Tower City looks so impressive when walking toward it from E. 4th along Prospect.  Now that view will be blocked by a Gerbil tube?

Not a lot of great leadership from city hall

 

Not many prominent corners in Cleveland without a CVS/Walgreens, and not many standards they were held to in siting or construction.

Seeing the design in full, I am now officially in the camp of, if you have to take out a building, let it be the Stanley Block.  It loses all of its character being jammed between the garage and the welcome center anyways.

 

If one building has to go, I'd much rather it be the Stanley Block than the Columbia Building.

^I'm with you guys.  Hate to see either go, and do very much appreciate the Stanley facade, but that stretch of Ontario's a gonner anyway.  It's tricky business to fight for the least worst outcome, but it's painful to see the wrong "compromise" get struck when it's clear neither side will get its way completely.  Seems to happen a lot in the preservation world, often with absurd results.

I agree about Stanley vs. Columbia, but maybe a preserved Stanley would work well as a luxury hotel with the "welcome center" wrapped around it.  But that's about the only thing I could see working there, and I'd much rather keep the Columbia.

I'm another that will throw my hat in the ring to say that if I HAD to choose (and both options suck), I'd rather the Stanley Building go than the Columbia Building.  I think that stretch of Prospect between Ontario and East 4th has more pedestrian potential than Ontario does.  Leaving the Columbia alone will help that but the Stanley will be surrounded by cars anyway.  It's gonna look like crap.

I would agree with that. I am wondering if the Stanley could be moved or de-constructed, then placed at the SW corner of Prospect/East 4th or wherever. The problem is the ownership issues. The developers do not have site control over the Stanley and probably won't be able to get it within their aggressive timeline.

So should we begin an emailing campaign to knock down the Stanley building now?

 

I'm so confused.

^ No dont do that. We cant actually choose. The only reason the Stanley survives is because of ownership

De-constructing and rebuilding the Stanley isn't a terrible idea. From what I understand this used to be common practice back in the day. I just wonder how much extra that would cost.

Maybe I'm over thinking this, but does anyone think it's possible they fed a "demolish the columbia but leave the stanley" plan to encourage a "well... I guess we could swap the two" plan B all along?

 

Their images of a Stanley building surrounded by new construction seem to make the option an obvious alternative.

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but how exactly will the parking garage situation be with regards to paying? Most all casinos offer free parking. What's to stop someone who works downtown or is going to go see a play/ball game from going in to a free casino garage and then walking to where they actually want to go? And also, how can nearby pay to park garages and surface lots compete with a massive free structure?

 

The "gerbil tube" almost seems like a logical business practice. You would need everyone who parks to be funneled into the casino with exits on the street as "emergency exits only" to make it really inconvenient for non gamblers to park there. This also has the reverse effect of making it harder for people to use the casino as a part of a multi entertainment venue.

 

We have to remember that this is a casino and it is a business with the sole purpose of making money. We have clearly seen that they have no regard for working within the fabric of the city. In my opinion the casino is in direct competition with E 4th rather than complementing it. I think the casino stands a MUCH better chance of luring current East 4th patrons over versus E 4th luring future casino patrons over.

 

 

I know my comments are going to upset a lot of people given the direction of this thread, but the truth is, the southeast corner of Ontario and Prospect is the first thing a visitor sees coming from the interstate into downtown on Ontario and it is an EYE SORE!  It is vacant and rundown with no prospects of being occupied in my lifetime. 

 

I am completely against tearing down a building simply to make a surface parking lot.  Look at what a disaster that has been in the Warehouse District.  But at some point we have to let go of the old to make way for the new.  If we never did that, there would be no Key Tower, BP Building (Huntington Bank?), 5/3rd building, Galeria, etc. 

Duck, TMH.... duck

@WestBLVD: I assume the "free casino parking" will operate somewhat like the garage by Harrah's in New Orleans:

 

Harrah’s offers unlimited complimentary parking to our guests after completing thirty minutes of tracked play with your Total Rewards card.  Our parking garages are located at 501 and 601 Convention Center Boulevard.  The casino can be easily accessed via a tunnel from the 501 Convention Center Boulevard garage.  Upon leaving the casino please remember to have your parking ticket validated at the Parking Validation/Satellite Total Rewards booth at the top of the escalator or at the Total Rewards desk.  If your stay is longer than twenty-four hours, additional validation will be required.

