I don't think I really understand how decreasing the volume of the transportation networks that pass through the square will increase its utility.  Maybe more traffic calming measures would make it more pleasant, but I think the vehicle and public transportation activity keep the square fairly active.  Some residential or office development to the west would be the most helpful in increasing the square's utility, but that's a subject for another time....

This thread is reminding me how badly I need to improve my skills at Google Sketchup

This thread is reminding me how badly I need to improve my skills at Google Sketchup

 

That is exactly what I'm doing at work right now!

Here's my idea on public square: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=41.500199,-81.693499&spn=0.001272,0.00284&t=h&z=19&msid=203286176048408107177.00049bf4d8aba7375872a

 

Features:

A frosted glass square pedestrian bridge with clear glass railings with glass planters with stone designs.

There will be a ramp from the bridge to the raised platform of the Soldiers and Sailors monument.

The bridge will be flanked by three elevator shafts and there will be ramps from ground level to the bridge.

There will be a grassy ramp to on the corner leading to the mall.

i feel you nephets and burnham.. but that is basically what Field Operations had planned, except their proposal is a lot more buildable. FWIW.. exposed glass is next to impossible as a public space surface in CLE because of the winters/ice and the coefficient of friction requirements of public space. (this goes for many cities).

 

The reason why Field Operations did what they did, is that it turns the whole square into one large slope. Rather than have steps up and down (which takes just as much time as crossing two streets) or a 5th square as both of you invisioned, It creates something very knew, very useable, just as effective, and most importantly it makes a visual statement that says "we are changing"

 

not trying to nit-pick.. just saying the idea is absolutely great in all cases (a transitional raised space in the middle). it just has to make the right statement. and for the field op's proposal, it was a smooth, green transition that IMHO would make for a nice urban space.

As one who lives downtown, I do not think that routing buses through the Warehouse district, downtown's premier residential district, is a good idea.

As one who lives downtown, I do not think that routing buses through the Warehouse district, downtown's premier residential district, is a good idea.

 

Get used to it... the western counterpart to the STJ transit center is supposed to go there somewhere.  I still don't get the plan behind these transit center things.  Unless the west side and east side buses converge somewhere, crosstown trips will be awful.  The whole point of a hub is convergence, and in that sense, three hubs are not better than one.   

^The buses would still converge downtown.  Several west side buses (like the 55) now layover in the STJ transit center after crossing downtown from west to east.  Presumably several east side lines would cross through downtown from east to west and then layover in the WHD transit center.  So most of the lines would overlap between the two transit centers.

 

As one who lives downtown, I do not think that routing buses through the Warehouse district, downtown's premier residential district, is a good idea.

 

I can totally understand that.  I could support a transit center on Superior between 6th and 3rd, but probably not further north in the residential areas.  I wasn't even a fan of RTA putting its offices in the residential part of the WHD...

 

 

Look at PS from the air.

 

Too much street, too little else.

 

PS simply needs more than just bus stops. It needs retail. Badly.

 

On each quadrant there should be a place to buy hot chocolate, a sandwich, a local pint, a nice patio and outdoor fireplace.

 

I will spend every lunch hour at the "magical" place. Why can Crocker Park get this concept so easily, and not PS???

 

PS sucks not because of buses, but because there's no reason to spend any time there. It's a dead zone folks.

^The buses would still converge downtown. Several west side buses (like the 55) now layover in the STJ transit center after crossing downtown from west to east. Presumably several east side lines would cross through downtown from east to west and then layover in the WHD transit center. So most of the lines would overlap between the two transit centers.

 

Yep. That's exactly what I'd like to see.

 

I can totally understand that. I could support a transit center on Superior between 6th and 3rd, but probably not further north in the residential areas. I wasn't even a fan of RTA putting its offices in the residential part of the WHD...

 

 

The WHD is a mixed-used district. There is a freeway already running through it and you guys are worried about buses that would actually serve it? That being said, my thought of a WHD Transit Center would be on Superior, such as at Superior and West 6th, fronted by a leasable commercial/retail/restaurant space and topped by several levels of parking, and then by RTA's offices above that. So we could be talking the equivalent of a 10- to 15-story structure.

 

Anyway......

There is a freeway already running through it and you guys are worried about buses that would actually serve it?

 

have you ever lived in a place where your bedroom faced a street with a bus line? much less a bus hub? no thank you. keep em on public square, just make it more pedestrian friendly and accessible.

