On a side note, downtown was really hopping to today. I guess everybody wanted to get outside and enjoy the weather!

^ That motivation seminar was today, put an extra 20K downtown

Hts and Burnham, I'm not even talking about trying to convince suburbanites to come downtown.  If they want to come downtown, fine.  If not, fine.  But if they'll only come downtown if we ruin it to please them, I'd rather just keep it as is and they can stay away.

I don't oppose the parking either. My prior posts question if existing parking and other under-utilized sites could be used for more parking rather making the parking footprint bigger.

^ That motivation seminar was today, put an extra 20K downtown

 

True, but I was out during the afternoon, when all of them were crammed inside the Q. Anyways great day!

 

And I really hope the walkway doesn't get built. I dont think it will though.

The walkway, as proposed, seems to be a "let's give the cheapest/easiest way a s shot by poposing it, and see what we are dealing with..." kind of approach. I hope they aren't maried to it.

Hts and Burnham, I'm not even talking about trying to convince suburbanites to come downtown.  If they want to come downtown, fine.  If not, fine.  But if they'll only come downtown if we ruin it to please them, I'd rather just keep it as is and they can stay away.

 

You think, even if Rock Ventures gets exactly what they want, this parking plan will "ruin" downtown.  A bit extreme, no?

^ That motivation seminar was today, put an extra 20K downtown

 

True, but I was out during the afternoon, when all of them were crammed inside the Q. Anyways great day!

 

And I really hope the walkway doesn't get built. I dont think it will though.

 

I care much less about the walkway as I do about the demolition of the Columbia Building.  It would be a real shame to lose that building which will have tons of redevelopment potential once the casino starts pumping in money...

 

IF the walkway is built I hope that they allow someone like the DCA or CLE+ to put a visitors booth in that little waiting area or on either side of the walkway to distribute information and direct people to downtown attractions, restaurants, etc.  Sure you have the typical casino goers that aren't interested in stepping foot outside, but there's a large group of people that would like to do something but don't feel comfortable enough to venture out "blind."  Having someone providing directions and suggestions (even if it's just a sign pointing to E4th with restaurant brochures / menus) can go a long way toward getting people comfortable enough to take the leap into urbanity.

^ I would give them the Walkway if we could keep the Columbia Building and the Stanley Block. Unfortunately we might lose both, and gain the walkway.

^ I would give them the Walkway if we could keep the Columbia Building and the Stanley Block. Unfortunately we might lose both, and gain the walkway.

 

I could give them the walkway (begrudgingly) if they demo the Stanley block and keep the Columbia Building. 

 

The diagonal crosswalk will be monstrous, but not sure if there is a good way around it.  The tunnels I had hoped were at least partially there are not, and I'm sure all kinds of utilities and sewers would be in the way. 

Maybe all this fuss is for naught.  Cross-posted from the Casino discussion thread, Rock has officially halted all construction for Cincy and Cleveland.  Another victim of the Jobs *Killing* Budget passed by Kasich & crew.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110511/BIZ01/305110120/

Hts and Burnham, I'm not even talking about trying to convince suburbanites to come downtown.  If they want to come downtown, fine.  If not, fine.  But if they'll only come downtown if we ruin it to please them, I'd rather just keep it as is and they can stay away.

 

You think, even if Rock Ventures gets exactly what they want, this parking plan will "ruin" downtown.  A bit extreme, no?

 

Of course it's extreme; I was exaggerating to get my point across that drawing suburbanites downtown at any cost isn't a good idea.  But I still maintain that the Welcome Center is a big negative for this portion of downtown, and could easily have been designed better with the urban framework in mind.

Why cant they build the parking garage in the parking lot to the east of the gateway garage between east 4th, Prospect, and Huron? Hell, just close all of east 4th so that the new garage could connect to the exisiting one. There would be infill, more parking for the Gund and not much farther than the proposed area, just one block.

 

I know why they wont, the people developing this project feel that we cannot let casino goers on the dirty, crime filled streets of Cleveland lest they be robbed by those destitute surface walkers. People should be shuttled around in the sky, and spit on those in the street from their lofty skyways.

