Embrace your creative side!

 

Embraced, as always.  My dream design would be to drop Superior and Ontario into underpasses below the square, keeping the square's current grade more or less the same, with some or all of the perimeter roads removed or at least reduced to narrow cobbled roads to slow traffic.  Bus stops would be on the underground Superior/Ontario.  All this would be very complex and expensive though, probably the reason they didn't consider it.  So we're left with alternatives that are purely cosmetic like the hanging gardens, or crudely grafted over the roadways like the "threading" alternative.

Embrace your creative side!

 

Embraced, as always.  My dream design would be to drop Superior and Ontario into underpasses below the square, keeping the square's current grade more or less the same, with some or all of the perimeter roads removed or at least reduced to narrow cobbled roads to slow traffic.  Bus stops would be on the underground Superior/Ontario.  All this would be very complex and expensive though, probably the reason they didn't consider it.  So we're left with alternatives that are purely cosmetic like the hanging gardens, or crudely grafted over the roadways like the "threading" alternative.

 

I dont think that can be done, because of infrastructure right under the roadways.

 

I think we can all agree those renderings are just that.  I think the trees shown around the exterior perimeter of the square is overkill

Embrace your creative side!

 

Embraced, as always. My dream design would be to drop Superior and Ontario into underpasses below the square, keeping the square's current grade more or less the same, with some or all of the perimeter roads removed or at least reduced to narrow cobbled roads to slow traffic. Bus stops would be on the underground Superior/Ontario. All this would be very complex and expensive though, probably the reason they didn't consider it. So we're left with alternatives that are purely cosmetic like the hanging gardens, or crudely grafted over the roadways like the "threading" alternative.

 

I dont think that can be done, because of infrastructure right under the roadways.

 

I think we can all agree those renderings are just that. I think the trees shown around the exterior perimeter of the square is overkill

 

Anything can be done with enough money.  That's why I said too complex and expensive.

I'd still vote for fully closing all the roadways, but I've come to terms with its impossibility.  I'll settle for closing Ontario between the north quadrants and keeping the southern part of Ontario open only for weekday rush hour.  Maybe superior can be further narrowed by removing the middle divider and the white cross striped unused portion that's existed since the bus lane was striped.

 

I also hope the programming of the space includes some permanent, high quality concessions.  It's great to see people bringing their brown bags to the park for lunch, but a bar, coffee place or even limited menu restaurant could bring folks there for more of the day too.

What i like most about these concepts...is that they are taking a look at what the city needs now, but also taking into consideration what the city will need as it grows. Concept 3 is the most iconic, but it is also the concept that gives the most flexibility to Downtown development. We have a usable space that pedestrians can use at all times of the day. The underneath portion of the structure can be programed itself...designed to be a covered location for markets or festivals. We can leave both Ontario and Superior open now...but eventually close them as traffic needs change.

 

If you think about it, Public Square was last a unified park about 140 years ago. Now we are talking about remaking the square for the next 140 years. Who knows what the traffic needs of Cleveland will be 3 and 4 generations down the road?! We need to focus on building a space that is iconic and meaningful for the citizens and businesses that will use it. Building a public space that will still be celebrated by Clevelanders at the turn of the next century. Public Square is this generation's "Group Plan".....just read the opening for the original report by Daniel Burnham to the city of Cleveland in 1903. They were focused on creating a public space for the benefit of the city's future. This is how we need to think now:

 

(It takes a little while to load)

http://cplorg.cdmhost.com/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/p128201coll0&CISOPTR=2273&REC=2

Close Ontario through the square, bury Superior, done.  It would be like the square was in the 1800's.  What is wrong with that?

From a utilitarian viewpoint, the mound makes a lot of sense.  It truly adds public space in a unique way.  I would prefer to split the difference in any elevation with a slight dip in the roads, but I can still get on board.  I love the way that Chicago uses multiple elevations in its urban fabric.  The idea that small business and bathrooms could be incorporated into the middle of the lower level is certainly something you can't do with about any other concept while maintaining a town square feel.  The concern I would have is how you keep those restrooms and other spaces in "the shadows" look and feel safe enough for Mr. and Mrs. Strongsville.

 

I would like to see something included that allowed for ice skating in the winter.  I don't suppose they could engineer the concept for a rink to be put on top of the mound?

Why can't we isolate public square roads to the perimeter? That way we would have the entire square to redesign.  Is there a reason we have to have this area bisected by either Ontario or Superior?

http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=94687_0_24_0_C

 

News of the redesign of Public Square has been posted on Archinect, one of the most widely read architecture / urban design news websites in the world.

