Let's just say that it sounds that the Group Plan Commission is right in being confident that they will have enough funding for the Public Square redesign, at least.  I wish I could elaborate more but this is based on comment from a friend -- who is a very reliable source on the topic -- letting something slip that he probably shouldn't have.  No clue on the timeline for any announcements, but it definitely bodes well for the redesign moving forward.

 

Thanks, and that's good news. But I was hoping you were saying that Jacobs' Parking Lot On Public Square might soon see development! Oh well, I guess I'll have to take the Public Square redesign as the consolation prize. ;) Seriously, the Public Square redesign may in fact spur Jacobs or someone else to do something with that f-ing parking lot sooner rather than later.

 

Damn, I thought you were talking about the parking crater as well.  Oh well, the PS reconstruction is great news. 

 

My mind will fracture and I will likely have to be removed from society the day something is actually confirmed for the warehouse district lots.

Let's just say that it sounds that the Group Plan Commission is right in being confident that they will have enough funding for the Public Square redesign, at least.  I wish I could elaborate more but this is based on comment from a friend -- who is a very reliable source on the topic -- letting something slip that he probably shouldn't have.  No clue on the timeline for any announcements, but it definitely bodes well for the redesign moving forward.

 

Thanks, and that's good news. But I was hoping you were saying that Jacobs' Parking Lot On Public Square might soon see development! Oh well, I guess I'll have to take the Public Square redesign as the consolation prize. ;) Seriously, the Public Square redesign may in fact spur Jacobs or someone else to do something with that f-ing parking lot sooner rather than later.

 

Damn, I thought you were talking about the parking crater as well.  Oh well, the PS reconstruction is great news. 

 

My mind will fracture and I will likely have to be removed from society the day something is actually confirmed for the warehouse district lots.

 

Oh man, I wish I was talking about the parking lot as well.  But as KJP points out, the PS redesign will only make that parcel even more desirable.

Let's just say that it sounds that the Group Plan Commission is right in being confident that they will have enough funding for the Public Square redesign, at least.  I wish I could elaborate more but this is based on comment from a friend -- who is a very reliable source on the topic -- letting something slip that he probably shouldn't have.  No clue on the timeline for any announcements, but it definitely bodes well for the redesign moving forward.

 

 

Thanks, and that's good news. But I was hoping you were saying that Jacobs' Parking Lot On Public Square might soon see development! Oh well, I guess I'll have to take the Public Square redesign as the consolation prize. ;) Seriously, the Public Square redesign may in fact spur Jacobs or someone else to do something with that f-ing parking lot sooner rather than later.

 

Honestly KJP, I think the city only follows through with this investment if there is concrete commitment by Jabobs to develop the lot.  I really think they understand that PS re-construction will be inconsequential without a development abutting it versus a parking lot.  Also, I think by now the city has learned that if you build it, they will come does not always work.  I like that they are dangling this carrot out their to entice a development, and I do believe that is exactly what they are doing. 

Let me understand.... You don't think the Public Square redesign will occur unless there's a commitment from Jacobs (or whomever) to build on the parking lot?

Let me understand.... You don't think the Public Square redesign will occur unless there's a commitment from Jacobs (or whomever) to build on the parking lot?

While I may have been a bit dramatic in my interpretation of how things may play out, I do believe that discussions are in progress with Jacobs, or a developer, about incorporating something mixed use into that lot, and as a developer, what they envision for that lot.  That parcel(s) plays an enormous part on how the architect designs the square, and how the square interacts and opens up to it's surroundings.  Also, a world reknown architect in my opinion would not put his reputation on a public square that opens to 9 blocks of surface parking.  Like I said, I think the city and the architect know how important it is to adding life to the square is essential to it's success.  I think they understand that the current state of the square is due to the mass destruction that has occured on it's entire western side. 

I hope you're right. No.... I PRAY you're right.

Consider these thoughts from Doug Miller of Jacob's as recently as December:

 

Douglas Miller, executive vice president of Westlake-based Jacobs Real Estate Services, said in an interview that the concern no longer thinks of the site strictly as an office development opportunity.

