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.

 

Between the bridge and public square it can slop down at a grade if needed and come up between east roadway and east 3rd.

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.

 

Great minds think alike! So here is what I would do, see below. And I think the traffic on Superior isn't so great that more than one lane in each direction would be needed to go below Public Square. One potential fault in the below.... Superior may have to start descending farther back from each side of the square. This image assumes the descent starts 200 feet back from the square, involving a 7.5 percent gradient. A more desireable gradient of 3.75 percent would require having the descent start 400 feet back from the tunnel portal (which is what the old Detroit-Superior streetcar subway ramps had). That would mean limiting access to West 3rd Street and East 3rd Street. But there are other access points to those streets so perhaps that's a minor inconvenience. I'm actually more concerned about requiring pedestrians to walk farther around the open cut in Superior for the ramps if there is a 400-foot-long, 3.75 percent gradient...

 

#3 has the potential for inclusion of a center piece.  If that ends up being the selection, I would like to see something more than a grassy field at the top.  Something that will draw people up that hill.  Something iconic yet indicative. 

 

  I wouldn't be opposed to moving the monument to the center. It would be visible for some distance down Superior.

 

  KJP, were you imagining that the perimeter streets would be one-way counterclockwise?

 

   

As the lead designer for the recently opened HighLine in NewYorkCity which imo is brilliant, I am confident that Field Operations and James Corner would deliver a groundbreaking project.  The PS design is also on the front page of their website, I'll bet that they are proud of what they have imagined.

There were two things in the PD article that really struck me--first, that there are 18 bus stops at Public Square and second, that the most frequent pedestrian use is to cut diagonally across the square from SW to NE (doable in 3 to 4 minutes). It seems that any re-design of Public Square also has to be seen as an opportunity to re-think RTA service patterns downtown, particularly at this location. Is it really possible to create a thriving, vibrant attraction in a spot that has 18 bus stops? My personal feeling is that Cleveland would be far better served by a "grid" bus system than its current "hub" system. While proposal 3 looks cool on paper, how well does it address the needs and uses of those who are downtown every day? And a grassy knob and some nice views are not enough to attract people to a sight. Millennium Park works because of a host of factors Public Square doesn't have--a huge pedestrian population in downtown Chicago every day, very close proximity to attractions (Michigan Avenue and the Art Institute) which on their own draw huge crowds, and the inclusion of highly interactive public art features (the Bean and the fountain) and the pavilion. There is also a tremendous amount of programming at Millennium Park--both by the City and others--that draws visitors. I'm concerned about the City of Cleveland's ability to keep Proposal 3's sloping walks across the middle free of snow and ice in the winter and the portion of Superior running under it from turning into a urine/bus fume choked dark hole.

I think we should make proposal 3, but also close down the section of Ontario that runs through the square. That would make it a little easier to make the hill, and possibly make it a little less steep in some areas.

 

EDIT

I think I was mistaken. The third proposal does call for the closure of Ontario, but it still makes an x-shaped mound which I think is unnecessary if Ontario will be closed. The mound should be less steep in the areas that Ontario would be passing through. I'm having a tough time explaining this, but I'm sure someone understands.

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.

 

 

+1 

 

I'm glad the renderings are bringing much needed attention, but we don't need such an extreme (and extremely costly) overhaul here to successfully remake PS.

 

  I wouldn't be opposed to moving the monument to the center. It would be visible for some distance down Superior.

 

  KJP, were you imagining that the perimeter streets would be one-way counterclockwise?

 

 

 

Yes.

 

And perhaps I'm overreacting to the need for Superior to go under the square. How many US routes go through town squares? Look at US 6 in Chardon or Andover, or the many state highways that go around town squares in NE Ohio. If the FHWA is unwilling, then perhaps the route designations might be relocated to other streets.