 

The fact that this has already gotten picked up on archinect, shows to me, just how big of a deal this project is, not just to Cleveland, but also that is of national and international interest for designers.

  ^---"Why can't we isolate public square roads to the perimeter?"

 

  That is perhaps an option, but may I caution you that pedestrian traffic to the center may be restricted. Think of the Arch de Triumph in Paris. It is a giant traffic circle. They had to build a pedestrian tunnel to the center, because traffic is to heavy to cross at grade. Public Square of course will not be that big, but you can see the concept. There is not a simple solution, which makes this project so interesting. 

Rockitect...you said it all perfectly, and I hope plan three makes it. I can't imagine the experts who came up with the designs did not think about all the possible "issues" people on this thread have mentioned.

It's not a question of whether or not they've "thought of" the issues that we mentioned.  There's either a large structure built over the square or there isn't.  They may think that will change the nature of the square for the better, I don't.  It's called a difference of opinion.

Believe it or not, glancing through the cleveland.com comments last night (I don't watch reality TV. I just read those comments. It serves the same sick, guilty pleasure of remembering how sickening humans can be), an actual intelligent point was realized that there was a huge typo in Litt's article.

 

The hill is actually on about 20' high, not 76' as was stated in the article, which makes a huge, huge difference. Litt's typo was because in one of the drawings, apparently the height of the hill was called out as being at an elevation of 76', but the elevation of the road below (I believe in the drawing, Superior) was 56'. Take the difference... and you have 20'.

 

So there is that. Something didn't seem right about it being 76' tall. 20' across the length of the wall, really could be easily achievable.

 

I really like the hill idea, but I admit, in the wrong hands, it could go terribly, terribly wrong. If built, and we have to remember, this is a big if, it does create an immense amount of programmatic potential underneath the hill, which could be quite interesting. And believe it or not, it also creates, as all the streets are going to stay open, covered walkways underneath the hill for moving through the square in the winter months. Which is something that, I think, has been overlooked in the discussion of the design.

I think there are a few other things everyone has to keep in mind. For those are not fimilar with their work, I think it would do a lot of good to check out Field Operations website (http://www.fieldoperations.net/ and become at least a little familiar with their work. They are not an office that practices 'traditional' urban design, at least from a sense of aesthetics. They practice what is known as 'landscape urbanism' based in the theory that landscape, infrastructure, and urban design (buildings) are not three things that are antithetical to one another.

 

The basic thesis of landscape urbanism is that all of these things are systems that feed off one another to create a whole. They do believe in the creating faux pastoral landscapes or traditional appearing, but poorly functioning for contemporary life urban spaces. This does not mean they are anti-city, anti-people, pro-car, or whatever else one may decide to project. Generally most of their work that they have gotten attention for have been very large post-industrial reclamation projects, such as Fresh Kills Park and The High Line in NYC, and their competition entry from earlier in the decade in Toronto for Downsview Park, which while they did not win, became an incredibly influential project in the development of landscape urbanism moving mainstream in the design world.

 

Field Operations and James Corner in particular have been a bit of, one could say, revolutionaries (along with others in the field) in the thinking of how our cities can look and function in the 21st century, when, in their minds, we've been doing a lot of things wrong in how we plan, build and conceive cities in the 19th and 20th centuries. They do very challenging work, as evidenced by a lot of peoples reactions both on here and other places, like cleveland.com. If you think good urbanism is banners, benches, and bricks, they see it as that and much much much more. If you are reacting angrily to this project, its because they are directly challenging your conception of what a public space is and what it can look it.

 

Again, for anyone that questions whether or not Field Ops knows what they are doing, check out the High Line in NYC. They designed it. I don't know anyone, from critics to the general public that has not gone to it and been completely blow away by it. These guys know what the heck they're doing. (and not to focus solely on them, but so do the people working on the project as the local designers at CUDC. I know for a fact that Terry Schwarz among others their is playing a very large role in the design of this project). Although, what Field Ops is doing with Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island, from a standpoint of scale, is much much more impressive and interesting to me.

 

In the hands of many other designers, I would be quite quite concerned about what the underside of the hill, where they are proposing continuing the streets underneath would end up looking like. If the project was to move forward, I have full faith that not only will they resolve any and all pragmatic issues with the design, but that whatever they come up with will be pretty awesome.

 

There is a lot still be resolved in all of the schemes they have proposed. We have to give them the chance to resolve those things before we take them to the guillotine. They got hired to produce some thought provoking schemes for re-imaging what Public Square could be. Thats what they have done.

