EC, you're definitely a front-runner for rookie of the year with your ideas. 

 

Haha!  Thanks.. I wish! I am an inexhaustible source for crazy ideas and letters... Getting them going is where I have to pass the torch. By the way, is the fountain still gurgling? Man, they're not that hard to maintain. I used to install ponds with fountains.

(cross question from Lakefront Development news)

 

What do y'all think about putting the renovated Euclid Beach carousel on Public Square?

I think until the greater problems of public square are solved it would be severely underutilized, and potentially become a "campground".

I think that, if this carousel were just plopped into Public Square the way PS is today, it would be a terrible idea and a terrible waste.

 

I would support it as part of a larger, overall plan to make Public Square into the grander space that it should be .. but not as an attraction in and of itself.

EC, you're definitely a front-runner for rookie of the year with your ideas. 

 

Haha!  Thanks.. I wish! I am an inexhaustible source for crazy ideas and letters... Getting them going is where I have to pass the torch. By the way, is the fountain still gurgling? Man, they're not that hard to maintain. I used to install ponds with fountains.

 

As someone who's observed New York parks for many years, there's nothing more depressing and demoralizing than a non-working fountain filled with stagnant water (or no water) and debris. Recently Washington Square Park was refurbished and slightly re-designed (much to the initial dismay of old-timers--admittedly I'm usually the first to complain about missing the "Old New York" of the 70's!), but the nicest aspect is the now fully-working fountain in the center of the park; recalling that it was non-functioning for years and how awful it looked. It's now quite spectacular. On the other side of the spectrum, for some reason the once beautiful fountains in front of the Metropolitan Museum have been out of service seemingly for years now. It cheapens the appearance of what's one of the greatest museums (and the single biggest tourist attraction in New York) in the world. Don't know why this is...

Speaking of decrepit fountains, they have started running small amounts of water again in the NE quadrant.  This seems pointless unless you really like mosquitos.  I'm not reaching into that murk to pull weeds, but I'm still doing it when it's dry.

Speaking of decrepit fountains, they have started running small amounts of water again in the NE quadrant.  This seems pointless unless you really like mosquitos.  I'm not reaching into that murk to pull weeds, but I'm still doing it when it's dry.

 

I think we should all call the city on this simultaneously. Any takers?  And yes, something seems demoralizing about the fountains not working. Water is life....and as long as water is flowing, there seems to be hope and life. When the water stops... I think subconsciously we see the former going the other way.

whom do we call?

I would call the parks department, and even Downtown Cleveland Alliance to see if they can suggest something, but I lack faith in whoever answers the phone there. I am going to call the parks department. The reason I mention DTA is because it was an issue at a recent meeting, so they may have a taking to this subject. Most of the numbers in City Government are found on their website.

I would suggest the DCA and Cimperman.

Well, if we persue a millenium park type development for the malls or the square, the carousel would be a nice element.  But I have to agree, plopping it down and hoping for the best isn't all that smart.

whom do we call?

 

It's substantially better to call the Mayor's Action Line.  To my understanding, issues and complaints are tracked in a computer system in the mayor's office until they are resolved.  And they go directly to people with power to make things happen, not a receptionist who likely will stick your item on a shelf. 

 

You can just call 664-2000 and ask for the Mayor's Action Line.

I drive through the square every day on the way home. Since I live in the WHD, I take Ontario to get to I-177. Its great to drive in the reverse of traffic. I am very torn on unifying the square.

 

On the one hand, it is only a matter of time until I hit a pedestrian. Busses stop on the square, blocking my view of the corners, and psychotic pedestrians run across, with baby carriages and children in tow, with complete disregard for oncoming traffic and the color of the traffic light/walk indicator. It could be any time of day or night, and I have pedestrians walk within inches of my car travelling at 25 mph. I would rate this the most likely area i nthe city to hit a person. Its only a matter of time.

 

On the other hand, one of the advantages of living in the city is that I could reach out into the suburbs easily to find employement, in any direction. Cutting the transit speed through that area would add time to my commute, in each direction. I'm already at the edge of an acceptable commute time now (in my opinion) so it would have a major negative impact on my schedule.