 

Good suggestions about consolidating so many bus stops, but a transit hub is a way to simplify connections between bus routes. Plus, the physical shape of Public Square makes it an ideal space as a transit hub. If Public Square is not to be a transit hub, then another site downtown should be, such as the North Coast Transportation Center or the Tubbs-Jones East Side Transit Center but having both puts the fear in me that we would be forcing two transfers on some transit riders. That's why Public Square is so ideal as a transit hub -- it requires only one downtown transfer point.

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.

 

I did mean removing and narrowing single lanes, not entire road closures, though I'd like to see us do that if it is possible.  The fragmentation of the squares can be reduced if we slow down traffic, narrow the crossing points for pedestrians, and direct traffic to alternate routes.  Urbanomics' post if very similar to what I'm saying should be considered as at least a major portion of a PS makeover.

Really interesting discussion.

 

Okay, I know that it's not the same at all, and I welcome people to challenge me (it would actually be helpful for getting my thoughts together), but my biggest concern with Number 3 is that my mind immediately flashes to the north-south corridors running through the CSU campus. The intent seems to be similar ... to allow for contiguous greenspace and pedestrian passages, while maintaining multi-multi-multi lane roads (and, at CSU, parking space) at street level underneath. In the case of CSU, I think the elevated greenspace has become increasingly welcoming ... but the design has exacerbated what would already be a bad walking experience on E. 20th and E. 22nd. I can't think of too many places that I disfavor walking more.

 

Now, I understand that the scale and scope of this differ ... gradual incline and decline encourages pedestrians to walk over more than CSU stairs, programming and lighting underneath change the feel of the underside, etc. But I get very wary of an under component that depends on retail success or lighting maintenance to make it feel welcoming. I wish I had a better sense of how much natural light would come in below.

 

If done, I think I would almost prefer something that looked a little more delicate than Option 3 ... a narrower land bridge concept with a fifth square directly above the intersection of Superior and Ontario or a fusion of Option 1 and Option 3 ... a walkable trellice that was a little more gradual on the ascent and descent that would bridge the four squares in the middle, rather than at the perimeters ... almost like the bottom few levels of the Eiffel Tower. Of course, with either of those modifications, you lose the large contiguous space offered by options 2 and options 3. My head hurts :)

 

I like the concept of Option 2, but I worry about how that would play out at night. If one of the primary reasons that the square is not currently utilized as a gathering place (particularly at night) is concerns about safety (unfounded concerns IMHO), then I think open sitelines and continuous lighting becomes important, and I think that so much tree cover makes both difficult.

 

I like the concepts of hanging native gardens and solar lighting in Option 1, and I would hope they would remain regardless of what is pursued. I've always thought that Public Square's role as the home of the first electric street lighting provides a really great opportunity for storytelling through some kind of large-scale iconic sustainable lighting scheme.

 

This is the ideal solution IMO.  If this cannot be done then the "threading" concept is an acceptable alternative, but I think it is important to connect the quadrants to create one continuous public space.  I do worry, however, about the implementation of the "threading" concept with the numerous safety features that would be required over the roadway.

 

If Superior can be buried then this would be the perfect time to construct a transit center under public square.  If done correctly it could be a wonderful waiting environment and you might even be able to punch through to Tower City creating a climate controlled walkway for those transferring to or from rail.  You could possibly even put retail spaces in the corridor, in effect extending the TC Mall under PS.  I don't see this as very likely to happen with the current construction of the East Side Transit Center, but I personally believe that this is the ideal scenario.

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.

 

Ok...  From the article...  "Diverting buses around the square would cost the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority hundreds of thousands of dollars in productivity by slowing travel times, said RTA General Manager Joe Calabrese."

^In a perfect world would be an ideal opprotunity for the Ohio Department of Transportation to coordinate with RTA, parkworks, and the county to make a change like this work.  It could use its transportation expertise to identify locations that the RTA could cluster, using tools such as traffic light management, strategic use of one way roads, etc.

 

But, alas, ODOT's one and only mission is to build highways.  It has no expertise in other areas.

 

Sorry for the rant, back to Public Square.