“We have entertained a mixed-use idea for our site. It probably does make some kind of sense for our site. I don't see it being 100% apartments or office use anymore,” Mr. Miller said. “It will take something of fairly significant mass to finish (commercial development around) Public Square, some kind of mixed use development like we've not seen in Cleveland: office, perhaps a hotel, and apartments.”

The project would still need an anchor use, Mr. Miller said, most likely a large office tenant. Such an anchor would be essential to landing financing for a project that might change the city's skyline. Although he acknowledged Jacobs Group is not actively pursuing such a project, he sees it as a complement to the redevelopment of Public Square and the city's downtown Mall — he is a member of the mayor's Group Plan Commission charged with re-evaluating the city's public spaces — and opens the door to development west of Public Square.

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20131201/SUB1/312019996/building-may-be-next-big-development?template=printart

 

Oh and Jacobs how about getting out of the parking lot biz and built something cool there in the meantime. How about a cutting edge two story all glass Apple mega store. The thing would be packed from am to pm....except by me..cuz I am an Android guy...

Meh, not to be a jerk but without any new information there is no reason to get your hopes up for anything in the immediacy.  The article says "Although he acknowledged Jacobs Group is not actively pursuing such a project..."  Projects that require large office anchor tenants (have any laying around?) and a residential component (in a city who's rents don't yet justify new construction) don't happen by developers who are not actively working to put together a deal.  These projects take years of immense concentrated effort and proper market conditions.  Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like it's at the top of Jacob's to-do list.

Meh, not to be a jerk but without any new information there is no reason to get your hopes up for anything in the immediacy.  The article says "Although he acknowledged Jacobs Group is not actively pursuing such a project..."  Projects that require large office anchor tenants (have any laying around?) and a residential component (in a city who's rents don't yet justify new construction) don't happen by developers who are not actively working to put together a deal.  These projects take years of immense concentrated effort and proper market conditions.  Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like it's at the top of Jacob's to-do list.

 

With your logic the Flats East Bank would have never happened.

^?  Flats East Bank did take years of immense concentrated effort, not to mention tons of public subsidy, and a blue chip anchor office tenant. Hard to argue with SixthCity that if Jacobs isn't actively pursuing that kind of project now, it's likely several years away.

 

I don't think anyone expects those parking lots on PS to stay like that for ever, but I am fairly certain the city isn't waiting for them when it comes to reconstructing Public Square.

^?  Flats East Bank did take years of immense concentrated effort, not to mention tons of public subsidy, and a blue chip anchor office tenant. Hard to argue with SixthCity that if Jacobs isn't actively pursuing that kind of project now, it's likely several years away.

 

I don't think anyone expects those parking lots on PS to stay like that for ever, but I am fairly certain the city isn't waiting for them when it comes to reconstructing Public Square.

 

Yes, it did take years and it did happen. If the owner doesn't want to make it happen then there is nothing we can do about it, but to say that all the chips have to fall in the right place won't happen because of this is wrong.

Re: Douglas Miller quote. My only point in posting the quote from the Jacobs rep is that we rarely if ever hear any feedback from them. I have no grand illusions that anything is going to happen anytime soon. Although w/the proposed work at PS it definitely increases the possibilities of some action sooner rather than later.

Re: Douglas Miller quote. My only point in posting the quote from the Jacobs rep is that we rarely if ever hear any feedback from them. I have no grand illusions that anything is going to happen anytime soon. Although w/the proposed work at PS it definitely increases the possibilities of some action sooner rather than later.

