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

 

TheGuv, old buddy, old pal, we've seen that, now keep up with the convo man!  ;D

 

I still think the trees need to go.  That will only create visual havoc. 

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

 

Because the monument is (1) much more than a mound of dirt and (2) is much narrower, blocking a lot less.

 

Besides, I personally just think the mound will look ugly and fake, like something you'd see around a retention basin or next to the checkers board at Crocker Park.  It surely wouldn't fit into what was designed as a New England-style town center.

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

 

Because the monument is (1) much more than a mound of dirt and (2) is much narrower, blocking a lot less.

 

Besides, I personally just think the mound will look ugly and fake, like something you'd see around a retention basin or next to the checkers board at Crocker Park.  It surely wouldn't fit into what was designed as a New England-style town center.

 

Exactly.

 

This trellis and hill are like putting aluminum siding on a wood-clapboard Victorian. Looks hokey.

I personally don't like option #3. For me, it ruins the experience of walking out of Terminal Tower and onto Public Square. I like the idea of closing off the square and creating a "square-a-bout" and using traffic calming techniques to slow traffic, thus providing easy pedestrian access to the park. I also like KJP's idea of lowering Superior (and closing Ontario) and combining the park that way. However, that brings about a lot of challenges, but I still think it is worth looking into. As for option #1, I think it would block the views from Public Square and I also fear that the city would not be able to maintain the structure. I like option #2 and feel that it is the best out of the three proposals (although if #3 were to be modified, I would like that one more).

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

 

I agree that the mound is ugly. I don't like it sticking up, and I question how it will accommodate events and activities on the square? How will this work when viewing the Cleveland Orchestra, or Christmas events, or New Year's Eve, etc.? How will it work when there are protests or festivals or community activities that a square would otherwise encourage.

 

Open up the square. No streets. No mounds. Few trees. Let's have a New England green -- again!

^

Trees, when implemented properly and with the right species, can only add benefits. They clean the air, reduce the need for water, quell noise (unwanted sound by definition) reduce winds battering people and buildings, add value and beauty and much more. I do not want to see a sterile mono-culture pesticide/in-organic fertilizer artificial looking suburban turf grass with giant concrete slabs. Such could not be anymore boring and demonstrate a lack of creativity. 

 

Look at Hyde Park in the heart of Sydney Australia....  In fact, look at many of the streets in/near their downtown. There are lots of such tree scapes and they do not block views or cause any problems tree or bio-phobic people seem to have. It simply looks spectacular and adds a richness/classiness. We've long been to sterile. Part of our history is also paying a bit of homage to the natural heritage that defines the land that Cleveland rests upon.

 

I wouldn't worry so much about having too many trees as I would be more concerned with not having enough. Besides, these trees are not going to be giants when planted anyway. The right plan, the right amount and the right species will result in something that can even better than the typical New England green. We can improve. If we want to be a 'sustainable' and progressive city in these respects, the tree component is a must and such a contrast to the opposite past.

 

If you dig up some old photos of P.S. circa mid to late 1800's roughly...there were quite a few taller trees and they looked fabulous. I'd give anything to have even that version of the square back these days.

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

 

 

This visual actually confirms my misgivings about Option 3. I don't think it enhances the pedestrian experience for those who would be walking through the area on a daily basis. Its hard to see why anyone visiting downtown Cleveland would be inticed into walking to the top of the hill or that they wouldn't be majorly disappointed to not find anything more exciting than a view once they did. Plus it hardy seems large enough to accomadate any kind of programming that would specifically draw people to Public Square.

why couldn't they do plan two and have a really nice pedestrian bridge across superior; not like a metal, crappy one, but one that looks cool.

^ That could be a good idea... a wide bridge....  nice design..

why couldn't they do plan two and have a really nice pedestrian bridge across superior; not like a metal, crappy one, but one that looks cool.