Ok, some people seem to like the idea of moving the transit hub portion of PS off of the square.  Where do you suppose placing it?  And KJP, I know you will say North Coast Tansportation Center; so how do we get all of this moving nicely.  Seems like a fun thought experiment to me.

 

Ok go!

^If money was no object then I would prefer it under the square.

KJP's plan is so obviously "Superior" that it must have been considered in the $60,000.00 plan and dismissed as unworkable.  Why would that be? It doesn't seem to be anymore expensive than all the superstructure needed for plan #3 so what did the designers think was wrong with KJP's plan?

 

Also, Terminal Tower was designed to have an underpass to public square.  There is currently an area north of where the TT ramps used to be to access a tunnel to the SW quadrant.

I think everyone is forgetting that there is a massive amount of support infrastructure that runs just underneath all of streets under Public Square. Remember the sink hole at Superior and Ontario a couple years ago...

 

Sewer lines aren't something you just drop another 20' into the ground and still have the system function. Remember also, much of the massive cost of the Euclid Corridor was associated more with the rebuilding of the infrastructure under the street, not so much the street itself.

 

Its too obvious of an idea for those associated with Public Square not to have studied. Just because no one has released a scheme showing it, doesn't mean it wasn't thought about it, looked at, then later disregard before it ever made its way out to the public. The idea certainly has enough merit to bring up at a public meeting for the project, if there ever are any, just to be certain of that.

 

I don't think its so much that the cost of dropping the street that makes it prohibitive, its the moving / relocating of everything that runs under the streets.

I think everyone is forgetting that there is a massive amount of support infrastructure that runs just underneath all of streets under Public Square. Remember the sink hole at Superior and Ontario a couple years ago...

Sewer lines aren't something you just drop another 20' into the ground and still have the system function. Remember also, much of the massive cost of the Euclid Corridor was associated more with the rebuilding of the infrastructure under the street, not so much the street itself.

 

Its too obvious of an idea for those associated with Public Square not to have studied. Just because no one has released a scheme showing it, doesn't mean it wasn't thought about it, looked at, then later disregard before it ever made its way out to the public. The idea certainly has enough merit to bring up at a public meeting for the project, if there ever are any, just to be certain of that.

 

I don't think its so much that the cost of dropping the street that makes it prohibitive, its the moving / relocating of everything that runs under the streets.

 

I said that earlier.

Haha. And everyone is still forgetting!

They could be moved to the side.  The utilities don't have to be dropped 20' but they do have to be moved.

They could be moved to the side.  The utilities don't have to be dropped 20' but they do have to be moved.

 

to the side of what?  Moving utilities period is a high cost project.

If anyone is interested, CUDC just posted some more information regarding the Public Square project on their blog:

 

http://www.cudc.kent.edu/blog/?p=1132

Yes, but if the move is parallel in a trench this can be done with little service interuption and at lower cost.  There must be some show stopper problem with KJP's design that we haven't thought of that forced the superstructure design # 3, no?

If anyone is interested, CUDC just posted some more information regarding the Public Square project on their blog:

 

http://www.cudc.kent.edu/blog/?p=1132

 

I love it but those trees are not sexy and the mess they will make in fall.  I can see some low shrubs or something that is year round green, but little to no trees please.

Yes, but if the move is parallel in a trench this can be done with little service interuption and at lower cost.  There must be some show stopper problem with KJP's design that we haven't thought of that forced the superstructure design # 3, no?

 

It's not that easy. I've worked on multiple projects trying to move infrastructure. Its just not that easy. That is the showstopper. The infrastructure under Public Square is a group of incredibly dense and complex interconnected systems. Its not just a matter of moving a sewer line or two, which is difficult enough in and of itself.

 

Think about it this way. If building a new level on top of the existing public square is expensive, then tunneling the roads must be really really expensive.

 

Anyone that has any questions / thoughts concerns could always bounce over to CUDC's blog and just ask them directly. They'll all good people and would probably answer your questions / concerns pretty quickly and throughly. They won't bite. Actually, they'd probably enjoy the feedback. They are the ones working on the project after all.

