Cracking Art did an entire installation of giant red snails in New York City. Four of them were in Columbus Circle. Two of them were in Central Park. They were huge hits.

 

During Artbasel, Cracking Art put 45 snails across Miami. Again, it was a huge hit. It was so popular, Cracking Art came back a few years later and lined an entire bridge with their sculptures with a giant crocodile at the bottom of it.

 

This is a big get for the city of Cleveland and it will make noise in the art world. Plenty of people mocked the giant rubber duck in Pittsburgh. Then the crowds came. The duck did its job and brought out all kinds of emotions in people and they came from all over to get a glimpse. I have no doubt this installation will do the same in Cleveland. We should be thankful our city is being spotlighted right up there with NYC and Milan.

I love public art and appreciate it's value, but do not think this fits on Public Square.  This is the civic center and heart of our city.  I personally don't feel this art, or the square renovation itself, speaks to this.  Maybe they are trying to convince suburbanites to move in (which I am all for).  But there are better ways to go about that.

I still don't get that argument at all. Nothing is suburban about Public Square.

 

I'm curious how you feel that you know more about whether a space is urban or not than one of the world's most renowned landscape urbanists to have ever lived. We are in good hands with James Corner. Thinking that this is a suburban design or pandering to suburbanite desires is silly.

Cracking Art did an entire installation of giant red snails in New York City. Four of them were in Columbus Circle. Two of them were in Central Park. They were huge hits.

 

During Artbasel, Cracking Art put 45 snails across Miami. Again, it was a huge hit. It was so popular, Cracking Art came back a few years later and lined an entire bridge with their sculptures with a giant crocodile at the bottom of it.

 

This is a big get for the city of Cleveland and it will make noise in the art world. Plenty of people mocked the giant rubber duck in Pittsburgh. Then the crowds came. The duck did its job and brought out all kinds of emotions in people and they came from all over to get a glimpse. I have no doubt this installation will do the same in Cleveland. We should be thankful our city is being spotlighted right up there with NYC and Milan.

 

Thanks for that Mwd711, that's good to know.  Looking forward to seeing its impact on Cleveland. 

This art just made me hate this project even more.  I want to see Public Square of 1910.  A bustling hub for transit and commerce in the middle of our city. 

Not a "Playplace" next to the food court in the mall.  Blahhhhh!

 

Unfortunately, the 1910 version of Cleveland is not the 2016 version.

 

The only difference is population and jobs.  I'd rather work on those problems than trying to make a suburban park in the middle of the city.

 

Those are huge differences, population and jobs, and you can't have one without the other.  The fact that downtown Cleveland is on a road-diet, for example closing off the square for cross-traffic is another indication that Cleveland 2016 is not Cleveland 1910.  The city needs to adapt to present day reality and my only issue with the redesign is that Superior Avenue still cuts through the Square; the redesign looks great and Corner is the best urban designer today.

 

Cleveland is in the process of reintroducing itself to area residents as well as to the nation and world generally with all eyes on Cleveland this summer in particular (RNC and hopefully a Cavs finals series with a Cavs victory (optimistic)).  I think this project will be great for Cleveland in the short and long-term.  Drawing people and families downtown to enjoy public spaces will only help with the city's otherwise lackluster reputation and assist in building the groundwork for jobs and population.

Well said PHS14. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Cinci's pig thing was the same as Cleveland's guitar thing and every other city's cow/other animal thing.

 

Actually the big pig gig was among the first of its kind of that type of installation (1999), and its success inspired many other cities to replicate the effort, often much less successfully. Cleveland's guitars, for example, didn't occur til 2012. For this type of public art (read: non-mural) to 'work', it has to be innovative and executed well. I don't think this particular installation will be disastrous for Cleveland or anything like that, but I don't think it's an innovative concept, and I think it could end up looking pretty tacky. Find something new and fresh- that's what gets people talking.

 

I'm not exactly sure when the guitars first popped up, but I'm positive it was way before 2012 since I have photos of my toddler daughter with them and she was born in 2003.

This art just made me hate this project even more.  I want to see Public Square of 1910.  A bustling hub for transit and commerce in the middle of our city. 

Not a "Playplace" next to the food court in the mall.  Blahhhhh!

 

Unfortunately, the 1910 version of Cleveland is not the 2016 version.

 

The only difference is population and jobs.  I'd rather work on those problems than trying to make a suburban park in the middle of the city.