Thank, in a way, further enforces my points that I posted above.  maybe I should change my stance.  I feel that the city is doing this to increse the possiblity of development around the square, and they feel it is imminent if they re-construct the square into a more aesthetically pleasing environment based on intel that they have.  I will say, I have zero working knowledge of the intricacies or deals going into this, nor the spinoff that could occur.  Just opinions I have formulated. 

http://www.groupplan.org/project-overview/.      The group plan commission website has been updated. This includes the public square redesign...mall enhancements....bridge to lakefront.  Great videos and once again comments and creative input suggested.    I still am confused whytheexcess funds from the convention center were not automatically put towards the mall upgrades or the bridge tithe lakefront.  At his point shouldn't tequayer cent  county sales tax be extended for public space improvements in Cleveland   

 

I think the extra money went to the hotel

^?  Flats East Bank did take years of immense concentrated effort, not to mention tons of public subsidy, and a blue chip anchor office tenant. Hard to argue with SixthCity that if Jacobs isn't actively pursuing that kind of project now, it's likely several years away.

 

I don't think anyone expects those parking lots on PS to stay like that for ever, but I am fairly certain the city isn't waiting for them when it comes to reconstructing Public Square.

 

Yes, it did take years and it did happen. If the owner doesn't want to make it happen then there is nothing we can do about it, but to say that all the chips have to fall in the right place won't happen because of this is wrong.

 

well not exactly. there most certainly is a very powerful something that can be done about it and should have been done about it long ago, as was done in the flats, but we know that wont happen.  anyway, redeveloping ps with having more residential around it in mind is the right way to go. there already is more residential nearby than there has ever been.

In case anyone is interested, this is how Public Square looked around 1900. Really impressive, huh! Very European in style. Just goes to show that each time the square was redesigned they somehow ended up making it worse. This upcoming makeover will be the first time it got better!

 

http://www.shorpy.com/node/17589

 

In case anyone is interested, this is how Public Square looked around 1900. Really impressive, huh! Very European in style. Just goes to show that each time the square was redesigned they somehow ended up making it worse. This upcoming makeover will be the first time it got better!

 

http://www.shorpy.com/node/17589

 

 

Amazing how dominating the then-new S&SM was in 1900, but how much smaller, comparatively, it seems next to giants like TT and the Huntington Build.

In case anyone is interested, this is how Public Square looked around 1900. Really impressive, huh! Very European in style. Just goes to show that each time the square was redesigned they somehow ended up making it worse. This upcoming makeover will be the first time it got better!

 

http://www.shorpy.com/node/17589

 

 

Amazing how dominating the then-new S&SM was in 1900, but how much smaller, comparatively, it seems next to giants like TT and the Huntington Build.

 

The architecture then is a 1,000 times more interesting to me than what we have now.

Man, look at the streetcars, the brick pavers...we had it all set up, all we had to do was maintain.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5R_pS0h5Qk

PaulI, was the square 4 quadrants back then? I am having trouble seeing how today's square is that different. I am not trying to be argumentative, but I don't see a big difference between then and now except for the buildings around the square. I will show my hand in this discussion. I am the only person living downtown that actually likes Public Square. I agree we should utilize it in a more productive way, but I like it.  Having said all that, I don't dislike the current design proposals, but I would focus my energy on developing the bordering surface parking lot.  I hate the parking lot!!!

I agree that Public Square is not this toilet bowl that it's currently made out to be.  It's expertly landscaped and well maintained.  The new plans are very exciting however.

I am having trouble seeing how today's square is that different. I am not trying to be argumentative, but I don't see a big difference between then and now except for the buildings around the square.

 

You answered your own question! The older buildings were pedestrian scaled and housed ground floor uses that interacted with the sidewalks. Complete opposite of today. Also I bet women were able to walk through the square without being catcalled and with children without hearing profanity. While the square itself does have some issues,  the main issue with the square is its function as a transit hub. The most popular quadrants with downtown workers happen to be those with the least amount of bus stops. The two quadrants will a lot of bus stops tend to be avoided. This holds true for both men and women.

So some of us agree that the issue is the use of Public Square rather than the design.  We have protested the demolition of historic buildings, but the historic design of Public Square seems to be fair game.  When I lived in downtown Chicago, I noticed the lack of a public square.

