Isn't Superior a national route or something so closing it would require federal approval? I'm pretty sure the city can't close it just because it wants to.

It is (US 6), but Ontario through the southern half of the square was also a federal route (US 422).

I don't see why Route 6 couldn't be routed around the perimeter of the square.  Honestly, if buses are going through there you may as well leave Superior open.  If is either a pedestrian space, or a vehicular space.  Can't be both.

I don't see why Route 6 couldn't be routed around the perimeter of the square.  Honestly, if buses are going through there you may as well leave Superior open.  If is either a pedestrian space, or a vehicular space.  Can't be both.

Agreed.  If 422 was able to be rerouted, I don't see why 6 couldn't be as well.

Agreed.  If 422 was able to be rerouted, I don't see why 6 couldn't be as well.

 

I think 422 ends at Public Square.

I don't see why Route 6 couldn't be routed around the perimeter of the square.  Honestly, if buses are going through there you may as well leave Superior open.  If is either a pedestrian space, or a vehicular space.  Can't be both.

 

I would have been happy seeing Superior closed off altogether, but this is a bit of an exaggeration. Surely a narrower, bus-only Superior will be much easier to cross as a pedestrian than a wider, mixed traffic road. The narrower roadway also means more park space. I don't think it's a totally empty compromise.

Agreed.  If 422 was able to be rerouted, I don't see why 6 couldn't be as well.

 

I think 422 ends at Public Square.

It used to end at Superior, so the southern half of what was cut off was either rerouted around the southeast and southwest sides of the square, or it was terminated before it reached US 6, which seems unlikely.

 

I don't see why Route 6 couldn't be routed around the perimeter of the square.  Honestly, if buses are going through there you may as well leave Superior open.  If is either a pedestrian space, or a vehicular space.  Can't be both.

 

Do you really believe that a couple hundred buses a day on two lanes with pavers is the same as four lanes plus turning lanes that ushers thousands of vehicles?

 

**Merry Christmas**

I don't see why Route 6 couldn't be routed around the perimeter of the square.  Honestly, if buses are going through there you may as well leave Superior open.  If is either a pedestrian space, or a vehicular space.  Can't be both.

 

Do you really believe that a couple hundred buses a day on two lanes with pavers is the same as four lanes plus turning lanes that ushers thousands of vehicles?

 

**Merry Christmas**

 

In all respects, no.  In many important respects, yes.  It's still a pedestrian barrier- even with just a couple buses a day, you'd have to stop your nice walk through the park and make sure you don't get killed by oncoming traffic.  It's still a swath of the park that has to be turned over to automotive use, cutting into the amount left over for recreational use.  It still introduces noise, dust, and commotion in the middle of the park.  It fragments the parks recreational use areas, forcing park activities out of what should be the middle of the park and to the sides.  It still says, "move over people enjoying Public Square, people coming through are more important than you."

 

In sum, it still cuts the park in two.

That are eliminating the vast majority of traffic driving through it. It will function an order of magnitude better than what was there before it. I don't think the intent was ever to turn it into a park.

That are eliminating the vast majority of traffic driving through it. It will function an order of magnitude better than what was there before it. I don't think the intent was ever to turn it into a park.

 

I don't want to speak for others, but that is the glaring problem we all have.  All four quadrants should have been connected with a loop around.

^ It's only going to be open to buses, right?

 

That's still a couple hundred a day which is fairly frequent.  I know KJP has the exact count.

 

 

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/12/us-infrastructure-projects-2016-transportation/421431/

 

The Big U.S. Transportation Infrastructure Projects to Watch in 2016

From New York’s Second Avenue subway to Cleveland’s Public Square to L.A.’s light rail line.