 

Those are huge differences, population and jobs, and you can't have one without the other.  The fact that downtown Cleveland is on a road-diet, for example closing off the square for cross-traffic is another indication that Cleveland 2016 is not Cleveland 1910.  The city needs to adapt to present day reality and my only issue with the redesign is that Superior Avenue still cuts through the Square; the redesign looks great and Corner is the best urban designer today.

 

Cleveland is in the process of reintroducing itself to area residents as well as to the nation and world generally with all eyes on Cleveland this summer in particular (RNC and hopefully a Cavs finals series with a Cavs victory (optimistic)).  I think this project will be great for Cleveland in the short and long-term.  Drawing people and families downtown to enjoy public spaces will only help with the city's otherwise lackluster reputation and assist in building the groundwork for jobs and population.

 

Couldn't much of these statements be the same for The Malls renovation once the convention center was redesigned. Promises that citizens would come and use this area as our version of a park for all.  I look forward to seeing Public Square in how it is used and saddened that the Malls have taken a back seat in development . The two area should work in tandem

Since  it begins the health line route I always associate the shape with the fingertip bandage

Couldn't much of these statements be the same for The Malls renovation once the convention center was redesigned. Promises that citizens would come and use this area as our version of a park for all.  I look forward to seeing Public Square in how it is used and saddened that the Malls have taken a back seat in development . The two area should work in tandem

 

The problem with the malls is there's really not much to do there and there's not a lot of other attractions in the immediate vicinity. Attractions that would generate activity themselves and get people walking through the malls. Sitting at a bench or looking at the lake is nice, but then what?

 

In other words if the malls were a full fledged park and not just a glorified field with some great views and landscaping, residents would have more reason to go.

There's always talk of people "enjoying the greenspace" but it's never clear what that means. 

That and the malls are gigantic. They're 70% larger than the entirety of Public Square and have very few uses along them that create any sort of pedestrian activity. That and it doesn't help that many of the old buildings on the Mall don't have their primary entrance from the Mall. So people using those buildings enter on the opposite side of the building, further reducing any chance of pedestrian activity.

 

Then on top of that the actual design of the Mall is one which is basically just a gigantic field. No cafe, no transit included, no attractions, etc. All the things that draw a person to a public space don't really exist on the mall. So it's not surprising at all that people really don't use it. There's nothing to use it for.

This is a park. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. If the idea behind this is that it will turn the lackluster economy of Cleveland around, I just don't see it. There are more concrete ways to make Cleveland attractive to businesses that aren't being done. The new PS can't even move the needle on the Jacobs lot, which some on here thought was a given once this park approached completion. I'm still very skeptical of the transformative nature of the new PS. It just feels like Cleveland is, yet again, throwing away a piece of it's history.

How so? What was historic about the old configuration? Almost everything had been renovated away long ago. Other than the Soliders and Sailors, what aspect of the old setup was actually historic?

 

Public spaces are absolutely transformative. It's a proven way of infusing new life to an area. It just needs to be high quality design and construction to work. Which the new Public Square absolutely is. I'm going to use Cincinnati again as an example of how positive the renovation of a public space can be. Look at Fountain Square and Washington Park. Both were underutilized with Washington Park being a craphole that nobody went in other than drug dealers and junkies. Not even the cops would go in. Now look at it. It's the center of the neighborhood with use by all ages, races, income levels, etc. It's one of the most diverse settings in the city and just a few years ago it was essentially given up on. Parks very much have the ability to wildly change the economic stature of the surrounding area.

 

There are so many examples of this exact type of project occurring in other cities with amazing results that it baffles me that people are still skeptical of the benefit of the main public space in the city getting a makeover by the most competent landscape ubanist alive. We're in exceptionally good hands and one only has to go as far as looking at Corner's other work to see the transformative effect it had on the cities he has worked in.

The proposed art is extremely tacky and very cheap looking!  It does not do the new park justice.

How so? What was historic about the old configuration? Almost everything had been renovated away long ago. Other than the Soliders and Sailors, what aspect of the old setup was actually historic?

 

Public spaces are absolutely transformative. It's a proven way of infusing new life to an area. It just needs to be high quality design and construction to work. Which the new Public Square absolutely is. I'm going to use Cincinnati again as an example of how positive the renovation of a public space can be. Look at Fountain Square and Washington Park. Both were underutilized with Washington Park being a craphole that nobody went in other than drug dealers and junkies. Not even the cops would go in. Now look at it. It's the center of the neighborhood with use by all ages, races, income levels, etc. It's one of the most diverse settings in the city and just a few years ago it was essentially given up on. Parks very much have the ability to wildly change the economic stature of the surrounding area.

