to downtown attractions it's a comparable.

So not to get too off topic, but I see these proposals with river view terraces and shops and restaurants and wonder, who's going to use these? Does the Horseshoe casino really believe that it's going to attract a different crowd than other regional casinos in the midwest? Realistically what % of total casino goers would leave the casino during their excursion to patronize a nearby establishment, 2 -3%? What % of total casino goers who do not already come downtown for events/entertainment would leave the casino to patronize a nearby establishment? I'm afraid to actually see what that percentage would be, but it's the crucial number in figuring out what the casino will do to downtown.

 

As a recent immigrant from Miami, I suppose casinos in the Midwest can be incredibly different from casinos in Florida, however when we went to the Hard Rock Casino in Ft. Lauderdale, it was not only to gamble, but also to walk around the surrounding commercial strip, whether it be a nice dinner, trip to the comedy club, or other activity.  I'm probably an idealist here, but if Tower City were to be redeveloped with some more notable stores and restaurants, and given the close proximity of E. 4, I can see the downtown casino as just one stop in a great fun-filled night.

^And welcome. Idealists and freethinkers :-) are always encouraged. I like the positive vibe from a new citizen.

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome, Clevecane. We're glad to hear the views and observations from the fresh perspective of a new arrival!

The people that WestBlvd saw in Pittsburgh are going to be at this casino as well. I'm fully expecting the vast majority of the gamblers to be the in and out types, without a care or desire to see any other part of downtown. And that's absolutely fine. Come on down, drop off your money. We can use the tax revenue. These are people that wouldn't be coming downtown anyway, in all likelihood, so it's a zero sum gain. Even if we don't have one single new person exploring the rest of downtown, I'm for this development, because, as Hts pointed out, it's generating $1B in new development, repurposing an historic space, and ultimately filling in some glaringly empty space, as well as providing tax revenue to the state.

 

But I'm also of a mind that in addition to the traditional gambler types, because of this unique location, combined with the convention center, it will have a positive effect on other, more adventurous types coming downtown as well. So outside of its primary purpose (generating tax revenue we don't have right now), it will have some spinoff benefit to surrounding areas.