We're talking about the part of Prospect between 4th and Ontario, which is already not friendly to pedestrians.  If you walk that way from 4th, you're going to have to deal with Ontario.  Will it be a little less friendly, with the garage exit traffic?  Perhaps.  Probably.  But IMO not a whole lot more than it is now.

It certainly isn't anymore unfriendly than covered bus transfer stations you see in other cities, which I find to be a good idea.

We're talking about the part of Prospect between 4th and Ontario, which is already not friendly to pedestrians.  If you walk that way from 4th, you're going to have to deal with Ontario.  Will it be a little less friendly, with the garage exit traffic?  Perhaps.  Probably.  But IMO not a whole lot more than it is now.

 

One of the reasons I kind of like KJP's idea of extending the parking garage over Ontario is that it gives cars a path over Ontario so they can enter the street heading South toward to highway (likely direction of most traffic leaving the casino).  This could eliminate a lot of the congestion (and inherent pedestrian unfriendliness) caused by cars attempting to make that left turn onto Ontario.

 

Oh, and because the idea eliminates the pedestrian bridge stabbing the Higbee Building in the face...

We're talking about the part of Prospect between 4th and Ontario, which is already not friendly to pedestrians.  If you walk that way from 4th, you're going to have to deal with Ontario.  Will it be a little less friendly, with the garage exit traffic?  Perhaps.  Probably.  But IMO not a whole lot more than it is now.

 

One of the reasons I kind of like KJP's idea of extending the parking garage over Ontario is that it gives cars a path over Ontario so they can enter the street heading South toward to highway (likely direction of most traffic leaving the casino).  This could eliminate a lot of the congestion (and inherent pedestrian unfriendliness) caused by cars attempting to make that left turn onto Ontario.

 

Oh, and because the idea eliminates the pedestrian bridge stabbing the Higbee Building in the face...

 

Except that could be achieved by parking in the existing garage/new garge that would go under the new casino... And if your looking for ways to get around the corner of Ontario/Prospect issue, anything besides that doesnt have the direct access they are looking for... 

 

Are you kidding about the bridge?  Youd rather have a tunnel on Ontario entering downtown, and not provide the benifit that they are seeking..?   

Except that "tunnels" or underpasses or duckunders or whatever you want to call them don't have to be dark scary places. In fact, they can be more attractive and less subject to bad weather than the open street.....

 

Ill try to later, but I think most on here "get it".       

 

Aside from a desire to preserve historic structures, which I am all for, I don't 'get it'.  But I would welcome some feedback.

 

I would hardly call this the 'only' option.  I think Gilbert would admit that.  The question is whether it is the "best option" for the City and the private interests (Gilbert, Columbia owners, etc).  I 'hope' Gilbert and crew had some very, very long and detailed discussions behind closed doors about this.  I have to think that they did given the amount of money involved.  I also have to think that they explored a plethora of options, including the empty lots in the surrounding area.  I certainly would have at least explored every 'viable' option.  Point is that I get the sense that people think they hastily made this decision, whereas I know that each and every decision in mutli-million dollar developments are scrutinized to the fullest prior to even making any plans public.

 

Some of your questions, I would ask the other way around.  Is there any evidence that the Columbia building can be successfully rehabbed?  Is there any legitimate desire to do so?  Is it economically feasible?

 

Some historic structures are simply beyond the point of no return.  The truly iconic ones, I would fight tooth and nail for even if they have outlived their use.  I don't find the Columbia to be in that category.  But if a developer comes out tomorrow and says that he/she would like to sink the $$ into it, I will jump the fence in a heartbeat.  I simply want confirmation as to its potential.

I think that given the background of the principals involved (which I've posted here in this thread), no I don't think every urban-friendly option has been considered.

this is simply the easiest plan for cars. its the worst possible plan for people.

this is simply the easiest plan for cars. its the worst possible plan for people.

 

I am pretty sure I could come up with a worse plan for people.  But why don't you elaborate.  I want to be a believer ;)

Ill try to later, but I think most on here "get it".       