I could get behind unifying the square, it probably does need something like that... but as you say it could really mess up traffic.  The city is designed to focus traffic there.  They would need to run some simulations and see how bad E9th and W6th/Prospect get backed up.  Also of concern would be that awful E13th/Euclid/E14th jog. 

 

I guess I would hesitate to close Ontario, due to the lack of N-S alternatives downtown.  Superior could wrap around the square easily enough.  Maybe we could just have an east half and a west half, instead of quadrants.  Then maybe there could be an ornate pedestrian bridge or two linking them.

Close it down.  Times Square is closed down for hours at a time to allow pedestrian use.  This would be no major problem for traffic.  Even if it is, it will react and find other routes.  As it is currently stands, I'd say that the area of Public Square is roughly 50/50 split between park land and roadways.  I honestly wouldn't have a problem with having buildings built on the Square, but I don't want to get everyone here too riled up...

I drive through the square every day on the way home. Since I live in the WHD, I take Ontario to get to I-177. Its great to drive in the reverse of traffic. I am very torn on unifying the square.

 

On the one hand, it is only a matter of time until I hit a pedestrian. Busses stop on the square, blocking my view of the corners, and psychotic pedestrians run across, with baby carriages and children in tow, with complete disregard for oncoming traffic and the color of the traffic light/walk indicator. It could be any time of day or night, and I have pedestrians walk within inches of my car travelling at 25 mph. I would rate this the most likely area i nthe city to hit a person. Its only a matter of time.

 

On the other hand, one of the advantages of living in the city is that I could reach out into the suburbs easily to find employement, in any direction. Cutting the transit speed through that area would add time to my commute, in each direction. I'm already at the edge of an acceptable commute time now (in my opinion) so it would have a major negative impact on my schedule.

 

 

Pedestrians have the right of way when they are walking on cross walks. On the contrary, it is drivers who most of the time lack regard for the pedestrian....because they are so used to driving to the point they assume the world must stop for them. Granted, if it is easier for a pedestrian to wait, or if the pedestrian carelessly walks out in the middle of the traffic, then you have a point. But if we are trying to create a more walkable city, for those who have the 'selfish interest' of wanting to walk, let's not say pedestrians lack regard for the auto, because for the last 55 years the auto has basically dominated the city-scape. If I were visiting here from another planet, I'd think it was the dominant life form. (What movie hinted at that? It was funny!)

 

Closing in the square and making a large round about would actually make everything safer for pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The problem is, that most people in this country have no clue what a round-a-bout is, much less how to use one. They are catching on, though in several places. San Jose, Indianapolis, and others.

 

 

Lastly, on the fountains, YES, call the action line. I did this morning, but one call is not going to get it done. The receptionist tried to suggest that maybe they are not working to save energy...and that is B.S. The water is recirculated and these do not hog energy. They're not working simply because someone is slacking. Go ahead...'flood' the office with calls! (pun intended!)

I drive through the square every day on the way home. Since I live in the WHD, I take Ontario to get to I-177. Its great to drive in the reverse of traffic. I am very torn on unifying the square.

 

On the one hand, it is only a matter of time until I hit a pedestrian. Busses stop on the square, blocking my view of the corners, and psychotic pedestrians run across, with baby carriages and children in tow, with complete disregard for oncoming traffic and the color of the traffic light/walk indicator. It could be any time of day or night, and I have pedestrians walk within inches of my car travelling at 25 mph. I would rate this the most likely area i nthe city to hit a person. Its only a matter of time.

 

On the other hand, one of the advantages of living in the city is that I could reach out into the suburbs easily to find employement, in any direction. Cutting the transit speed through that area would add time to my commute, in each direction. I'm already at the edge of an acceptable commute time now (in my opinion) so it would have a major negative impact on my schedule.

 

 

Pedestrians have the right of way when they are walking on cross walks. On the contrary, it is drivers who most of the time lack regard for the pedestrian....because they are so used to driving to the point they assume the world must stop for them. Granted, if it is easier for a pedestrian to wait, or if the pedestrian carelessly walks out in the middle of the traffic, then you have a point. But if we are trying to create a more walkable city, for those who have the 'selfish interest' of wanting to walk, let's not say pedestrians lack regard for the auto, because for the last 55 years the auto has basically dominated the city-scape. If I were visiting here from another planet, I'd think it was the dominant life form. (What movie hinted at that? It was funny!)