 

ERIC JAFFE @e_jaffe Dec 22, 2015

 

Street Design

 

The dramatic transformation of Cleveland’s Public Square is on frantic pace for completion by summer 2016—just in time for the Republican National Convention. That’s a bit of an odd convergence, considering that conservatives aren’t typically great fans of city street projects that prioritize pedestrians over cars. And the new Public Square, designed by James Corner of High Line fame, will do just that: turn a former traffic hub into a walkable plaza surrounded by greenery and largely cut-off to through-traffic. But long after Donald Trump and friends leave town, the square will be a selling point for the city’s newly revived downtown.

 

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20151223/BLOGS03/151229937/the-country-will-be-watching-clevelands-public-square-redo

 

The country will be watching Cleveland's Public Square redo

 

December 23, 2015

SCOTT SUTTELL

City Lab has a helpful rundown of the most prominent U.S. infrastructure projects coming online in 2016, and one of them is in Cleveland.

 

“The dramatic transformation of Cleveland’s Public Square is on frantic pace for completion by summer 2016—just in time for the Republican National Convention,” the website says as it highlights the $32 million-plus redo in the “street design” category.

 

 

 

 

I still am amazed how this project is touted as  $32 million dollars when it clearly has been reported to cost $50 million dollars.  Yet nobody in the press questions the costs. I have written to both The Group Plan Commission and Land-Studio for explanations on how this budget rose out of hand.  No clear explanation was given other than the initial budget was estimated incorrectly. I asked what they planned on cutting if The State doesn't approve the $5 million dollars asked for and the answer I got was they are confident they will get the money so no plans will be altered.  I am also tired of hearing Public Square wasn't walkable before it's redo. Much could have been done with simple maintenance and security along with park programming. All we still have is a transit hub divided into two quadrants instead of four.  A water feature was on Public Square in two of the former quadrants.  A cafe with public restrooms is only what is being gained. There was plenty of seating and walkable paths in the old layout.  It has been designed from people whom IMHO never set foot into the park before. Yes the design is different but we still have buses intersecting a park that should be one cohesive area. I feel it is time to hear from the people in charge how they plan to activate Public Square 365 days a year, how they plan to maintain the area, whom is operating The Cafe, and what art will be placed on the back side of the cafe.  Public Square should remain public and transparent in it's costs and ideas

...I am also tired of hearing Public Square wasn't walkable before it's redo...

 

And I'm tired of hearing that Public Square was walkable before its redo....

...I am also tired of hearing Public Square wasn't walkable before it's redo...

 

And I'm tired of hearing that Public Square was walkable before its redo....

 

Like many things on this forum.  That statement is true to each person.  I think the square was walkable and find.  Another forumer may not.  In this situation, there is no definite "right" or "wrong".

Each of us we'll find out how much each of us likes or dislikes the transformation when it is complete. It's hard to determine it from pictures or from it's construction state. There are many places in the world where a pedestrian plaza and a transitway are one in the same. That pedestrian plaza and transitway are designed to separate and unite the north and south halves of the square. We'll see how well it accomplishes that.

...I am also tired of hearing Public Square wasn't walkable before it's redo...

 

And I'm tired of hearing that Public Square was walkable before its redo....

 

I've walked it probably, 2-3000 times in my lifetime?  It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't Great Northern Blvd either....  It was an urban center with lots of transportation going on.....wait at the light, and cross....

There are many places in the world where a pedestrian plaza and a transitway are one in the same. That pedestrian plaza and transitway are designed to separate and unite the north and south halves of the square. We'll see how well it accomplishes that.

 

Do we really want to trust that to an organization that thinks they should have their buses scream at pedestrians that a bus is coming through rather than have their drivers watch when they are making turns?  I imagine they will have their hands on the horns constantly if this is a "shared" space.

If you can find a few hundred thousand dollars in GCRTA's budget to offset the added vehicle-service hours (at $136 per vehicle-service hour) of going around the square, then it doesn't matter to me if the buses don't go through the square anymore.