 

Aside from a desire to preserve historic structures, which I am all for, I don't 'get it'.  But I would welcome some feedback.

 

I would hardly call this the 'only' option.  I think Gilbert would admit that.  The question is whether it is the "best option" for the City and the private interests (Gilbert, Columbia owners, etc).  I 'hope' Gilbert and crew had some very, very long and detailed discussions behind closed doors about this.  I have to think that they did given the amount of money involved.  I also have to think that they explored a plethora of options, including the empty lots in the surrounding area.  I certainly would have at least explored every 'viable' option.  Point is that I get the sense that people think they hastily made this decision, whereas I know that each and every decision in mutli-million dollar developments are scrutinized to the fullest prior to even making any plans public.

 

I have no doubt that many options were discussed.  But these options generally revolve around the bottom line.  It may indeed be true that this set-up makes the most economic sense for the casino.  However there are other considerations.

 

Are you kidding about the bridge?  Youd rather have a tunnel on Ontario entering downtown, and not provide the benifit that they are seeking..?   

 

KJP's plan included an underground linkage (under Prospect) to the casino.  I don't support to notion that the casino patrons shouldn't have an enclosed walkway to the casino (which is the benefit they are seeking), but I also like the idea of an underground linkage better. 

If the Welcome Center exit is right turn only on the Prospect exit, that's dumping a lot of traffic onto the street right before a  few major pedestrian crossing- at East 4th, in front of the Colonial Arcade, and at East 9th.  Also, anyone who's had to deal with a valet area knows that they are a PITA for pedestrians (I walk past one several times a day- it's a mess and dangerous).  I would hope that they reconsider this plan, hopefully moving the traffic ingress and egress further south down Ontario.

I can't understand why everyone says that stretch of Prospect is "pedestrian unfriendly".  I have walked many times between Tower City (Prospect entrance) and E. 4th St.  There is nothing pedestrian unfriendly about it other than the fact that the buildings lining the street are mostly vacant at this point.  Crossing Ontario at Prospect is no more difficult than crossing any other downtown intersection.  That could definitely stand a good chance to change when the incentive for people to walk between the casino and E. 4th St. down Prospect is there.  However, this plan not only makes the sidewalk tougher to traverse on the south side of Prospect, but would also eliminate a large building which could house something people could use (or at least something more interesting to walk by than a parking garage).

Are you kidding about the bridge?  Youd rather have a tunnel on Ontario entering downtown, and not provide the benifit that they are seeking..?   

 

KJP's plan included an underground linkage (under Prospect) to the casino.  I don't support to notion that the casino patrons shouldn't have an enclosed walkway to the casino (which is the benefit they are seeking), but I also like the idea of an underground linkage better. 

 

Well that linkage is already there...  So just expand Gateway to the North and South and build a cool pedestrian bridge to the other side of Ontario (as mentioned above), what is being achieved by having a garage spanning Ontario?  That would seem a more acceptable area for a Pedestrian bridge, and you wouldnt be scarring a historic building or creating an extremly awkward diagonal bridge. 

 

But with that, why wouldnt you just utilize the garage that they would be building and expanding on at Tower City for the linkage, but again this still doesnt achieve what they want to do with the Prospect/Ontario corner and wanting a lounge welcome center w/quick access to the casino.

 

Also, see the Cleveland Coalitions ideas for parking and underground linkage.

I can't understand why everyone says that stretch of Prospect is "pedestrian unfriendly".  I have walked many times between Tower City (Prospect entrance) and E. 4th St.  There is nothing pedestrian unfriendly about it other than the fact that the buildings lining the street are mostly vacant at this point. 

 

THANK YOU!

I can't understand why everyone says that stretch of Prospect is "pedestrian unfriendly".  I have walked many times between Tower City (Prospect entrance) and E. 4th St.  There is nothing pedestrian unfriendly about it other than the fact that the buildings lining the street are mostly vacant at this point. 

 

Now you know that is exactly why people who are not urban ethusiasts might find it to be pedestrian 'unfriendly'..... which I never said, BTW.  I just don't think the Casino's plan makes it "less friendly" than the status quo.  If anything it will add car AND foot traffic to the stretch.