 

All sarcasm aside, I can kind of see the benefit of having indoor passages during those winter months, i use them at CSU when its raining or freezing. But we cant have it both ways, are we integrating it into the urban fabric, or is it going to be a citadel with the most access from a parking garage and skyways?

 

 

An edit after Hts121 posted that article. If they demo the Stanley and Columbia, and then back out of the Casino leaving an empty lot behind, oh I can't even fathom it.

Why cant they build the parking garage in the parking lot to the east of the gateway garage between east 4th, Prospect, and Huron?

 

Just as I responded to an earlier post, how do you know they haven't fully evaluated that option?  How do you know the owner of that lot was demanding an ungodly amount to sell the land?  Please realize that there are countless meetings and discussions and planning that go into something so complex WELL before ever presenting any proposals to the public.

Construction stopped on Cleveland, Cincinnati casinos

 

By: Jen Steer, newsnet5.com By: Jen Steer, newsnet5.com

 

CLEVELAND - Construction work on casinos in Cleveland and Cincinnati has been stopped, a release from Rock Ohio Caesars says.

 

According to a news release, the company has suspended work because of recent talk to increase taxes and fees for the state’s casinos.

 

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/cleveland_metro/Construction-stopped-on-Cleveland-Cincinnati-casinos

Just as I responded to an earlier post, how do you know they haven't fully evaluated that option?  How do you know the owner of that lot was demanding an ungodly amount to sell the land?  Please realize that there are countless meetings and discussions and planning that go into something so complex WELL before ever presenting any proposals to the public.

 

There may have been a lot of meetings and discussions, but apparently there wasn't too much thinking.  First, they want to demolish two historic structures.  People complain, so their solution is just to surround it, not incorporate it.  I think a 5 year old using fingerpaints could have figured that design out.  Now they still want to demolish the larger of the two historic structures, and have added insult to injury by wanting an ugly skywalk which will also ruin the facade of a third historic structure.

 

But, yeah, it's probably the best they could come up with since they expect their clientele not to have to walk more than about 50 feet and all of it indoors.

Here's a thought (if financially feasible, this approach might solve a lot of problems):  Expand the gateway garage for the 300+ spots and valet lanes they want.  Then they can have their skyway for inclement weather go into the welcome center which will have ample space for retail and a tourism center.  They can also have an RTA Casino stop beneath it (and perhaps a connection for the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad) and use the underground space to connect to Higbees and Phase II.

 

This also means the Higbees building and the intersection of Ontario/Prospect remains untouched and fully open to future development.  I'm not a fan of skyways in general, but to compromise with the need for winter weather options I think this and the tunnels would create a good option, but do not effect the surface of the city as much.

I was going to suggest something like that too. There's multiple other options. They don't have to tear down the Columbia or the Stanley.

Fox 8 news just announced that construction has been haulted due to the scumbag governor wanting higher taxes paid by the casino. Construction won't continue until a resolution is found.

lol, this is some governor we have.

33% seems high enough to me. And, it was the will of the voters. And, he can't possibly win in court. So, umm...

The guy who would kill his mother for lower taxes for big corporations is putting his foot down on THIS business that just so happens to be against the moral fiber of most of his voters. I've been driving hours to get to casinos for years and I'm sick of it. I want my casino that we voted for.

 

I'm fine with the state trying to get as much as they can.

This work stoppage is a stunt

Well, the state right now, and for god knows how long, is getting a big fat percentage of $0 from our casinos. But hey, as long as the religious right is happy, which is undoubtedly our governor's motivation, then so be it.

 

...So we can add this "success" to Kasich's war on teachers/unions (cause god knows they're the reason the economy is in the sh!tter), people who don't want guns in bars,  people against corporate welfare, and people who would rather take trains than drive from Clev-Columb-Cincin. 

 

I just can't wait to see what he does with abortion.

 

Quite a few months Kasich is having.

I'm fine with the state trying to get as much as they can.

This work stoppage is a stunt

 

You're fine with the state going against what was voted upon by the people of Ohio????