 

But we can't afford the transit system we have AND run buses around the square. GCRTA runs eight routes each of whose annual cost to provide them roughly equals the cost of GCRTA running all of its Public Square buses around the square. Each route's annual ridership ranges from 32,000 (#21 W.25 - Clark) to 235,000 (#251 Strongsville Park-n-Ride). And I don't want any route to lose service. We've lost too much already.

Not sure why Cleveland was on the list. For a "major transportation infrastructure project" which contains a whole new subway line in NYC, the re-making of Public Square hardly compares. Whether or not the project is a good one is a another matter. In any event the new I-90 innerbelt bridge is certainly a much larger transportation infrastructure project than Public Square.

 

(and, as an aside, I found PS perfectly walkable--I'm not sure I understand why people are saying it wasn't.  Pigeons? People? Crime? I never experienced any crime on the Square and have walked through it hundreds of times.)

If you can find a few hundred thousand dollars in GCRTA's budget to offset the added vehicle-service hours (at $136 per vehicle-service hour) of going around the square, then it doesn't matter to me if the buses don't go through the square anymore.

 

But we can't afford the transit system we have AND run buses around the square. GCRTA runs eight routes each of whose annual cost to provide them roughly equals the cost of GCRTA running all of its Public Square buses around the square. Each route's annual ridership ranges from 32,000 (#21 W.25 - Clark) to 235,000 (#251 Strongsville Park-n-Ride). And I don't want any route to lose service. We've lost too much already.

 

 

i would be interested to see actual time comparison figures of going around the square and what cutting through entails. i don't see it adding additional hours. With the budget expanded by over 18 million dollars monies could gave been spent to eliminate the buses cutting through. The same argument about additional time and gas money could be argued for each car that has to use the new route configuration.

similarly...has the fact that buses...which will be in the far right lane will have to get to the center lane to go straight so that they are not going straight while lanes to the left of the bus lane will be turning right. Will there be a bus only light? will buses have to get over a lane or two? that will add time too

This will add some major vibrance to public square:

http://x.lnimg.com/attachments/ACE728FF-DE0F-449D-9AA6-469C8845F0BF.pdf

 

The Renaissance's retail slots include five street-facing storefronts.

If you can find a few hundred thousand dollars in GCRTA's budget to offset the added vehicle-service hours (at $136 per vehicle-service hour) of going around the square, then it doesn't matter to me if the buses don't go through the square anymore.

 

But we can't afford the transit system we have AND run buses around the square. GCRTA runs eight routes each of whose annual cost to provide them roughly equals the cost of GCRTA running all of its Public Square buses around the square. Each route's annual ridership ranges from 32,000 (#21 W.25 - Clark) to 235,000 (#251 Strongsville Park-n-Ride). And I don't want any route to lose service. We've lost too much already.

 

How much time do the buses spend idling right around the corner from the square, or on the square?  I don't believe for a second this would cost RTA any real money.  If it does, take it from the budget for obnoxious exterior pedestrian-shooing speakers.

You have a pre-conceived notion about the buses based on false assumptions. Only you can resolve that.

...I am also tired of hearing Public Square wasn't walkable before it's redo...

 

And I'm tired of hearing that Public Square was walkable before its redo....

 

As someone who walks from the Warehouse District to E4th, Playhouse Square, etc, I can vouch that the square is way more walkable now than in its prior configuration. I usually don't have to stop to cross the stub ends of Ontario and Superior now as traffic has been reduced, so it saves me some time.

You have a pre-conceived notion about the buses based on false assumptions. Only you can resolve that.

 

I have a well-conceived notion about buses based on years of experience dealing with them as a pedestrian and bicyclist.  I don't think they can coexist in a "shared" space with either.