 

Everyone will sign up for a Total Rewards card in order to get the free parking, then the casino will bombard your e-mail with offers, etc. to pump up your gaming.

you could have said the same thing for east 4th street, everything thats left of the WHD, 668 euclid avenue, playhouse square etc.

 

And in the end this is not some fight about preserving history as some sort of museum, though I think there are very obvious benefits to historical character in creating a unique environment. It is the simple fact that these buildings represent existing potential for mixed use development. As much as I love to preserve and redevelop historical properties for the above reasons... I think the sentiment would be a tad different if the columbia building were being razed with new construction mixed use development along prospect and parking in the rear. but its not. it is a 2 block long parking garage that not only creates a 2 block pedestrian void but simply promotes an auto dominant through way in an area that could be vibrant and packed with people.

 

and saying these buildings have no chance of being occupied in your lifetime is incredibly shortsighted. 7 years ago there was no east 4th street. We have been slowly and steadily picking off and repurposing buildings all over downtown for nearly 30 years. the momentum created by investments on 4th, lower euclid, and lower prospect over the last decade was aligning perfectly with these locations. Without someone buying up 2 square blocks to level for a garage, it was only a matter of time.  And the worst part of it all is that there could have been other alternatives if they hadn't been planning in secret. They could have easily purchased the penn illis building behind the columbia and maintained the pedestrian street wall on prospect... but alas... thats just "too far" for a casino goer to walk apparently.

I'd have to agree with McCleveland.

 

The approach to Public Square from the south on Ontario isn't exactly picturesque, but after looking at the draft pictures with the Horseshoe Casino garage and skyway added, I'm not exactly blown away by the vision of what our city will welcome people with anyhow.  There are certain situations where "something is better than nothing" works for urban development.  I think we'd all agree a less-than-gorgeous new apartment building in the WHD would be welcome over the continued presence of a surface lot.  Likewise the new CSU dorms on Euclid aren't the most architecturally pleasing structures on Euclid, but the new college students they bring into the city more than make up for the lack of significant style along our mainstreet.

 

The equation here is that we gain a few hundred parking spaces, glitzy signage, a walkway, and the city puts away another hurdle between the city coffers and new tax revenue.  What do we lose?  Aside from the Columbia building, and for most intents and purposes the Stanley, we lose the potential for a cohesive and attractive block.  We never get to watch organic developments move from E4th to Ontario and create a consistent unimpeded avenue of shops and commerce.  We lose the chance that in 2018 apartments go up in the Columbia, and in 2021 new structures make East 2nd a walled in environment being developed like East 4th.  We lose a repurposing of the surface lot south of the Stanley Building and reduce the attractiveness of the Maycompany ground floor to take on new purpose without having boutiques and commerce across the street.

 

No one can guarantee this block will be the next decade of downtown redevelopment, but building this garage will guarantee it does not.

 

 

Dan Gilbert has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on land and groundwork for this Casino- it WILL happen.  So either he has a plan B, if the city doesn't allow this garage to go up, or he has been promised it will go through.

 

If it's the former, I say the City push for his alternatives and show that we mean business when it comes the longterm future vision of this city.  If it's the latter, then we're hopeless anyhow... :cry:

 

The equation here is that we gain a few hundred parking spaces, glitzy signage, a walkway, and the city puts away another hurdle between the city coffers and new tax revenue.  What do we lose?  Aside from the Columbia building, and for most intents and purposes the Stanley, we lose the potential for a cohesive and attractive block.  We never get to watch organic developments move from E4th to Ontario and create a consistent unimpeded avenue of shops and commerce.  We lose the chance that in 2018 apartments go up in the Columbia, and in 2021 new structures make East 2nd a walled in environment being developed like East 4th.  We lose a repurposing of the surface lot south of the Stanley Building and reduce the attractiveness of the Maycompany ground floor to take on new purpose without having boutiques and commerce across the street.

 

No one can guarantee this block will be the next decade of downtown redevelopment, but building this garage will guarantee is does NOT.

 

Bingo. Burnham... you graduate with honors.

Actually, East 4th was not abandoned and vacant.  I remember the Rathskeller, Bruegger Bagels, etc. and I enjoyed frequenting these places.  East 4th is a transformation.  The Medical mart is a transformation despite the need to tear down several buildings including gutting the entire "historic" convention center, and my personal favorite the Sportsman Bar.  I propose that what is happening on Ontario and Prospect is also a transformation.  I totally understand the desire to renovate buildings like the one on East 6th and Rockwell (across from the school administration building), but I simply see little use for the one or two buildings we are talking about tearing down for the construction of almost one BILLION dollars of construction.