 

On each quadrant there should be a place to buy hot chocolate, a sandwich, a local pint, a nice patio and outdoor fireplace. 

 

has to establish critical mass first.. but you have a good point.

 

have you ever lived in a place where your bedroom faced a street with a bus line? much less a bus hub? no thank you. keep em on public square, just make it more pedestrian friendly and accessible.

 

 

Worse. I lived in Berea where my bedroom faced a rail line with 120 freight trains a day, plus State Route 237, and was under the old south flightpath to/from Hopkins Airport. I didn't sleep at all the first night. But by the end of my first week, I didn't notice a thing.

 

If you read my earlier post carefully, you will see where I think a WHD Transit Center should be located, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion so I won't repeat it. How transit is routed through Public Square, or whether it should be routed through Public Square, is within the scope.

 

Now can we please get back to how we should design Public Square?

For what it's worth, the big Public Square document from Dec 2009 with the three proposals also had some Wilbur Smith traffic study results showing LOS for different intersections around the square under different possible configurations.  It's a little tough to reach the results, but I believe they their model predicts that closing Ontario through the square would be much more disruptive than closing Superior.  That was for traffic overall, though, not specific to RTA's needs.

Wouldn't one of the easiest and cheapest ways to improve the square would be to move the bus stops in the middle of the street, like on euclid avenue? Maybe you can add some pedestrian bridges. This would get people waiting off of the sidewalks and open it up and promote a more friendly place to walk and relax.

 

Here is my idea

 

http://tinyurl.com/4scx8qa

 

 

The Healthline buses have doors on the left side which allows them to board from center-island platforms. All other RTA buses have doors only on the right side for curbside boarding.

Okay guys, stay with me here. Take Burnham's idea with public square raised and busses underneath that (which would be street level) and make a bus hub underneath PS. PS would stay street level and can be changed to look better with better public space, green space, etc.. and put the hub under it, like a subway station but for busses.  One lane on each side of the raod would be for busses going into the station (under PS) and out of the station and then merge back into traffic on the regular street. Maybe even an underground walkway from Tower City rapid station to the bus hub??? I’m just thinking a little out of the box here... I understand it is impractical but it would be cool!

Honestly, there really isn't that much traffic around the Square.  I walked through the Square yesterday at lunchtime and there was just a smattering of light traffic.  And it's honestly not that heavy at rush hour.  I don't understand why we just can't close Ontario and Superior and make Public Square a sort of roundabout.  I think people here just don't have any concept of what actual traffic is. 

I wonder why this idea doesn't get more consideration. 

 

Because Americans don't like to climb stairs.  For proper clearance, it would be the equivalent of climbing three flights of stairs.  And, like the "mound" plan, it kills sightlines.

Already discussed by others that if you want to make Public Square a nice gathering place, getting rid of the heavy bus traffic coming & going is the first step.

 

I have become more accepting of Public Square as a transit hub and relying on The Mall as a nice gathering place.  There's so much more potential at the mall.  So I'm pushing for mall development over Public Square development.  Yes, in a world of unlimited funds and resources and in the land where everyone gets along, we could have both.  But I think the mall has less red tape to cut through.

I personally like the flurry of buses and traffic on the square.  Cleveland needs some "hustle and bustle!"

 

Look above to the photos posted of the square in the day of streetcars.  That's what we should all hope Cleveland returns to! 

 

Moving buses underground makes no sense unless it somehow helps them achieve better service.  I don't see how Public Square hinders the operation of buses at all....

 

 

Okay guys, stay with me here. Take Burnham's idea with public square raised and busses underneath that (which would be street level) and make a bus hub underneath PS. PS would stay street level and can be changed to look better with better public space, green space, etc.. and put the hub under it, like a subway station but for busses. One lane on each side of the raod would be for busses going into the station (under PS) and out of the station and then merge back into traffic on the regular street. Maybe even an underground walkway from Tower City rapid station to the bus hub??? I’m just thinking a little out of the box here... I understand it is impractical but it would be cool!

 

I like that idea, but with a slight change. A little bit of mounding of Public Square might not kill sightlines and vistas so much. Perhaps a 10-foot mounding would make a big difference in offering a below-the-square bus transit station on Superior, which could be lowered by about 15 feet. That would allow a higher ceiling in the center of a transit station to allow vehicle exhaust to vent, and create a setting that is less claustrophobic.

And to go along with KJP's plan, (since we're still using the PS roads of Superior and Ontario), why not close down the E/W roadways that skirt along the outside of the square.

 

Where would the HealthLine go?