Out of the 3 plans presented, I think that #2 would be the best. #1 is dumb IMO (squares still fully divided, framing ugly and block the architectural beauty surrounding the square). #3 is radical and different, but has too many problems for my liking. The sidewalks on the hills will be tough to keep safe in the winter, and having a big artificial hill right in the middle of downtown blocking views of buildings seems really strange (and ugly) to me. The street-level rendering just confirms that to me. It looks like someone plopped a Chuck E. Cheese-style sledding hill in the middle of downtown and it's blocking the beautiful buildings. #2 at least feels like a compromise of what we really want instead of a poor attempt at the best of both worlds.

 

Whoever brought up Fountain Square in Indianapolis had some very good points. I would like to see the outer roadways handle all of the traffic. I actually think this would IMPROVE the traffic flow through the area (and possibly encourage people to use other parallel roads who are simply travelling through from one side to the other). Right now, we have an astonishing 8 intersections in Public Square. EIGHT INTERSECTIONS. And 6 of the 8 have traffic lights! That is ridiculous and surely does not lend to either good traffic flow, a good park, or good pedestrain flow. As it is, traffic travelling through Public Square on either Superior or Ontario must encounter 3 traffic lights. Traffic travelling from Euclid onto Superior westbound must encounter 4 (and usually stop at nearly every one of them). Traffic turning left, must go one quarter around the square to the right, then turn left, encountering 4 lights (or 5 if going from Ontario to Superior westbound, which could be averted anyway by using Prospect or Huron). Even traffic turning right must encounter 2 or 3 lights. So the arguments about traffic don't make sense to me. It really doesn't seem like it could be much worse than it already is (which isn't bad due to the fact that it doesn't seem an outrageous number of cars pass through on these streets).

 

We could have one traffic "circle" (or squarish circle with slightly rounded corners) and have 5 or 6 merge points (depending on what you do with Frankfort/E. 2nd) with no traffic lights. Pave with brick, narrow lanes (or don't paint them at all), encourage traffic calming, and I think you'd see a slower, but steadier flow of traffic through the area, which would mesh better with the pedestrains and leave the entire center open for the park area while actually seeing an overall improvement in traffic flow (although ODOT seems to think that travelling at high speeds, then waiting at traffic lights is for some reason preferrable to slow and steady traffic). I also am a big fan of moving the Soldiers and Sailors Monument to the center of the park in this configuration, especially since the parkland would be large enough (approximately 6 to 7 acres) to still feel usable all around the monument.

 

I know the arguments will be about changing the configuration of Superior and traffic flow, etc. But I must ask, how is it that Superior then was reduced to one through lane of traffic east of the square? Did this have an adverse effect on traffic? It still seems fine to me. I can't believe that the traffic flow is heavy enough that a traffic circle wouldn't work here. If the traffic were heavy, the current inefficient configuration would be a nightmare. I think the traffic "problems" around Public Square are overestimated, and that projections of what effect eliminating traffic through the square would have don't take into account the efficiencies of a smooth flowing traffic circle and some traffic being diverted to parallel roads.

We could have one traffic "circle" (or squarish circle with slightly rounded corners) and have 5 or 6 merge points (depending on what you do with Frankfort/E. 2nd) with no traffic lights.  Pave with brick, narrow lanes (or don't paint them at all), encourage traffic calming, and I think you'd see a slower, but steadier flow of traffic through the area, which would mesh better with the pedestrains and leave the entire center open for the park area while actually seeing an overall improvement in traffic flow

 

There is an still a large amount of traffic going through the square.  If you eliminate the cross streets Superior and Ontario and divert all traffic through the square to a continuous flow, traffic-circle type arrangement with no signals, doesn't that create a problem for pedestrians on the perimeter of the square crossing through traffic to get to the giant park?  With the amount of busses that idle and have stop on the Square, that's going to create hellish sightline problems for pedestrians as well.