FWIW, I heard the added costsfor Public Square's reconstruction were due to a lack of foresight in needing "electric and other utilities" on the Square to perform shows and host other events... Considering how basic this need would be, and the fact that they redid all the utilities in the beginning of the project, I can't believe that's the true source of costs. That being said, it was a highly reliable source.  :wtf:

 

As a downtown resident who walks to work and has an office window overlooking Public Square, I can definitely say the buses take longer moving around the Square than they did through the Square. There is a lot of idling waiting for pedestrians to cross Ontario, which often results in further held up traffic for buses, cars, and pedestrians. It seems the buses really only have a chance to turn for a 4 second window or so, and when they do, they do it with no regard for human life, or the drivers just open their window and berate the passengers.

 

I'm not a trained traffic engineer, but I feel like a simple change to the traffic light would solve this for all three parties. C'est la vie.

quote from Land-Studio

 

"The budget at $32M was the first reported budget, before the Guaranteed Maximum Price ($34.7) was determined. It was based on estimates, while the GMP was based on actual pricing. The price tag of $50M represents the work that the utilities companies have done below Public Square.

 

We are hopeful that the State will support the project. We expect to hear very soon."

 

I still believe this project's cost was grossly inaccurate. The utilities necessary for reconstruction should had always been included in total cost.  Even the GMP should have been figured before shovel hit the dirt  Every budget I have ever done has a contingency fund and that is the GMP not oops we overspent.  Cuts should have been made

 

quote from Land-Studio

 

"The budget at $32M was the first reported budget, before the Guaranteed Maximum Price ($34.7) was determined. It was based on estimates, while the GMP was based on actual pricing. The price tag of $50M represents the work that the utilities companies have done below Public Square.

 

We are hopeful that the State will support the project. We expect to hear very soon."

 

I still believe this project's cost was grossly inaccurate. The utilities necessary for reconstruction should had always been included in total cost.  Even the GMP should have been figured before shovel hit the dirt  Every budget I have ever done has a contingency fund and that is the GMP not oops we overspent.  Cuts should have been made

 

 

Why is this such a big deal to you? You are the only one flogging this horse. Anyway, what cuts do you suggest should have been made?

 

I have a well-conceived notion about buses based on years of experience dealing with them as a pedestrian and bicyclist.  I don't think they can coexist in a "shared" space with either.

 

Fine, then come up with the funding to resolve it. It doesn't matter to me where the buses go as long as we pay for it. I'm talking about the costs, etc. that you dismiss without foundation. Dozens of buses per hour would have to travel around the square, including making more dangerous turns that trigger your beloved "Caution -- pedestrians-- bus is turning" announcements. Having so many buses incur additional travel time adds up quickly, incurring substantial additional labor costs plus other, lesser costs that figure into GCRTA's $136 per hour cost of operating a bus. Some buses do have to lay-over (aka idle) on some downtown streets between runs (as they do at the outbound end of their trips) as a built-in recovery time in the schedule to absorb reasonable delays. Decreasing the lay-over time would result in service delays, missed connections for passengers, and be potentially self-defeating.

 

EDIT: I don't think people realize that GCRTA has so little wiggle room in it's budget. I get tired of decision-makers acting as if GCRTA has leeway in their budget to react to their whims, be it to businesses relocating beyond the transit system and expecting GCRTA to provide more service to get their workers there, or to reroute hundreds of buses per day to a much more congested roadway around the perimeter of Public Square. If you want something that's more expensive to provide, then find a way to pay for it.

KJP, do you know if there is a plan for the right-turning cars in the left lanes and straight-going cars in the right lanes?

KJP, do you know if there is a plan for the right-turning cars in the left lanes and straight-going cars in the right lanes?

 

I don't follow. Please explain.

^This may be off-topic or in the wrong thread (presumably it would fit better in transportation or the Weston thread), but KJP, would putting a "West Side Transit Center" in the WHD or across from Quicken Loans and rerouting buses up St. Clair or something contribute to cost savings (or costs)?

buses will be in the right most lane to be at the bus stop while cars will be in the middle lanes. cars have to turn right around the square, crossing the path of the buses that need to go straight. in the same way that a car turning right over a bike lane can become problematic.