It would still have to go around the perimeter of the Square, or it could be extended west of downtown. :)

Get used to it... the western counterpart to the STJ transit center is supposed to go there somewhere.

 

RTA owns no land in the Warehouse District.  Who's gonna sell them some?  They have a better chance of making the western transit center somewhere in Ohio City along West 25th.

Building a below grade bus tunnel would also probably be prohibitively expensive.  Or hard to justify, anyway, given our relatively light traffic.  I like hustle and bustle too, but am willing to have the bus portion of the action only on the outer edge of the square, or just along Superior, if it means making a better public square over all.  I think we can have it all.

 

Honestly, there really isn't that much traffic around the Square. I walked through the Square yesterday at lunchtime and there was just a smattering of light traffic. And it's honestly not that heavy at rush hour. I don't understand why we just can't close Ontario and Superior and make Public Square a sort of roundabout. I think people here just don't have any concept of what actual traffic is.

 

That's my impression too.  For non-bus traffic, Superior through Public Square was already reduced to one lane in each direction a few years ago and I don't think it's made much of a difference to level of service.

 

 

anyways, back to what i already was talking about before..., its great to see so much of us getting into this issue. I guess we know now that it would take forever to really get a plan people agree on to do something so drastic to PS. I think burying the busses is alright, but its tough to make the underneath space nice enough. you could bury it only slightly, keeping the top of the road open to the air, with a nice wide pedestrian bridge over the top. (this is with ontario closed). The bridge has to be a ramp, or slow sloped stairs. jborger is right about that imho.

Honestly, there really isn't that much traffic around the Square.  I walked through the Square yesterday at lunchtime and there was just a smattering of light traffic.  And it's honestly not that heavy at rush hour.  I don't understand why we just can't close Ontario and Superior and make Public Square a sort of roundabout.  I think people here just don't have any concept of what actual traffic is. 

 

I agree, and don't know what the big deal is other than a lame "That's the way it has always been" argument. There are public squares all over Europe that function like this, and closer to home you can look at Indianapolis. It's not like downtown Cleveland is gridlocked with traffic. 

Wouldn't one of the easiest and cheapest ways to improve the square would be to move the bus stops in the middle of the street, like on euclid avenue? Maybe you can add some pedestrian bridges. This would get people waiting off of the sidewalks and open it up and promote a more friendly place to walk and relax.

 

Here is my idea

 

http://tinyurl.com/4scx8qa

 

 

The Healthline buses have doors on the left side which allows them to board from center-island platforms. All other RTA buses have doors only on the right side for curbside boarding.

 

Have two platforms in the middle, with two bus lanes in-between the platforms. On the outside of the platforms you could have one lane for traffic.

 

I updated my map, you could also do it along ontario

^That's simply not necessary, IMO.  You would just spend a lot of money to move the waiting area 30 feet into the middle of the street.  The only change to public transit on public square that I would ever support would be some type of underground transit hub with an underground linkage to Tower City.  This would serve the dual purpose of getting the buses off the square (allowing for road closures or lane reductions) and getting the passengers out of the elements.

Just maintain all bus and other vehicle traffic around the perimeter and close the crossing Ontario and Superior sections as was mentioned above.  Many cities with central public spaces have done this; The Piazza del Duomo in Florence, Italy for example.  Yes that is only one example but it shouldn't be a big deal. 

 

No I have no civil engineering experience and no I have not done any traffic studies but that is my opinion.

^That's simply not necessary, IMO.  You would just spend a lot of money to move the waiting area 30 feet into the middle of the street.  The only change to public transit on public square that I would ever support would be some type of underground transit hub with an underground linkage to Tower City.  This would serve the dual purpose of getting the buses off the square (allowing for road closures or lane reductions) and getting the passengers out of the elements.

 

I would think the underground station would cost an obscene amount of money (as others have reminded me). And the question is, what would cost less -- creating "island" boarding areas or replacing all RTA buses so they have doors on the right and left sides of the vehicle (which also means losing a row of seats).

 

Don't forget, RTA's complaint is that routing all their buses around the perimeter of the square would add several hundred thousand dollars to the agency's annual operating budget.

I would assume creating the islands would be cheaper then replacing the buses. Plus as you said, it wouldn't require losing seats. I think this is probably the best choice with cost as a factor because it frees up the squares which will make them easier to walk and relax, and create an overall friendlier environment.