 

Closing in the square and making a large round about would actually make everything safer for pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The problem is, that most people in this country have no clue what a round-a-bout is, much less how to use one. They are catching on, though in several places. San Jose, Indianapolis, and others.

 

 

I think what is being called out is that there are people out in the crosswlaks while they are being told not to walk.  It has been my understanfing that if a pedestrian is in the crosswalk when they are not supposed to be, ie the signal indicates to stop, then they are in effect Jaywalking.

 

 

Good point...

 

On the cross walks which link the malls, pedestrians have the right of way. I have seen drivers several times forget this law and practically run people over.

If you actually read the RFP, there has already been a recent traffic study performed...

 

"In 2008, ParkWorks and the Downtown Cleveland Alliance engaged Wilbur Smith Associates to conduct a

comprehensive traffic study for Public Square. This team felt that, with all that was known about the Square, there

were unanswered questions about the practicality and feasibility of closing two of Cleveland’s busiest streets and

public transportation arteries. It was clear that something needed to be done to address the pedestrian and

automobile experience on the Square, but a study of the traffic patterns and needs was necessary to make future

plans effective and realistic. The study focused on the impact of potentially closing Superior Avenue and Ontario

Street. Clearly closing these hubs could have a bearing on traffic throughout the city and would not be confined to

just the intersection in question. Further, the study considered design implications should any roadway closures

occur."

 

"As referenced above, a 2008 study intended to understand the implications of street closures in the Square and the

resultant design challenges should roadways be closed, was conducted as a means to better understand the

complex traffic workings of Public Square. The major findings of the study concluded that Superior Avenue must

remain open for public transit access and Ontario Street must remain open for vehicular traffic during rush hours.

For full findings on all scenarios, please review the attached traffic study."

 

  So the conclusion was that superior remain open for transit only, and ontario be open only for rush hour.  Personally I'm not sure why making the square a round about is so hard.  It's been done all over the world.  Making 2 right turns instead of one is hardly going to cause automobile life to cease to exist as we know it.  Not everyone is everyone going to agree on this stuff, but I for one am in the camp that good urban planning inconveniences the automobile.  Too bad.

 

Regardless you should read the RFP, there is some interesting stuff in there.

 

http://parkworks.org/pdf/Public-Square-RFQ.pdf

Actually a roundabout would not hinder traffic flow for me, I would just enter the circle at a different spot. I don't think that would slow down my commute.

 

And yes, I was referring to jaywalkers as the people I might hit with my car. And I honestly don't mind the slow jaywalkers that just have blatant disregard for crossing rules, I am mostly worried about the ones that RUN across traffic unexpectedly. I know I have been almost hit and honked at exercising my right of way on St. Clair near the malls and other pedestrian crossings, but I try to keep out of the way of road traffic when I have a red light at a normal intersection.

Sh!t, Public is already basically a traffic deterant with the amount of no left turn restrictions. 

Really this comes down to how the freeways were designed, making the entrances into the city mostly from the south when the city is clearly setup for east/west movement.

Sh!t, Public is already basically a traffic deterant with the amount of no left turn restrictions.

Really this comes down to how the freeways were designed, making the entrances into the city mostly from the south when the city is clearly setup for east/west movement.

 

Very insightful.  I think this is the gist of the problem.

So are we saying remove the "plus sign" in the middle of the square (only way i can say it), and keep the outside of the square as one flow of traffic acting as a roundabout?  Is that the general opinion?

kind of... except one leg of the "plus" sign (superior) would be left open for transit access, and the other leg (ontario) would be open only for rush hour.

If you actually read the RFP, there has already been a recent traffic study performed...

 

"In 2008, ParkWorks and the Downtown Cleveland Alliance engaged Wilbur Smith Associates to conduct a

comprehensive traffic study for Public Square. This team felt that, with all that was known about the Square, there

were unanswered questions about the practicality and feasibility of closing two of Cleveland’s busiest streets and

public transportation arteries. It was clear that something needed to be done to address the pedestrian and

automobile experience on the Square, but a study of the traffic patterns and needs was necessary to make future

plans effective and realistic. The study focused on the impact of potentially closing Superior Avenue and Ontario

Street. Clearly closing these hubs could have a bearing on traffic throughout the city and would not be confined to

just the intersection in question. Further, the study considered design implications should any roadway closures

occur."