 

This project is of high interest to people in the architecture / landscape / urban design fields, as to say Field Operations is white hot right now, would be an understatement. Everyone is wondering just what they are going to do in more traditional setting such as Public Square in Cleveland. (Granted I think we should adjustment our expectations of what Cleveland should be and look like and not be so stuck on returning ourselves to a nostalgic former glory, that never really existed)

 

So, I guess, as a very long winded explanation,  certainly criticize the project if you don't like it, but at least try to understand the background of where the designers may be coming from in their theory behind the work and what they are trying to achieve.

 

If people took a few minutes to be a little more intelligent in their critiques of design, a part of which is not just understanding the project at hand and its site and program, but also understanding, or at least being a little familiar with the work of the designer creating it, we'd all be better off. The more the public becomes educated on design, the better it is for designers. Too many lesser architects / designers, design things they know are crap because they don't think anyone will understand anything 'better'. I say this, because I've witnessed architects actually say 'Yea, we can't do that, its too good, no one will get it'.

 

A lot of groundbreaking design isn't necessarily done by architects who are more skilled or smarter then other designers who don't do groundbreaking stuff, they're just the only guys who have the balls to do it, because they know most people in the public are not going to understand it and they are going to have to fight like hell to get their projects built. Unfortunately, too many designers decide its a lot less stress and often times, better for the pocketbook to serve the lowest common dominator. On the other side, this is also why many designers also decide its easy to only work with the super rich and not to do projects that engage and operate in the public realm. Again, its a big reason why the designs of so many things in the public realm is so poor.

 

Less I disgress. That is probably a conversation for another time and place.

 

Good eye on the elevation discrepency rockitect.  I thought 76' sounded pretty high and was worried that it would disconnect the mound from the rest of the square.  The ramps might also seem intimidating for the elderly, disabled, etc.  20' sounds more practical for the top level, but now I wonder what types of concepts could be installed in the lower level.  I imagine a chunk of that 20' feet would be needed solely for structural support for the mound.

I would assume at most about 4' worth of 'stuff' at the most to provide the bed for the green and for the structure. That is a very very conservative estimate. It really depends on how deep they want to go with the planting beds for whatever might grow on top of the hill. If you're just talking smaller plants and grasses, then its probably closer to 2' worth of 'stuff'.

 

That would leave anywhere from 16'-18' feet clear underneath to potentially program the space underneath.

 

In Field Ops presentation, they used a precedent project by NL Architects, in... The Netherlands called A8erna, that very nicely programmed the underside of a highway overpass. http://www.nlarchitects.nl/mz3/#/16

 

Obviously, a much different situation then what we have on Public Square, but an example that it can be done and it can be done creatively.

 

I could see the underside lined with some small retail facing out onto the street... maybe move GCP's visitor center there, have some 'public' bathrooms, a coffee shop or something... and also cut some holes in the 'hill' to allow some light to stream down onto the street below so it doesn't turn into a dank tunnel.

^According to the PDF it's 14 feet of clearance and 6 feet of "stuff". I like the hill concept, but I agree that it could use a little tweeking.

You're the man Rockitect!  Very indepth analysis (for you, probably not so much!)  You have me reading and thinking about things now I probably would have never considered.  That is all...

Does anyone think that by raising the elevation of the square we could run into the same problem that Perk Park had?

Does anyone think that by raising the elevation of the square we could run into the same problem that Perk Park had?

 

No.  Two different types of real estate in two different types of enviornments.

As the design is proposed at the moment, no. There would need to be some things resolved in regards to that where the hill meets the ground, particularly at the moments where the streets cut through it, but, its definitely resolvable. Until we started seeing sunken terraces, steps and unnecessary walls, which we're not, there shouldn't be a lot to worry about.

 

One of the big reasons I think the hill is so intriguing is that it creates an amazing viewing platform in which one can sit on and congregate at and watch the city go by around you / beneath you. Being able to have a vista such as that should prevent people from being able hide and create a Perk Park shooting 2.0 type situation.

 

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.

 

I think that's part of the problem.  Public Square is mostly used by people waiting for a bus.  People rarely go to Public Square just for the square.  There's passing through, trying to get somewhere else...

 

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.

 

20 feet, try 78 FEET!  Yes, the mound will be 78 feet in the center.  That's almost an eight story building. 

 

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.

 

I think that's part of the problem.  Public Square is mostly used by people waiting for a bus.  People rarely go to Public Square just for the square.  There's passing through, trying to get somewhere else...

 

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.

 

20 feet, try 78 FEET!  Yes, the mound will be 78 feet in the center.  That's almost an eight story building. 

 

 

Did you read any of the previous posts, or just KJPs?