 

OK...why a bridge.?  Think street level retail.  Also, who is going to maintain a bridge? 

why couldn't they do plan two and have a really nice pedestrian bridge across superior; not like a metal, crappy one, but one that looks cool.

 

There's lots of evidence people won't use pedestrian bridges. They built one in Prince Georges Co, MD to connect the Metro Station to the shopping mall across the street. No one used the pedestrian bridge, so they installed an 8 foot wrought iron fence down the median of the road--forcing pedestrians to either use the bridge or walk 2 blocks to the closest intersection with a crosswalk. It would have cost millions less to just install a crosswalk right in front of the Metro but drivers complained that they would be slowed down too much by another redlight. There are dozens of other examples just like this all across the country.

Initially, I liked "Frame It" (Option 1) best: it would effectively create a common room for Cleveland by making Public Square significantly more intimate.  Additionally, from a social perspective, it would bring together folks who are mainly there to wait (transit riders) with folks who are moving through the square.

 

But, "Thread It" (Option 3) is really growing on me.  Even if both Ontario and Superior remained open, you would add at least one more acre of pedestrian space to the four acres that currently exist.  Furthermore, for people who are walking diagonally through the square (say from Terminal Tower to Key Tower or the Warehouse District to Euclid), it effectively eliminates walking across no fewer than twelve lanes of traffic.

 

As far as accommodating events on the square, it would be far superior for one main reason: you would be above all of the street signs that currently litter Public Square (as well as the bus shelters).  Obviously, the planting of trees would need to be done in such a way that allows for reasonable viewing of a stage in front of Terminal Tower, but the cruciform arrangement of the mound could make that work.

 

With regard to the transit waiting environments, I think that they would be much improved.  Having waited for buses in the cold of winter, having some shelter in the form of the hills would be much appreciated.  The area of the street-level sidewalks and berms also appears large enough so that there isn't the unwelcome "tunnel effect".

 

Finally, views in general would be significantly better, and I can't imagine how anybody wouldn't want to climb to the top. Looking northwest, you would have an unimpeded view of the County Courthouse (which you can only see head-on while crossing Ontario).  To the north, there is the view of the Fredericks fountain framed by the Metzenbaum Courthouse and Key Tower, and to the east, you would have an unimpeded view down Euclid while gazing down on the lower levels of the Soldiers and Sailors Monument.

 

Presently, while exiting Terminal Tower, you have a view of a whole lot of streetsigns and traffic, with some buildings above it.  With the mound, you would have a view of people and greenery, with some buildings above it.

 

(As far as closing all cross streets are concerned, I can't countenance it, especially the closing of Superior.  It's not that I love cars, but one would either have to widen the perimeter streets (thus isolating the square from all sides) or one would have to shunt traffic to St. Clair, which is a poor proposition.)

 

(A wide bridge that meets ADA guidelines would have to start so deep into each quadrant that you might as well have a pleasant hill to cross instead.)

(As far as closing all cross streets are concerned, I can't countenance it, especially the closing of Superior. It's not that I love cars, but one would either have to widen the perimeter streets (thus isolating the square from all sides) or one would have to shunt traffic to St. Clair, which is a poor proposition.)

 

 

Aside from the area between Superior and Euclid, there are numerous other streets where traffic could be diverted -- Huron, Prospect, St. Clair, West 3rd, East 3rd. And the traffic on Superior and Ontario isn't much. The other streets can handle it.

I think the city has bigger things to worry about.....

I'm sure Chicago had bigger things to worry about when they built millennium park...

Not just a mere boring "pedestrian bridge".....How about nice iconic bridges like the ones in Rockefeller Park? Maybe if the bridge looks classic, fun, or romantic enough...sort of "Paris-ish" maybe it would draw more people to want to use it. Add some flags to it, nice arches...don't make it very high....spiral stairs, ramps....  Just a thought....

 

Anyway, remember..... this is a main showcase area.. I am shooting for something that will knock the socks off of many people with many tastes both here..and in the world. Now is the chance to do it right. Should be classic and something that won't look dated in years to come.

