Bike lanes are good if they are going somewhere, but it doesn't make sense to have one run through Public Square otherwise.

Seriously, Burnham, that picture looks awesome. That's something I'd want to see downtown. Definitely try talking to parkworks.

When the CUDC and James Corner Field Operations put out the 3 ideas for PS (which I think all comes in 2nd, 3rd and 4th place behind what's been discussed here), they had images with very interesting (almost tile-like) streetscapes.

 

I'm not saying they were genuine references to materials one could use, but if they were using patterns and tile that are real, perhaps those could be used to avoid only using red brick.

 

Though I would point out that at least using SOME of the same styles from the Euclid Corridor would be helpful in creating a continuous "Cleveland Style".  Later the WHD could have new streetscapes put in with similar colors as well.  Or one could take a page from Gordan Square and make unique patters for the crosswalks/brickwork.  That all comes after a plan would be approved, but I agree 100% that the "little things" are BIG!

 

 

 

Thanks, but no curbs. Curbs will make it more obvious where the pedestrian experience ends. It should not end.

 

So, for example, the street as seen in the distance is what Ontario and Superior would look like outside the square. The street as seen in the foreground is what they would look like starting at the square's roadway and continuing inside the square.

 

 

 

And there are ways of protecting pedestrians from the traffic, such as these:

 

 

 

 

 

Even just a row of substantial trees that branch upward rather than outward might suffice!

 

 

 

^Wouldn't we have to have a curb by the bus stops? I don't know how low the bus ramps can go, but I imagine they'd have to have some kind of curb just to remain ADA accessible.

I'm late to this and am one of the hated suburbanites (who works downtown), but I wanted to say I really like urbanomics' idea, and burnham's as well. I agree that we need multiple little kiosks and street level retail shops and need to stop trying to turn it into a park. Making it a plaza or square as in European usage is really a great idea.

^Wouldn't we have to have a curb by the bus stops? I don't know how low the bus ramps can go, but I imagine they'd have to have some kind of curb just to remain ADA accessible.

 

Yes, especially at the HealthLine stops which has level-boarding. That might actually help to have curbs at limited locations such as bus stops for purposes of easy identification of boarding locations.

 

Edit: and many of the regular buses could board on Ontario or Superior just outside the square where I think curbs should remain.

KJP, I'm with you on the lack of curbs idea, and I'm certain designs could have small lifts/curbs/ramps or whatever engineers come up with at the bus stops themselves, but being able to walk seamlessly from sidewalk to square is essential as it follows the vision of the entire area being a square.

 

In some ways, to me, this idea is as close to closing off both Ontario and Superior AND closing down the perimeter roads too.  It also goes well with the Group Plan's idea to make Rockwell a 1 lane minimum use area.

 

I have an idea/question that might immediately get shot down with $$$ issues, but back in the 90s my high school put in nice new brick sidewalks with had electrified heating units in them which helped melt the ice/snow.  Has anyone ever heard a consideration for using these on specific and limited sections of the sidewalk/plaza areas?  Might be cost prohibitive, I don't know, but considering our winters, it might be worthwhile to have "routes" heated.  Perhaps the energy could come from solar panels on top of the kiosks?

The Risman Plaza in front of the kent state student center is rigged like that

Just a quickie - for those not on board yet with Plaza > Park, and also to show what a true Group Plan vision might hold (Mayor Jackson, you don't need a commission, just post a question on UO :wink:).

 

This has a broad park with the Willard and Huntington Parks connected with the surface parking turned to green space.  It also has the street crossing on the mall paved in a similar fashion to the Public Square area.  Rockwell is also paved and 1 lane, and E3rd is now a pedestrian walk.

 

I've added the entire CBD as context to show how it relates to points of interest, and how this, once surrounded by vibrant life and economic activity would be a truly great vision for the city.

 

 

I have an idea/question that might immediately get shot down with $$$ issues, but back in the 90s my high school put in nice new brick sidewalks with had electrified heating units in them which helped melt the ice/snow.  Has anyone ever heard a consideration for using these on specific and limited sections of the sidewalk/plaza areas?  Might be cost prohibitive, I don't know, but considering our winters, it might be worthwhile to have "routes" heated.  Perhaps the energy could come from solar panels on top of the kiosks?