Rockitect, I agree that people should educate themselves about the design before forming an opinion, but far more important than looking at previous work of the landscape architect is going to the site, carefully looking at the renderings, and understanding how these rendering are going to fit into the actual space.  Your post doesn't really speak to the quality of the design, but really to the (star) quality of the designers.

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.

 

I like Proposal #2 the best, but I agree: the best idea would be to make the square one space.  The only reason they're not looking at that option is because RTA whined about it.  And that's just a terrible excuse.  RTA should not be able to hold Public Square hostage.  Ontario and Superior have been closed through the Square before -- festivals, watermain breaks, etc...  They seem to handle that just fine.  So if they can quickly come up with alternatives when something like a sinkhole happens, you're telling me that with more time and money they couldn't develop a permanent solution?  Please...

As the design is proposed at the moment, no. There would need to be some things resolved in regards to that where the hill meets the ground, particularly at the moments where the streets cut through it, but, its definitely resolvable. Until we started seeing sunken terraces, steps and unnecessary walls, which we're not, there shouldn't be a lot to worry about.

 

One of the big reasons I think the hill is so intriguing is that it creates an amazing viewing platform in which one can sit on and congregate at and watch the city go by around you / beneath you. Being able to have a vista such as that should prevent people from being able hide and create a Perk Park shooting 2.0 type situation.

 

I think I love you!

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.

 

I like Proposal #2 the best, but I agree: the best idea would be to make the square one space.  The only reason they're not looking at that option is because RTA whined about it.  And that's just a terrible excuse.  RTA should not be able to hold Public Square hostage.  Ontario and Superior have been closed through the Square before -- festivals, watermain breaks, etc...  They seem to handle that just fine.  So if they can quickly come up with alternatives when something like a sinkhole happens, you're telling me that with more time and money they couldn't develop a permanent solution?  Please...

 

RTA did?  Please show us proof.

I'm a fan of the mound concept.  Rockitect- thanks for your input!

^---"Why can't we isolate public square roads to the perimeter?"

 

  That is perhaps an option, but may I caution you that pedestrian traffic to the center may be restricted. Think of the Arch de Triumph in Paris. It is a giant traffic circle. They had to build a pedestrian tunnel to the center, because traffic is to heavy to cross at grade. Public Square of course will not be that big, but you can see the concept. There is not a simple solution, which makes this project so interesting.

 

But I think it being a square and not a circle will help slow traffic.  So would traffic signals.  I think the benefits of a unified square outweigh it's problems.

 

Unify the square and create a giant sculpture or something in the middle that will draw people to it.

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.

 

I like Proposal #2 the best, but I agree: the best idea would be to make the square one space. The only reason they're not looking at that option is because RTA whined about it. And that's just a terrible excuse. RTA should not be able to hold Public Square hostage. Ontario and Superior have been closed through the Square before -- festivals, watermain breaks, etc... They seem to handle that just fine. So if they can quickly come up with alternatives when something like a sinkhole happens, you're telling me that with more time and money they couldn't develop a permanent solution? Please...

 

I'm not sure the problem is as much RTA as ODOT.  Superior is a state route, as is the Ontario through the southern two quads.  That means there are restrictions on what the City is allowed to do with the roads.

Would 6 feet of "structure" underneath the mound going to be enough to support a massive crowd on top of the mound for a concert/speech/etc?

 

RTA did?  Please show us proof.

 

Litt mentions in the article that making the square one public space has been contemplated in previous plans but it was discovered that such a change would add significant cost to RTA's operating expenses and cause delays in service.  Litt offered no other reason why this can't/shouldn't be done.  If you're really curious though, you can always submit a public records request to RTA.

 

Unify the square and create a giant sculpture or something in the middle that will draw people to it.

 

I don't see this as a necessity and somewhat doubt its effectiveness.  After all, we have a plethora of contiguous and underutilized public recreation space just one block to the northeast of PS.

Does anyone think that by raising the elevation of the square we could run into the same problem that Perk Park had?

 

Not on the mound, but around and under it potentially.  People waiting for the bus won't be able to see what's happening in the recreational side of the park above, people on one side of the mound won't be able to see the other side, sitelines between the mound and some of the areas near the base of the mound will be compromised.

Rockitect...again thanks for such great insightful and intelligent posts about this subject, it's really appreciated and why for the most part this site is valuable. X...have no idea where you're coming from claiming that architect just focused on the star power of the design firm versus the quality of the design?? Wouldn't you assume the people involved in the design of this project actually went down to PS and really thought and worked on how these options would fit into the actual space? I mean really?