^^exactly. and putting a garage lining the street with 3 lanes of egress directly next to E. 2nd street (giving you essentially 5 lines of auto traffic to cross when you are essentially on a sidewalk, does nothing except damn this area to be pedestrian undfriendly for a generation. Currently as it sits it is only "pedestrian unfriendly" because it is underutilized, while at the same time it has the most potential to be an active pedestrian generating block of any place in the entire city. It is the very logical extension of the momentum created by east 4th street which could lead directly into (and out of) the casino. At the very root of planning... find a place in your city you like that works. replicate it. Simple bumpouts on prospect (as the outer lanes are dedicated parking all time and never open to traffic), repurposing the buildings on the South Side of the prospect, adding a contributing building on the corner, and repurposing the May Co. Building and it starts to become a continuous active area. At some point you have to stop having a street or "district" that is isolated and begin connecting everything. If you make a place for cars then that is what it will always be. If you make a place for people... they'll use it.

 

With the slightest amount of creativity there can be parking without eliminating a street wall that contributes to the urban fabric and allows for more activity generators, and thus "feet on the street".

 

And hts... yes... putting a garage there wouldn't make it more "pedestrian unfriendly" than it already is (actually yes it will, you are adding three lanes of vehicular traffic for people to cross), it's guaranteeing that 4th to Ontario will ALWAYS be "pedestrian unfriendly" when there is absolutely no need to do so.

^^exactly. and putting a garage lining the street with 3 lanes of egress directly next to E. 2nd street (giving you essentially 5 lines of auto traffic to cross when you are essentially on a sidewalk, does nothing except damn this area to be pedestrian undfriendly for a generation. Currently as it sits it is only "pedestrian unfriendly" because it is underutilized, while at the same time it has the most potential to be an active pedestrian generating block of any place in the entire city. It is the very logical extension of the momentum created by east 4th street which could lead directly into (and out of) the casino. At the very root of planning... find a place in your city you like that works. replicate it. Simple bumpouts on prospect (as the outer lanes are dedicated parking all time and never open to traffic), repurposing the buildings on the South Side of the prospect, adding a contributing building on the corner, and repurposing the May Co. Building and it starts to become a continuous active area. At some point you have to stop having a street or "district" that is isolated and begin connecting everything. If you make a place for cars then that is what it will always be. If you make a place for people... they'll use it.

 

With the slightest amount of creativity there can be parking without eliminating a street wall that contributes to the urban fabric and allows for more activity generators, and thus "feet on the street".

 

And hts... yes... putting a garage there wouldn't make it more "pedestrian unfriendly" than it already is (actually yes it will, you are adding three lanes of vehicular traffic for people to cross), it's guaranteeing that 4th to Ontario will ALWAYS be "pedestrian unfriendly" when there is absolutely no need to do so.

 

Again, thank you! My feelings exactly. Well put!

^^exactly. and putting a garage lining the street with 3 lanes of egress directly next to E. 2nd street (giving you essentially 5 lines of auto traffic to cross when you are essentially on a sidewalk, does nothing except damn this area to be pedestrian undfriendly for a generation. Currently as it sits it is only "pedestrian unfriendly" because it is underutilized, while at the same time it has the most potential to be an active pedestrian generating block of any place in the entire city. It is the very logical extension of the momentum created by east 4th street which could lead directly into (and out of) the casino. At the very root of planning... find a place in your city you like that works. replicate it. Simple bumpouts on prospect (as the outer lanes are dedicated parking all time and never open to traffic), repurposing the buildings on the South Side of the prospect, adding a contributing building on the corner, and repurposing the May Co. Building and it starts to become a continuous active area. At some point you have to stop having a street or "district" that is isolated and begin connecting everything. If you make a place for cars then that is what it will always be. If you make a place for people... they'll use it.

 

With the slightest amount of creativity there can be parking without eliminating a street wall that contributes to the urban fabric and allows for more activity generators, and thus "feet on the street".