 

And by the way, look at the renderings.  The square isn't going to be paved with brick, but highly reflective marble.

There is an still a large amount of traffic going through the square.  If you eliminate the cross streets Superior and Ontario and divert all traffic through the square to a continuous flow, traffic-circle type arrangement with no signals, doesn't that create a problem for pedestrians on the perimeter of the square crossing through traffic to get to the giant park?  With the amount of busses that idle and have stop on the Square, that's going to create hellish sightline problems for pedestrians as well.

 

And by the way, look at the renderings.  The square isn't going to be paved with brick, but highly reflective marble.

 

The traffic counts for Public Square are very similar to Fountain Square in Indianapolis.  Why does it work there?

 

As far as the busses go, maybe we could have one unified bus pull-off area (west side of square?) where busses have a lane to pull off and idle and people can wait for busses.  I would also make Frankfort go onto E. 2nd and cut off access to the square from those streets.  Maybe even have lights to control access onto the square like the control lights on Mayfield Road in Little Italy.  (The traffic counts for the square are lower than Mayfield Road in this section.)  Or Lights in between merges on the circle itself.  Or maybe the new traffic pattern will encourage increased pedestrain activity and less vehicle activity.  Or maybe some of the busses could be diverted to other roads.  Or some of the traffic.  Or both.  I don't have all the answers, but I have a lot of ideas, and I figure there have to be better ones out there! :)

I'm not familiar with Fountain Square, nor have I really seen traffic counts for each.  Public Square is about 1.4 times larger than Monument Circle and does have that 5th main road entering it. 

 

But there's this:

 

Consider Monument Circle in Indianapolis. In my opinion, it’s one of the best urban places in the country and my City’s iconic heart.  On a map it is little more than a traffic circle.  At eye level, however, it is a vibrant hub of activity both programmed and spontaneous.  Motor vehicles, transit buses, bicycles, pedestrians, and even horse-drawn carriages seamlessly interweave their patterns in an unspoken choreography at which William Whyte would marvel.  All of this works without one traffic sign, signal or arrow on the street.  Simply, it works because the place asks – demands – that people interact with each other.  At the same time, the physical design of the place offers clues to appropriate behavior.  Without signs and machines doing the thinking for us, the pace of the place slows but is by no means still.  The driver of a car must meet the eye of the pedestrians nearing the intersection to understand their intensions.  With thousands of similar moments happening daily, it is easier in this space to face each other and offer a smile, a wave or a tip of the hat.  [/quote.]  (http://www.ratioblog.com/?p=1272)

 

 

There is an still a large amount of traffic going through the square.  If you eliminate the cross streets Superior and Ontario and divert all traffic through the square to a continuous flow, traffic-circle type arrangement with no signals, doesn't that create a problem for pedestrians on the perimeter of the square crossing through traffic to get to the giant park?  With the amount of busses that idle and have stop on the Square, that's going to create hellish sightline problems for pedestrians as well.

 

And by the way, look at the renderings.  The square isn't going to be paved with brick, but highly reflective marble.

 

The traffic counts for Public Square are very similar to Fountain Square in Indianapolis.  Why does it work there?

 

I'm assuming you’re referring to Monument Circle in Indianapolis.  Fountain Square is actually a neighborhood to the southeast of downtown.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=monument+circle+indianapolis&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.847644,78.837891&ie=UTF8&hq=Soldiers'+and+Sailors'+Monument&hnear=Soldiers'+and+Sailors'+Monument,+Indianapolis,+IN+46204&ll=39.768502,-86.1578&spn=0.002004,0.004812&t=k&z=18

 

Here’s an areal of the circle.  It’s basically paved with bricks all the way up to the edges of the buildings and it’s pretty tough to tell where the sidewalk ends and the road begins.  It basically forms a big “urban room” with the buildings as walls.  I don’t know if Public Square could get quite the same feeling since it’s a little larger and the buildings aren’t quite as close together (plus the Jacobs parking lot breaks up the wall), but it still could have a similar effect.