 

East 4th has heated sidewalks/roadway with glycol filled plastic hose/pipe run under the sidewalks and roadway section, so there is precedent for using this type of technology downtown. 

just a quick question since you brought up east 4th street. Whats the deal with the puddle always formed on the euclid side of the street? Seems to always be there.

And I don't mean to nitpick 4th as well, and I hate to sound like some card-carrying feminist, but obviously a man designed those cobblestone streets. I can't tell you how close I've come to breaking an ankle walking in nice shoes on that street, and see lots of women struggling with the same every time I'm on the street. Bumpy, uneven bricks + nice women's shoes=bad

Is this the place where we have to be so traditional? I suppose, but I liked Field Operations better still. The design is more of a statement on a new cleveland, not something that says "this is what we should have done 80 years ago"

 

How do we take this fundamental european urban platform (the paved square) and transform it into a skyscraper-ridden, american public meeting space? Certainly, we can do more than mimic something older and ubiquitous, but become more of a symbol for a unique era in Cleveland, and American urban design?

Scav, which of the 3 do you like best? 

 

My concern is that the 1st option basically changes nothing, adds trees and (in my opinion) compounds the disjointedness of the square and the outer sidewalks/pedestrians.

 

The second, which seems most likely to get a shot, is nice, but I agree with Urbanomics that we don't need another great lawn somewhere.  Considering the Mall is right there too, a lawn is redundant at best, and wasteful at worst.  It's also nearly useless when the temperature is below 50, regardless of snowfall. 

 

The third is definitely interesting, and a compelling visual, but taken from a practical standpoint it seems terribly shortsighted.  As far as pedestrian uses, who wants to walk up and over ramps and slopes to get from Terminal Tower to the Mall, or WHD to Euclid.  It also seems very 20th century in the sense that it is car centric, allowing the cars to run freely (and fast) through the square still.  It doesn't have unifying space for entertainment be it the Orchestra, or a juggler, guitarist, food carts, and the mound destroys all lines of sight from each corner. 

 

I don't think traditional is necessarily bad or good but must be looked at on a case by case basis.  I think EVERYONE here would prefer the early 20th century buildings in this town were still around in areas like the WHD and off Public Square (in comparison to the empty lots).  The best squares and roads around the US and the world tend to have older "classic" looks.  There's a reason they are classic, like Ionic Columns and Beethoven they will be around forever.

 

I'm not saying this is a unanimously adored idea (in fact on UO its quite new), but if you would explain which you prefer and why it is better (both in design and actual public use) I'd be interested to hear it.

What about a small "amphitheater" like they have on Baltimores Inner Harbor. Performers schedule dates and times and they have small fun performances that can actually draw a pretty good crowd if the shows interesting. You have people playing instruments, performing odd talents, etc. When I was there, a comedy magician was performing and he got a nice crowd. It was fun, it would be nice to see something like that.

 

When I gave this idea a while back to city planners they told me that they didn't see public square as a place to hangout, they saw it more as a place to pass through so I hope their minds have since been changed

 

 

When I gave this idea a while back to city planners they told me that they didn't see public square as a place to hangout, they saw it more as a place to pass through so I hope their minds have since been changed

 

/sarcasm/

 

That's comforting.

ClevelandOhio,  This could easily be accommodated somewhere in the North half of the plaza, either in one of the two corners or in the center.  I agree with your reference to the Inner Harbor, and would also point to the steps/staging area across from Jackson Sq.  It's literally just steps, but it encourages entertainers to set up shop in front of them.  There should be consideration given to where electric and water outlets should be available as well.

 

 

Burnham- your ideas and renderings are SUPERB!  Get this to Parkworks!

I have an idea/question that might immediately get shot down with $$$ issues, but back in the 90s my high school put in nice new brick sidewalks with had electrified heating units in them which helped melt the ice/snow.  Has anyone ever heard a consideration for using these on specific and limited sections of the sidewalk/plaza areas?  Might be cost prohibitive, I don't know, but considering our winters, it might be worthwhile to have "routes" heated.  Perhaps the energy could come from solar panels on top of the kiosks?