The rathskeller was wonderful... and it sat on a 3/4 abandoned street with mostly vacant buildings. many of which had boarded up and broken windows on the upper floors with vacant storefronts on the ground floor.

 

we're removing mixed use potential for a parking garage. plain and simple. how would west 6th look if half of one side of the street would have been removed for a parking garage. there were options. they have chosen the easiest path for a car oriented plan that removes the pedestrian scale of the block. they are replacing the convention center and buildings with a convention center and buildings. Like i said, if they were proposing to demolish these structures for mixed use buildings along prospect I think you would see a different sentiment.

The Medical mart is a transformation despite the need to tear down several buildings including gutting the entire "historic" convention center.

 

If they were getting the Columbia and the Stanley and rebuilding them to have the same purpose that would be a better parallel.  As for the other major difference, it's the location.  The Euclid > E4 > Prospect > Ontario perimeter has all the makings of a fantastic dense urban area.

 

Take a look at the area from this perspective.  The purple are surface lots and the blue are buildings that are not used fully or could be occupied/re-purposed one day.  Considering the new development basically makes the block with the Stanley and Columbia a commerce deadzone, and since the landmark building across from Higbees already is, there is little reason to develop westward along prospect.  Future business could be focused going eastward, and perhaps (one day) the large surface lot on E4th could be built on, but we likely will not see much happen westward on Prospect.  These developments are like dominoes and they need to reach a critical mass to see them move forward.  The buildings all have a synergistic effect when developed in conjunction with one another.  Taking out a few can destroy the potential of many more.

As one who walks past those buildings almost everyday on my way to Fitworks, I honestly will not miss those dilapidated and abandoned buildings - especially when I am walking at night.  If there was a viable alternative project fighting for those buildings, I would have a different opinion, but the owners of those buildings have let them deteriorate to the point that no one will commit any serious money for redevelopment.  To see new development in that immediate area  is welcomed by this downtown resident.  Let's not forget, this is phase I and with phase II the entire area will be transformed. 

the columbia building isn't anywhere near "dilapidated" it is simply vacant. a parking garage will have no different effect when walking past than a vacant building. because they are both vacant of people. you will however have to make sure you don't get run over crossing SEVEN lanes of vehicular traffic should you choose to walk on the south side of the street... so you probably won't.

 

we're removing mixed use potential for a parking garage. plain and simple.

 

Which will be across the street from another parking garage, and on the other block, another parking garage.  TMH, do you think we could market that part of the city as the Parking Garage District?

The Columbia is not dilapidated. The May Company building is more dilapidated than the Columbia. 

We could market all of downtown Cleveland as the Parking Lot District.

yowsers... play nice all!

 

Btw, if something "suspicious" happens to the Stanley one evening, like that place last year at E. 14th & Euclid -- you know, how convenient that was in creating an insta-lot -- I'll be sure to show the CPD some of the posts on this board

I think we should look at this as part of the transformation of the southern part of downtown.  With the proposed new casino south of Tower City, the entire area will be different with a new focus.  Personally I would rather see MORE parking garages because they diminish the value of the many surface parking lots and will only make development of those surface lots more profitable.  Right now none of the surface parking lot owners want to sell for development because they are making too much money.  Every great city solves this problem by building multi-story parking garages which diminish the money the surface lot owners make.

^those garages are ususally attached to large buildings, not stand alone valet lobbies

So let me ask this question:  If the Casino was not happening -- let's pretend the ballot measure never passed -- and some parking company decided they wanted to build this garage exactly as described just without the skyway.  Would the people who currently find this acceptable still think it's okay?

 

I'm just wondering if the acceptance is because the parking garage comes with the Casino, or if some are really okay with this garage as a downtown development on it's own.  If it's the former, I'd encourage people to consider that this Casino is going to happen regardless, Gilbert has put way too much into this to back off because of a few hundred parking spots.  He'll build a different garage, or find another way to make it work. 

Personally I would rather see MORE parking garages because they diminish the value of the many surface parking lots and will only make development of those surface lots more profitable.  Right now none of the surface parking lot owners want to sell for development because they are making too much money.  Every great city solves this problem by building multi-story parking garages which diminish the money the surface lot owners make.

 

Very good point.  I wish we could biuld a stand-alone parking tower, like in Chicago.  Flood the market with supply so that surface parking is no longer the "highest and best use" in so many downtown landowners' minds.