 

I’m not sure about the traffic counts for the Circle.  I know Meridian Street (which runs North-South) is has a decent amount of traffic, but Market Street (the East-West street) has far less.  They actually close off a portion of it just to the east every week in the summer for an outdoor farmers’ market.  I think the biggest difference between the circle and Public Square is the amount of actual space in the middle.  The center of the circle is almost all monument.  There really isn’t any open area.  So the amount of people crossing the street to the middle may be limited.

 

EDIT: The other big difference between the two is the amount of bus traffic.  The circle is not nearly the transit hub that PS is, so that could have an impact as well.

 

That being said, I think there still needs to be a good reason to cross the street, so remaking the center of PS would do wonders.  I do like KJP’s idea about making it one big square and having the traffic on Superior just go underneath.  The only thing better than slow traffic going through a public space is no traffic going through a public space.  Just a matter of the cost of course.

 

How about go ahead with the traffic circle idea but provide four large underground pedestrian access points to the "square": one through the former concourse level of Terminal Tower, another through Key tower, another trough the BP building atrium, and the fourth from Jacob's parking lot all emerging in the square with Ontario and Superior removed? Everybody else has to walk around. 

How about go ahead with the traffic circle idea but provide four large underground pedestrian access points to the "square": one through the former concourse level of Terminal Tower, another through Key tower, another trough the BP building atrium, and the fourth from Jacob's parking lot all emerging in the square with Ontario and Superior removed? Everybody else has to walk around. 

If you do that its the same as the four individual blocks.

 

The idea is to create CONNECTIVITY at street level.

wow, congrats on getting the highline's james corner field associates to take a look at public square. good idea.

 

the first two are rather dull ideas, but the last one is the most out of the box and has a very interesting 'big payoff' vs 'big bust' gamble going for it. hmm, not sure if it is appropriate for the new england style public square, but it would be damn cool as a new park somewhere in the middle of midtown -- i can see tech people taking a liking to building around a groovy park like that!!!

 

i wish there was a permanent pond/skate pond in the sw quadrant in front of tc. i really liked when they had a skate pond there in the winter. afterward you could sit inside the renaissance hotel with your hot toddy and watch the skaters, it was really, really charming.

I think it would be really interesting and helpful to hear what a resident , or a prospective resident, of the Park Building would have to say about this. I mean, they are actual stakeholders in this "neighborhood" (i.e. Public Square). Not to mention the possible upper-floor conversions (to residential) in other Public Square or near-Public Square buildings.

The idea is to one day have many residents living around or near the Square. So it would probably make sense to know what a PS resident thinks of a roundabout with little or no traffic signals.

Or definitely what they would think of a hill in the middle of the Square. I highly doubt someone who has paid, or is thinking of paying, hundreds of thousands of dollars for a Park unit would want a man-made obstruction of their views. This would be the case especially on the lower to middle floors of the Park. Even those trellises with hanging vines would make for a possibly awkward environment for some PS residents.

I know that there are only Park Building residents on the Square now, and many units-- including the Penthouses (some of those are in the millions of dollars)-- are not even finished/inhabited.

Yes...at the moment, there are not many people to ask. But I think their ideas should be given consideration.

It'd be interesting to hear PS residents' objections or recommendations.

 

I think it would be really interesting and helpful to hear what a resident , or a prospective resident, of the Park Building would have to say about this. I mean, they are actual stakeholders in this "neighborhood" (i.e. Public Square). Not to mention the possible upper-floor conversions (to residential) in other Public Square or near-Public Square buildings.

The idea is to one day have many residents living around or near the Square. So it would probably make sense to know what a PS resident thinks of a roundabout with little or no traffic signals.

Or definitely what they would think of a hill in the middle of the Square. I highly doubt someone who has paid, or is thinking of paying, hundreds of thousands of dollars for a Park unit would want a man-made obstruction of their views. This would be the case especially on the lower to middle floors of the Park. Even those trellises with hanging vines would make for a possibly awkward environment for some PS residents.