 

There are so many examples of this exact type of project occurring in other cities with amazing results that it baffles me that people are still skeptical of the benefit of the main public space in the city getting a makeover by the most competent landscape ubanist alive. We're in exceptionally good hands and one only has to go as far as looking at Corner's other work to see the transformative effect it had on the cities he has worked in.

 

Right, I know it's not the pasture of 1810 but it's being changed beyond all recognition from when Cleveland was truly urban in the early 20th century.

 

As for Cincy, all this transformative growth from these public spaces and Cincinnati is still at in the bottom third of metros in population and job growth. Sure it gentrifies local neighborhoods but that doesn't mean it will move the needle of a regional economy.

 

That being said, this is about construction updates, so I'm going to leave it here. If there is a positive for me, it may gets the Jacobs surface lot developed. We'll see.

Cincinnati has turned a population loss around and is now gaining population with the core growing around 9% in population annually for several years in a row. A big part of that is the attractiveness of living there which requires great public space. You can't have family growth in the core of a city without well designed public space. Turning a 6 decade decline in population around by making the city more appealing is no small task and nothing to brush off.

 

Why does Public Square needs to be at all similar to what it was during the 20th Century? You and others keep using the word "urban" as if this new space isn't. Which is flat out wrong. Hence my confusion. The life of 2016 urban America is exceptionally different than when Public Square was built and it should reflect that. It's not "less urban" it's just different. People have more free time. They have more spending money and the ability to go to events. They desire outdoor events. These are things that the old Public Square wasn't setup for. So it wasn't going to ever function properly for the needs of Cleveland now. This new space will. And is intensely urban in its configuration.

How so? What was historic about the old configuration? Almost everything had been renovated away long ago. Other than the Soliders and Sailors, what aspect of the old setup was actually historic?

 

Public spaces are absolutely transformative. It's a proven way of infusing new life to an area. It just needs to be high quality design and construction to work. Which the new Public Square absolutely is. I'm going to use Cincinnati again as an example of how positive the renovation of a public space can be. Look at Fountain Square and Washington Park. Both were underutilized with Washington Park being a craphole that nobody went in other than drug dealers and junkies. Not even the cops would go in. Now look at it. It's the center of the neighborhood with use by all ages, races, income levels, etc. It's one of the most diverse settings in the city and just a few years ago it was essentially given up on. Parks very much have the ability to wildly change the economic stature of the surrounding area.

 

There are so many examples of this exact type of project occurring in other cities with amazing results that it baffles me that people are still skeptical of the benefit of the main public space in the city getting a makeover by the most competent landscape ubanist alive. We're in exceptionally good hands and one only has to go as far as looking at Corner's other work to see the transformative effect it had on the cities he has worked in.

 

Right, I know it's not the pasture of 1810 but it's being changed beyond all recognition from when Cleveland was truly urban in the early 20th century.

 

As for Cincy, all this transformative growth from these public spaces and Cincinnati is still at in the bottom third of metros in population and job growth. Sure it gentrifies local neighborhoods but that doesn't mean it will move the needle on a regional economy.

 

That's kind of a ridiculous standard to hold a project to. There's a lot that goes into city and regional population and job growth, and to expect one or two projects to suddenly shift the underlying health of the community is naive.

 

That said, Cincinnati actually is growing again after years of declines, up through the 2000s. In fact, the city didn't really start to show improved population numbers until after Fountain Square and Washington Park were overhauled. The metro has always maintained a trajectory of growth, and now the city is back to growing again, too. Something that would, of course, be cause for celebration in Cle and Northeast Ohio. Obviously the growth here was not caused by Fountain Square and Washigton Park's renovations, but at least there is some correlation.

Exactly. Public space is one aspect of a much larger puzzle, but a very important one. Cincinnati has invested hundreds of millions into its most critical public spaces (Fountain Square, Smale Riverfont Park, Washington Park, the upcoming Ziegler Park, Sawyer Point, Yeatman's Cove, etc.) which have been a very critical part of the "back to the city" movement here. They have created a series of exceptionally well received parks, plazas, etc. that can hold a plethora of activities from the smallest scale of reading a book to the largest scale of hosting entire music festivals.

 

A strong core is most crucial to a strong city. That much is known at this point in time. And you can't have a strong core without strong public spaces. This holds true in basically every city.

Oops

How so? What was historic about the old configuration? Almost everything had been renovated away long ago. Other than the Soliders and Sailors, what aspect of the old setup was actually historic?