I am no designer or whatever but I really like the idea of making it a roundabout as well. I picture the center of it very green but with some small food/drink carts/shops (like someone mentioned, those in the Crocker Park area), the farmer's market once a week, fountains, fireplaces in the winter, bring back some kind of skating rink in part of it, etc.

 

I also agree with those who have said something needs to change dramatically before the casino opens.

Public Square traffic studies could determine the character of downtown for decades

 

Powerful leaders from John D. Rockefeller to Daniel H. Burnham have left indelible marks on the streets, buildings, parks and public spaces of Cleveland.

 

Dan Gilbert, majority owner of the Cavaliers and developer of the new Cleveland casino at the Higbee Building on Public Square, is next in line.

 

Gilbert's Rock Gaming LLC could have decisive influence over whether downtown can become greener, livelier and more beautiful, or whether it's swamped by traffic and the demand for parking generated by the casino when it opens a year from now.

 

You won't see this in a news release. But the facts are piling up fast:

-- On Thursday, March 10, Rock Ohio Caesars, which will operate the Phase 1 Horseshoe casino at the Higbee Building, released a sketch plan showing a 250-space parking garage with a visitor center on the block immediately to the southeast, across Ontario Street. The drawing, which shows four valet lanes slicing through the block, suggests that a huge amount of traffic will converge on the small blocks and narrow streets just north of the Gateway sports complex.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2011/03/public_square_traffic_studies.html

There they go again with making it seem like it will be easy to demolish the Columbia Building.

This is an excellent, thoughtful article and shows why, imho, Steve Litt's a major journalistic asset in this town.  It is critical that we watch the powers-that-be very closely so they won't, as usual, sell out to the ODOT-friendly auto/driving/parking interests and potentially ruin the fabric of our increasingly livable/walkable downtown.

Yeah, definitely a very useful article by Litt.  Will be very interesting to see what comes out of those studies.  Hopefully RTA has the resources it needs to be able to respond to the studies with something other than panic.

So much potential...  Is there anything we can do but hope the powers that be don't screw it up?

I'm surprised there isn't more data available on traffic counts.  ODOT does the state routes and Cuy County Engineer has done some roads downtown, but not many.

 

From this NOACA document, looks like 36,000+ cars use Ontario - more than the Shoreway each day.  You can't really tell where the traffic goes though, or how much of it goes through the square itself.  http://www.noaca.org/trafficcounts.html

 

Without seeing more counts for the city streets it is hard to draw conclusions, but you can see that the east side counts are spread out over numerous roadways.  There are limited N-S connectors downtown to handle traffic flow.

 

 

:evil:  Maybe we can use gorilla tactics to limit traffic through the square over the next few weeks to skew the study and get this:

 

 

 

[EDIT: I fiddled with the design to make it both inexpensive and useful.  My idea is to have a waist high (3 ft) colonial style wall along the perimeter with 9 wide openings around the area as to keep the wall broken up and less of a barrier and more a design.  This way if you're on the grass looking out you don't see straight out into the cars everywhere, but instead see a nice red brick wall, maybe some public art, this will keep the noise down as well. 

 

As for safety, I think the short walls with many opening leading to the sidewalk (and the relatively small size of the park) will make so that at any place inside or on the sidewalk you can see everywhere else making it feel very safe during daytime and early evening.  Lighting will make this better at night, though no urban parks are considered "safe" after dark.

 

There are also 9 entrances that I have along the brick wall perimeter so there are plenty of ways in and out, and you can still see the Mall from the entrance of the Terminal Tower.

 

With your proposed design I will guess that you do not live in downtown Cleveland.  Currently, people are afraid to walk through Public Square, an area which is very safe and my wife and I have NEVER experienced anything threatening.  At every point through Public Square, you are never more than 75 feet from traffic and people. 

 

People no longer sleep all night (and claim their space) in the park.  You are proposing a larger open field (park) which will only accommodate more people "camping out" right in the center of downtown!!

 

You might disagree, but as soon as the city tries to limit the ""homeless"" population, everyone in the suburbs will complain.  We have to stop thinking about a suburban mall or park and start thinking about a city (urban) space. 

 

As a downtown resident, I want suburbanites to stop suggesting park designs with secluded spaces and park benches which only provide places for all of the people that scare suburbanites away.  Stop suggesting designs that accommodate "bums", to sleep and all of the suburbanites to lament how terrible downtown is.

 

 

A bench is not designed to be a sleeping apparatus. Parks space in urban areas is very valuable amenity to downtown living, no matter where it is located. I would guess there are a few bums that sleep in Central Park, but, as far as I know, there are no plans to close it.