Looking at the old picture I know I was definitely struck by how beautiful and inviting it was, and how much fun it must have been to take a stroll through it. And, yes, it had four quadrants. And somehow they worked. But when so much of what surrounded it was torn down and rebuilt, the four quadrants suddenly stopped working. My personal feeling is that the four quadrants don't have any historic value anymore. But they were awesome back in 1900.

 

But I think the general consensus  on this thread is that if we let the newly built Public Square end up in the same state as it is now, then we didn't really accomplish anything. A water feature is a thing of beauty, but not if yesterday's trash is floating on the surface. And a picnic area is charming, unless of course it's full of cigarette butts and someone is hurling obscenity's at you.

 

It can't just be a new design, it has to be a new attitude. 

We also seem to forget that up to about 1910 cars had top speeds of around 8 mph. Horse carriages and streetcars traveled at similar or lower speeds. The four quadrant square worked. Today cars and buses fly through the square at 30mph, turning without looking, and creating an unsafe/unpleasant environment for pedestrians. Just because four quadrants worked in the past doesn't mean it works today.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't think the PS design looks all that great back then either. I see tons of roadway surface full of horse shit, cheap chain link fence, and an ugly Victorian monument to union soldiers.  It looks like it was functioning fine as a transit weigh station, much as it does now, and that likely made sense back then given the much higher volume of transit riders.  As a public space for other purposes, Public Square was likely much more pleasant back then than it is now, but due entirely to the surrounding land uses and the fact that the car ownership rate was 0%, and despite the design of the square, not because of it.

 

For sure I'd give anything to spend an hour in the time/place shown in that photo, but I don't think it really tells us much about how it should be designed today.

For those interested in comparing then and now someone posted a google maps image at the same angle as the 1900s picture.

I'd be curious to ask older folks how the square functioned in the past.  From this picture it's clear that it had 4 quadrants, and that it was a transit hub.  Sounds like it's been the same 100 years.  Maybe that's the problem...it hasn't changed.  BUT people point to these pics and say it was wonderful back then.  Was it??  Maybe people had these same conversations 100 years ago, concerned about excessive trolley traffic and horse crap in the square, and we should close it.  We won't know unless we can talk to someone who remembers the square of decades past and can talk about it's day to day use and appearance.

 

The only difference I can think of are the people.  100 years ago only the super rich had cars, so public transit was for everyone.  Today most Americans (except in the largest of cities) view public transit, and buses in particular, as transportation for only the poor and as a result all types of social-economic and racial stigma's play into that viewpoint.  Worse, unfortunately, some people choose to play into those stereotypes.  I believe it's only a few bad actors on the square, but they make it bad for everyone...as with all stereotypes the behavior of those few gets generalized to everyone who waits for the bus on the square.  The square has been as it is for 100 years...4 quadrants and full of transit.  We need to really examine 1. did that work well back then and why or why not so we can be real about our past and not sugar coat it if it was a problem then and 2. take a fresh look at the square and determine if this set up works today and make necessary changes, just cause it worked back then doesn't mean it works today.  I think the Group Plan Commission has answered these questions with their work.

 

With that said I like the proposed changes and view it as the moment the square will enter a new era.  Hopefully this design will be executed so well that it too will hold up for 100+ years as the previous layout has.

I'd be curious to ask older folks how the square functioned in the past.  From this picture it's clear that it had 4 quadrants, and that it was a transit hub.  Sounds like it's been the same 100 years.  Maybe that's the problem...it hasn't changed.  BUT people point to these pics and say it was wonderful back then.  Was it??  Maybe people had these same conversations 100 years ago, concerned about excessive trolley traffic and horse crap in the square, and we should close it.  We won't know unless we can talk to someone who remembers the square of decades past and can talk about it's day to day use and appearance.