Personally I would rather see MORE parking garages because they diminish the value of the many surface parking lots and will only make development of those surface lots more profitable.  Right now none of the surface parking lot owners want to sell for development because they are making too much money.  Every great city solves this problem by building multi-story parking garages which diminish the money the surface lot owners make.

 

Very good point.  I wish we could biuld a stand-alone parking tower, like in Chicago.  Flood the market with supply so that surface parking is no longer the "highest and best use" in so many downtown landowners' minds.

 

It is a good point except that this new garage represents new supply as a response to new demand.  It only diminishes the demand for surface lots if it changes the equilibrium.  As this garage is solely for the new Casino traffic it will do nothing to diminish the demand for surface lots.  And depending on how well it satisfies demand, it may in fact lead to spillover parking in the E4th lot perpetuating the lack of development on that lot.

^^^That's apples and oranges, Burnham.  I don't 'favor' the plan, but I don't think it will 'destroy' the City or render us 'hopeless'.  I understand the passion, but the overreaction is a bit harsh for these specific circumstances IMO.  This is not demolishing large chunks of the WHD or the Hippodrome for surface lots.  The Columbia is not the Terminal Tower.  The City will live on and the momentum will continue.  I have faith.  I still encourage those who feel so strongly to present viable alternatives to TPTB.

 

Here's a question.  Who feels strong enough about this to scrap the casino plans in their entirety?  Of course, the opinions of those who never wanted the cassino are irrelevant for the purposes of that question.

Hts, the Casino+Walkway+Parking Garage/Demolition vs. Nothing at all, is not a fair equation.

 

There is certainly a Plan B to this, and I think the City should pressure Gilbert to present it or adapt his plan for it.

 

If I were presented the above option, Yes, I would take the Casino over nothing.  But it's framing it like that, that gives Gilbert and developers like him all the power.  That's not the true equation here. 

 

As for "this is not the Terminal Tower" you're right.  But this city has lost many great buildings over the decades, many of which were considered historic or beautiful but "not the Terminal Tower" in defense of razing them.  I understand some of us sound a bit crazy, but Gilbert will make his money, people will be able to park, and cold weather can be avoided all without demolishing one of the few remaining century old buildings.  (Built 1909)

^I Hear you.  There seem to be three views that are OK with the demos here: (1) it's a necessary cost to get the casino, but a loss; (2) it's not a loss at all, in fact it's blight reduction; and (3) who cares, these are just minor buildings anyway.  Burnham is pointing out that #1 is kind of bogus, because of course Gilbert isn't going to just walk away if he doesn't get exactly the parking he wants.  I think #2 is kind of silly, because once there is a big new casino across the street and it's clear the city won't let people demo landmarks, I'd guess there's going to be a lot more interest in redeveloping these two buildings.  I disagree with #3 (death by a thousand cuts), but I guess it makes sense if that's one's view.

I doubt anyone from Rock-Ohio-Ceasars reads this forum, but I really think they should look at converting the May Company into a garage.  Its just as close, and an aerial walkway would be less intrusive midblock.  The building is 180'x400' with visible light penetrating 30' from prospect and Euclid.  At ten stories thats 600,000 square feet of unusable space that could be converted to parking... enought for 2,000 vehicles.  That would allow the commercial redevelopment of two corners of the intersection; creating that "times square" experience they are after.  Trying to win the argument from a historic preservation standpoint is futile, because they will just say you are afraid of change.  You need to show them that there is a better way to meet their needs without compromising the integrity of the streetscape at Prospect and Ontario.

Welcome!

 

Hey THM (aka Mr Downtown)

The Grand Arcade used to be the City Mission. People didn't like walking by that at night, or day for that matter.

The arguement is flawed.

^^ are you crypto Cleveland?

http://cryptocleveland.tumblr.com/post/1481096113/on-shared-parking-and-the-may-company

I've seen that May Co. garage idea before and I think it's great! All the offices in the May Co. building can move to the north section of the building. The south section of the building would be a great location for apartments. And (according to that picture) it makes room for new world-class offices on the corner of Prospect and Ontario.

I think the bottom line comes down to is this architecture better than what is there now. The answer for me is no.  Rock Gaming should  go back to the drawing board and present something which fits better into its location. Especially the skywalk which attaches to The Higbee Building.  Therefore these 2 buildings should have a dialogue that speaks in unison in style.  Is this the future architecture we want to represent our city?