 

East 4th has heated sidewalks/roadway with glycol filled plastic hose/pipe run under the sidewalks and roadway section, so there is precedent for using this type of technology downtown. 

They used the same technology under portions of the plaza at the Federal building too.

Scav, which of the 3 do you like best? 

 

My concern is that the 1st option basically changes nothing, adds trees and (in my opinion) compounds the disjointedness of the square and the outer sidewalks/pedestrians.

 

The second, which seems most likely to get a shot, is nice, but I agree with Urbanomics that we don't need another great lawn somewhere.  Considering the Mall is right there too, a lawn is redundant at best, and wasteful at worst.  It's also nearly useless when the temperature is below 50, regardless of snowfall. 

 

The third is definitely interesting, and a compelling visual, but taken from a practical standpoint it seems terribly shortsighted.  As far as pedestrian uses, who wants to walk up and over ramps and slopes to get from Terminal Tower to the Mall, or WHD to Euclid.  It also seems very 20th century in the sense that it is car centric, allowing the cars to run freely (and fast) through the square still.  It doesn't have unifying space for entertainment be it the Orchestra, or a juggler, guitarist, food carts, and the mound destroys all lines of sight from each corner. 

 

I don't think traditional is necessarily bad or good but must be looked at on a case by case basis.  I think EVERYONE here would prefer the early 20th century buildings in this town were still around in areas like the WHD and off Public Square (in comparison to the empty lots).  The best squares and roads around the US and the world tend to have older "classic" looks.  There's a reason they are classic, like Ionic Columns and Beethoven they will be around forever.

 

I'm not saying this is a unanimously adored idea (in fact on UO its quite new), but if you would explain which you prefer and why it is better (both in design and actual public use) I'd be interested to hear it.

 

I would say that the 3rd option gives us a starting point when considering the complexities of the site. Maybe its a pipe dream for me, but this options seems much more up to date, because of its ability to disengage with the brutal concrete landscape of the city. IMHO, pavers/sidewalks/asphalt are encountered so much downtown, a softer natural environment with vibrant design and fluid motion is something that I think is to be desired than more hard surfaces with controlled, sparce, small trees.

Just wanted to put this out there as another way to look at the option discussed last week.  It was, considerably, harder to do this 3D image, but I think it would be important to submit to Parkworks a version that emulates the ones done by Field Ops.  I'd appreciate imput.  For the record, I would like fewer trees (like the version from earlier pages birds eye view) but there was only so much one can do to reinvent these images.  Also, the Northern Half will/should have urban furniture, news stands, and built up steps where people could sit and watch performers, or eat lunch.  But this is just to give a more realistic image.

 

 

The image is The 3rd and 2nd presented options by Field Ops, and the UO collaborated idea.  I think it offers a nice contrast.

I like the UO collaborated idea so much better.  Just a question: is there anyway the forum's idea could have any sway, or is this just a hypothetical exercise?

I still love the first one pictured by Field Ops, to me it would be a focal point for any visitor to the city. Unfortunately I believe the cost would just be unrealistic. What I do like most about the UO version is the way the brick is a part of Superior as it travels thru the square. It almost makes the road invisible. I would also like to see no curbs involved as others have pointed out. Use some sort of barriers to separate the street from the square. I definitely think the UO option is the most doable budget wise. I would look into corporate sponsorship to help pay the way.

The thread it idea when you really think about how high it would have to be would be horrible. It would kill the square IMO. Also it takes away the amount of usable land.

I think if the UO proposal had a few more trees (preferably evergreen conifers to provide year-round green and wind mitigation), I think it would be perfect.

 

What are we doing to get the powers-that-be to pay attention to this?

Burnham, PM me the above and I will forward it on to one of TPTB

I've spoken with Parkworks and am going to set up a meeting, I don't want to speak for UO -- as it's not my place to -- but I will offer the dialogue here as Exhibit A for what people are interested in.  If someone can help me find a way to post a .ppt that is larger than 200kb and then post a link here it should be ready by next week.

save it as a pdf

the north half of the UO square would be horrific in winter.. KJP is right get some conifer/evergreens in there and mix it up a bit. It looks good in a rendering from far away, but that entire north quadrant is a vast paved space that needs some love. The middle option from Field Ops understood this well, we only have to marry their idea with our european paved square idea and it could start to work.