I suspect that since Superior is a federal highway route (routes 6 & 20), it cannot be eliminated through Public Square. But I question whether it is being eliminated. Rather it is being routed around the square.

 

If the Federal Highway Administration is a stickler on this issue, I like the idea of having Superior descend below Public Square (perhaps 10 feet) and have Public Square's mound be only 10 feet high. I think that shorter mound would be much less intrusive and phony-looking.

X...have no idea where you're coming from claiming that architect just focused on the star power of the design firm versus the quality of the design?? Wouldn't you assume the people involved in the design of this project actually went down to PS and really thought and worked on how these options would fit into the actual space? I mean really?

 

You have no idea where I am coming from because you didn't read my post right.  I said that rockitect's reply to those of us who are being critical of the designs was grounded primarily in an appeal to the stature of the design firm, not to the actual quality of the Public Square design work.  I never said anything about the designer's process.

I suspect that since Superior is a federal highway route (routes 6 & 20), it cannot be eliminated through Public Square. But I question whether it is being eliminated. Rather it is being routed around the square.

 

If the Federal Highway Administration is a stickler on this issue, I like the idea of having Superior descend below Public Square (perhaps 10 feet) and have Public Square's mound be only 10 feet high. I think that shorter mound would be much less intrusive and phony-looking.

 

That was similar to my proposal I think I wrote up on one of the threads here a while ago (probably a couple years).  I think Ontario should be cut off, and Superior go under Public Square.  See DC for example of how this could work.  One outer lane on each side of the road could enter the square and stay at street level, while the inner lanes could dip down under the entire square (including the outer roadways).

 

For example, Dupont Circle in DC:

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=washington,+dc&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.956293,114.169922&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Washington,+District+of+Columbia&ll=38.908013,-77.042392&spn=0.023677,0.055747&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=38.908136,-77.042497&panoid=gMPqg5cXa5guaIggpC7jAQ&cbp=12,333.15,,0,6.32

 

Also, as far as the federal routes go, isn't Ontario also a US route (422) coming from the south and terminating at Superior?

Anything missing cobblestone sidewalks, Paul Volpe, and hanging flower baskets from the mix is garbage in the opinion of x, in my opinion.

My plan for Public Square exactly!  Let's put a statue of Paul Volpe holding a hanging basket in one hand and a cobblestone brick in the other in a small roundabout at the middle of Ontario and Superior.

 

Really, I'm sorry I criticized the visiting starchitects folks!  I guess my "get on your knees and open your mouth at hearing that a big name designer is doing work in our little town" reflex is rusty.  In all fairness I said that the first one was attractive (just not practical give our towns maintenance history), and that the second one was OK (I think it is probably close to what needs to and will happen).  The third one is an interesting idea, but one that I think is ill advised at this location.

As for #1, I wouldn't want to walk under a hanging icicle garden every winter and hope not to be impaled by a falling icicle.

 

#2 seems to be a standard public space solution of plant more trees, then when they're overgrown in a decade or two (or dead from neglect), cut them out and plant them again (see E.12th St.). 

 

I think #3 is very cool so long as the underpasses don't become homeless havens.  Of course, we could hide the do-gooder soup vans under there so visitors don't see the homeless...

 

That was similar to my proposal I think I wrote up on one of the threads here a while ago (probably a couple years). I think Ontario should be cut off, and Superior go under Public Square. See DC for example of how this could work. One outer lane on each side of the road could enter the square and stay at street level, while the inner lanes could dip down under the entire square (including the outer roadways).

 

For example, Dupont Circle in DC:

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=washington,+dc&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.956293,114.169922&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Washington,+District+of+Columbia&ll=38.908013,-77.042392&spn=0.023677,0.055747&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=38.908136,-77.042497&panoid=gMPqg5cXa5guaIggpC7jAQ&cbp=12,333.15,,0,6.32

 

Also, as far as the federal routes go, isn't Ontario also a US route (422) coming from the south and terminating at Superior?

 

DuPont Circle was what I was thinking of, too. And there are other traffic circles/intersections in DC where similar separations are done.

 

With that in mind, I would have Superior drop below Public Square BEFORE it gets to the roadway bordering the square. And, like DC, have Superior's outside lanes stay at street level and intersect with the square roadway while one or two inside lanes descend below the square. With Superior's right of way being 100 feet wide, this might be possible.

I like that idea, especially if it involves cobblestone and hanging planters.  The question I guess is how much utility relocation needs to happen to make it possible and how much that and the digging for the road costs.

 

I still think that a lot could be accomplished with lane removal and narrowing as well as other traffic calming measures that would be less expensive than any tunneling or superstructure work.  It's really disappointing that none of that was a part of the study.