 

And hts... yes... putting a garage there wouldn't make it more "pedestrian unfriendly" than it already is (actually yes it will, you are adding three lanes of vehicular traffic for people to cross), it's guaranteeing that 4th to Ontario will ALWAYS be "pedestrian unfriendly" when there is absolutely no need to do so.

 

Again, thank you! My feelings exactly. Well put!

 

See I told you most people here "get it"

And sorry for starting this over 1 page argument. Just saying that I didn't like the plan cause it would make Prospect pedestrian unfriendly.

^^exactly. and putting a garage lining the street with 3 lanes of egress directly next to E. 2nd street (giving you essentially 5 lines of auto traffic to cross when you are essentially on a sidewalk, does nothing except damn this area to be pedestrian undfriendly for a generation. Currently as it sits it is only "pedestrian unfriendly" because it is underutilized, while at the same time it has the most potential to be an active pedestrian generating block of any place in the entire city. It is the very logical extension of the momentum created by east 4th street which could lead directly into (and out of) the casino. At the very root of planning... find a place in your city you like that works. replicate it. Simple bumpouts on prospect (as the outer lanes are dedicated parking all time and never open to traffic), repurposing the buildings on the South Side of the prospect, adding a contributing building on the corner, and repurposing the May Co. Building and it starts to become a continuous active area. At some point you have to stop having a street or "district" that is isolated and begin connecting everything. If you make a place for cars then that is what it will always be. If you make a place for people... they'll use it.

 

With the slightest amount of creativity there can be parking without eliminating a street wall that contributes to the urban fabric and allows for more activity generators, and thus "feet on the street".

 

And hts... yes... putting a garage there wouldn't make it more "pedestrian unfriendly" than it already is (actually yes it will, you are adding three lanes of vehicular traffic for people to cross), it's guaranteeing that 4th to Ontario will ALWAYS be "pedestrian unfriendly" when there is absolutely no need to do so.

 

Again, thank you! My feelings exactly. Well put!

 

See I told you most people here "get it"

 

In theory, yes.  In application, I have to disagree.  I can certainly come up with some elaborate plans that ignore or don't take into proper account actual obstacles and real world factors.  That's easy.  Its much harder to find practical solutions, especially when we (random posters) are only privy to a fragment of the equation (see unaddressed questions I have from previous pages).  Sorry to go against the grain. 

 

But please go ahead and push for the urban utopia I certainly would love to see :)  Give 'em hell, gang.

Hypothetcally, if the exit were placed along Ontario instead, how close would that come to solving the problem?

To the extent there is a problem, I think that would make it worse.  I also think this has more to do with the Columbia building, and the strong feelings which are invoked by the proposed demolition, than anything about parking, ped bridges, and friendliness to pedestrians.

I am privy to most all of the information, and I stand by what I said. This needlessly decides the future of lower prospect for a generation. Hopefully a compromise can be worked out.

I am privy to most all of the information, and I stand by what I said. This needlessly decides the future of lower prospect for a generation. Hopefully a compromise can be worked out.

 

No wait, Hts121 only thinks that we base things on stuff we pull out of our a$$@s 

Look at the potential. The buildings on the left all have great potential, as well as the Columbia building itself. Same with the south side of the May Company Building. It would lead directly to East 4th on one end and the Casino on the other. Why destroy any chance of this ever happening. Demolishing the Columbia Building wont necessarily destroy the chance, but building a 3 lane exit over a parking garage will.

 

 

 

One could have said E. 4th was "pedestrian unfriendly" before it was redone as well.  There's a big difference though between a place which has the potential to be pedestrian friendly and one that does not.  Prospect has a lot of potential as it stands.  If we replace the Columbia with a big parking garage and multi-lane curb cuts, we are reducing that potential by a large margin.

 

Just imagine how different E. 4th would have turned out if they demolished a couple large buildings and put multi-lane parking garage exits there.

my problem is that i actually bought into Gilbert's commitment to weave his casino into the urban fabric and this seems to be against that promise.  I thought the stretch of prospect between ontario and E4th could be developed somehow and knocking down the columbia would threaten that.  The garage would probably end up being livable, but far from ideal. Its kinda disheartening.