 

"As referenced above, a 2008 study intended to understand the implications of street closures in the Square and the

resultant design challenges should roadways be closed, was conducted as a means to better understand the

complex traffic workings of Public Square. The major findings of the study concluded that Superior Avenue must

remain open for public transit access and Ontario Street must remain open for vehicular traffic during rush hours.

For full findings on all scenarios, please review the attached traffic study."

 

  So the conclusion was that superior remain open for transit only, and ontario be open only for rush hour.  Personally I'm not sure why making the square a round about is so hard.  It's been done all over the world.  Making 2 right turns instead of one is hardly going to cause automobile life to cease to exist as we know it.  Not everyone is everyone going to agree on this stuff, but I for one am in the camp that good urban planning inconveniences the automobile.  Too bad.

 

Regardless you should read the RFP, there is some interesting stuff in there.

 

http://parkworks.org/pdf/Public-Square-RFQ.pdf

 

 

That is a great rule of thumb.. "good urban planning inconveniences the automobile" I agree.

If the square was one large round-a-bout... all roads feeding into the square, in all directions, would still be there. Here is an example on how to get around it, and the following is just one example of 2 directions: If I were heading north on Ontario and wanted to go west on Superior.. I would turn right on the round about allllll  the way around the outer perimeter until it met with superior, then I would turn right. If I wanted to continue north on Ontario, I would have met Ontario where it picked up on the outer perimeter and turned right...and so on and so on. Does this make sense? When I lived in Sydney for a while, there was a huge round-a-bout that is serving as my example...which had the same amount of streets to deal with and directions as Public Square. It works, traffic flows, it is more pedestrian friendly... If you look at a photo from P.S. from the air, you can envision this easily.

I think the roundabout would be great. The current design is no treat for drivers either. There are left turn restrictions, long waits and erratically timed lights, and gridlock for special events. You just have to be careful in the design. There is one at MLK/East Blvd in University Circle thats tough to traverse from some directions. The one near steelyard has been called the vortex of death or something similar because the exit signs are hard to read and the roads don't enter in opposing directions.

 

I lived in aouth Florida and there was a roundabout every few blocks. People get used to the concept and all is well, as long as it is designed properly.

I rarely support inconveniencing the automobile, but this situation is different.  I think a total roundabout could work here.  I have reservations but it could work.  And the gain in terms of filling in that "plus sign" would be big ones.  We'll probably need to finish at least one, if not both, of the new downtown transit centers before this can happen. 

 

Upon reflection, I'm not that concerned about distupting traffic through the square because half of that traffic is buses, which don't have to go there, and Public Square doesn't see much in the way of motor freight.  That last one is serious, because it's more than an inconvenience for business when deliveries get held up. 

isn't the east side transit center supposed to begin very soon?  I can't wait.  I'm tired of public square being little more than a giant bus stop regardless of what they come up with.

^ They're progressing with the adjacent CSU garage, but I haven't seen anything done with the transit center yet.  I assume they'll start as soon as the garage is finished.

I believe it is out to bid and stimulus funds are being used.

Really this comes down to how the freeways were designed, making the entrances into the city mostly from the south when the city is clearly setup for east/west movement.

 

This is also the result of having only one downtown rapid stop, which requires most buses to cross downtown in order to provide a decent level of service.  The bus density in downtown Cleveland is muuuuuuuuch higher than in central Boston, for example, for this reason, even though transit ridership there is so much higher.

 

It makes me a little sad knowing that downtown has to be designed to accommodate the 60 minutes per day of very high traffic volume, the other 23 hours per day be damned.  I know different constituencies need to be served (commuters, residents, business owners), but still makes me pessimistic that public square can ever be more than a bunch of crappy traffic islands.  We'll see what the designers come up with...maybe something awesome will come out of it.

isn't the east side transit center supposed to begin very soon?  I can't wait.  I'm tired of public square being little more than a giant bus stop regardless of what they come up with.

 

Nice timing...