Yeah, really. After all, what does improving infrastructure, including parks and recreation, have anything do with economic development, job creation, a safer city and a better quality of life? : sarcasm:

Question....  Would there be a possibility of creating an ice skating area? That would be a nice component. I miss it when it was downtown.

Bah, you're talking about programming!  Who cares about programming when you can have iconic?  The purpose here is to create something that will look awesome in the design magazines so that hipsters in Belgium and Tokyo will notice us.  Besides, people doing stuff besides sitting idly on grassy knolls or doing a model strut around the square in outlandish outfits are boring.  And if the design has a high enough iconic quotient, those people will come and spend time on PS for no other visible reason.

 

Seriously, though.  Ice skating would be great, and would give the square and Downtown a shot in the arm on a usually slow time of year.

Looking back at the renderings again it's funny to look at the people they drew in the square. 

 

Consider this one for instance: 

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

 

 

Looks like Crocker Park just spilled into Public Square.  Which way to the Olive Garden?  :-D

I remember being in Public Square on New Years' Eve for Cleveland's 200th birthday.  All the streets were closed and it was one huge party.  I have trouble imagining the same type of excitement and critical mass of people being in any of these designs.  Any change in elevation brings ADA issues which takes up space.  I know it's not sexy, but my vote would be to keep it as flat and open as possible so that the range of "programming" can be kept broad.

 

A caveat -- I am not a designer, I am simply a 30 year long working stiff in a downtown establishment.  I've seen Euclid Avenue be an amazingly busy area between PS and CSU.  Now it's a ghost town most of the time.  To me the biggest challenge is getting companies to locate downtown and help build demand for more stores and services again.  While a neat looking Public Square might bring visitors, it's the day to day worker that will fuel growth in downtown businesses.  All this drives me to be more interested in how Public Square can be used for programming than whether it can be iconic.

The simplest plan is close the streets going through it, divert the traffic around, and fill in the "+" to make it one contiguous park.  I don't see how a mound with tunnels is necessary, or prudent, if we can just do this.  I guess I prefer option #2: make it an actual forest.  As for sight lines, you can just about see the west side from Playhouse Square as it is.  Downtown needs less sight lines, not more.

  "Looking back at the renderings again it's funny to look at the people they drew in the square."

 

  Renderers usually draw the proper number of people for a project. That is why renderings always look so good.

 

    Too many people and the space feels crowded; too few and the space feels dead. A common mistake is to make the public space too large. Yet it looks pretty good in the renderings.

I'm starting to back away from the 3rd proposal just because of how large the hill would be. maybe a combination of 2 and 3 would be nice, with that section of Ontario being closed off, and the two rectangles being connected by a smaller hill. Maybe, if possible, Superior could grade downward a bit, just so the hill isn't too high. Of course, this would require more money....

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

 

Great link, Rockitect. 

 

From that page...  "PPS’s main criticism of Public Square is its prioritization of vehicular traffic over pedestrians. Wide traffic lanes surround and bisect the square creating an environment hostile to pedestrians."

 

Agreed!  And I don't think any of these three proposals really answer that.  Especially the hill one that everyone thinks is so groundbreaking.  The reason that it's groundbreaking is because it unifies all four quadrants.  But it does so in a shoddy manner.  Yes, the four quadrants should be one.  But cars and buses should be routed elsewhere, not just made to go over a manmade hill that people aren't going to want to climb anyway.

 

Instead of buses ruling Public Square, build an indoor station behind Tower City, next to the casino, near the federal building.  That will rid The Square of the bus stop that dominate the landscape.  Make the square one, big square and route cars around it in a counter clockwise manner.

 

Also from the above link...  "A robust transit hub creates a space not only for transportation, but also social exchange. Students transferring buses from their cross-town high schools, office workers catching their coach bus back to Brunswick, recent immigrants visiting government offices, white and black residents alike all pass through this space in the center of the city as they continue to their next destination."