 

Public spaces are absolutely transformative. It's a proven way of infusing new life to an area. It just needs to be high quality design and construction to work. Which the new Public Square absolutely is. I'm going to use Cincinnati again as an example of how positive the renovation of a public space can be. Look at Fountain Square and Washington Park. Both were underutilized with Washington Park being a craphole that nobody went in other than drug dealers and junkies. Not even the cops would go in. Now look at it. It's the center of the neighborhood with use by all ages, races, income levels, etc. It's one of the most diverse settings in the city and just a few years ago it was essentially given up on. Parks very much have the ability to wildly change the economic stature of the surrounding area.

 

There are so many examples of this exact type of project occurring in other cities with amazing results that it baffles me that people are still skeptical of the benefit of the main public space in the city getting a makeover by the most competent landscape ubanist alive. We're in exceptionally good hands and one only has to go as far as looking at Corner's other work to see the transformative effect it had on the cities he has worked in.

 

Right, I know it's not the pasture of 1810 but it's being changed beyond all recognition from when Cleveland was truly urban in the early 20th century.

 

As for Cincy, all this transformative growth from these public spaces and Cincinnati is still at in the bottom third of metros in population and job growth. Sure it gentrifies local neighborhoods but that doesn't mean it will move the needle on a regional economy.

 

That's kind of a ridiculous standard to hold a project to. There's a lot that goes into city and regional population and job growth, and to expect one or two projects to suddenly shift the underlying health of the community is naive.

 

That said, Cincinnati actually is growing again after years of declines, up through the 2000s. In fact, the city didn't really start to show improved population numbers until after Fountain Square and Washington Park were overhauled. The metro has always maintained a trajectory of growth, and now the city is back to growing again, too. Something that would, of course, be cause for celebration in Cle and Northeast Ohio. Obviously the growth here was not caused by Fountain Square and Washigton Park's renovations, but at least there is some correlation.

 

Instead of instantly arguing that I made a statement of PS being a launch pad for job and economic growth know that I was commenting to what was already posted upthread.

 

Cincinnati is growing. But the area's rate of growth hasn't really launched it ahead of any other metro areas that is was behind 20 or even 40 years ago. Most other cities are seeing the urban transformation of the last decade too but there really hasn't been a fundamental change to what areas are growing faster than others.

From 2000-2010 Cincinnati lost 10.4% of its population. If current trends continue it will have gained around 1-1.2% population between 2010-2020. That's a change in direction of 11.4-11.6%. It just doesn't look like much because it appears to be a small number, but that's a huge turnaround over the course of a decade.

 

I don't think edale was arguing, he was also critiquing your statements which aren't backed in much precedent.

 

You mention "most cities" which is interesting because public space reconstruction has been a gigantic part of the urban renaissance nationwide. It is a huge aspect of the back to the city movement everywhere.

From 2000-2010 Cincinnati lost 10.4% of its population. If current trends continue it will have gained around 1-1.2% population between 2010-2020. That's a change in direction of 11.4-11.6%. It just doesn't look like much because it appears to be a small number, but that's a huge turnaround over the course of a decade.

 

I don't think edale was arguing, he was also critiquing your statements which aren't backed in much precedent.

 

You mention "most cities" which is interesting because public space reconstruction has been a gigantic part of the urban renaissance nationwide. It is a huge aspect of the back to the city movement everywhere.

 

Right, I think we should keep this on construction updates. :)

The boarded-up windows looming overhead are distinctly urban, and no one will be enthralled enough to miss that. 

 

Cart before the horse.  What Public Square really needed was the Medical Mart treatment, i.e. no expense spared to bring in retailers.  We built it new and we're paying people to occupy it.  The May Co building was already there, with a history as a major draw, and it just needed some work.  No, it didn't get the tax credits.  But so much local money has been spent within a stone's throw of it.  Now plastic animals... and nobody can put windows in that thing?  It's right there. 

Unfortunately, the 1910 version of Cleveland is not the 2016 version.

The only difference is population and jobs.

 

Really? Have car ownership rates and attitudes towards public transportation not changed since 1910? How about construction of the highway system or population sprawl? There's a lot of reasons Public Square needs to adapt with the times.

The boarded-up windows looming overhead are distinctly urban, and no one will be enthralled enough to miss that. 

 

Cart before the horse.  What Public Square really needed was the Medical Mart treatment, i.e. no expense spared to bring in retailers.  We built it new and we're paying people to occupy it.  The May Co building was already there, with a history as a major draw, and it just needed some work.  No, it didn't get the tax credits.  But so much local money has been spent within a stone's throw of it.  Now plastic animals... and nobody can put windows in that thing?  It's right there. 