I know that there are only Park Building residents on the Square now, and many units-- including the Penthouses (some of those are in the millions of dollars)-- are not even finished/inhabited.

Yes...at the moment, there are not many people to ask. But I think their ideas should be given consideration.

It'd be interesting to hear PS residents' objections or recommendations.

 

Since Euclid (the southern portion of the Square) is higher than the norther portion, please explain to me how option no. 3 would block/obstruct the view of someone living in the Park building?

How about go ahead with the traffic circle idea but provide four large underground pedestrian access points to the "square": one through the former concourse level of Terminal Tower, another through Key tower, another trough the BP building atrium, and the fourth from Jacob's parking lot all emerging in the square with Ontario and Superior removed? Everybody else has to walk around. 

If you do that its the same as the four individual blocks.

 

 

The idea is to create CONNECTIVITY at street level.

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear.  By adopting the traffic circle idea I also implied closing off Superior, Ontario and routing them into the traffic circle.  Everybody could come up into public square through big ramps (concourses) like football players comming into an NFL staduim!

 

Since Euclid (the southern portion of the Square) is higher than the norther portion, please explain to me how option no. 3 would block/obstruct the view of someone living in the Park building?

 

It's not that much higher.

 

I don't have a chart full of sightlines and these 3 proposals are, just that, proposals.

But, as proposed, this hill and these awful trellises (IMHO) would certainly have to block some "vistas" that are there now.

And option #2 ...or some version of it... also could go awry if they overkill this tree idea.

I'm all for trees, but too many, especially when they are mature, block the views of the great architecture around the Square.

Option #2 is the better of the three.

 

But, like I said, it'd be good to get residents' input

Since Euclid (the southern portion of the Square) is higher than the norther portion, please explain to me how option no. 3 would block/obstruct the view of someone living in the Park building?

 

It's not that much higher.

 

I don't have a chart full of sightlines and these 3 proposals are, just that, proposals.

But, as proposed, this hill and these awful trellises (IMHO) would certainly have to block some "vistas" that are there now.

And option #2 ...or some version of it... also could go awry if they overkill this tree idea.

I'm all for trees, but too many, especially when they are mature, block the views of the great architecture around the Square.

Option #2 is the better of the three.

 

But, like I said, it'd be good to get residents' input

 

I thought you were talking about option 3.  That hanging mall plant trellis is ridiculous and shouldn't have been presented!

Of the photo choices, I like what I see in plan 2. I feel the steel work in plan 1 will eventually look dated and be just more structure to maintain--and if not maintained properly, would look bad. Additionally, plan 1 contains too much cement. Just looks like the Mall again. (not that the Mall is all that bad, but the square should have its own identity) On the other hand, creating a more natural setting would never go out of style, so to speak.

 

Many "heritage trees" could be planted as a testament to Cleveland's natural heritage, such as the great old Cottonwoods Birch, or Sycamore--an Ohio signature tree. Other native plants can be utilized as well so as to eventually lessen energy consumption and/or labor requirements in situations where staff/money is often limited. If planned properly, the right amount of trees will not compromise architecture views. Old photos of the square actually show some great tree lined streets.

 

I like KJP's concept and do not understand why, if people would simply learn how to use it, a sort of "round-a-bout" would not work, which will allow for one unified center and not deny access to all other roads that currently feed the square. I guess we can call it a "square-a-bout" Lincoln Park in Tremont, or Courthouse Square in Warren sort of incorporate this idea.

 

I am for moving bus stops  just far away enough from the middle of all this so as to help reduce fumes and noise (many trees can assist in doing this job for free) litter, loitering, and some of the negatives that can accompany them.

The beginning of the presentation said that they are using the traffic information available.  I think that is why they didn't consider closing both superior/Ontario and make traffic go around the square.

Sorry, I did have my Indy terms mixed up, I meant Monument Circle.  Fountain Square is where the duck pin bowling is, right?