^ I would assume busses slated to go straight thru Public Square would have their respective stops located so that they will not be in the curb lane at that time.

Ah, now I see. I don't know if this is under consideration but how hard could it be to add it? Part of the traffic congestion involving the perimeter roadway is that there is no segregation of traffic vis-a-vis buses/cars. One potential issue is that all buses load from the right side, so that means having a bus-only along the right-side curb. But when traffic enters the SE quadrant of the square, the Healthline buses must move to the left lane to enter the bus-only lanes on Euclid to serve the stations in the roadway's median. Without signal preemption, that crossover move causes congestion.

 

^This may be off-topic or in the wrong thread (presumably it would fit better in transportation or the Weston thread), but KJP, would putting a "West Side Transit Center" in the WHD or across from Quicken Loans and rerouting buses up St. Clair or something contribute to cost savings (or costs)?

 

It could, especially if buses coming up Ontario turned left on Prospect to go to a West Side Transit Center (WSTC) rather than go into Public Square. In the 1990s, the original plan of having a WSTC in concert with the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Transit Center (STJ--the east-side transit center) was to have west-side buses serve the WSTC and run through downtown on bus-only lanes on Superior Avenue, then turn south on one-way pairs of East 17th/East 18th to the STJ where they would turn back west again. East-side/south-side buses would serve the STJ and then run through downtown on East 17th/18th and Superior to the WSTC where they would return to the east/south sides. The goal was to have a high-frequency bus corridor within downtown where passengers wouldn't have to wait more than a couple of minutes for the next bus. But that assumed running through Public Square and the Superior-East 17th/18th transit corridor idea, however admirable, has faded with GCRTA's more pressing state-of-good repair needs. The alternative could be to divert more buses to run through downtown on Prospect instead. However Prospect is more narrow than Superior and may not offer enough room for bus-only lanes.

quote from Land-Studio

 

"The budget at $32M was the first reported budget, before the Guaranteed Maximum Price ($34.7) was determined. It was based on estimates, while the GMP was based on actual pricing. The price tag of $50M represents the work that the utilities companies have done below Public Square.

 

We are hopeful that the State will support the project. We expect to hear very soon."

 

I still believe this project's cost was grossly inaccurate. The utilities necessary for reconstruction should had always been included in total cost.  Even the GMP should have been figured before shovel hit the dirt  Every budget I have ever done has a contingency fund and that is the GMP not oops we overspent.  Cuts should have been made

 

 

Why is this such a big deal to you? You are the only one flogging this horse. Anyway, what cuts do you suggest should have been made?

 

Because I actually care that a set budget was given and politicians and organizations act as if they do not need to be held to a number.  They could have cut back on the scale/design of the cafe since this design was not finalized before construction began.  I would have set strict guidelines for the price and I would have eliminated the art element on the backside since this is an additional element Land-Studio imposed onto the layout. I also would choose less expensive tables and chairs for the cafe since this is one item that is considered a cost overrun. I am allowed to question a budget that has grown from what has been presented. Wouldn't you question your contractor if there cost grew by not telling you what was involved to make the design a reality?

They could have cut back on the scale/design of the cafe since this design was not finalized before construction began. 

 

It doesn't seem rational to cut back on the one revenue generating aspect of the project.

IMHO The exterior finish could have been cheaper and the art on the back wasn't necessary. I am not saying to eliminate the cafe at all. I am saying choices were made to spend more than they budgeted .  It is hard to say what the other additional costs were because they are vague in what those elements are.  Seating was mentioned and the only additions/adjustments since the budget was approved were the revised cafe design and the addition of the curated public art install.  None of this additional money is for programming and maintenance which will still need a cost.  Lastly,the cafe is not the only revenue feature on Public Square. The planned ice skating rink during winter months and The Soldiers and Sailors Monument still remain.