You obviously do not know about all of the problems in Central Park in the past and today.  The bigger issue is that we (Cleveland) are not the same size as NYC and we do not have the URBAN base.  We have Malls and parks. We cannot get people to come downtown instead of going to their local Olive Garden because they are frightened when they see anything that looks like an urban environment!  I wish it wasn't that way, but read the PD and you see how the entire perspective is biased.  Any design for Pubic Square must take this into account.

Wow TMH...  I'd suggest you take a bit less of a judgmental position on your posts -- if I may offer that suggestion.

 

First off, no I do not live in Downtown Cleveland, I live in Downtown Washington DC.  I was raised in the suburbs, sure, but unless you grew up living in the urban downtown environment I'd encourage you calm down a bit on your comments..  Secondly if you've seen any of the designs discussed for public square, or followed the discussion on this forum you'd see that joining up at least in halves (2 rectangles each made of 2 of the 4 squares) are not only popular ideas but supported by the group plan and other urban designers.

 

Central park is not in any way a good comparison.  You could fit most of the CBD of Cleveland into it, and obviously with that large an area you will have safety issues, but as you yourself point out Public Square isn't that way.  I would argue that closing off the traffic and adding large open spaces (as large as 40 total acres can be...) and some paths would not "Scare off suburbanites".

 

If anything, they are scared of buses, crowds of people they consider to be "urban" (don't get me started) and disjointed public spaces.  Stand at E 4th and Euclid (or a bit closer to PS) and look toward the WHD.  It's basically a sea of roads, sidewalks, parking lots and very unattractive places.  If the square was consolidated and made into a welcoming greenspace people would think it was a beautiful center of town.

 

In fact you say this, "they are frightened when they see anything that looks like an urban environment!"  So do you recommend we make downtown more suburban?  I would assume not.  Building a unique and beautiful park in the center of our tallest buildings, up the street from the Casino and Med Mart, between the Terminal Tower (read: RTA) and nearly EVERYTHING) and at the base of the Euclid Corridor is completely "New Urban" in its purpose and design.

 

"I want suburbanites to stop suggesting park designs with secluded spaces and park benches which only provide places for all of the people that scare suburbanites away."

 

I'm not a suburbanite, (on these forums that's nearly a 4 letter word, so be careful) and I don't see how my proposal is that different from the current Southwestern quadrant with has minimal grade alterations in an attempt to make it a bit more secluded.

 

 

Lastly -- as Yanni said -- Urban Park space is by far the most valuable asset to a city, (aside from well... people and businesses obviously).  Of course we aren't the same size as NYC, that's why proposing a 40 acre public square is my point, not an 843 Acre forest (like C. Park)

 

I'm not sure you're being very clear.  Do you think the current layout is just fine?  What is urban to you?  Should we cater to the suburbanites fears or design a city worthy of people who want a city? 

 

Burnham I like what you've done with the place.  Although I'd go for more trees and less grass.  40 acres may not be enough for a forest but a grove would be nice.  I liked your earlier version too, the one that kept the fountain.  And what's with that extra building?  Can we see the rest of it? 

 

I'm no suburbanite either, but we can't let bums and thugs can dictate our landscaping decisions.  Having no benches downtown isn't going to solve the homeless problem.  That would just turn one problem into two.   

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that everyone agrees that the redesign and operation of public square should strongly consider public safety and the perception of safety.  How that translates into design, we shall see, but to me it could mean wide, well lit walkways with good sight-lines, a permanent "official" presence of some sort (manned DCA, police or RTA presence), a 3-4 season commercial user or two, and not too strong a separation from the outside edges.  Certainly doesn't mean all the interior roadways need to stay open, IMO. 

 

And sleep-proof benches have been around for decades now.  Unfortunately pigeon crap-proofing still seems to be out of reach :(

I’m kind of late to the party and I apologize if this is somewhat rambling, but I wanted to submit my thoughts on this because I feel that my vision is notably different than what has been discussed.

 

A lot of the discussion on how to redesign the square has centered around the idea of creating a park, and, personally, I think that is the right idea for the wrong location.  To me, Public Square has never been a park nor should it be.  In my mind, it is more of a plaza.  It is and always has been the center of movement and activity in the city, starting with just people to streetcars and now cars.  Trying to make it into a serene park-like setting is opposite of what it wants to be or should be.  Personally, that is how the Malls should be designed, not Public Square.  A lot of the ideas I’ve seen have been essentially trying to create a new PS and new Mall from the same palate, when I really think they should be two completely different things.