 

The only difference I can think of are the people.  100 years ago only the super rich had cars, so public transit was for everyone.  Today most Americans (except in the largest of cities) view public transit, and buses in particular, as transportation for only the poor and as a result all types of social-economic and racial stigma's play into that viewpoint.  Worse, unfortunately, some people choose to play into those stereotypes.  I believe it's only a few bad actors on the square, but they make it bad for everyone...as with all stereotypes the behavior of those few gets generalized to everyone who waits for the bus on the square.  The square has been as it is for 100 years...4 quadrants and full of transit.  We need to really examine 1. did that work well back then and why or why not so we can be real about our past and not sugar coat it if it was a problem then and 2. take a fresh look at the square and determine if this set up works today and make necessary changes, just cause it worked back then doesn't mean it works today.  I think the Group Plan Commission has answered these questions with their work.

 

With that said I like the proposed changes and view it as the moment the square will enter a new era.  Hopefully this design will be executed so well that it too will hold up for 100+ years as the previous layout has.

 

Public Square has not always been four separate quadrants. Here's some PS history and also information about the Fence "War"

people like to look at early 20th century america as some kind of utopia.  Not just with public square, but in general.

I'd be curious to ask older folks how the square functioned in the past.  From this picture it's clear that it had 4 quadrants, and that it was a transit hub.  Sounds like it's been the same 100 years.  Maybe that's the problem...it hasn't changed.  BUT people point to these pics and say it was wonderful back then.  Was it??  Maybe people had these same conversations 100 years ago, concerned about excessive trolley traffic and horse crap in the square, and we should close it.  We won't know unless we can talk to someone who remembers the square of decades past and can talk about it's day to day use and appearance.

 

The only difference I can think of are the people.  100 years ago only the super rich had cars, so public transit was for everyone.  Today most Americans (except in the largest of cities) view public transit, and buses in particular, as transportation for only the poor and as a result all types of social-economic and racial stigma's play into that viewpoint.  Worse, unfortunately, some people choose to play into those stereotypes.  I believe it's only a few bad actors on the square, but they make it bad for everyone...as with all stereotypes the behavior of those few gets generalized to everyone who waits for the bus on the square.  The square has been as it is for 100 years...4 quadrants and full of transit.  We need to really examine 1. did that work well back then and why or why not so we can be real about our past and not sugar coat it if it was a problem then and 2. take a fresh look at the square and determine if this set up works today and make necessary changes, just cause it worked back then doesn't mean it works today.  I think the Group Plan Commission has answered these questions with their work.

 

With that said I like the proposed changes and view it as the moment the square will enter a new era.  Hopefully this design will be executed so well that it too will hold up for 100+ years as the previous layout has.

 

Public Square has not always been four separate quadrants. Here's some PS history and also information about the Fence "War"

 

True.  That's why I kept mentioning 100 years.  It has been that way for the past century.

I'd be curious to ask older folks how the square functioned in the past.  From this picture it's clear that it had 4 quadrants, and that it was a transit hub.  Sounds like it's been the same 100 years.  Maybe that's the problem...it hasn't changed.  BUT people point to these pics and say it was wonderful back then.  Was it??  Maybe people had these same conversations 100 years ago, concerned about excessive trolley traffic and horse crap in the square, and we should close it.  We won't know unless we can talk to someone who remembers the square of decades past and can talk about it's day to day use and appearance.

 

The only difference I can think of are the people.  100 years ago only the super rich had cars, so public transit was for everyone.  Today most Americans (except in the largest of cities) view public transit, and buses in particular, as transportation for only the poor and as a result all types of social-economic and racial stigma's play into that viewpoint.  Worse, unfortunately, some people choose to play into those stereotypes.  I believe it's only a few bad actors on the square, but they make it bad for everyone...as with all stereotypes the behavior of those few gets generalized to everyone who waits for the bus on the square.  The square has been as it is for 100 years...4 quadrants and full of transit.  We need to really examine 1. did that work well back then and why or why not so we can be real about our past and not sugar coat it if it was a problem then and 2. take a fresh look at the square and determine if this set up works today and make necessary changes, just cause it worked back then doesn't mean it works today.  I think the Group Plan Commission has answered these questions with their work.