 

"Of the $5 million increase, $2.7 million is a contingency to cover the potential need to accelerate work to compensate for bad weather or other conditions, and to cover the cost of increased seating for the square's new outdoor café and other design elements" Paris and Deb Janik statement

quote from Land-Studio

 

"The budget at $32M was the first reported budget, before the Guaranteed Maximum Price ($34.7) was determined. It was based on estimates, while the GMP was based on actual pricing. The price tag of $50M represents the work that the utilities companies have done below Public Square.

 

We are hopeful that the State will support the project. We expect to hear very soon."

 

I still believe this project's cost was grossly inaccurate. The utilities necessary for reconstruction should had always been included in total cost.  Even the GMP should have been figured before shovel hit the dirt  Every budget I have ever done has a contingency fund and that is the GMP not oops we overspent.  Cuts should have been made

 

 

Why is this such a big deal to you? You are the only one flogging this horse. Anyway, what cuts do you suggest should have been made?

 

Because I actually care that a set budget was given and politicians and organizations act as if they do not need to be held to a number.  They could have cut back on the scale/design of the cafe since this design was not finalized before construction began.  I would have set strict guidelines for the price and I would have eliminated the art element on the backside since this is an additional element Land-Studio imposed onto the layout. I also would choose less expensive tables and chairs for the cafe since this is one item that is considered a cost overrun. I am allowed to question a budget that has grown from what has been presented. Wouldn't you question your contractor if there cost grew by not telling you what was involved to make the design a reality?

 

So, out of a $35-50 million project, you want to save money by using a cheaper matierial to build the cafe and you want to buy fewer chairs, and get rid of art, thereby saving not much money at all. Interesting plan.

 

It's pointless to get worked up about it now because it's happening. The benefits of this park for the surrounding area, and the likelihood that this project will spur other projects around Public Square far outweigh any costs of the renovation itself.

quote from Land-Studio

 

"The budget at $32M was the first reported budget, before the Guaranteed Maximum Price ($34.7) was determined. It was based on estimates, while the GMP was based on actual pricing. The price tag of $50M represents the work that the utilities companies have done below Public Square.

 

We are hopeful that the State will support the project. We expect to hear very soon."

 

I still believe this project's cost was grossly inaccurate. The utilities necessary for reconstruction should had always been included in total cost.  Even the GMP should have been figured before shovel hit the dirt  Every budget I have ever done has a contingency fund and that is the GMP not oops we overspent.  Cuts should have been made

 

 

Why is this such a big deal to you? You are the only one flogging this horse. Anyway, what cuts do you suggest should have been made?

 

Because I actually care that a set budget was given and politicians and organizations act as if they do not need to be held to a number.  They could have cut back on the scale/design of the cafe since this design was not finalized before construction began.  I would have set strict guidelines for the price and I would have eliminated the art element on the backside since this is an additional element Land-Studio imposed onto the layout. I also would choose less expensive tables and chairs for the cafe since this is one item that is considered a cost overrun. I am allowed to question a budget that has grown from what has been presented. Wouldn't you question your contractor if there cost grew by not telling you what was involved to make the design a reality?

 

So, out of a $35-50 million project, you want to save money by using a cheaper matierial to build the cafe and you want to buy fewer chairs, and get rid of art, thereby saving not much money at all. Interesting plan.

 

It's pointless to get worked up about it now because it's happening. The benefits of this park for the surrounding area, and the likelihood that this project will spur other projects around Public Square far outweigh any costs of the renovation itself.

 

You miss the point completely. Budgets obviously aren't your strong point,

Sounds like he gets budgets to me. The scale of the building/furniture is tiny. Your suggestions would make almost zero difference.

 

On top of that more chairs = more places for people to sit who are spending money at the only revenue-generating element of the new square. Seems like a bad plan to reduce capacity for making money.

 

The public art is likely not going to cost much of anything. It's likely that those who display will be doing so to get their name out, not for money.