 

I tend to think of PS more like Cleveland’s version of Times Square (albeit far less busy), where cars, buses, and people are able to coexist.  It’s already set up to be that way.  The Mall is more like Cleveland’s Central Park (albeit on a far smaller scale) where people can go to escape traffic and be in a more serene park-like setting.  It’s already set up to be that way too.  But instead of trying to develop each space as best as possible within its own unique characteristics, it seems like a lot of ideas are trying to make PS and the Malls into essentially the same thing.

 

PS was originally designed to be like a European-style public space, and I think it should try to be like that again.  Look at some of the spaces and plazas in Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, etc., and they all have cars, public transit, and people all coexisting in the same space.  They serve more as hubs of movement and activity rather than passive parks.  I feel the same can be done with PS.

 

Here’s my mock up:

 

Some ideas:

- Make the entire space – from the outermost sidewalks along Tower City/Key Tower/etc. to the center – paved with the same brick or pavers to give a feeling of togetherness so that PS now makes up the entire space between buildings as opposed to just the four squares.  Monument Circle in Indianapolis has a similar set-up and I think it really works by calming traffic and making the whole space feel like one big urban room.

- Close Ontario as suggested by the Group Plan Commission and unite the four squares into two rectangles.  Keep Superior open, but the pavers will calm traffic to make it more approachable to pedestrians.  Right now, pedestrians are visitors on the road.  Instead, the cars should be visitors on the square.  Look at Andrew Young Blvd. in Atlanta where it runs through the plaza in Centennial Olympic Park. 

- Put an outdoor visitors’ center/kiosk for Positively Cleveland on the south rectangle to draw visitors to the plaza and help PS serve as a starting point and hub that connects amenities.

- I’m not sure if this is possible, but with all the new food vendors and trucks starting up around town, why not offer permanent stands on the northern part of the square for these same vendors to cater to the office crowds and visitors?  Maybe put some tables and chairs under trees for those who want to sit and people watch.

 

Basically, the whole space is designed to allow for freedom of movement around and across the square while still offering the public gathering space it was meant to support.  It opens up in the middle for people who are just crossing through or gathering while still serving to transit riders on the perimeter.  There is just more space to move now instead of everyone being crammed along the edges, with people walking trying to maneuver around people waiting.

 

Long winded, but I felt like I’d throw my perspective into the mix.  The short of it is: I think PS would be better if designed as a plaza rather than a park.

 

I'm impressed with the effort, but you all have to realize that closing just one of either Ontario or Superior is going to be difficult enough to sell.  Closing both is not going to be up for conversation.

Very good points, urbanomics.

Im just afraid Public Square is too far gone in the sense that there is no true reason to go their unless your waiting for a bus. The square is mostly surrounded by "useless" buildings in terms of creating foot traffic. The skyscraper killed public square. Key tower offers nothing to square. 200 public square as well. The old courthouse also creates a dead zone. Now I love the Terminal Tower but it too does take some life away from the square and creates a lifeless wall, like by the Renaissance. I love the Terminal Tower but it does sort of have the effect.

 

Our buildings of the past interacted with the square. They offered street level activity.

 

 

Urbanomics:  great post/ideas/mockup, and I really like it as well.  In fact I'm even tempted to say I like it more than the park idea I listed above.

 

Regardless, though, of which direction the space is made up of (park v. plaza) the key will always be the use of the space, and the buildings around it.  I believe that the Casino, connection to Euclid, and whatever is developed (sigh) on the surface lot, are going to be the most important sources of park travelers.  We need to find ways to enhance the numbers of pedestrians and, I think, food vendors would be a good start.

 

If the WHD had a larger population one could imagine a farmers market there (though it would certainly be a poor mans WSM), and there are various other activities.  Unfortunately with winter being so long it would be important to find a way to make the plaza effect useful when it's covered in snow.  The idea i have above has a clear path between the terminal tower and the mall's corner.  If there was a paved path it would simply need a small snow plow (sidewalk plow) to clear a path to the malls and medical mart.

 

A final note: part of me almost wants this project to be tabled for a bit, or minimized.  If they could close Ontario and connect the North and South quadrants without much more alterations as a Phase I that would be great, but the design, i believe, would be massively different if, say, in 25 years Cleveland had a substantially larger downtown population.  A group of Clevelanders at UrbanOhio might have even grander and more dramatic ideas in 2030.  :)