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/07/stephanie_tubbs_jones_transit.html

Groundbreaking for the $9.6 million facility is scheduled for Sept. 10, Tubbs Jones' birthday. It will open in the fall of 2010.

Any discussion on the transit center can go here...

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,6860.msg408065.html#new

 

 

Very interesting article in PD today regarding Public Square redesign.  I hope the region can get behind the concepts in these designs (I like design #3, the wooded, man made hill above the mega Superior-Ontario Intersection).  Which design does the UO faithful like, and can we get behind something and make Public Square what it should be...a premier public space for all to enjoy.

 

Re-imagining Cleveland's Public Square

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

December 20, 2009, 12:30AM

 

"But James Corner, one of the nation's leading landscape architects, sees a huge potential to turn the 10-acre space at the heart of downtown into an iconic destination on par with Chicago's Millennium Park. He wants to see the square filled with people strolling, sunning, picnicking or relishing public art, concerts, gardens or outdoor markets.

 

At the behest of two nonprofit organizations, Parkworks and the Downtown Cleveland Alliance, Corner has come up with three radical and highly inventive plans for the square. "

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2009/12/reimagining_clevelands_public.html

 

I have to say I have really enjoyed Steve Litt's articles lately...he is on fire from the Med Mart to the Port to the Innerbelt Bridge and more...he is really keeping design issues regarding all of these big projects front and center and in everyone's face.

When you click on the link above, be sure to click on and go through the interactive presentation of the three proposals, its pretty cool, basic, but cool.

WoW, finally some out of the box thinking in Cleveland. Congrats to Parkworks and DCA for spearheading this effort. I just spent about 60 min straight staring at these proposals like a mental patient. Please, please, please lets hope this plan doesn't just collect dust like so many others. These proposals are game changers for public square. I like all the proposals but love #2 and #3. Mayor Jackson should make this "his" project to be done or underway by the time he leaves office. If he can get this done, I pledge to kiss his ass even more than MTS does!(if that's even possible).   

I love (er, hate) the article's teaser on Cleveland.bomb....

 

Two centuries after it was conceived as a New England-style town commons, Public Square in downtown Cleveland is a dead zone flanked by skyscrapers and filled by bus stops.

 

A dead zone?? Really, c'mon guys, do you even spend any time there? The sidewalks are a very active place at all hours of the day thanks to those bus stops. Public Square is an ideal transit hub. Though I think I get what they mean by saying "dead zone." The spaces within the individual quadrants could be better utilized, and might be best if Superior and Ontario didn't run through the square. But it's hardly a dead zone. Words are weapons if not used properly, especially to ignorant Greater Clevelanders who have come to fear downtown as empty and lifeless because of what they read.

 

BTW, I don't care for any of the proposals. The second one, foresting the square, is perhaps the most appealing to me, but I think that would work better if Superior was closed off through the square so fewer trees would be needed. Framing the square is a little too bizarre for me. And the third one with the mound over Superior seems very forced and artificial, like someone dropped a wad of Silly Putty on the square and decided to just taper its edges. Worse, the mound would have to be so high (at least 20 feet?) so as to be intrusive that it ruins street vistas, crowds up against the Soldiers & Sailors Monument, and the center/mound peak I fear would be a very windy place.

 

My favorite Public Square design of the past was the one that had the ponds and the bridge. It was like a mini Central Park. It had easily identifiable points of reference that were used as meeting places.

 

So create meeting places and spaces, ranging from ones that encourage: "I'll meet you at the _____ spot in the square and we'll go to lunch"  to:  "let's have our lunch by the bandstand/pond/pavilion/bridge/etc"  to:  "let's hold our political protest on the ________ on Public Square".....

KJP you beat me to it!  A great idea has yet been ruined by the (very) Plain Dealer!

 

The thread is great idea.

From the DCA website (7.5 MB)

 

Public Square Proposals Presentation: http://www.downtownclevelandalliance.com/uploads/09_1216_Field%20Operations%20Concept%20Presentation_web.pdf

 

I'm not really excited about any of these after thinking about them a little. 

 

The hanging gardens could be very attractive, but I can't imagine that we will be able to keep up with the maintenance they will require to look nice.