Rockitect, I agree that people should educate themselves about the design before forming an opinion, but far more important than looking at previous work of the landscape architect is going to the site, carefully looking at the renderings, and understanding how these rendering are going to fit into the actual space.  Your post doesn't really speak to the quality of the design, but really to the (star) quality of the designers.

 

No, not necessarily, it was not. Understanding the designer's work, at least a little bit, does help to be able to judge whether or not something is good design, but obviously it is by no means the only metric. The program, what the client wants, and what the site is, always come before that. But I strongly think it was a final piece that many people in general public overlook.

 

No designer creates anything in a vacuum separate from everything else they have created. Every design someone creates is part of a larger conversation within the profession, based around whatever that particular person / office is interested in. And it has nothing to do with someone being a star or not. You may not personally care about this conversation, but a lot of people do, and if more people engaged in it, it would make things better for everyone.

 

Having a better understanding about why the people who create the built environment do what they do is not going to hurt anything.

 

Its the idea that design should represent something larger culturally then just program, budget, and site. In the case of the Public Square project, this is the ability for the city of Cleveland to represent exactly what kind of city we are in the 21st century. We have the potential to go from Public Square being considering one of the 10 worst public spaces in the world (according to Project For Public Spaces) to it becoming one of the most dynamic, unique and engaging and something that is unapologetically forward thinking. People around the world are checking this project out today, and many them are saying 'whoa, something good must be going on in Cleveland if they're doing this'.

 

In Cleveland one would not expect City Architecture to design a glass box, nor would one expect Robert Maschke to design an EIFS clad infill building. Because most of us are familiar with their work, as they work locally you have a certain understanding what they are going to produce / create when you see they have been commissioned with a project. You may not like their work, but you know what to expect.

 

As most people in Cleveland had never heard of James Corner and/or Field Operations before yesterday, it makes the proposal appear much more radical / shocking then it actually is within the oeuvre of their work. Knowing what they do and don't, with any designer, helps to at least create an expectation of what may be proposed.

 

The 60k spent on fees for this project will get Cleveland more positive press around the world then any hundreds upon thousands of dollars the GCP or Positively Cleveland could blow trying to pay someone to come up with a catch phrase for the area and in turn advertising it, that would probably get mocked anyway. The best way to paint a picture that Cleveland is a forward looking, contemporary, forward thinking progressive place is to actually do... contemporary, progressive, forward thinking things. 

 

Also, from a planning + pragmatic standpoint, Public Square is, I believe, one of the largest transit nodes in country. It also, has always been one through its history. Moving RTA off of Public Square would not only create complete chaos trying to re-organize / re-design public transportation downtown, but it would also actually change the historic character of Public Square. Remember, its all one big system. That doesn't mean its not possible to change some things or that things couldn't be improved, its just recognizing saying RTA should move off Public Square is one thing, actually doing it is another.

 

6' of 'stuff' can support a heck of a lot of weight. I wouldn't really worry about one.

 

Really, I'm sorry I criticized the visiting starchitects folks!  I guess my "get on your knees and open your mouth at hearing that a big name designer is doing work in our little town" reflex is rusty.  In all fairness I said that the first one was attractive (just not practical give our towns maintenance history), and that the second one was OK (I think it is probably close to what needs to and will happen).  The third one is an interesting idea, but one that I think is ill advised at this location.

 

I don't like Field Operations and/or this plan this plan because it was done by someone famous. I like it because I think its good. I don't think its perfect, its far from it. But it has the most potential to be something to be something important on an international level that would be a complete paradigm shift in how we build and use civic space in America. As one of my friends put it yesterday, the other two schemes are rotating the tires, the third scheme is like going out and buying a set of 22" spinners.

 

And I like Field Operations because they are good, not because they are famous (they aren't even that famous, really.) There are a lot of stararchitects I dislike (one of them is designing our art museum), Field Operations are not in the flash first, substance maybe paradigm that has plagued the profession for most of the last ten-fifteen years. You also have no idea how I feel about all of their other work and the countless books, articles, and forums James Corner has wrote and been a part of. Like I said before, it helps to actually look at a designer's other work before you criticize them. You can so before, but you'll probably end up with egg on your face.

 

Saying that someone likes and/or dislikes something just because of who created it is just intellectually lazy. So is doing so. Have some self-respect, I was speaking in general, not to you specifically, X.

 

Rockitect, I agree that people should educate themselves about the design before forming an opinion, but far more important than looking at previous work of the landscape architect is going to the site, carefully looking at the renderings, and understanding how these rendering are going to fit into the actual space.  Your post doesn't really speak to the quality of the design, but really to the (star) quality of the designers.