 

I still maintain that the "square about" could work if people were committed to making it happen.  The traffic counts really aren't very high, and there are plenty of alternative routes traffic could be diverted to (E. 9, St. Clair, W. Huron, W. Prospect, etc.).

Since Euclid (the southern portion of the Square) is higher than the norther portion, please explain to me how option no. 3 would block/obstruct the view of someone living in the Park building?

 

It's not that much higher.

 

I don't have a chart full of sightlines and these 3 proposals are, just that, proposals.

But, as proposed, this hill and these awful trellises (IMHO) would certainly have to block some "vistas" that are there now.

I don't see how a 20' hill is going to affect the view of anyone above the 2nd floor. And considering the elevation difference, even the 2nd floor residents shouldn't see a significant difference.

 

I really like the idea of putting a small hill in the middle of the square, but I would agree that if traffic can be rerouted around the square it would be preferable.

Since Euclid (the southern portion of the Square) is higher than the norther portion, please explain to me how option no. 3 would block/obstruct the view of someone living in the Park building?

 

It's not that much higher.

 

I don't have a chart full of sightlines and these 3 proposals are, just that, proposals.

But, as proposed, this hill and these awful trellises (IMHO) would certainly have to block some "vistas" that are there now.

I don't see how a 20' hill is going to affect the view of anyone above the 2nd floor. And considering the elevation difference, even the 2nd floor residents shouldn't see a significant difference.

 

I really like the idea of putting a small hill in the middle of the square, but I would agree that if traffic can be rerouted around the square it would be preferable.

 

How tall is the soldiers and sailor monument?  Why aren't people complaining that the S&S monument is too high?

 

Shaker square get a tone of traffic an I personally wish Shaker Blvd was closed down and all traffic rerouted around the square.    I dont see why buses stops be aligned on either end of the PS like they are on SS.

I don't think the mound will destroy views inside any surrounding apts.  However, it completely blocks pedestrian level views across the square, which means that Public Square won't visually read as a single space.  Instead it will be a number of spaces- each side of the mound, plus above and below the mound.  The top of the mound will have a view of most of the square, excepting a few blind spots, which is presumably the draw.

I'm beginning to really warm up to #3. I still worry about how the underside is programmed, but I'm realizing that the part that would not be met by natural light is more minimal than I thought. I still would love to see more detailed schematics of what that part would look like. But it really is incredibly distinct.

 

I'm surprised that so many people disfavor Option 1 so strongly. I do think that there are some problems inherent to it, but to me, there's something in it that reminds me of European greenspaces more than the other two proposals (particularly some of the parks in Paris and the reuse of elevated industrial metal walkways in the Ruhrgebiet). Not suggesting it's ideal to frame the square or to leave the four squares disconnected at street level, but I don't think the trellis idea is inherently bad. And I LOVE the incorporation of native plantings and solar lighting schemes, although these could be incorporated into other plans.

 

Here are a few examples of parks that use elevated metal walkways, IMHO with good result ... the Park de la Villette in Paris and the Zollverein arts complex in Essen. Both are reclamations of industrial space as public park space, so maybe the metal trellis idea would work better in a Canal Basin Park or Port greenspace development than on Public Square.

 

 

I don't think the mound will destroy views inside any surrounding apts.  However, it completely blocks pedestrian level views across the square, which means that Public Square won't visually read as a single space.  Instead it will be a number of spaces- each side of the mound, plus above and below the mound.  The top of the mound will have a view of most of the square, excepting a few blind spots, which is presumably the draw.

We need 3D visuals.

3D visuals are always nice, but not necessary to make that statement.  It's simple geometry.  Unless someone here sees around corners.

3D visuals are always nice, but not necessary to make that statement.  It's simple geometry.  Unless someone here sees around corners.

 

here's a new perspective on the 'Threads' concept.  As viewed when exiting the Terminal Tower.

I like this idea more and more

 

http://www.cudc.kent.edu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/publicsquare_exiting-tower-city.jpg