 

With that said I like the proposed changes and view it as the moment the square will enter a new era.  Hopefully this design will be executed so well that it too will hold up for 100+ years as the previous layout has.

I've made the point before that it may not necessarily be the actual square that's the problem, rather what surrounds it.  If the Public Square parking lots were a mixed use development, and Huntington and Key each had a retail or restarant component on the ground level with outdoor seating, we may not be having the discussion of a complete reconstruction of the square.  Combine that with a renovated Park Building.  In addition, the main activity for the Terminal Tower Complex is along Prospect and Huron where the hotels and retail are.  The PS facing side of it is simply the lobby.  If PS surrondings consisted of the above, it may be viewed as a beautiful enclave in the center of a bustling three block stretch of downtown Cleveland.  Hopefully we can change that over the course of the next several years. 

I worry that some behind the Public Square change are more concerned about turning the area into a gentrified zone so that Jacobs can build some high end apartment-condo complex than as a functioning square for all the citizens of Cleveland.

 

I know people have complained in the past about the homeless getting services in PS and how that damages the image of the area. I just hope the point of changing the square isn't designed to keep people with lesser means away. Too many cities are trying to hide their poor by changing urban open spaces in recent years.

Isn't the current shape of the square keeping people WITH means away? Not sure why those with lesser means are any more important... Gentrifying is equalizing...

Isn't the current shape of the square keeping people WITH means away? Not sure why those with lesser means are any more important... Gentrifying is equalizing...

 

When Cleveland was a city of 914,000 PS was extremely functional for everyone. It's an open space that worked when Cleveland was very urban. I'm trying to figure out why it's a failure now?

 

Also, gentrification doesn't equalize. People with means generally don't like to be near people without means which forces the need for changes on public spaces to get the poor folks out. It's not just a Cleveland issue, it's happening in most urban places today. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess.

What many forget is Public Square was once the oly open green space assigned to downtown.  The Malls of the 1903 Group Plan  didn't exist.  I feel once this open save was established PS became much more a transit hub rather than a park setting. 

 

Not sure I understand the gentrification concern here.  Other than a bar or restaurant charging more than some can or want to pay (at most a very small part of the project), how exactly would a nicer square keep anyone out? Are you concerned about bench designs that prevent sleeping, or overly aggressive policing?

 

The more standard conditions for concern are definitely absent: there's no low cost market rate housing nearby from which poor working class residents could be displaced, and even if the Jacobs lot were developed for billionaires, it wouldn't harm anyone except a few dozen commuters who would need to find new parking. 

How is the reconstruction of public square is gentrification?!

 

How can the reconstruction of a public park, that will remain a public park, be considered gentrification?  The motivations of the group plan commission are to create a nicer, cleaner, and better managed public park with the potential to attract more private investment.  If you are worried that this will drive those with lesser means away...should we keep the park the underused, fragmented, crappy space that it is now?

 

Also, how is building a luxury condo building on the most expensive piece of real estate in Cleveland that is now a parking lot gentrification?  Who is it displacing?  Cars?

 

This gentrification hand-wringing is out of control.

How is the reconstruction of public square is gentrification?!

 

How can the reconstruction of a public park, that will remain a public park, be considered gentrification?  The motivations of the group plan commission are to create a nicer, cleaner, and better managed public park with the potential to attract more private investment.  If you are worried that this will drive those with lesser means away...should we keep the park the underused, fragmented, crappy space that it is now?

 

Also, how is building a luxury condo building on the most expensive piece of real estate in Cleveland that is now a parking lot gentrification?  Who is it displacing?  Cars?

 

This gentrification hand-wringing is out of control.

 

Completely agree.

What many forget is Public Square was once the oly open green space assigned to downtown.  The Malls of the 1903 Group Plan  didn't exist.  I feel once this open save was established PS became much more a transit hub rather than a park setting.

 

Yet plenty of people used the open space of PS in the 10s, 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s. It really wasn't until downtown hit hard times in the 70s the PS wasn't thought of as a gathering place anymore. The quadrant design never changed through all that.