 

Using cheaper building materials is not a cost-saving measure. Any architect, myself included, will tell you how bad of a plan that is. You might save a few grand here and there on construction but in the longterm you'll more than make up that cost saving in increased maintenance needs, shorter building lifespan, etc.

Using cheaper building materials is not a cost-saving measure. Any architect, myself included, will tell you how bad of a plan that is. You might save a few grand here and there on construction but in the longterm you'll more than make up that cost saving in increased maintenance needs, shorter building lifespan, etc.

 

Case in point is DAAP at the University of Cincinnati, which you're familiar with jmicha. Cutting back on materials on a big project will come back to haunt you.

Sounds like he gets budgets to me. The scale of the building/furniture is tiny. Your suggestions would make almost zero difference.

 

On top of that more chairs = more places for people to sit who are spending money at the only revenue-generating element of the new square. Seems like a bad plan to reduce capacity for making money.

 

The public art is likely not going to cost much of anything. It's likely that those who display will be doing so to get their name out, not for money.

 

Using cheaper building materials is not a cost-saving measure. Any architect, myself included, will tell you how bad of a plan that is. You might save a few grand here and there on construction but in the longterm you'll more than make up that cost saving in increased maintenance needs, shorter building lifespan, etc.

 

Exactly.

I don't think anyone suggested cheaper building materials.  And I haven't seen the art budget for this specifically, but I've seen large ones for similar projects.  It's worth looking into if costs are a problem.  And they are at this point, aren't they?  I mean, 35 to 50 is quite a big range.  I'm not sure that even counts as a budget. 

Sounds like he gets budgets to me. The scale of the building/furniture is tiny. Your suggestions would make almost zero difference.

 

On top of that more chairs = more places for people to sit who are spending money at the only revenue-generating element of the new square. Seems like a bad plan to reduce capacity for making money.

 

The public art is likely not going to cost much of anything. It's likely that those who display will be doing so to get their name out, not for money.

 

Using cheaper building materials is not a cost-saving measure. Any architect, myself included, will tell you how bad of a plan that is. You might save a few grand here and there on construction but in the longterm you'll more than make up that cost saving in increased maintenance needs, shorter building lifespan, etc.

 

if you didn't have the extra money for the design initially where would you suggest monies or cuts come from?  Design projects with a set budget should not  add elements that aren't affordable. Again the cafe/seating is not the only revenue generating source .The planned ice rink and Soldiers and Sailors Monument both create revenue. 

 

I am not against this reconstruction. All the elements should have had been set before construction began and the budget was presented costs. I was asked what I would cut to bring the budget back on course so those were options that ran the cost over the allotment. I don believe The State needs to make up the shortfall. What would you cut if you had to bring the budget back to its original cost? Maybe Jeff Applebaum should have been hired since every one of his projects he has watched over has come on or under budget. 

^I heard the ice rink is being removed and Soldiers and Sailors is free, how is that revenue generating?

 

If the overrun costs were due to initial oversight in placing utilities and were discovered after construction had already started, I don't see how going back to the drawing would save costs. We'd end up spending more designing a new "lower cost" plan than we would just sucking up the added costs. Then again, that's all based on my very ignorant perceptions of the projects costs.

 

^I heard the ice rink is being removed and Soldiers and Sailors is free, how is that revenue generating?

 

If the overrun costs were due to initial oversight in placing utilities and were discovered after construction had already started, I don't see how going back to the drawing would save costs. We'd end up spending more designing a new "lower cost" plan than we would just sucking up the added costs. Then again, that's all based on my very ignorant perceptions of the projects costs.

When did you hear about the ice rink being removed? Does this mean the entire water feature is being removed?

A little hard to tell from the web cam, but it looks like Tom L. Johnson and Moses Cleaveland have recently been installed in their new spots.

A little hard to tell from the web cam, but it looks like Tom L. Johnson and Moses Cleaveland have recently been installed in their new spots.

 

I definitely saw Johsnon in his new spot when I drove by last night.