 

Except that's NOT what happens at Public Square.  The perception of white suburbanites is that The Square is a dangerous place where poor blacks loiter around while waiting for the bus.  Is it more realistic to try and change the attitudes of humanity or try and do something to change the environment?  I think the latter.

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

 

Great link, Rockitect. 

 

From that page...  "PPS’s main criticism of Public Square is its prioritization of vehicular traffic over pedestrians. Wide traffic lanes surround and bisect the square creating an environment hostile to pedestrians."

 

Agreed!  And I don't think any of these three proposals really answer that.  Especially the hill one that everyone thinks is so groundbreaking. The reason that it's groundbreaking is because it unifies all four quadrants.  But it does so in a shoddy manner.  Yes, the four quadrants should be one.  But cars and buses should be routed elsewhere, not just made to go over a manmade hill that people aren't going to want to climb anyway.

 

Instead of buses ruling Public Square, build an indoor station behind Tower City, next to the casino, near the federal building.  That will rid The Square of the bus stop that dominate the landscape.  Make the square one, big square and route cars around it in a counter clockwise manner.

 

Also from the above link...  "A robust transit hub creates a space not only for transportation, but also social exchange. Students transferring buses from their cross-town high schools, office workers catching their coach bus back to Brunswick, recent immigrants visiting government offices, white and black residents alike all pass through this space in the center of the city as they continue to their next destination."

 

Except that's NOT what happens at Public Square.  The perception of white suburbanites is that The Square is a dangerous place where poor blacks loiter around while waiting for the bus.  Is it more realistic to try and change the attitudes of humanity or try and do something to change the environment?  I think the latter.

 

I along with many here agree with the pedestrian comment. 

 

The majority of the third paragraph you wrote is wrong.  Did you read the proposals?

 

Public Square is our transit hub but I do not think buses should be removed from that area.  The HL isn't going anywhere!  I do think bus stops can be consolidated.  However moving all transit off the square is not the answer, since transit and public square have gone hand and hand for centuries.

 

That perception is incorrect and I say fight it head on. 

^ While it may be a transit hub....it doesn't mean that transportation entities need solely dictate its design and use. This is what has happened for a long time. Before it was a transit hub, its intent was public space, hence the name P.S. It became the transit hub not by public choice but by railroad push and there is an imbalance of use to date.

^ While it may be a transit hub....it doesn't mean that transportation entities need solely dictate its design and use. This is what has happened for a long time. It became the transit hub not by public choice but by railroad push.

 

Railroad?  TT became a Railroad hub because the Vans were the largest railroad operator at the time CUT was built. 

 

Public Square became the hub of Cleveland railway as its the heart of the city.

^ That's right...But what may have been in the best interest of the Vans, was not in the best interest of the public. The original gateway to the city was intended to be The Mall. The heart as far as transportation goes was intended to be at the Mall....  Then the surprise is when the interests focused on the square. P.S. is certainly has evolved into this being a heart, a showcase front room, but with the way it is designed right now and with the transportation component, it is not achieving its full and diverse potential. But I can only imagine how dirty The Mall would look if it were the transport hub these days.

I hereby second the motion to move the transit hub off Public Square. 

 

 

As an aside, how will the new Tubbs-Jones transit center at CSU/E22nd impact the Public Square hub?

I hereby second the motion to move the transit hub off Public Square. 

 

 

As an aside, how will the new Tubbs-Jones transit center at CSU/E22nd impact the Public Square hub?

 

 

Nope.  It's not going to happen.  the HL is there to stay.  Fed funds were used.  It is what it is.

^ That's right...But what may have been in the best interest of the Vans, was not in the best interest of the public. The original gateway to the city was intended to be The Mall. The heart as far as transportation goes was intended to be at the Mall....  Then the surprise is when the interests focused on the square. P.S. is certainly has evolved into this being a heart, a showcase front room, but with the way it is designed right now and with the transportation component, it is not achieving its full and diverse potential. But I can only imagine how dirty The Mall would look if it were the transport hub these days.