I've seen that May Co. building idea before and absolutely love it.  It makes perfect sense.

 

Hts, the Casino+Walkway+Parking Garage/Demolition vs. Nothing at all, is not a fair equation.

 

There is certainly a Plan B to this, and I think the City should pressure Gilbert to present it or adapt his plan for it.

 

If I were presented the above option, Yes, I would take the Casino over nothing.  But it's framing it like that, that gives Gilbert and developers like him all the power.  That's not the true equation here. 

 

As for "this is not the Terminal Tower" you're right.  But this city has lost many great buildings over the decades, many of which were considered historic or beautiful but "not the Terminal Tower" in defense of razing them.  I understand some of us sound a bit crazy, but Gilbert will make his money, people will be able to park, and cold weather can be avoided all without demolishing one of the few remaining century old buildings.  (Built 1909)

 

My question was as fair as yours.  I don't disagree with anything you say.  Please understand that.  But we've saved a lot too.  Playhouse Square for example.  We still have a lot of history here and the demolition of the Columbia, as unfortunate as that may be, will not cause us to spiral.  Admittedly, it will frustrate some idealistic goals, but it won't be the end of us either. 

 

I see the City's role as ensuring that other alternatives are explored and ruled out for rational reasons.  Of course, there will be disagreement on what qualifies as proper rationale.

 

One thing that Litt's article inferred, but I have not seen any discussion on, is the lenders' role in this whole fiasco.  Litt seems to say that there is some kind of provision in the financing package which requires Gilbert to put a specific amount of spaces within "x" feet of the casino.

 

The company’s lenders need to know the company has at least 1,300 dedicated parking spaces nearby, Forbes said 

 

I have to assume that "nearby" is defined somewhere in the agreement.  If so, it should be somewhere in the documents submitted to the City.  What would be interesting to see is an aerial of the area with a shaded radius for this distance requirement.  At least then we would know which random ideas could even be considered.

Response to Clueless Ohio - In my initial post in this discussion I stated that the destruction of buildings just to produce surface parking lots is a disaster.  I even mentioned the Warehouse District as an example.  The difference here is that something is going to be built . 

 

I live in the Grand Arcade! The Grand Arcade has over 90 units. The buildings we are talking about are not being considered for any development because at best they would produce only 15 to 25 apartments.  In a city with a downtown population of over 12000, they are not profitable for conversion.  The casino project in its entirety stands to total close to 1 BILLION DOLLARS!!   

Whomever the lenders are/were it must not have been an issue because they had started all the phase 1 construction inside of the building prior to the parking structure being part of the plan. I would love to see whom/where this has been brought up as a stipulation for the construction of the casino. 

^^The Columbia building is listed at 89,000 sq ft.  The Grand Arcade was 81,000 sq ft at the time of renovation

I'm split, I really am not attached to a random building simply because it's old with nice architecture. But I'd love to see some suburban a__wipes have to walk the dangerous streets of downtown with all those dark people roaming around. But my feelings of how important this casino is makes me feel like we have to do what we have to do. I won't be parking in that garage, the redline will be my mode of transportation when I go to the casino.

 

THM I'm very glad that you have everything figured out to the point of being the self-appointed arbiter of vintage buildings -- should they stay or should they go?

And, interestingly enough, things have got to be done in "your lifetime".

WHD 1980s is like a Lower Prospect of today.

It'd be nice to have as much of Gateway around for future generations.

 

As of today...5.20.11...the Stanley is staying and the Columbia is sending out an S.O.S.

Needless to say, I prefer the Stanley over the Columbia...if I regeretfully have to choose one over the other.  Very controversial stance evidently. I think it's the historically more significant building. Shocking.

 

But there should be NO reason to alter our cityscape permanently if this is a temporary Casino.

 

 

 

 

 

Garages don't have to result in automatic dead zones:

 

Put ground level retail along Prospect and East 2nd in the new parking garage and I'm in.

 

As someone earlier said, replacing mixed use potential buildings with mixed use ACTUAL buildings makes the demolition of an historic building more palatable.  But Hts, we all know this is a straight forward parking garage being proposed.  No mention of ground floor retail, food, etc. like in the above pictures.  In fact, I'd argue that Parking Garages DO have to result in automatic deadzones.  It's retail, residential, parkspace, and commercial that create foot traffic (aside from to and from your car).  Parking alone does not yield an active space.  It's more likely to look like this street in Cleveland...