Since this thread is specifically for discussion of the construction of the casino - with the recent stop-work announcement, it will stay locked until there's something to report. 

These were posted for the Landmarks Commission meeting on May 12. After seeing the first and second images, I wonder why the Gateway parking deck couldn't be expanded west over Ontario Street into the undeveloped "hole" on the west side of Ontario??? This provides both a walkway and expanded parking without demolishing ANYTHING! And access to the Higbee building could then be done under Prospect without defacing the historic Higbee building....

 

They are also posted at:

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2011/05122011/index.php

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what existed in 1930 at a floor elevation about 10-15 feet below street level by Ontario -- Prospect and Huron are arching bridges through the Tower City/Union Terminal area. This is the concourse level of Cleveland Union Terminal, which had much higher clearances above the floor in the passenger concourse area that is today's Avenue at Tower City. But this floor level was also the basement level for Higbee's. As you can see, Higbee's basement went underneath Prospect alongside Ontario but was/is above the still-active rapid transit tracks. Unfortunately, the original image did not exist any farther to the right. But see my comments in my prior message why this could be important.....

 

 

 

EDIT: here you can see the concourse level structure (note the white facing below the brick facing) below street level and below the old Terminal Group buildings (on which the old 'Witnesses' banner hung) that could be used as a wide passageway from a Casino Welcome Center into the Higbee's building in upper-right corner of the image.....

 

Can you build a parking deck over a state route (which is what Ontario is)? Absolutely....

 

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=151423

Here's my plan. This would offer almost three times the parking of the existing plan without demolishing a single structure. The valet drop-off would be in the same location, but the valet pick-up would be on the west side of Ontario where the "hole" is now which I think would help in reducing traffic by offering a speedier egress of cars from downtown (either south on Ontario or west/east on Huron) more than the casino's proposed location....

 

Alright folks, this thread is being unlocked - again. Remember, membership and participation on this forum is a privilege, not a right - post accordingly.

 

 

To be honest I think I would prefer the destruction of the historic buildings and the horrible/diagonal skybridge over that "plan" KJP.  Thats just a nightmare.  :-o

 

If its only about the amount of spaces (and your not going to provide the access they are looking for into Higbee), why not just expand the Gateway North Garage to the South as well as to the North and have a regular pedestrian bridge to some sort of structure over that hole at the corner.  That spot wouldnt bother me nearly as much for a cool, human scale ped bridge as it would cutting diagonal into Higbee. 

 

But then, that whole concept would likely defeat the point of the waiting room/lounge for the Higbee bldg at the corner of Ontario and Prospect (it wouldnt alleviate their need to have a super direct connection to Higbee (the proposed ped bridge).  Which again, they seem to still be pretending would only be the first phase and a small piece of the greater Casino..? 

i agree. a block and a half of a covered up Ontario doesn't sound better to me.

I also would have some doubts that such a garage could come in within budget.  I'm not opposed to the concept, though.

I just hate their plan for the Columbia building location. They dont just plan on demolishing a perfectly good building, they plan on replacing it with something that will make that area completely unfriendly to pedestrians. We cant have that on our main streets.

I just hate their plan for the Columbia building location. They dont just plan on demolishing a perfectly good building, they plan on replacing it with something that will make that area completely unfriendly to pedestrians. We cant have that on our main streets.

 

And not just any main street, but one prime for redevelopment being located smack dab in the middle of the stadium and arena, the casino, and E. 4th St.

I don't agree that the plan is not friendly to pedestrians.  It certainly isn't any less pedestrian friendly than what is there now.  Regardless of how much you hate the plan, it does provide some street level activity to a corner that essentially has none at present.  Sidewalk improvements too.

I just hate their plan for the Columbia building location. They dont just plan on demolishing a perfectly good building, they plan on replacing it with something that will make that area completely unfriendly to pedestrians. We cant have that on our main streets.

 

And not just any main street, but one prime for redevelopment being located smack dab in the middle of the stadium and arena, the casino, and E. 4th St.

 

If you guys feel that strongly, I hope you wrote a convincing letter to Jennifer Coleman (the Chair of the Landmarks Commission) why this should not be demolished.  It also wouldnt hurt to write the others on the Commission. 