 

Cleveland Transit System and the Railroads that the vans owned were two different things.

 

The trolleys/ streetcars used PS as a major transportation hub before, before CUT was built.

As an aside, how will the new Tubbs-Jones transit center at CSU/E22nd impact the Public Square hub?

 

That is a good question.  Will certain routes (especially west side routes such as the 22, 25, 81, 26, and some of the east side routes such as the 1 and 3) be rerouted to terminate at (or at least pass by) the new transit center?

As an aside, how will the new Tubbs-Jones transit center at CSU/E22nd impact the Public Square hub?

 

That is a good question.  Will certain routes (especially west side routes such as the 22, 25, 81, 26, and some of the east side routes such as the 1 and 3) be rerouted to terminate at (or at least pass by) the new transit center?

 

Why would the 1/3/4 etc. ,leave their avenues to stop there?  I thought the STJ transit center was built as a terminal for eastbound routes that run through public square and terminate around CSU.

 

I think reading whats in that existing thread may be helpful at this point.  ;)

I hereby second the motion to move the transit hub off Public Square. 

 

 

As an aside, how will the new Tubbs-Jones transit center at CSU/E22nd impact the Public Square hub?

 

 

Nope.  It's not going to happen.  the HL is there to stay.  Fed funds were used.  It is what it is.

^ That's right...But what may have been in the best interest of the Vans, was not in the best interest of the public. The original gateway to the city was intended to be The Mall. The heart as far as transportation goes was intended to be at the Mall....  Then the surprise is when the interests focused on the square. P.S. is certainly has evolved into this being a heart, a showcase front room, but with the way it is designed right now and with the transportation component, it is not achieving its full and diverse potential. But I can only imagine how dirty The Mall would look if it were the transport hub these days.

 

Cleveland Transit System and the Railroads that the vans owned were two different things.

 

The trolleys/ streetcars used PS as a major transportation hub before, before CUT was built.

 

Exactly... My point is that these influences had too much strength in how we will use this space. The space is a public space...it is not entirely owned by RTA, now...nor ever and nor by any other such mode of transport. These influences had a lot of power to shape how it is primarily used today.... But it is not carved in rock that it needs to be used like this only--and keeping it status quo just holds it back from so much more potential.

I hereby second the motion to move the transit hub off Public Square. 

 

 

As an aside, how will the new Tubbs-Jones transit center at CSU/E22nd impact the Public Square hub?

 

 

Nope.  It's not going to happen.  the HL is there to stay.  Fed funds were used.  It is what it is.

^ That's right...But what may have been in the best interest of the Vans, was not in the best interest of the public. The original gateway to the city was intended to be The Mall. The heart as far as transportation goes was intended to be at the Mall....  Then the surprise is when the interests focused on the square. P.S. is certainly has evolved into this being a heart, a showcase front room, but with the way it is designed right now and with the transportation component, it is not achieving its full and diverse potential. But I can only imagine how dirty The Mall would look if it were the transport hub these days.

 

Cleveland Transit System and the Railroads that the vans owned were two different things.

 

The trolleys/ streetcars used PS as a major transportation hub before, before CUT was built.

 

Exactly... My point is that these influences had too much strength in how we will use this space. The space is a public space...it is not entirely owned by RTA, now...nor ever and nor by any other such mode of transport. These influences had a lot of power to shape how it is primarily used today.... But it is not carved in rock that it needs to be used like this only--and keeping it status quo just holds it back from so much more potential.

 

RTA doesn't own any of it and when it was first used as a transportation hub, RTA didn't exist!

 

If the center cross streets are closed the exterior streets can be used as and bus locations can be consolidated and the overwhelming feeling of transit domination will cease to exist visually.