 

No, not necessarily, it was not. Understanding the designer's work, at least a little bit, does help to be able to judge whether or not something is good design, but obviously it is by no means the only metric. The program, what the client wants, and what the site is, always come before that. But I strongly think it was a final piece that many people in general public overlook.

 

No designer creates anything in a vacuum separate from everything else they have created. Every design someone creates is part of a larger conversation within the profession, based around whatever that particular person / office is interested in. And it has nothing to do with someone being a star or not. You may not personally care about this conversation, but a lot of people do, and if more people engaged in it, it would make things better for everyone.

 

Having a better understanding about why the people who create the built environment do what they do is not going to hurt anything.

 

Its the idea that design should represent something larger culturally then just program, budget, and site. In the case of the Public Square project, this is the ability for the city of Cleveland to represent exactly what kind of city we are in the 21st century. We have the potential to go from Public Square being considering one of the 10 worst public spaces in the world (according to Project For Public Spaces) to it becoming one of the most dynamic, unique and engaging and something that is unapologetically forward thinking. People around the world are checking this project out today, and many them are saying 'whoa, something good must be going on in Cleveland if they're doing this'.

 

In Cleveland one would not expect City Architecture to design a glass box, nor would one expect Robert Maschke to design an EIFS clad infill building. Because most of us are familiar with their work, as they work locally you have a certain understanding what they are going to produce / create when you see they have been commissioned with a project. You may not like their work, but you know what to expect.

 

As most people in Cleveland had never heard of James Corner and/or Field Operations before yesterday, it makes the proposal appear much more radical / shocking then it actually is within the oeuvre of their work. Knowing what they do and don't, with any designer, helps to at least create an expectation of what may be proposed.

 

The 60k spent on fees for this project will get Cleveland more positive press around the world then any hundreds upon thousands of dollars the GCP or Positively Cleveland could blow trying to pay someone to come up with a catch phrase for the area and in turn advertising it, that would probably get mocked anyway. The best way to paint a picture that Cleveland is a forward looking, contemporary, forward thinking progressive place is to actually do... contemporary, progressive, forward thinking things. 

Also, from a planning + pragmatic standpoint, Public Square is, I believe, one of the largest transit nodes in country. It also, has always been one through its history. Moving RTA off of Public Square would not only create complete chaos trying to re-organize / re-design public transportation downtown, but it would also actually change the historic character of Public Square. Remember, its all one big system. That doesn't mean its not possible to change some things or that things couldn't be improved, its just recognizing saying RTA should move off Public Square is one thing, actually doing it is another.

 

6' of 'stuff' can support a heck of a lot of weight. I wouldn't really worry about one.

 

Really, I'm sorry I criticized the visiting starchitects folks!  I guess my "get on your knees and open your mouth at hearing that a big name designer is doing work in our little town" reflex is rusty.  In all fairness I said that the first one was attractive (just not practical give our towns maintenance history), and that the second one was OK (I think it is probably close to what needs to and will happen).  The third one is an interesting idea, but one that I think is ill advised at this location.

 

I don't like Field Operations because and/or this plan because it was done by someone famous. I like it because I think its good. I don't think its perfect, its far from it. But it has the most potential to be something to be something important on an international level that would be a complete paradigm shift in how we build and use civic space in America. As one of my friends put it yesterday, the other two schemes are rotating the tires, the third scheme is like going out and buying a set of 22" spinners.

 

And I like Field Operations because they are good, not because they are famous (they aren't even that famous, really.) There are a lot of stararchitects I dislike (one of them is designing our art museum), Field Operations are not in the flash first, substance maybe paradigm that has plagued the profession for most of the last ten-fifteen years. You also have no idea how I feel about all of their other work and the countless books, articles, and forums James Corner has wrote and been a part of. Like I said before, it helps to actually look at a designer's other work before you criticize them. You can so before, but you'll probably end up with egg on your face.

 

Saying that someone likes and/or dislikes something just because of who created it is just intellectually lazy. So is doing so. Have some self-respect, I was speaking in general, not to you specifically, X.

 

 

I'm a fan!

Apologies ahead of time, if that got off-topic.

The talk of this got me nostalgic to look at some historical photos of the square. 

 

Check out this one from 1912:  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Public_Square_1912.jpg

 

Quite the scene!  In 1912 Cleveland was an industrial powerhouse with a population still very much on the rise.  Public Square then truly meant "public," as an intersection for people, transport and commerce. 