Also (to Hts) I wouldn't be opposed to the demolition of the Columbia Building if they were replacing it with anything that would encourage pedestrian activity.

I retracted that comment.... but only for you, Jeff.

 

I am privy to most all of the information, and I stand by what I said. This needlessly decides the future of lower prospect for a generation. Hopefully a compromise can be worked out.

 

I hope so too.  For the Columbia's sake.  I don't agree with your speculation as to the ultimate "effects" of building it as proposed, but I can see the concerns.

 

Since you are privy to the information, maybe you can help me out.  Did Gilbert explore possibilities with the lot between E 4th and E 6th?  Why was that site ruled out?  Who owns that lot (Frangos?) and what would it take to pry it away from them?  What about the lot south of the existing garage for an expansion?  I seem to remember that is slated for "future development" but am not sure what that means in their grand scheme. 

 

Basically, I guess I am asking what other options WERE considered and why was this design ultimately selected.  I have read nothing but speculation up to this point, so if you can add some foundation to this whole debate, it would be greatly appreciated. 

Nor is it an urban utopia that we seek. Urban areas are like living creatures, and have a medical science to keep them healthy guided by urban planning principals. Like a human body, if the cells, tissues and organs aren't properly nourished or aren't tightly connected, then the body is less healthy or starts to fail. Either it works or it doesn't work. And buildings, blocks and neighborhoods in cities work or they don't work based on their design. Sometimes we compromise and settle for less for reasons of politics, self-interest, fear, misunderstanding or laziness. But in the end, it's not a question of whether something is utopian or not.

 

A certain design will create a vibrant urban area or it won't.

If you want to see how having 2 garages flanking either side of the street by an entertainment option turn places into a pedestrian wasteland... simply stand on Huron Rd just East of the Q. That is exactly what will happen to lower prospect. Lots of activity by the patio bars and the lizard... and absolutely nothing by the arena. There will be lots of people around east 4th street followed by a complete dead zone leading up to the casino... with the exception of cars flooding the immediate area of the garage.

Did Gilbert explore possibilities with the lot between E 4th and E 6th?  Why was that site ruled out?  Who owns that lot (Frangos?) and what would it take to pry it away from them?  What about the lot south of the existing garage for an expansion?  I seem to remember that is slated for "future development" but am not sure what that means in their grand scheme. 

 

 

It's probably too far away. I suspect Gilbert wants his gamblers to go from their car to the casino under one roof.

 

The primary owner of the parking lot to the southeast of East 4th and Prospect is:

 

PRIMARY OWNER:  ARENA PARKING INVESTORS, LLC.

TAX MAILING ADDRESS:  L & R INVESTMENT, 515 S FLOWER ST STE 3200, LOS ANGELES, CA 90071

 

Has a market value of $8.45 million for tax purposes. I may have double-counted a parcel or two.

 

There is also a second owner in the area. The parcel northeast of East 4th and Huron is....

 

PRIMARY OWNER:  SYSTEM PROPERTY DEVELOPEMENT COMPANY, INC.

TAX MAILING ADDRESS:  SYSTEM PROPERTY DEVELOPEMENT COMPANY, INC., 975 E GREEN ST, PASADENA, CA 91106

 

That 4,171 square foot property is valued at $401,700.

 

That's all I can find.

What are the "odds" that the Columbia Building can be saved? A few buildings downtown scheduled to be demolished for parking garages have been saved by last minute efforts (think Playhouse square a few decades ago). I think there is enough outcry and support for preservation and not killing our urban fabric that both the Columbia and Stanley could be saved. Is there any formal campaign underway to save this building? If not, there needs to be one set-up ASAP. I'm sure several thousand signatures could be gathered in a few days ...