 

Same holds true with the Jacobs lot. Not suggesting a major development if there is no demand but some pop-up container retail or something facing the square instead of that wonderful view of surface parking.

where was the preservation community when this plan was first discussed? I can't believe there wasn't more protest over this complete makeover of a 200+ year old town square in the very heart of a city. While the new configuration is more user friendly and not entirely unattractive, it wipes away any historic context and is highly inappropriate for the location. It would be like re-doing the Mall in Washington or Jackson Square in New Orleans in a similar manner.

where was the preservation community when this plan was first discussed? I can't believe there wasn't more protest over this complete makeover of a 200+ year old town square in the very heart of a city. While the new configuration is more user friendly and not entirely unattractive, it wipes away any historic context and is highly inappropriate for the location. It would be like re-doing the Mall in Washington or Jackson Square in New Orleans in a similar manner.

 

What historic context? The square had been renovated a number of times over its 200 year history. It's not the same as re-doing the Mall or Jackson Square. Both of those spaces are valued public gathering areas and provide a lot of benefit to the city. Public Square, in its old form, did not. And don't forget, the Mall in DC was completely overhauled in the early 20th century, so just because something has been a certain way for a long time does not mean there is intrinsic value in the status quo.

I can't wait to have my first beer at that cafe sometime this summer.

where was the preservation community when this plan was first discussed? I can't believe there wasn't more protest over this complete makeover of a 200+ year old town square in the very heart of a city. While the new configuration is more user friendly and not entirely unattractive, it wipes away any historic context and is highly inappropriate for the location. It would be like re-doing the Mall in Washington or Jackson Square in New Orleans in a similar manner.

 

What historic context? The square had been renovated a number of times over its 200 year history. It's not the same as re-doing the Mall or Jackson Square. Both of those spaces are valued public gathering areas and provide a lot of benefit to the city. Public Square, in its old form, did not. And don't forget, the Mall in DC was completely overhauled in the early 20th century, so just because something has been a certain way for a long time does not mean there is intrinsic value in the status quo.

 

Completely agree. The concrete and granite plazas that are being replaced date from the 1980s. Not sure what historic value those had.

That and the malls are gigantic. They're 70% larger than the entirety of Public Square and have very few uses along them that create any sort of pedestrian activity. That and it doesn't help that many of the old buildings on the Mall don't have their primary entrance from the Mall. So people using those buildings enter on the opposite side of the building, further reducing any chance of pedestrian activity.

 

Then on top of that the actual design of the Mall is one which is basically just a gigantic field. No cafe, no transit included, no attractions, etc. All the things that draw a person to a public space don't really exist on the mall. So it's not surprising at all that people really don't use it. There's nothing to use it for.

 

The original Mall Plan, as you know, was designed as an example of the ''City Beautiful'' school over 100 years ago.  The problem with Cleveland's and other cities with this design (San Francisco and a few others) was the creation of dead zones by, at least in Cleveland's case, lining the Mall with government offices that closed at 4:30pm and, as you pointed out, don't front on the Mall.

 

The Hanna Fountains used to attract lunch crowds and a couple of Parties in the Park but these were special events and the off hour foot traffic was thin.

 

The new hotels opening on the Mall should increase day and evening foot traffic.  The Mall is a work in progress and with the Lakefront Pedestrian Bridge going in should only increase the foot traffic flow. 

 

I think Mall A needs a perimeter café and outdoor seating, set back enough to leave the War Memorial open and clear.  An outdoor area at the Drury Hotel would help.

 

Mall B is open and great for special events but one gets the feeling that you don't want to walk on the grass there.  The Senior Games flame fixture should be removed as it mars the open vista.

 

Mall C should get busier with the Hilton opening and the ped bridge and could use some seating/café type of thing.  Food trucks would be cool there on occasion as well.

 

Bottom line on the Malls, Public Square and other such projects is to bring a cohesiveness to downtown Cleveland, something downtown lacked for decades.  A north-south flow from Gateway and Tower City to the lakefront via the Mall on foot.

Another problem is that the city was laid out with the thinking that it would eventually grow to millions of people. Which it never did. The public spaces are just so much larger than they would ever need to be and will ever need to be for any of our lifetimes. But with that being said you can always reduce scale and break the spaces up to feel more crowded, usable, inviting, etc. if you hire highly skilled and creative teams *cough* like James Corner *cough* who know how to do that properly.

 

Public Square is going through that now and hopefully the Mall will eventually have a design that better facilitates use at all hours than it currently does.

Hoping someone can post before and after photos *along w some of the concept drawings, after this thing is all complete.