 

Cleveland and Cuyahoga Coutny own public square.  Again, the lanes can be reduced and the center covered to make

^ Yes...when I stated "not entirely owned by RTA, now...nor ever and nor by any other such mode of transport." I was also referring to the fact that long before RTA there was a transit hub, but at that time it was not owned by any other such entity.

 

The fact that Cleveland and the county own the square, means that there is a lot more to it than solely a transport hub--a lot that has been overlooked a lot in part because there is a long time accepted view/image of it as a transport hub only..... and not all that it was intended to be or could be.

NYC High Line Designers Turn Their Eyes to Downtown Cleveland

How do you revitalize a downtown area that's become a ghost town? With a stunning new park.

 

BY Cliff KuangTue Dec 22, 2009 at 9:28 AM

FastCompany.com

 

If you've ever been to Cleveland, you know the downtown area is a forbidding, pedestrian desert. The main public space, Public Square, is no better--it's a wind-scarred, 10-acre expanse flanked by skyscrapers. But that could all change, thanks to a series of brilliant redesigns proposed by James Corner Field Operations, the firm best known as the landscape designers who did much of the heavy lifting for New York's superb High Line Park. FO has sent Fast Company a look at the specific proposals (more on that below).

 

The economic rationale is that big, splashy public amenities are actually huge drivers of long-term real-estate values, attracting surrounding investment (just look at Central Park in New York, or, more recently, Millennium Park in Chicago). Though the plan has yet to secure any funding, the idea is that investing up front in the design might spark public interest and widespread support.

 

Full story and some interesting design photos at:

 

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/cliff-kuang/design-innovation/high-line-designers-turn-their-eyes-clevelands-parks?partner=desig

Jeez, I live in a pedestrian desert. :roll:

Jeez, I live in a pedestrian desert. ::)

 

I'm writing them now. I urge others to do so as well.  Its VERY obvious this individual has never been to Cleveland.

I actually wish we'd do our own thing....come up wit our own ideas that could expand or improve upon others. I am tired of the often references to New York and Chicago. Bigger is not always better and sometimes 'less is more' and that is the notion we should play on and not do so much of the imitating thing.

 

MTS, if you could, share here  what you told them... 

As an aside, how will the new Tubbs-Jones transit center at CSU/E22nd impact the Public Square hub?

 

That is a good question.  Will certain routes (especially west side routes such as the 22, 25, 81, 26, and some of the east side routes such as the 1 and 3) be rerouted to terminate at (or at least pass by) the new transit center?

 

in my understanding, the short answer as of now, is that not much will change on public square as a result of stj transit center.  basically, any bus that now passes through or terminates around CSU will be redirected to layover and stop/start at the new center.  this will be a few of the buses that pass through public square, but right now, there really aren't that many buses that layover on the square - there are just a lot of bus stops.  Most of the layovers occur on prospect.

Jeez, I live in a pedestrian desert. ::)

 

I'm writing them now. I urge others to do so as well. Its VERY obvious this individual has never been to Cleveland.

 

I have ZERO respect for Fast Company. For a publication that claims to know something about business, they are lacking. One of their reporters contacted some of my editors about an event that we created this year (it ended up being a huge success). They wrote it up in the most insulting, snarky manner, with lame jokes and a photo that showed they don't even understand basic business finance terms. I wouldn't even bother with them.

 

Jeez, I live in a pedestrian desert. ::)

 

I'm writing them now. I urge others to do so as well.  Its VERY obvious this individual has never been to Cleveland.

 

I have ZERO respect for Fast Company. For a publication that claims to know something about business, they are lacking. One of their reporters contacted some of my editors about an event that we created this year (it ended up being a huge success). They wrote it up in the most insulting, snarky manner, with lame jokes and a photo that showed they don't even understand basic business finance terms. I wouldn't even bother with them.

 

 

Sorry but I feel that is complacent.  If they don't respond then there are high authorities to appeal to. If you say nothing then there inaccuracies become written fact.