I still don't like the path in the SW quadrant that runs east to west around the fountain. It should be diagonal so that the foot traffic coming from Tower City can cross that quadrant without crossing the lawn. I know you disagree, but I think it makes more sense to cater to the foot traffic between Tower City and Superior/Ontario/the Mall than to cater to the foot traffic between the Hotel and the Soldiers & Sailors monument. Otherwise with the addition of some trees, I like your design infinitly better than anything Field came up with.

Keith, I agree with you on the diagonal, actually!  That path has been SW to NE since the Group Plan 1903 if not earlier.  The renderings on this board are early drafts and newer ones which are being worked on will have a diagonal path.

 

For the North quadrant I will include more trees (strategic trees?).  Aside from areas useful for News stands, and some simple urban furniture (and the Mayor Tom Johnson statue?) are there any objects of significance one believes Cleveland needs to have in their public plaza?  Things like our guitar statues, or a 21st statue to...?

Things like our guitar statues...

No thank you!

^LOL, I was thinking the same thing

Burnham, you might think about packaging this as a set of design principles rather than as a specific design proposal, with your sketches used to illustrate them.  For example:

 

*Avoiding large expenses of lawn that interrupt pedestrian routes, will be unusable for much of the year and won't compete with the Mall's lawn.

*Paving and design elements that make clear that any interior roadways are part of the square, not separate zones dividing up the square.

*Closing at least one of the interior roadways but preserving the square's role as an RTA hub.

*Clearly navigable, wide, well lit paths or pedestrian routes.

*Integration between sidewalk edges and interior plaza space (porous edges) instead of the current limited-entry park format.

*Preserving views across the square and of surrounding building facades from the square.

*Balancing some traditional design elements with more contemporary materials and fixtures (e.g., no carpet of generic red brick please).

 

 

^ I agree.  Burnham, I think you're renderings are great and provide excellent visual aids, but I think focusing on the general concepts (which StrapHanger covered really well) would be the most effective route to take.

Burnham, you might think about packaging this as a set of design principles rather than as a specific design proposal, with your sketches used to illustrate them.  For example:

 

*Avoiding large expenses of lawn that interrupt pedestrian routes, will be unusable for much of the year and won't compete with the Mall's lawn.

*Paving and design elements that make clear that any interior roadways are part of the square, not separate zones dividing up the square.

*Closing at least one of the interior roadways but preserving the square's role as an RTA hub.

*Clearly navigable, wide, well lit paths or pedestrian routes.

*Integration between sidewalk edges and interior plaza space (porous edges) instead of the current limited-entry park format.

*Preserving views across the square and of surrounding building facades from the square.

*Balancing some traditional design elements with more contemporary materials and fixtures (e.g., no carpet of generic red brick please).

 

 

 

I like this. Make sure you try to separate the idea of public square and the malls. You dont want two competing parks, rather two completely different spaces with different purposes and amenities.

Way to go Burnham!!!!

 

Also, I think it's vital to communicate just how important it is to have retail space made available for lease:

 

-creates more stakeholders that will have an interest in a clean and healthy park

-keeps the place a vibrant destination, even in winter months

-opportunity for unique or iconic archetecture

-generates revenues for the city

 

 

Only problem with retail is that Euclid, Prospect, and parts of Huron are better suited for it. But still they have problems with vacancy. Most of the buildings that currently surround Public square cant support retail anyways.

The Casino, uses along Ontario (south of the square) and ...drum roll please... the vacant lot, will have the most significant impact on additional foot traffic to the square.  Though, as WHD and Euclid are built up over time, PS will certainly gain more pedestrians passing through to other areas, and it's location outside of the terminal tower where tourists (suburban and otherwise) still come out to see the heart of the city. 