 

 

Another problem is that the city was laid out with the thinking that it would eventually grow to millions of people. Which it never did. The public spaces are just so much larger than they would ever need to be and will ever need to be for any of our lifetimes. But with that being said you can always reduce scale and break the spaces up to feel more crowded, usable, inviting, etc. if you hire highly skilled and creative teams *cough* like James Corner *cough* who know how to do that properly.

 

Public Square is going through that now and hopefully the Mall will eventually have a design that better facilitates use at all hours than it currently does.

 

The city was also planned for, like many Midwestern cities, the automobile.  There are millions of people, they just live around the city now and don't have the need to go downtown for work, shopping etc on a regular basis.  The post-war era was not kind to Cleveland and many other cities.

 

This, again, is why the Public Square and Mall can be used to attract people, including families, as a reintroduction to the city. 

Another problem is that the city was laid out with the thinking that it would eventually grow to millions of people. Which it never did. The public spaces are just so much larger than they would ever need to be and will ever need to be for any of our lifetimes. But with that being said you can always reduce scale and break the spaces up to feel more crowded, usable, inviting, etc. if you hire highly skilled and creative teams *cough* like James Corner *cough* who know how to do that properly.

 

Public Square is going through that now and hopefully the Mall will eventually have a design that better facilitates use at all hours than it currently does.

 

The city was also planned for, like many Midwestern cities, the automobile.  There are millions of people, they just live around the city now and don't have the need to go downtown for work, shopping etc on a regular basis.  The post-war era was not kind to Cleveland and many other cities.

 

This, again, is why the Public Square and Mall can be used to attract people, including families, as a reintroduction to the city. 

 

Not true.  All large Nineteenth Century/pre-WWI cities like Cleveland, Detroit, KC and others, grew up around transit: mainly streetcars.  In fact, when Public Square was designed, I don't believe there were even any horse cars -- people either walked or traveled by  horse 'n buggy.  Midwestern cites became more car-oriented in the 1950s, but with Cleveland maintaining more of a transit focus than any other, save Chicago -- a fact you don't seem to want to recognize.

Another problem is that the city was laid out with the thinking that it would eventually grow to millions of people. Which it never did. The public spaces are just so much larger than they would ever need to be and will ever need to be for any of our lifetimes. But with that being said you can always reduce scale and break the spaces up to feel more crowded, usable, inviting, etc. if you hire highly skilled and creative teams *cough* like James Corner *cough* who know how to do that properly.

 

Public Square is going through that now and hopefully the Mall will eventually have a design that better facilitates use at all hours than it currently does.

 

 

 

The city was also planned for, like many Midwestern cities, the automobile.  There are millions of people, they just live around the city now and don't have the need to go downtown for work, shopping etc on a regular basis.  The post-war era was not kind to Cleveland and many other cities.

 

This, again, is why the Public Square and Mall can be used to attract people, including families, as a reintroduction to the city. 

 

Not true.  All large Nineteenth Century/pre-WWI cities like Cleveland, Detroit, KC and others, grew up around transit: mainly streetcars.  In fact, when Public Square was designed, I don't believe there were even any horse cars -- people either walked or traveled by  horse 'n buggy.  Midwestern cites became more car-oriented in the 1950s, but with Cleveland maintaining more of a transit focus than any other, save Chicago -- a fact you don't seem to want to recognize.

 

Well of course Public Square was around before automobiles but did you ever notice how wide the streets are in CLE?  CLE wasn't really a large city in the 19th Century and CLE's ''transit focus'' has been trumped by the automobile, a fact you don't seem to want to recognize.

Changing the subject. Now that we are nearing the completion of Public Square, a lot of key factors may soon change the pedestrian activity around all sides. Tower City could be undergoing a transformation with Dan Gilbert's purchase, the Renaissance Hotel will soon undergo a renovation and hopefully it's long vacant street level retail will be reactivated. 200 Public Square is undergoing a renovation and will have street level engagement with the soon to open Ruth Chris steakhouse. To me the wild cards are: 1. The empty lot. 2. The May Co. building. 3. 55 Public Square and the old John Qs steakhouse. Other than that, Key Tower and the Society building aren't changing. I think we're going to see a great increase in activity all around the square. One question: does anyone know the status of 75 Public Squares renovation?  This one seems to have gone silent, unless I missed it. Perhaps Millenia is focused on the Garfield building first. But 75 PS was to include an Italian restaurant from LockKeepers. Another plus. Along with that, the Standard Building is nearby and is undergoing renovation. Perhaps the blank wall facing Public Square will be changed as well. There is a lot of positivity surrounding the upcoming reopening of the square. Let's focus on that! 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One other factor to consider, the Standard building.  Is it still being renovated into apartments?