I actually wish we'd do our own thing....come up wit our own ideas that could expand or improve upon others. I am tired of the often references to New York and Chicago. Bigger is not always better and sometimes 'less is more' and that is the notion we should play on and not do so much of the imitating thing.

 

MTS, if you could, share here what you told them...

 

What does that even mean?  The High Line is a great project that could be used as an example of turning a once forboding relic into an interesting urban space.  Just because NYC is referenced doesn't mean we're wishing to become it.  Doing "our own thing?"  What is our own thing?  Choosing from a pool of designers that are strictly Cleveland based?

I think that rather than looking to much larger cities like New York and Chicago for examples of great public spaces, it would be much more useful to look at cities with similar downtown (both residential and workforce) population densities to Cleveland. Kansas City has beautiful parks/public spaces and there is some interesting stuff in St. Louis.

^ What does this "even" mean?  Uh...well, its quite self explanatory...  Yes, indeed, so many times a big project happens, New York and Chicago are referenced as though they are the only two cities on the planet that matter or can offer a progressive idea/standard.

 

I am not at all suggesting their ideas are not of value and worth--or worth emulating. Just a bit over the same tired references... and time to get off the stage with them and broaden the horizons.

 

Yes, they're wonderful places but how much ego stroking do they need in the media? That's just how I interpret such things. I have nothing against them, as I used to live in New York with my sister for a fair while (Staten Island-Bard Avenue)--have cousins in Chi-town.

 

You don't have to share my interpretation if you don't want and I am not saying that such was the intended message...and NO, it does not necessarily mean we use a pool of designers strictly from the area, but if there are some good ones, I see nothing wrong with tapping into local talent and spending the money here with local businesses. Maybe a combination can be done---Or do we want New York/Chicago to forever hold our hands and cradle us along as though we are incapable of coming up with something original? 

 

Overall, what I expressed simply means taking a good idea and trying to make it even better...add something strictly unique so that when someone comes and see it, they're not saying "Oh...this reminds me of place 'x' " ...and instead say.. "Wow!  I have not seen anything quite like this!"

 

Let's have a space that others will envy instead of the other way around all the time. We can set a standard and not simply follow. (not that following is always a a bad thing, either) Now is the chance to make that happen. Its about adding distinctive elements....and I believe I have mentioned many that could contribute to such, throughout similar threads.

 

The fact that the question is posed "What is our own thing?" is a good one, and seems to suggest that maybe we better find/discover it...or get in touch with ourselves as a city that can be more than sports, mills, bars or any other thing that has us economically type-cast, or stereo-typed. Again, I have offered ideas as to what can add to that element of distinction, but maybe its not mainstream enough. I don't know.

Does anybody know why they didnt do a design competition for this?

^many firms responded to an RFQ. Based on the responses, Field Operations was chosen.

Jeez, I live in a pedestrian desert. ::)

 

I'm writing them now. I urge others to do so as well. Its VERY obvious this individual has never been to Cleveland.

 

I have ZERO respect for Fast Company. For a publication that claims to know something about business, they are lacking. One of their reporters contacted some of my editors about an event that we created this year (it ended up being a huge success). They wrote it up in the most insulting, snarky manner, with lame jokes and a photo that showed they don't even understand basic business finance terms. I wouldn't even bother with them.

 

 

Sorry but I feel that is complacent. If they don't respond then there are high authorities to appeal to. If you say nothing then there inaccuracies become written fact.

 

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I wrote them a scathing letter in response to their snarky little piece and what I got back was a joke of a response. They seemed to feel that the fact that they have a huge audience is a benefit to whatever they cover, whether what they write is true or not, accurate or not.

Does anybody know why they didnt do a design competition for this?

 

Good question! Maybe a worldwide one...open to even those right here.... Let them battle it out... But with added input from those in the community who will use it a lot...or would like to see it more pedestrian oriented.