 

 

EDIT:  Also, to those concerned about large swaths of red brick, I think diverse colors (not rainbow, but hues) and patterns are certainly an imperative.  I was inspired by this plaza.  Sort of like Gordon Square Crosswalks...

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Rossio_Lisboa_2007.jpg

Again, great job Burnham.

 

Cleveland I believe that the retail that SurfOhio was talking about was more of the kiosk/booth variety, news stands, flower stands,  coffee and smoothie stands, maybe even a rotation of the food truck guys, as opposed to store front variety.

 

Strphanger great job on the principles, I think you/I/we will need to stress that under these guiding principles that the mall is downtown's back yard (open and green)and that public square should be it's front porch (social and interacting with the street).

 

 

Heya there Cleveland, what CBC said, I definitely meant small retail of the kiosk-type variety.

 

As for being architecturally interesting, I'm a sucker for the past....I would model them after the beautiful, original train stations on the square, as seen in the pics you posted!!!

 

 

Again, great job Burnham.

 

Cleveland I believe that the retail that SurfOhio was talking about was more of the kiosk/booth variety, news stands, flower stands,  coffee and smoothie stands, maybe even a rotation of the food truck guys, as opposed to store front variety.

 

 

 

^ that would be interesting, outdoor concessions sort of. Like I guess similar to, hate to say it, what Crocker Park has.

I love those old street car stations too. I forgot my favorite kind of stand. grilled meat on a stick....

^ that would be interesting, outdoor concessions sort of. Like I guess similar to, hate to say it, what Crocker Park has.

 

Ha! No worries...you're not the only one in this thread to mention that aspect of Crocker Park in a positive light lol.

Glad to see that some of the ideas from our discussions here on UO will be presented to Parkworks.  Hopefully Parkworks will take some of the info and put it to good use in the redesign of Public Square.

 

I think that PS will be an important part of connecting a lot of the construction projects that are starting downtown.  As these major projects get completed, they will attract more people and having PS properly redesigned will be an important piece of having people enjoy their time in the city!!!

The more I'm thinking about it I am loving the idea of the food truck area--would be nice to have a dedicated parking area with power hookups, water etc to keep that viable for them.

I thought that perhaps having space for 2 or 3 in the Northern Quadrant that would correspond to permits the city could sell earn revenues and regulate the process.  Food carts could also work here, but it could be great if a food truck could drive up at 10:30, set up in their designated area for 3 hours and then leave.  The lack of curbs would be idea for this (though we will have pedestrian protecting measures along Superior).  It would really blur the line between pedestrian and vehicle areas which I think will naturally mitigate traffic. 

 

Might actually improve the RTA's schedule times with fewer cars.  :wink:

 

But in all sincerity, I reread Steven Litt's article last fall from the Field Ops proposals and he mentioned Calabresse as a force against closing EITHER street let alone both.  Does anyone know if this is simply an impossible mission (to get Ontario closed)?

But in all sincerity, I reread Steven Litt's article last fall from the Field Ops proposals and he mentioned Calabresse as a force against closing EITHER street let alone both.  Does anyone know if this is simply an impossible mission (to get Ontario closed)?

 

imo, his position has softened somewhat.  i think RTA is open to being a community partner on this project, but certainly has reservations that closing any of the roads completely is a good idea.  at the end of the day rta needs the support of numerous community and business partners day-to-day to make their service a success.  if the community and business partners agree on an approach that involves closing ontario, i don't think rta will protest.

Love the discussion!  What do you all think of something like this being (re)introduced to the square? 

 

 

http://secure.plaind.com/pdphotostore/images/pt_834.jpeg

 

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_leoctiR2Fp1qbupae.png

 

 

If not, perhaps a modern interpretation of this classic piece of architecture?

 

In fairness, closing either street will be a PITA to RTA because it means adjusting so many routes.  If RTA does continue to balk and essentially seems ready to exercise an informal veto, maybe some financial help to plan route adjustments and, as a couple folks mentioned earlier, some help siting another transit center downtown will get them over the hump.  Ultimately, if it does increase RTA's costs, it will indeed mean a marginal reduction in service, but I really don't think we can view every infrastructure/quality of life project in the city with that as a litmus test.