 

The "Thread it" concept seems impressive at first, but I can't imagine that at ground level it will really make for a coherent public space because of the bulkiness of the overpass they are creating.  It's "Public Square", not "Public Mound".  And wait till the put in all the required fencing to keep idiots from falling/jumping off onto Ontario and Superior. 

 

Foresting the square makes some sense, but lacks originality and only reminds me of how much nicer the square would be if it was ONE space instead of TWO.

Cobblestone, maybe some trees, and blocked off of all automobiles....and I'm happy! :D

 

I do like the "iconic" aspect of what is proposed.  So I'd vote #3....really alot of cool potential.  And you always have to be realistic and think winter months too.  That one does it for me best during that snowy time.  Lastly, I LOVE the showcasing of the Soldiers and Sailors monument it creates.

If we could drop  Superior 20. ft maybe the mound idea would work? I  know the south end of the square  was dropped this amount when the terminal Tower was built.

I'm trying to make up my mind. I think i'd prefer the second scheme if it also proposed shutting down Superior as well. I think it is just as an innovative approach to what a public space in a city like Cleveland could be, but achieved a little simpler then scheme 3.

 

As it stands, scheme 3 is probably the best, in that it allows the streets still run through Public Square, while also unifying the public aspects of the square. I think raising the square into being a hill is pretty awesome... but there is a A LOT that is unresolved with it. But that is ok, right now. We need to be worrying about the big idea behind it, not worrying over overly pragmatic details at this point. I know that design can be accomplished and I have faith Field Ops would be the office to pull it off. It is trying to be an innovative solution that allows the greatest possible access to the square. I think it should be possible to accommodate as many uses as is possible in the square. Scheme 3 is the only proposal that is being additive to Public Square, rather then taking away something that is already there to accommodate something new.

 

And its a solution I have never quite seen before for a situation such as Public Square. Similar projects, like Seattle's Olympic Sculpture Park, or Field Op's High Line project in NYC, or even the Big Dig in Boston have been completed, but none have quite been a true, pre-existing public space, like Public Square is. That excites me quite a bit about this project. People all over the world are going to be talking about and debating these proposals, because that is the level Field Operations works at. James Corner is one of the foremost innovators, designers, and theorists in the landscape urbanism movement. And he is one of the few people from that movement that gets things done on a large scale. That is very good for design in Cleveland.

 

This proposal also sets a precedent in regards to bridging over both the inner belt trench by CSU and bridging over all the infrastructural crap from the Mall to The Lakefront, that yes, you can do this in Cleveland.

 

I'm also praying this doesn't end up getting bastardized like MVRDV CIA project, or just goes completely quiet like FOA's MOCA project. Cleveland has been chewing up and spitting out designers lately.

 

I also hope the general attitude of Clevelander's, which seems to be, "If it doesn't personally benefit me, and if I haven't already experienced something similar 5 other places, then I don't understand it and I think it sucks and somehow someone is screwing me over this" attitude ends up butchering the project. Let's try be a little smarter about this then that, so it doesn't turn into the same pathetic (in my mind) arguments over why there shouldn't be a bike lane on the Inner Belt, why we shouldn't develop the lakefront, why The Flats East Bank is a dumb idea, and why any other project around here shouldn't happen. Just because this is something that hasn't been done before, much less in Cleveland, does not mean that it is not a good project. We have a terrible tendency to be hermetic and myopic when these types of proposals pop up, in how the general public reacts to them.

I'm not really excited about any of these after thinking about them a little. 

 

The hanging gardens could be very attractive, but I can't imagine that we will be able to keep up with the maintenance they will require to look nice.

 

The "Thread it" concept seems impressive at first, but I can't imagine that at ground level it will really make for a coherent public space because of the bulkiness of the overpass they are creating.  It's "Public Square", not "Public Mound".  And wait till the put in all the required fencing to keep idiots from falling/jumping off onto Ontario and Superior. 

 

Foresting the square makes some sense, but lacks originality and only reminds me of how much nicer the square would be if it was ONE space instead of TWO.

 

Embrace your creative side!

Cobblestone, maybe some trees, and blocked off of all automobiles....and I'm happy! :D

 

I do like the "iconic" aspect of what is proposed.  So I'd vote #3....really alot of cool potential.  And you always have to be realistic and think winter months too.  That one does it for me best during that snowy time.  Lastly, I LOVE the showcasing of the Soldiers and Sailors monument it creates.