 

 

One thing I hope they consider in the redesign is the current "gauntlet" setup around the bus stops.  For example, take the northwest quadrant: if you're walking east to west down Superior, you have a long, marble/concrete bench to your right and multiple glass/steel bus stops to your left.  People are sitting on the bench, starring at you and the actual space to walk isn't that wide.  I could understand how some would find that intimidating.

 

So get rid of that bench.  Make it all one level.  And instead of having everyone sit in one long line, have multiple clustered seating areas.  That one change alone could help alter perceptions. 

 

One of the reasons the quadrants don't work is because we further subdivide an already smaller space.  For example, in that same northwest quadrant, there's a brick square sidewalk within the existing concrete square sidewalk that goes along the outer edge.  "Do I walk around in a circle (or square) to nowhere on the outside or the inside?  Why is that even an option?" 

 

From the designs I've seen, it looks like everything they'll be getting rid of these unnecessary steps and squares within squares within squares.  I haven't seen any details about new bus stops and seating, though.

Just a reminder for those able to go (assuming spots are still available), James Corner, the designer of the project, will be discussing it at the City Club tonight:  http://www.cityclub.org/

 

Public Square, Breakout Sessions and Beers

 

A Free Happy Hour Event at the City Club

 

 

One thing I hope they consider in the redesign is the current "gauntlet" setup around the bus stops.  For example, take the northwest quadrant: if you're walking east to west down Superior, you have a long, marble/concrete bench to your right and multiple glass/steel bus stops to your left.  People are sitting on the bench, starring at you and the actual space to walk isn't that wide.  I could understand how some would find that intimidating.

 

So get rid of that bench.  Make it all one level.  And instead of having everyone sit in one long line, have multiple clustered seating areas.  That one change alone could help alter perceptions. 

 

One of the reasons the quadrants don't work is because we further subdivide an already smaller space.  For example, in that same northwest quadrant, there's a brick square sidewalk within the existing concrete square sidewalk that goes along the outer edge.  "Do I walk around in a circle (or square) to nowhere on the outside or the inside?  Why is that even an option?" 

 

From the designs I've seen, it looks like everything they'll be getting rid of these unnecessary steps and squares within squares within squares.  I haven't seen any details about new bus stops and seating, though.

 

This does not make sense to me, someone finds seated people intimidating? There is no "actually space to walk"?  Come on! I feel you're being a bit dramatic with that statement.  All of the seating on the square is similar.  IMO, and as you say, the new design addresses how people interact with others and the transportation locations.

Just a reminder for those able to go (assuming spots are still available), James Corner, the designer of the project, will be discussing it at the City Club tonight:  http://www.cityclub.org/

 

Public Square, Breakout Sessions and Beers

 

A Free Happy Hour Event at the City Club

 

Sold out!!

^^The specific area he's talking about is a cat-call gauntlet.  There's no doubt about that.  My wife avoids that stretch of sidewalk.  I wouldn't call it intimidating, but I can see how some might feel that way.

^^The specific area he's talking about is a cat-call gauntlet.  There's no doubt about that.  My wife avoids that stretch of sidewalk.  I wouldn't call it intimidating, but I can see how some might feel that way.

 

I've never experienced that (don't even think about it) but I can understand how someone can feel that way.

^^The specific area he's talking about is a cat-call gauntlet.  There's no doubt about that.  My wife avoids that stretch of sidewalk.  I wouldn't call it intimidating, but I can see how some might feel that way.

 

I've never experienced that (don't even think about it) but I can understand how someone can feel that way.

 

Unfortunately, my girlfriend and her friends will confirm this 100x times over.  They have clearly said that walking through PS is not a friendly (perhaps overly friendly) experience for them and they avoid it.

And that the thing. As guys, even many of us strongly dislike going to Public Square. For women(a minority on this site) it is 100 times worse.

So if we spend 60 million redoing the square all the idiots who harass women will just disappear?