 

Fast forward nearly 100 years.  Unfortunately thanks to sprawl and population loss, the "Public" in Public Square has a distinctly different meaning, at least to the Plain Dealer editors pandering to their dwindling suburban readers.  Somehow it has come to mean Public Transit (read minorities) chasing away the suburbanites from commerce.

 

While I condone cleaning it up and redesigning the space, transportation is a part of it's past, present and future.    Somehow seperating transit from the center of our city is merely another glossed-over temporary solution, designed to make downtown more attractive to suburbanites who will flee in droves once the crime and problems resume (remember the glitz that was once Tower City?). 

 

Because of this, I like the idea of framing it, with a transit center underneath.  Let's tunnel Superior under it--without the mound please.....

 

 

 

The talk of this got me nostalgic to look at some historical photos of the square. 

 

Check out this one from 1912:  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Public_Square_1912.jpg

 

Quite the scene!  In 1912 Cleveland was an industrial powerhouse with a population still very much on the rise.  Public Square then truly meant "public," as an intersection for people, transport and commerce. 

 

Fast forward nearly 100 years.  Unfortunately thanks to sprawl and population loss, the "Public" in Public Square has a distinctly different meaning, at least to the Plain Dealer editors pandering to their dwindling suburban readers.  Somehow it has come to mean Public Transit (read minorities) chasing away the suburbanites from commerce.

 

While I condone cleaning it up and redesigning the space, transportation is a part of it's past, present and future.    Somehow seperating transit from the center of our city is merely another glossed-over temporary solution, designed to make downtown more attractive to suburbanites who will flee in droves once the crime and problems resume (remember the glitz that was once Tower City?). 

 

Because of this, I like the idea of framing it, with a transit center underneath.  Let's tunnel Superior under it--without the mound please.....

 

 

 

 

I dont think transit is being removed from public square.  THE HEALTHLINE ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE.  I think RTA can reroute the transit to the outer roadways.  This isn't rocket science.

I still think that a lot could be accomplished with lane removal and narrowing as well as other traffic calming measures that would be less expensive than any tunneling or superstructure work. It's really disappointing that none of that was a part of the study.

 

I think that's a little unfair- option 2 is essentially just that- lane closures and new plantings with no tunneling or significant superstructure.  If you mean only removing single lanes and not closing off any segments, I disagree that a lot could be accomplished.  That could certainly improve the square some, but IMHO, the fragmentation is the biggest single problem, no matter how each quadrant is designed.

With that in mind, I would have Superior drop below Public Square BEFORE it gets to the roadway bordering the square. And, like DC, have Superior's outside lanes stay at street level and intersect with the square roadway while one or two inside lanes descend below the square. With Superior's right of way being 100 feet wide, this might be possible.

 

That is exactly what I had in mind (just like Dupont Circle).  Connecticut and Superior are almost identical in widths of right-of-way.  (Actually, I believe Superior might be about 10 feet wider, which could provide the same lane configuration and 5 extra feet of sidewalk on each side.)

 

I know DC has other circle which are similar, but I believe Dupont Circle is the largest of these, and yet is still smaller than Public Square.  The tunnel under Public Square would only have to be about 90 feet longer (~540 as opposed to ~450) than the tunnel under Dupont Circle.

While I really am intrigued by the third design, it doesn’t seem to address what I think is one of the biggest problems – that, right now, the square is basically designed to favor motorists and is made up of four islands in the middle of a sea of streets.  The bridge idea is interesting and may help, but, like X said, I don’t see it needing to be that complicated.

 

What I’d like to see included – regardless of what design they come up with for the middle – is a way to make the streets around the squares more pedestrian friendly.  As an example, Monument Circle and Market Street in Indianapolis are all paved with bricks instead of asphalt, the curbs are much lower to the road level and kind of blend in, and there are actually no lane lines at all.  As a motorist, it kind of forces you to slow down and pay more attention because you basically feel like you’re driving ON the public space itself, not THROUGH it.  It’s designed to be pedestrian first, and the cars are basically treated like guests – not the other way around.

 

If the asphalt on all the roads around the four squares could be replaced with pavers and blend more into the sidewalks, it could basically make the entire space within the perimeter of the buildings “Public Square”, not just the four blocks in the middle.  I still think there needs to be something done to the space in the middle, but making the roads around it more pedestrian friendly would go a long way.

 

 

  For all that are in favor of tunnels under the square, I would advise to check minimum grades, as this is likely to be a controlling factor.

 

  How long is the square? What distance do we have to work with? Superior would have to transition from level to a downgrade, then transition from a downgrade to upgrade, and back to level. This takes a lot of distance, and may not fit in the square.