 

Agreed.  That hanging crap is ridiculous.  the fall foliage and in winter months it would be an eyesore, unless there was a multi season plan for that.  But to me it's just a big shower curtain around public square, separating the space from its adjoining areas/street. 

 

This is the catalyst and connector we need.  It shows the HEART of the city is alive and beating strong!

 

This could be a giant marketing tool that will change the perception of the city - LOCALLY and nationally.

 

    None of the three proposals modify the automobile traffic aspects of the square. The driving lanes are not touched. I wonder why they chose to constrain themselves this way.

 

    None of the three proposals modify the automobile traffic aspects of the square. The driving lanes are not touched. I wonder why they chose to constrain themselves this way.

 

HUH...did you like at the entire pdf?  :wtf:

Wow. If we can get the funding to build the third proposal, it would be a huge boost for street life in Cleveland.

The third proposal looks the best on paper.  Or, in the fantasy digital realm designers create on their computers.  But I'm not really a fan of it.  KJP already mentioned that the height of the hill obstructs views across the square.  And X raises the important point - what we see in these images is not what we get.  Such massive dropoffs (the Litt article states 74 feet!) would require safety measures, and let's not forget that this hill is, structurally, an overpass, which can't possibly be as gren and lush as what has been presented.

 

I like the hanging gardens idea in theory a lot, but winter would be a very bleak place indeed if there weren't serious funding in place to bring color when the vines go brown.  I don't know plants, I'm just thinking of what the Wrigley Field outfield wall looks like in April, and that's dead.  We don't need more of that in Cleveland winters.

 

Eigth and State, I'll improve on the always-helpful "HUH..." response above:  The third concept appeared to be the only one that kept both Ontario and Superior intact.  I do understand the confusion as to whether or not the streets stay or go, as there are mixed messages in the PDF:  Page 22 states under assumptions, "ROADWAYS REMAIN UNCHANGED".  Yet it then says "ONLY ONTARIO IS SHOWN AS EITHER PERIODICALLY OR FULLY CLOSED".  Then 1 of the three designs (the Forest) showed Ontario being completely obliterated.  The "Frame" showed Ontario "temporarily" open during rush hour, but completely ignored this incredibly wide thoroughfare in the graphical renderings.  Litt then wrote "In two out of three cases, the proposals leave intact traffic lanes and sidewalks -- which occupy 60 percent of the surface area of the square. That's a big plus, because it would avoid time-consuming efforts to re-engineer the flow of traffic."    I strongly disagree - what makes these proposals look so great is that they dramatically reduce the visual impact that 60% concrete and asphalt has on a public space. 

 

I think they all look great, but concepts 1 and 3 are fatally flawed.  I think Design 2 makes the most sense, if:

 

-we can successfully be rid of Ontario Avenue through the Square

-they don't "over-forest".  There should certainly be a walkway from the Terminal Tower through to the center of the square, and probably to the eastern quadrant as well

-they light the crap out of the place at night.

-they take the aspects from the Frame and the Thread concepts that feature the Soldiers and Sailors monuments.  Euclid Ave and the Healthline should be a featured gateway.

 

Also, let's get something nice built on that freaking parking lot already.

 

    Thanks for the clarification.

 

    Sometimes I think the people who do the renderings get carried away. Prior to reconstruction of Cincinnati's fountain square, one of the renderings showed Fifth Street with traffic westbound with on-street parking. Fifth street is actually one-way eastbound with no on-street parking in either the previous or new arrangement. Also, one of the renderings showed the proposed improvements along with the Government Building that was demolished around 1930. Evidently, the renderer used an old postcard for the background image.

 

    In any case, I think that re-engineering the flow of traffic could go a long way toward improving Public Square.

 

    Does anyone have an idea of the typical daytime population of Public Square? The reason I ask is that the ideal population density of public open space seems to be about 300 square feet per person. Any more, and the space seems crowded; any less, and it feels dead. Various accounts have said that it feels dead, so maybe it is too large. The solution is to either reduce the size or add more people.

 

    If the present site is 11 acres, of which about 4 acres is used by vehicles, that leaves about 6 acres for people. The ideal population for this space is about 900 people.