I've found it interesting that no one has mentioned an above ground pedestrian bridge instead of walkway.  Granted, this is Cleveland so people don't like having to go outside in the winter, but it does the trick of allowing pedestrians free passage over Ontario, while allowing for a smaller footprint (and presumably a lot cheaper).  When I was in Vegas I found the pedestrian bridges there very helpful when crossing the streets, but since they were only bridges (not covered walkways), I still felt like I was outside and in a city, not in a building secluded from a city.  If we want to maximize the casino's connection to the rest of downtown, a simple bridge from sidewalk to sidewalk seems a lot more connected to the city than a walkway taking individuals straight from inside the garage to inside the casino.  It also does the nice trick of not defacing one of the most famous buildings in Cleveland.

^I think that a pedestrian bridge could work well. Also, I would propose that the current parking garage be extended to the south and over High Street and to turn High Street into the valet area (like the New York Marriot Marquis valet area).

The design review and planning Commission agendas are out.  Cimperman is certainly going to make sure that his buddy's get everything they want.

 

There seems to be quite a bit of confidence that everything will be approved since they have details on signage and landscaping plan including the types of trees. 

 

MANDATORY REFERRALS

2.Ordinance No. 648-11 (Ward 3/Cimperman):  Authorizing the Commissioner of Purchases and Supplies to sell City-owned property no longer needed for public use located at 2151 Ontario Street to Rock Ohio Caesars Gateway LLC, or its designee, for the purposes of facilitating the development of Phase 1 of Horseshoe Casino Cleveland, to be located in the nearby Higbee Building. 

 

3.Resolutions of Intent to Vacate (to be introduced) (Ward 3/Cimperman):  In and around the vicinity of Ontario St., Prospect Ave., East 2nd Street, East 1st Street and High St. pursuant to the Welcome Center project. 

 

DESIGN REVIEW

1.DF 2011-012:  2105 Ontario Street, Welcome Center, Addition to Gateway North Garage, Overhead Building Connector, etc., Ward 3; Project Representatives:  Craig Wasserman, KA, Inc., Architects; Ellsworth Grimsley Rock Ohio Caesars Cleveland, LLC

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2011/05202011/index.php

 

Also, lots more pictures.

 

 

While I appreciate the welcome center and parking "tower" taking up some surface lots, and the fact that the stanley block will be saved, it is one of the fugliest buildings I have seen. Can't expect much from ka. But wow.. looks like someone in their office learned how to use Revit. They didn't even remove the Columbia from their first before/after. Just awful work. Its truly sad that this kind of design is deemed "good enough" for our city centre.. regardless of their economic benefits. I would foot the bill for their fee's if they would hire a better designer.

 

Monstrosity.

Are they just going to leave the Stanley in its horrible state?

At this point, they might as well paint the whole thing gold - so tacky and so utterly wrong.

 

:drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk: :drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk:

 

 

 

 

 

 

If they build this center, I'd be just as glad if they knocked down the Stanley building. Wrapped up in that....thing....it's lost all sense of its history. It's like a big middle finger to everyone that dreams about what that block could be

Agreed.  I don't like how that design interacts with the Stanley Block

They didn't even think about how they could interact the design with the Stanley building. To them, the Stanley is just an obstacle they had to work around. Besides fixing it up and making it look pretty again, will the building serve a purpose? Will it be part of the welcome center?

Rock doesn't control the stanley bldg. My guess is they're going to build around it and if it rots, it rots

something will be done to it. its too prime not to. doesn't the guy that owns the clippers own stanley?

Is there any evidence that the Columbia building can be successfully rehabbed?  Is there any legitimate desire to do so?  Is it economically feasible?

 

What needs to be rehabbed?  There were businesses in there just a year ago so it can't be that bad.  What's the problem with the building?

Is there any evidence that the Columbia building can be successfully rehabbed?  Is there any legitimate desire to do so?  Is it economically feasible?

 

What needs to be rehabbed?  There were businesses in there just a year ago so it can't be that bad.  What's the problem with the building?

The problem with the building is that it's in their way for their parking garage. It would be a pretty easy rehab, but it's just in the way. And it looks like the city is gonna let them tear it down.

The "Welcome Center" makes me cringe.  It's just marketing speak so they can make it sound like they're contributing something to the city.