 

She is currently on the fence about it (in part because these buildings are viewed as empty and eyesores, and in part because they are not viewing things in terms of other options for these

buildings)

Other commission members see it as a way of giving a rebirth to area that is currently a deadzone.  Do tell them why that is wrong.

 

The vote is May 26th.

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7006.990.html

I don't agree that the plan is not friendly to pedestrians.  It certainly isn't any less pedestrian friendly than what is there now.  Regardless of how much you hate the plan, it does provide some street level activity to a corner that essentially has none at present.  Sidewalk improvements too.

 

This is what I dont like about it. Right after crossing a street, you must then cross this.

I just hate their plan for the Columbia building location. They dont just plan on demolishing a perfectly good building, they plan on replacing it with something that will make that area completely unfriendly to pedestrians. We cant have that on our main streets.

 

And not just any main street, but one prime for redevelopment being located smack dab in the middle of the stadium and arena, the casino, and E. 4th St.

 

If you guys feel that strongly, I hope you wrote a convincing letter to Jennifer Coleman (the Chair of the Landmarks Commission) why this should not be demolished.  It also wouldnt hurt to write the others on the Commission. 

 

She is currently on the fence about it (in part because these buildings are viewed as empty and eyesores, and in part because they are not viewing things in terms of other options for these

buildings)

Other commission members see it as a way of giving a rebirth to area that is currently a deadzone.  Do tell them why that is wrong.

 

The vote is May 26th.

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7006.990.html

 

Where can I find her email?

 

And should I include this, which is on their website

"To encourage the preservation of historically and architecturally significant buildings and historic districts within the City of Cleveland"

Cross what?  The exit for the valet area?  I think I could make it without much trouble.

 

[Other commission members see it as a way of giving a rebirth to area that is currently a deadzone.  Do tell them why that is wrong.

 

How about suggesting some talking points?  Factual support?

 

Personally, I totally understand the 'preservation' aspect of this argument.  I also would 'hope' that some developer would look favorably upon the Columbia for re-development.  But I have never heard even a whisper on that possibility.  Has there ever been any engineering studies on the current state of the building and what type of investment would be needed to re-purpose it?

I don't agree that the plan is not friendly to pedestrians.  It certainly isn't any less pedestrian friendly than what is there now.  Regardless of how much you hate the plan, it does provide some street level activity to a corner that essentially has none at present.  Sidewalk improvements too.

 

It may add some life to the corner, but it's the 3 lane entrance on Ontario and 3 lane exit on Prospect that make it not friendly to pedestrians.  That's a lot of ground to cover while constantly look for traffic speeding into / out of the parking facility.

The Landmarks Commission is a bit tough, since they are not employees of the city (the LMC only lists their names), then its basically up to you to investigate how to contact each person. 

 

For Jennifer, she does have a contact email and Twitter page on her CityProwl site, and if anyone should get the importance of historic buildings etc. it should be her (I mean she has the Columbia bldg on her lower prospect tour), although I really think right now they need to hear different viewpoints so that they are not so easily convinced by the slick talkers  :wink:......

 

Further investigating may turn up more and better info, but this is what I came up with recently.

 

[email protected]

http://twitter.com/#!/cityprowl_jen

http://www.cityprowl.com/

Cross what?  The exit for the valet area?  I think I could make it without much trouble.

 

It'll be more pedestrian unfriendly than even an intersection because there are no traffic lights there.  At all times pedestrians will have the "right" to cross, which means impatient drivers (especially at busy times) will get tired of waiting for them.  Add in the fly-in lanes (reminiscent of the Atlanta right turn lanes that have signs saying "Keep Moving") and you've got something less pedestrian friendly than Crocker and Detroit.  What's there right now surely isn't pedestrian friendly, but as we are likely going to be attracting more pedestrians to the area, we should be looking to make it better.  Instead, this plan makes it even worse.

Just as it is with other garages in the area, and especially during peak hours, I imagine that they might make that a right turn only coming out of the valet area.

Cross what?  The exit for the valet area?  I think I could make it without much trouble.