Another problem is that the city was laid out with the thinking that it would eventually grow to millions of people. Which it never did. The public spaces are just so much larger than they would ever need to be and will ever need to be for any of our lifetimes. But with that being said you can always reduce scale and break the spaces up to feel more crowded, usable, inviting, etc. if you hire highly skilled and creative teams *cough* like James Corner *cough* who know how to do that properly.

 

Public Square is going through that now and hopefully the Mall will eventually have a design that better facilitates use at all hours than it currently does.

 

The city was also planned for, like many Midwestern cities, the automobile.  There are millions of people, they just live around the city now and don't have the need to go downtown for work, shopping etc on a regular basis.  The post-war era was not kind to Cleveland and many other cities.

 

This, again, is why the Public Square and Mall can be used to attract people, including families, as a reintroduction to the city. 

 

Not true.  All large Nineteenth Century/pre-WWI cities like Cleveland, Detroit, KC and others, grew up around transit: mainly streetcars.  In fact, when Public Square was designed, I don't believe there were even any horse cars -- people either walked or traveled by  horse 'n buggy.  Midwestern cites became more car-oriented in the 1950s, but with Cleveland maintaining more of a transit focus than any other, save Chicago -- a fact you don't seem to want to recognize.

 

Well of course Public Square was around before automobiles but did you ever notice how wide the streets are in CLE?  CLE wasn't really a large city in the 19th Century and CLE's ''transit focus'' has been trumped by the automobile, a fact you don't seem to want to recognize.

 

Correct me I'm wrong, but aren't those wide streets a legacy of the transit being referenced by PHS? The roads are wide because they used to have lanes in each direction for horse and buggy, with a streetcar going down the center. These streetcar transit lines have since been paved over (i.e., St. Clair)

Another problem is that the city was laid out with the thinking that it would eventually grow to millions of people. Which it never did. The public spaces are just so much larger than they would ever need to be and will ever need to be for any of our lifetimes. But with that being said you can always reduce scale and break the spaces up to feel more crowded, usable, inviting, etc. if you hire highly skilled and creative teams *cough* like James Corner *cough* who know how to do that properly.

 

Public Square is going through that now and hopefully the Mall will eventually have a design that better facilitates use at all hours than it currently does.

 

The city was also planned for, like many Midwestern cities, the automobile.  There are millions of people, they just live around the city now and don't have the need to go downtown for work, shopping etc on a regular basis.  The post-war era was not kind to Cleveland and many other cities.

 

This, again, is why the Public Square and Mall can be used to attract people, including families, as a reintroduction to the city. 

 

Not true.  All large Nineteenth Century/pre-WWI cities like Cleveland, Detroit, KC and others, grew up around transit: mainly streetcars.  In fact, when Public Square was designed, I don't believe there were even any horse cars -- people either walked or traveled by  horse 'n buggy.  Midwestern cites became more car-oriented in the 1950s, but with Cleveland maintaining more of a transit focus than any other, save Chicago -- a fact you don't seem to want to recognize.

 

Well of course Public Square was around before automobiles but did you ever notice how wide the streets are in CLE?  CLE wasn't really a large city in the 19th Century and CLE's ''transit focus'' has been trumped by the automobile, a fact you don't seem to want to recognize.

 

Correct me I'm wrong, but aren't those wide streets a legacy of the transit being referenced by PHS? The roads are wide because they used to have lanes in each direction for horse and buggy, with a streetcar going down the center. These streetcar transit lines have since been paved over (i.e., St. Clair)

 

I should qualify my statement, Cleveland, at a minimum, post-WWII has been planned around the automobile.  Correct, the streetcars lines were removed for buses and the automobile to dominate.

Well of course Public Square was around before automobiles but did you ever notice how wide the streets are in CLE?  CLE wasn't really a large city in the 19th Century and CLE's ''transit focus'' has been trumped by the automobile, a fact you don't seem to want to recognize.

 

Clevelands wide streets are often attributed to it's heavy use of streetcars in the late 19th/early 20th century, long before autos ruled the roads.

*Group we are almost off topic, lets swing the conversation back to Public Square renovation.

where was the preservation community when this plan was first discussed? I can't believe there wasn't more protest over this complete makeover of a 200+ year old town square in the very heart of a city. While the new configuration is more user friendly and not entirely unattractive, it wipes away any historic context and is highly inappropriate for the location. It would be like re-doing the Mall in Washington or Jackson Square in New Orleans in a similar manner.