 

[Other commission members see it as a way of giving a rebirth to area that is currently a deadzone.  Do tell them why that is wrong.

 

How about suggesting some talking points?  Factual support?

 

Personally, I totally understand the 'preservation' aspect of this argument.  I also would 'hope' that some developer would look favorably upon the Columbia for re-development.  But I have never heard even a whisper on that possibility.  Has there ever been any engineering studies on the current state of the building and what type of investment would be needed to re-purpose it?

 

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

 

Also, thats what I meant in past posts by "they" (the city, the Landmarks Commission) should be seeking more information.   

 

For an issue like this it should be within their scope of responsibility to know why it isnt viable to keep this building (at the very least considering its a landmark), in order to make an educated decision. 

They should be asking; has the Casino company even looked at other options (that would keep the Columbia building (it really should be more about the casino folks demonstrating why the Columbia building is beyond its useful life as a building)).  They should at least have to demonstrate that they looked at other scenarios and why they determined this is the only option (apparently no questions have been asked, they just took things as presented).

 

Also, it is pretty common nowadays to construct a deal.....  Possibly one that could include the city (Gateway) garage in exchange for keeping the Columbia Building and having Gilbert redevelop for some specified purpose (look at the Nationwide deal in Columbus for a good example of how such deals can benefit both sides). 

There have been several groups that have propoosed intersting and far better ideas as far as urban design and concepts go.  They should be part of this planning process or at least visible for these hearings and to offer input.

 

If Gilbert claims to be about doing things the best way for the city, that means being sensitive to at least some basic planning principles, so I think the city needs to have some further dialog with him (I think he means well, but doesnt necessarily understand the impact of some of his ideas)             

I'm with Hts121 on this, there's nothing inherently pedestrian un-friendly in this design.  Heavy traffic may be unfriendly, but that's an intersection I already avoid when on foot.  First of all there's nothng there.  Second the traffic.  Ontario is one of the few N-S streets downtown that connects to the freeway.  For the exact same reason, E9th is also pedestrian unfriendly and E14th is no picnic either.  The casino is going to add more traffic to Ontario no matter where or how its parking deck is built, and it will need a parking deck.  The skywalk also seems necessary, given that Ontario isn't all that pedestrian friendly to begin with. 

 

The only complaint I have about all this is that I wish they could somehow squeeze it around existing historic buildings. 

What I also find interesting is all the original concept renderings for the Horseshoe Casino, in the higbees building. Not a single rendering with the walkway attached to it. I wantThe Planning Commission to see a rendering of this before approval. Misleading renderings on an approved project that are not telling the entire story. So is this walkway for all or just valet parked clients?  The walkway only will lead you to the second floor of the casino and not to the main level unless they are planning to reconfigure the floors inside Higbees to allow direct access to the first floor.  I am opposed to this poorly conceived prking structure.  Why can they not make a deal wit the old May Company parking structure instead?  Do we really need 3 parking structures right next to each other?

Why can they not make a deal wit the old May Company parking structure instead?  Do we really need 3 parking structures right next to each other?

 

I find it interesting that, in the Casino Welcome Center graphics I posted on the previous page, the roof of that parking deck has been "whited out" so that the cars/parking spaces on it cannot be seen. Therefore it is not immediately apparent that the structure is actually a parking garage.

I'm with Hts121 on this, there's nothing inherently pedestrian un-friendly in this design.  Heavy traffic may be unfriendly, but that's an intersection I already avoid when on foot.  First of all there's nothng there.  Second the traffic.  Ontario is one of the few N-S streets downtown that connects to the freeway.  For the exact same reason, E9th is also pedestrian unfriendly and E14th is no picnic either.  The casino is going to add more traffic to Ontario no matter where or how its parking deck is built, and it will need a parking deck.  The skywalk also seems necessary, given that Ontario isn't all that pedestrian friendly to begin with. 

 

The only complaint I have about all this is that I wish they could somehow squeeze it around existing historic buildings.

 

I was referring to Prospect, not Ontario. I could care less about Ontario at his point, but this plan would make Prospect very pedestrian unfriendly in my opinion.