 

You make it sound like the S&S Monument is being demolished and the entire PS is being redeveloped with new buildings.  The historical context of four quadrants and wide as hell streets doesn't have to remain just because it has been that way for years.  IIRC, at one time PS was only two sections.  Let's embrace the new and exciting changes to our main public space.  Ok I have continued the off-topic tangent.  Resume construction renovation discussions.

Well of course Public Square was around before automobiles but did you ever notice how wide the streets are in CLE?  CLE wasn't really a large city in the 19th Century and CLE's ''transit focus'' has been trumped by the automobile, a fact you don't seem to want to recognize.

 

Clevelands wide streets are often attributed to it's heavy use of streetcars in the late 19th/early 20th century, long before autos ruled the roads.

 

Regardless, Cleveland is not planned well.

where was the preservation community when this plan was first discussed? I can't believe there wasn't more protest over this complete makeover of a 200+ year old town square in the very heart of a city. While the new configuration is more user friendly and not entirely unattractive, it wipes away any historic context and is highly inappropriate for the location. It would be like re-doing the Mall in Washington or Jackson Square in New Orleans in a similar manner.

 

You make it sound like the S&S Monument is being demolished and the entire PS is being redeveloped with new buildings.  The historical context of four quadrants and wide as hell streets doesn't have to remain just because it has been that way for years.  IIRC, at one time PS was only two sections.  Let's embrace the new and exciting changes to our main public space.  Ok I have continued the off-topic tangent.  Resume construction renovation discussions.

well, no, the design doesn't have to remain as it has been, but the new makeover is so radical that it seems to thoroughly obliterate the original look. Again, the new design looks perfectly fine (especially if it was in another location!) and hopefully will attract many more people who might have avoided Public Square, but there's something to be said (isn't there?) for retaining the stately look of a bygone era. I assume there were other proposals, less extreme, that would have allowed for the original configuration to remain, but I guess that's not what they wanted. Maybe the examples I cited in my original post were not good comparisons (Mall in DC, etc), but imagine any very historic park or square in any city being remade in this fashion--the small, charming squares all over Savannah, Ga. come to mind; or Union Square in New York. After years of neglect, and having become a no-man's-land infested with drug dealers, the latter was in fact slightly redesigned years ago and is now, if anything, too popular, but something so radically different was not necessary for it to once again attract crowds of people.

^Do you think Washington Square park would be better if 5th Avenue still ran through it?

where was the preservation community when this plan was first discussed? I can't believe there wasn't more protest over this complete makeover of a 200+ year old town square in the very heart of a city. While the new configuration is more user friendly and not entirely unattractive, it wipes away any historic context and is highly inappropriate for the location. It would be like re-doing the Mall in Washington or Jackson Square in New Orleans in a similar manner.

 

You make it sound like the S&S Monument is being demolished and the entire PS is being redeveloped with new buildings.  The historical context of four quadrants and wide as hell streets doesn't have to remain just because it has been that way for years.  IIRC, at one time PS was only two sections.  Let's embrace the new and exciting changes to our main public space.  Ok I have continued the off-topic tangent.  Resume construction renovation discussions.

well, no, the design doesn't have to remain as it has been, but the new makeover is so radical that it seems to thoroughly obliterate the original look. Again, the new design looks perfectly fine (especially if it was in another location!) and hopefully will attract many more people who might have avoided Public Square, but there's something to be said (isn't there?) for retaining the stately look of a bygone era. I assume there were other proposals, less extreme, that would have allowed for the original configuration to remain, but I guess that's not what they wanted. Maybe the examples I cited in my original post were not good comparisons (Mall in DC, etc), but imagine any very historic park or square in any city being remade in this fashion--the small, charming squares all over Savannah, Ga. come to mind; or Union Square in New York. After years of neglect, and having become a no-man's-land infested with drug dealers, the latter was in fact slightly redesigned years ago and is now, if anything, too popular, but something so radically different was not necessary for it to once again attract crowds of people.

 

Attracting any people to Public Square other than vagrants will be a success.  Your use of ''more people'' implies people used the former PS other than a walk thru (on the way to somewhere else) or waiting for a bus.  Looks we'll still have the bus riders standing around the Square.  Hope it all works out.

^Do you think Washington Square park would be better if 5th Avenue still ran through it?

I'm not really sure, since it was before my time and I have trouble imagining what that was like. But it's not like there was a 6-lane freeway running through it, and closing it to traffic didn't totally change the look of the park. But since you mentioned Wash Square, in recent years they have been redesigning it, and not without protest. Even so, the changes haven't been so major that it's totally unrecognizable from how it was generations ago.